Tag Archives: Donald Trump

It has to be said: “Surrender is not MAGA”

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

The article from June posed the question, “What if Trump just gives up?” Its author, Joel Mathis was not being a prophet, rather he was dropping the crumbs of the plan ahead.

However, what Trump has just done: win the election but then surrender, is a truth which is as shocking as it is irrational.

On November 23, I said myself that Trump would surrender and give up. I too, am not a prophet. I made that call on the basis of the research done by A. J. Baalman over at Ordo Militaris Radio TV this summer about the origin, nature and goals of the Deep State.

So it has to be said, to help all of you who were mislead for 5 years, that Trump was never about Making America Great Again.  Because that is not a slogan, but a battle cry.

But Trump would not fight for it.

Yes, he fought a legal battle, but as I pointed out in my Nov. 23 video, his lawyers knew they would lose or that they were not asked to win. Indeed, the Governor of New Jersey, Christie, mocked them for saying one thing in public during press conferences and filing cases which said another thing, weakly, in court.

Courage, on the other hand, is the infallible sign that a man believes in his cause and cares for others. A man who surrenders so easily in circumstances in which he has all the power to win — and he had the supreme power of the presidency — was not and is not a courageous man, a virtuous man, and man who really cares for anyone but himself. Courage moves a man to fight, and really fight, not just pretend to fight. But Trump had not this virtue.

All of this is impossible to understand, comprehend and thus accept — because it seems so irrational and inconsistent — until you accept the facts of history: namely, that Averell Harriman, the founder of the Brown Brothers Harriman Bank, has controlled the GOP and Democrat Parties for more than a century. And the Harriman Bank loaned money to make Fred Trump a successful businessman.

Harriman is a Skull and Bones man. And it is not a coincidence that Trump showed his gratitude to Harriman by giving the official historial of the Skull and Bones Lodge an office at Trump Tower, Manhattan, for many years.

So what does it all mean?

It means that Trump was not about MAGA. He was about being a pied piper to keep the sheep in the Marxist sheepfold and to prevent a true American candidate who would put Obama, Biden and Hiltary — Trump’s life long friends — in prison.

And he succeeded.

He succeeded so well that some will be deluded into thinking he really was about MAGA for the rest of their lives.

We live in an age of liars, bold and audacious liars.

And Trump’s quick surrender after being betrayed by Biden is the sign that he was the boldest and most audacious of them all.

No, Trump does not love you, he does not care for you. He never intended to drain the swamp, because he and his family have always been swamp creatures.

Judge a man not by his words but by his deeds.

If we had listened closer to Christ, we would have seen all of this earlier on.

The moral of the story is, NEVER VOTE REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT again! And never vote for a creature of the swamp.

I say all this not to irk anyone, but to deliver you from the 5 year Obama organized psyop on America.

And what does Trump get from it. He leaves with hundreds of millions of fans who will visit and stay in his hotels for the rest of their lives. What a business man! (sarcasm)

 

 

The Zenger Dossier

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

This is the dossier of documentation published by Attorney Sidney Powel, by which she asserts that there was intervention of foreign powers in the 2020 US Presidential Election to produce falsified vote tallies in favor of Joe Biden.

FromRome.Info has dubbed this dossier the Zenger Dossier, because it was first published by Zenger News. Attorney Powel has released this Dossier to the public domain, so that it can be examined by all. Click the image to open the PDF, which is 75.5 MB in size. This is the version found on the Zenger news site at 8:45 AM, Rome time, Dec. 27, 2020.

If you are an attorney in any jurisdiction, who may have to argue damage from a usurped or illegitimate U.S. Presidency, this is a document to download and archive for future use.

How the Democrats started the Russian Revolution 103 years ago

Watch the program on Ordo Militaris Radio TV‘s YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05C-mu58Kmc&feature=youtu.be

Read more about this topic on the page for this program on Ordo Militaris Radio TV‘s website:

Or listen to the program on Ordo Militaris Radio TV‘s MIXCloud channel:

[mixcloud https://www.mixcloud.com/aj-baalman/how-the-democrats-started-the-russian-revolution/ width=100% height=120 hide_cover=1]

Or watch the program on Ordo Militaris Radio TV‘s BITChute channel:

YOU CAN SHARE THIS POST on Twitter,  by ReTweeting this tweet:

https://twitter.com/MilitarisCath/status/1309124433068666880

 

 

The Lodge of Terror: Skull & Bones

Watch the program on Ordo Militaris Radio TV‘s YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akX6hm1cMsw&feature=youtu.be

Read more about this topic on the page for this program on Ordo Militaris Radio TV‘s website:

Or listen to the program on Ordo Militaris Radio TV‘s MIXCloud channel:

[mixcloud https://www.mixcloud.com/aj-baalman/the-real-terrorist-organization-skull-bones/ width=100% height=120 hide_cover=1]

Or watch the program on Ordo Militaris Radio TV‘s BITChute channel:

 

SHARE THIS PROGRAM ON TWITTER using this tweet:

https://twitter.com/MilitarisCath/status/1308040631793725442

 

The Masonic Lodge which recruited Adolf Hitler and 3+ US Presidents

Watch the program on Ordo Militaris Radio TV‘s YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3e8zPSm8kk&feature=youtu.be

Read more about this topic on the page for this program on Ordo Militaris Radio TV‘s website:

Or listen to the program on Ordo Militaris Radio TV‘s MIXCloud channel:

[mixcloud https://www.mixcloud.com/aj-baalman/the-red-pilled-truth-on-a-biblical-scale/ width=100% height=120 hide_cover=1]

Or watch the program on Ordo Militaris Radio TV‘s BITChute channel:

SHARE THIS PROGRAM ON TWITTER using this tweet:

Trump has been gagged about Pope Benedict XVI until 2024

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Many Catholics have appealed to the U.S. sitting President, Donald Trump to intervene about all the corruption which is spilling out of the Vatican since February 2013, and to investigate the dubious renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI.

As reported here extensively (see Index to Pope Benedict’s Renunciation), I have covered also the external influences involved, such as Deutsch Bank, Gladio and the St. Gallen Mafia.

However, I recently discovered why it may be that President Trump has done nothing to investigate or respond to these appeals by thousands of prominent Catholics, among which one such appeal was published by The Remnant.

FromRome.Info can now reveal why this may be.

In an article at Mother Jones, entitled, “Trump has a half a billion in loans coming due etc..” by Russ Choma, published in the July/August 2020 edition of their newsletter, it is reported that Trump has an outstanding loan for $170 Million, due in 2024 from Deutsch Bank:

In 2014, Trump took out a separate floating loan from Deutsche’s private bank to bankroll the development of his luxury hotel in Washington, DC. The balance of this $170 million debt is payable in 2024. That year, Trump will also owe Deutsche between $25 million and $50 million in connection with his Chicago hotel and complex.

And further down the article:

Even before Trump was elected, Deutsche executives soured on the relationship, turning down Trump’s request for a $10 million-plus loan in early 2016, the New York Times reported. They worried, among other things, how it would look if Trump defaulted and the bank had to pursue the assets of the US president. His most recent financial disclosure no longer lists brokerage and savings accounts at Deutsche’s private bank, suggesting he’s no longer a client.

Just as Donald Trump has failed to take action against BLM and Antifa, groups which are funded by George Soros — who just happens to have $160 million dollar investment in Trump Hotel in Chicago — so perhaps the reason for Trump embracing Bergoglio as the Pope and ignoring Benedict, has everything to do with money and nothing to do with what he thinks of Catholics.

Whether Trump was offered this loan from the very Bank which was instrumental in shutting down the ATMs at the Vatican as a means of pressure to force Benedict to abdicate, or whether it was to buy his silence at the coup once he discovered it, we may never know. But we can be sure that Trump has been gagged until 2024, the year he leaves the Presidency.

+ + +

If you wish to support FromRome.info, make a donation to help Br. Bugnolo keep reporting from Rome, by clicking this banner >>

+ + +

Click to make a donation to a Catholic humanitarian anti-globalist relief Fund for Beirut >>

President Trump issues Executive Order against censorship by Social Media Giants

President Donald Trump

Executive Orders

Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

Infrastructure & Technology  Issued on:

 

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1.  Policy.  Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy.  Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution.  The freedom to express and debate ideas is the foundation for all of our rights as a free people.

In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet.  This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic.  When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power.  They cease functioning as passive bulletin boards, and ought to be viewed and treated as content creators.

The growth of online platforms in recent years raises important questions about applying the ideals of the First Amendment to modern communications technology.  Today, many Americans follow the news, stay in touch with friends and family, and share their views on current events through social media and other online platforms.  As a result, these platforms function in many ways as a 21st century equivalent of the public square.

Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube wield immense, if not unprecedented, power to shape the interpretation of public events; to censor, delete, or disappear information; and to control what people see or do not see.

As President, I have made clear my commitment to free and open debate on the internet. Such debate is just as important online as it is in our universities, our town halls, and our homes.  It is essential to sustaining our democracy.

Online platforms are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse.  Tens of thousands of Americans have reported, among other troubling behaviors, online platforms “flagging” content as inappropriate, even though it does not violate any stated terms of service; making unannounced and unexplained changes to company policies that have the effect of disfavoring certain viewpoints; and deleting content and entire accounts with no warning, no rationale, and no recourse.

Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias.  As has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician’s tweet.  As recently as last week, Representative Adam Schiff was continuing to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax, and Twitter did not flag those tweets.  Unsurprisingly, its officer in charge of so-called ‘Site Integrity’ has flaunted his political bias in his own tweets.

At the same time online platforms are invoking inconsistent, irrational, and groundless justifications to censor or otherwise restrict Americans’ speech here at home, several online platforms are profiting from and promoting the aggression and disinformation spread by foreign governments like China.  One United States company, for example, created a search engine for the Chinese Communist Party that would have blacklisted searches for “human rights,” hid data unfavorable to the Chinese Communist Party, and tracked users determined appropriate for surveillance.  It also established research partnerships in China that provide direct benefits to the Chinese military.  Other companies have accepted advertisements paid for by the Chinese government that spread false information about China’s mass imprisonment of religious minorities, thereby enabling these abuses of human rights.  They have also amplified China’s propaganda abroad, including by allowing Chinese government officials to use their platforms to spread misinformation regarding the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, and to undermine pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.

As a Nation, we must foster and protect diverse viewpoints in today’s digital communications environment where all Americans can and should have a voice.  We must seek transparency and accountability from online platforms, and encourage standards and tools to protect and preserve the integrity and openness of American discourse and freedom of expression.

Sec. 2Protections Against Online Censorship.  (a)  It is the policy of the United States to foster clear ground rules promoting free and open debate on the internet.  Prominent among the ground rules governing that debate is the immunity from liability created by section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act (section 230(c)).  47 U.S.C. 230(c).  It is the policy of the United States that the scope of that immunity should be clarified: the immunity should not extend beyond its text and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open speech, but in reality use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints.

Section 230(c) was designed to address early court decisions holding that, if an online platform restricted access to some content posted by others, it would thereby become a “publisher” of all the content posted on its site for purposes of torts such as defamation.  As the title of section 230(c) makes clear, the provision provides limited liability “protection” to a provider of an interactive computer service (such as an online platform) that engages in “‘Good Samaritan’ blocking” of harmful content.  In particular, the Congress sought to provide protections for online platforms that attempted to protect minors from harmful content and intended to ensure that such providers would not be discouraged from taking down harmful material.  The provision was also intended to further the express vision of the Congress that the internet is a “forum for a true diversity of political discourse.”  47 U.S.C. 230(a)(3).  The limited protections provided by the statute should be construed with these purposes in mind.

In particular, subparagraph (c)(2) expressly addresses protections from “civil liability” and specifies that an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable “on account of” its decision in “good faith” to restrict access to content that it considers to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.”  It is the policy of the United States to ensure that, to the maximum extent permissible under the law, this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that — far from acting in “good faith” to remove objectionable content — instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree.  Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike.  When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct.  It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.

(b)  To advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section, all executive departments and agencies should ensure that their application of section 230(c) properly reflects the narrow purpose of the section and take all appropriate actions in this regard.  In addition, within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), in consultation with the Attorney General, and acting through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), shall file a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requesting that the FCC expeditiously propose regulations to clarify:

(i) the interaction between subparagraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of section 230, in particular to clarify and determine the circumstances under which a provider of an interactive computer service that restricts access to content in a manner not specifically protected by subparagraph (c)(2)(A) may also not be able to claim protection under subparagraph (c)(1), which merely states that a provider shall not be treated as a publisher or speaker for making third-party content available and does not address the provider’s responsibility for its own editorial decisions;

(ii)  the conditions under which an action restricting access to or availability of material is not “taken in good faith” within the meaning of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) of section 230, particularly whether actions can be “taken in good faith” if they are:

(A)  deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with a provider’s terms of service; or

(B)  taken after failing to provide adequate notice, reasoned explanation, or a meaningful opportunity to be heard; and

(iii)  any other proposed regulations that the NTIA concludes may be appropriate to advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section.

Sec. 3.  Protecting Federal Taxpayer Dollars from Financing Online Platforms That Restrict Free Speech.  (a)  The head of each executive department and agency (agency) shall review its agency’s Federal spending on advertising and marketing paid to online platforms.  Such review shall include the amount of money spent, the online platforms that receive Federal dollars, and the statutory authorities available to restrict their receipt of advertising dollars.

(b)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency shall report its findings to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

(c)  The Department of Justice shall review the viewpoint-based speech restrictions imposed by each online platform identified in the report described in subsection (b) of this section and assess whether any online platforms are problematic vehicles for government speech due to viewpoint discrimination, deception to consumers, or other bad practices.

Sec. 4.  Federal Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices.  (a)  It is the policy of the United States that large online platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, as the critical means of promoting the free flow of speech and ideas today, should not restrict protected speech.  The Supreme Court has noted that social media sites, as the modern public square, “can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard.”  Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1737 (2017).  Communication through these channels has become important for meaningful participation in American democracy, including to petition elected leaders.  These sites are providing an important forum to the public for others to engage in free expression and debate.  Cf. PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 85-89 (1980).

(b)  In May of 2019, the White House launched a Tech Bias Reporting tool to allow Americans to report incidents of online censorship.  In just weeks, the White House received over 16,000 complaints of online platforms censoring or otherwise taking action against users based on their political viewpoints.  The White House will submit such complaints received to the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

(c)  The FTC shall consider taking action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, pursuant to section 45 of title 15, United States Code.  Such unfair or deceptive acts or practice may include practices by entities covered by section 230 that restrict speech in ways that do not align with those entities’ public representations about those practices.

(d)  For large online platforms that are vast arenas for public debate, including the social media platform Twitter, the FTC shall also, consistent with its legal authority, consider whether complaints allege violations of law that implicate the policies set forth in section 4(a) of this order.  The FTC shall consider developing a report describing such complaints and making the report publicly available, consistent with applicable law.

Sec. 5.  State Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices and Anti-Discrimination Laws.  (a)  The Attorney General shall establish a working group regarding the potential enforcement of State statutes that prohibit online platforms from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices.  The working group shall also develop model legislation for consideration by legislatures in States where existing statutes do not protect Americans from such unfair and deceptive acts and practices. The working group shall invite State Attorneys General for discussion and consultation, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.

(b) Complaints described in section 4(b) of this order will be shared with the working group, consistent with applicable law. The working group shall also collect publicly available information regarding the following:

(i) increased scrutiny of users based on the other users they choose to follow, or their interactions with other users;

(ii) algorithms to suppress content or users based on indications of political alignment or viewpoint;

(iii) differential policies allowing for otherwise impermissible behavior, when committed by accounts associated with the Chinese Communist Party or other anti-democratic associations or governments;

(iv) reliance on third-party entities, including contractors, media organizations, and individuals, with indicia of bias to review content; and

(v) acts that limit the ability of users with particular viewpoints to earn money on the platform compared with other users similarly situated.

Sec. 6Legislation.  The Attorney General shall develop a proposal for Federal legislation that would be useful to promote the policy objectives of this order.

Sec. 7.  Definition.  For purposes of this order, the term “online platform” means any website or application that allows users to create and share content or engage in social networking, or any general search engine.

Sec. 8.  General Provisions. (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)    the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii)   the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

10,000,000 jobs lost in the last 2 weeks, but Dr. Fauci explains we’re just getting warmed up!

Screenshot_2020-04-03 lateran-baptistery jpg (WEBP Image, 300 × 225 pixels)

NONVENIPACEM.COM

by Mark Docherty

Reblogged with permission of the author, who writes from the U.S.A.

They are going to burn it all right to the ground. It’s a feature, not a bug.

People keep comparing this to 9/11. Folks, this is many orders of magnitude worse. Not even close. It is completely unprecedented in all of human history. Economic terrorism and nation annihilation via propagandized suicide.

I say again, unless there is a HUGE lethality factor that has been kept secret, sum ting wong. All the statistics show 97.5% of cases are mild – no hospitalization. Almost all deaths are people with pre-existing illnesses or among vulnerable groups (i.e. elderly, immune-compromised).

The country is over. It’s not like flipping a light switch. We’re closed.

The torrent of Americans filing for unemployment insurance skyrocketed last week as more than 6.6 million new claims were filed, the Labor Department reported Thursday. That brings to 10 million the total Americans who filed over the past two weeks. Economists surveyed by Dow Jones had expected 3.1 million for last week, one week after 3.3 million filings in the first wave of what has been a record-shattering swelling of the jobless ranks.

(Source: CNBC)

Dr. Fauci is terribly sorry if anyone has been “inconvenienced” by all this.

[Editor’s Note: The transcript citation below this refer to the transcript linked under the time stamps. The transcript is taken from the above video beginning at 26:33, such that 26:37 in the transcript = 26:33+26:37. — This Video is the April 1, 2020 Live broadcast of the White House Press Conference on the new Coronavirus guidelines]

Dr. Fauci: (26:37)

“…The reason why we feel so strongly about the necessity of the additional 30 days is that now is the time whenever you’re having an effect, not to take your foot off the accelerator and on the brake, but to just press it down on the accelerator. And that’s what I hope and I know that we can do over the next 30 days. And as I said the other day on one of the interviews, we are a very strong and resilient nation. If you look at our history, we’ve been through some terrible ordeals. This is tough. People are suffering, people are dying. It’s inconvenient from a societal standpoint, from an economic standpoint to go through this. But this is going to be the answer to our problems. So let’s all pull together and make sure as we look forward to the next 30 days, we do it with all the intensity and force that we can.“

Think this ends April 30th? The comments above were made on Tuesday. Yesterday, Dr. Fauci provided an update on when he’s going to let you back on your lawn:

Reporter 5: (01:03:16)

“Question for Dr. Fauci. Looking beyond when we’re on the other side of this curve, are we looking at living with some sort of social distancing guidelines essentially until there’s treatment or a vaccine. For example, people looking forward to the summer talk about going to baseball games, going to concerts. We have political conventions over the summer. Are things like that possible or safe without a vaccine or a treatment in place?“

Dr. Fauci: (01:03:44)

“Yeah, I think if we get to the part of the curve that Dr. Birx showed yesterday, when it goes down to essentially no new cases, no deaths at a period of time, I think it makes sense that you’re going to have to relax social distancing.”

You will be allowed to resume your shattered life when there are zero new cases and zero deaths. Except, that will be NEVER, because mutations mean that this thing never goes away. There will always be some new strain coming around… just like the common cold.

Dr. Fauci: (01:03:44)

“The one thing we hopefully would have in place, and I believe we will have in place, is a much more robust system to be able to identify someone who’s infected, isolate them, and then do contact tracing.”

I mean, there is no way that kind of power could be abused, right? A robust system to identify and isolate? But wait, there’s more.

Dr. Fauci: (01:04:14)

“Because if you have a really good program of containment that prevents you from ever having to get into mitigation… We’re in mitigation right now. That’s what the social and physical distancing is. The ultimate solution to a virus that might keep coming back would be a vaccine. In fact, I was on the weekly conference call with the WHO sponsored group of all the health leaders in the world who are dealing with this, and we all came to the agreement that we may have cycling with another season. We’ll be much better prepared. We likely will have interventions, but the ultimate game changer in this will be a vaccine, the same way a vaccine for other diseases, that were scourges in the past, that now we don’t even worry about.“

The WHO sponsored group of all the health leaders in the world, you say? You mean the abortionist murdering sterilizing euthanizers? Was Bill Gates on the call? What is it about this virus that has you comparing it to “Scourges in the past” for which a vaccine is the only answer?”

You do realize that you will not be permitted to re-engage in society without receiving this vaccine, right?

Dr. Fauci: (01:05:07)

“The vaccine is, as I said, it’s on target. We’re still in Phase 1. There were three doses that we had to test. We’d been through the first two doses. We’re on the highest dose now. When we get that data, it’ll take a few months to get the data to feel confident to go to the Phase 2, and then a few months from now we’ll be in Phase 2. And I think we’re right on target for the year to a year and a half…”

A year to a year and a half. That is how long a vaccine takes. I’m sure your job will be waiting for you.

+ + +

 

 

Petition President Trump to speak out for Pope Benedict’s care!

DON’T BE LIKE THE 3 OUT OF 4 WHO READ THIS
AND NEVER SIGN THE PETITION!

Petition to President Trump to advocate for the protection of all the elderly, including POPE BENEDICT XVI!

TEXT OF THE PETITION

As recent events at the Vatican have shown, the elderly and frail Pope Benedict is being housed in a facility where the man responsible, Archbishop Gänswein, is attacking his collaborators and claiming he did not do or say or approve what he did approve and say and do. We are concerned that this elderly man is being manipulated for political reasons, which is elder abuse. We are also concerned because of his fidelity to Catholic teaching, that he might be further victimized in the near future by members of Bergoglio’s government. We therefore ask President Trump to raise concern about this issue by issuing one tweet:

“I am concerned for the welfare of all the elderly and that they not be abused or manipulated, including Pope Benedict XVI. I urge all to take effective steps for their care!”

– – –

TO SIGN THIS PETITION, GO TO: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/petition-president-trump-advocate-protection-all-elderly-including-pope-benedict-xvi

100,000 Signatures are needed to get the White House to act on the petition!

Please share this petition on all Social Media venues!

[simple-payment id=”5295″]