Věra Jourová, the EU Commission’s Vice-President for Values and Transparency until last week, parted ways with her old job by whining about the increasingly pronounced ‘democratic backsliding’ in Europe one last time.
In an interview with Euronews on Thursday, December 5th, Jourová said it was “shocking” to see more and more EU member states planning to replicate measures to protect children from premature exposure to woke ideology or to prevent foreign NGOs from interfering in their democratic processes, despite her best efforts throughout the last five years.
Jourová began by singling out Hungary, the country she said was the most concerning in this regard with its 2021 ‘child protection law’—which banned the ‘promotion’ of homosexuality and gender-transition in schools without parental consent—and a subsequent piece of legislation to protect the country’s sovereignty from foreign interference.
But despite the European Commission freezing tens of billions worth of EU funds, pressuring other member states into joining its lawsuits against Hungary, and even threatening to take away its membership rights—including the right to vote (and veto) in the European Council—Brussels still has to deal with the alarming trend of similar bills popping up across the EU.
“What is shocking to me is how infectious these laws are,” Jourová said.
The ex-values chief specifically mentioned Bulgaria and Slovakia, which plan to follow suit in banning “LGBT propaganda” in schools, as well as Italy and Romania where there are also concerns about the erosion of LGBT rights.
Interestingly, this didn’t prevent either Romania or Italy from getting an executive vice president in the second von der Leyen Commission, which shows that belonging to the right political camp in Brussels is still more important than whatever the term “EU values” entails.
Another big problem is the gradual erosion of media freedom, Jourová said, primarily pointing at Hungary and Slovakia, as well as the pre-Tusk Polish government.
“The public service media are so important in democratic systems; especially in the era of disinformation, public service media should be the media where people can find trustworthy, fact-checked information, evidence-based truth,” Jourová said.
Now this is the most ironic part coming from her, since it was Jourová who is strongly suspected of having instructed the Slovenian supreme court in 2023 to begin the unprecedented purge of conservatives from the entire media landscape—starting with the public broadcasters, of course. She also called Elon Musk a “promoter of evil” because he allows free speech to flourish on X, which really puts her usual rants about “disinformation” into perspective.
The cherry on top is that, despite being in charge of ‘transparency’ in the EU, Jourová refused to disclose documents related to her Slovenian visit even after being called on to do so by the European ombudsman. Her scandals in the area probably contributed to the decision to no longer include a ‘transparency’ portfolio in the new Commission, although von der Leyen’s utter disrespect for transparent conduct might have been an even greater factor.
Nonetheless, the more someone like Jourová is concerned about the ‘democratic backsliding’ in conservative countries, the more you know those governments are on the right track.
There are men who are like lonely callers in the desert, and we know from the Bible that it is usually the Spirit of God that rests on such men.
Joseph Strickland, the emeritus Bishop of Tyler, Texas, who was unjustly deposed by Francis, is such a man. He shares the same fate as the prophets of the Bible, namely that no one listens to him.
Yet millions now listen to Bishop Strickland; only his fellow bishops do not.
When Strickland recently asked them to finally take a stand on the fact that Francis no longer teaches the Catholic faith, his words fell into silence. No one dared to come forward to support the Texan who spoke the truth so fearlessly, no bishop in the U.S. and certainly no one elsewhere.
Nevertheless, what Strickland said remains true: Francis stands for a new, for a “synodal” church and with it for a new faith that is no longer Catholic and which must be decisively rejected! No one is obliged to believe in a “synodal” church. On the contrary: the traditional faith of the Church forbids this.
While the bishops remain silent about all this, the superior of the German district of the Society of St. Pius X clearly called a spade a spade. He described the Pope’s “synodal church” as “diabolical,” a “betrayal of Christ’s mission,” and “anti-Gospel.”
But no one is bothered by this either. In the ranks of the bishops, a voice from the Society of St. Pius X is listened to even less than the one from Texas. Instead, the silence of the bishops orchestrates a polyphonic apostasy: that of the Pope and a large part of the Catholic world, and it almost seems as if this is a new “normality.”
But where does the indifference of those who are appointed guardians of the truth come from and who do not serve God with their silence, but Satan, the “father of lies” (cf. 1 John 3:8)?
Could their apostasy have arisen out of nothing? Hardly. Instead, it had probably been latent for a long time, and it only took a pope like Francis for it to finally become visible.
The controversial document Fiducia supplicans, which was published a year ago, perhaps shows this most clearly: in it, the Pope himself permitted the “blessing” of irregular “couples,” i.e., the blessing of homosexuals and adulterers.
In the eyes of Holy Scripture, such a “blessing” is an abomination and blasphemy. Nevertheless, the document has remained in force to this day, and the (minor) resistance of the bishops was stifled from the outset.
The significance of Fiducia supplicans is therefore twofold: the document is the Magna Carta that most conspicuously documents the bishops’ general apostasy. And it makes visible the forces that have been at work in the Church for far too long, i.e., the numerous homosexuals among the bishops and cardinals.
It is certainly no secret that the clergy has traditionally been infiltrated by homosexuals, even if they are reluctant to speak openly about it. This also applies to the higher clergy. Serious estimates (in the absence of reliable data) put the figure at a good two-thirds, and even if it were less (which I don’t believe) the Church still holds an unprecedented record.
There are many reasons for this, above all sociological ones. Among the older clergy in particular, right up to the Pope’s generation, there is an above-average number who have escaped social reprisals by opting for celibacy.
Today things are different, at least in Western societies, and the homosexuals stranded in the priesthood and especially in the episcopate are now vehemently pushing behind the scenes of the Vatican for the Church to open up to the new course. To put it bluntly: the Church has fallen into the hands of older homosexual men.
It is only against this backdrop that it is understandable that the Pope made possible the egregious with Fiducia supplicans and at the same time encountered so conspicuously little opposition: Very few people cared about the “blessing” of sin and apostasy from God; most of them obviously identified with it long ago and deliberately instigated the document under the leadership of Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández.
Since then, at the latest, nothing has been the same: what is commonly known as “gay heresy” has hijacked the Church with the Pope’s approval, and more and more bishops and cardinals are now hypocritically claiming that they have suddenly “learned something new” in a “synodal process of listening.” They have understood – as if by a miracle – that homosexuality is “willed” by God and is by no means a sin, contrary to revelation and the 2000-year-old teachings of the Church.
An astonishing change, don’t you think? Or is it not more likely that all these prelates were just seizing the opportunity to finally justify their predisposition and “approve” it with the help of the Pope? Who else could promote “gay heresy” if not those most reverend gentlemen who are themselves “gay” and who are only driven by it and not by the “Holy Spirit”?
It is as inconceivable as it is true: the Church is in the Babylonian captivity of homosexual senior clergy who, starting with the “gay heresy,” are now gradually installing a new pseudo-church, precisely the one that Bishop Strickland warns us about the Pope’s “synodal church.”
The barque of the Church is thus experiencing something like the mutiny on the Bounty, but with one crucial difference: the captain himself is here with the mutineers, and the men who, like Strickland, close themselves off to the “gay” mutiny almost have their backs to the wall.
Meanwhile, the Antichrist reigns in the house of the Lord, and the Pope himself has erected an idolatrous altar to him with Fiducia Supplicans. It will not be the last, should Francis remain in office for much longer.
I would disagree with all those who attest that Francis is not the legitimate pope and that this is the only reason why these hair-raising conditions are possible. There is no other pope but Francis. But it probably took a pope like him to expose the workings of Satan in the Church and take it to the extreme. Yes, Francis is the legitimate pope, and he is pope not to the glory of God but to the eternal shame of the Apostolic See, which he has desecrated with Fiducia Supplicans.
And yet: perhaps God only wanted to make the disfigurement of His Church visible through Francis in order to restore it through a worthier successor to Peter? Who knows?
Until then, it is important to listen to the voices of the right men, namely those who do not represent “gay heresy” and thus their own disposition, but who, like Bishop Strickland, are the voice of God. “He who has ears to hear, let him hear!” (Mt 11:14).
Dr. Ellen Wiebe does not heal her patients. Instead, she kills them.
The doctor operates an abortion mill in Vancouver, called the Willow Clinic, where she also performs assisted suicides. In Canada, this practice of doctors killing their patients is called “medical assistance in dying,” or MAID.
“She does abortions during the day, and then she goes out and provides euthanasia to sick old people,” Angelina Ireland, executive director of the Canadian nonprofit Delta Hospice Society, told The Federalist. “Some might consider her to be a massive serial killer.”
Wiebe once operated a family practice but “now restricts her practice to women’s health and assisted death.” She is the research director of the Canadian Association of MAID Assessors and Providers (CAMAP) — an organization supporting doctors who deliberately kill their patients — and sits on the clinicians advisory council for the powerful pro-euthanasia lobby Dying With Dignity Canada.
Canada legalized MAID in 2016, revising criminal code to let doctors kill their patients. Officials updated the law in 2021, removing the requirement that a patient’s death be foreseeable. Groups like Dying With Dignity Canada have since been pushing to expand the euthanasia program to “mature minors,” and parliament has been debating the issue.
In an interview with Wiebe, the disabled actress Liz Carr — a public opponent of euthanasia — asked the doctor if someone like herself would be eligible.
“Liz, right now you love life, and you want to live. But there’s lots of nasty illnesses you might get,” Wiebe replied, breaking out in laughter.
The doctor said killing people is her favorite part of the job.
“I love my job. You know, I’ve always loved being a doctor,” Wiebe said. “But this is the very best work I’ve ever done, in the last seven years. And people ask me why, and I think, well, doctors like grateful patients. And nobody is more grateful than my patients now, and their families.”
The typical MAID process seems deceptively peaceful. A doctor uses three chemicals to kill the patient, administering Midazolam, a sedative; propofol, which induces a coma and stops breathing; and rocuronium or cisatracurium, muscle paralytics. The medications render the patient unconscious and paralyzed, creating a morbid illusion of calm — though the patient is under respiratory arrest.
“After they’re in a deep coma, then we give the medication that stops the breathing and stops the heart,” Wiebe said in a webinar. “They’re in a deep coma, and then it’s over. … They’re such calm, peaceful deaths.”
Alexander Raikin, a visiting fellow in bioethics at the Ethics and Public Policy Center who writes for The New Atlantis, told The Federalist that if doctors fail to follow the MAID regulations and processes specified in criminal code, they void their exemption, and could face charges of assisting a suicide.
“If you fail to follow any of the safeguards or eligibility criteria, you are then not protected through the criminal code exemptions that allow for euthanasia-assisted suicide,” Raikin said. “What Canada’s example shows is that, in reality, it’s impossible to have oversight.”
Killing the Vulnerable
Wiebe has gained positive press from legacy media outlets like The New York Times for killing her patients — more than 430 of them. She has been repeatedly accused of violating rules governing how doctors kill their patients.
While discussing accusations that she approved a patient for MAID without due process, Wiebe said that “angry family members are our greatest risk,” according to The New Atlantis.
A judge granted an injunction in October to keep Wiebe from executing a woman, 53, with bipolar disorder. After quitting her medication too quickly, the patient began to experience physical symptoms that made her suicidal. The woman then sought Wiebe’s assisted suicide services, and at the end of their first call, the doctor allegedly approved her for MAID.
Since the woman could not find a witness to sign the MAID form, a volunteer at Wiebe’s clinic signed it for her, according to the injunction. The law also requires two medical providers to approve a patient for euthanasia, so when the woman could not find approval from a second professional, Wiebe allegedly called in the ironically-named Dr. Elizabeth Whynot to sign off.
Meanwhile, the woman’s husband has been trying to save her life. He claims his wife is ineligible to end her own life, and that Wiebe “breached” her “statutory duty” to adhere to the MAID process.
Raikin said family members often have to get involved to save their loved ones’ lives. “The police are just uninterested in this.”
Had the husband not intervened, Wiebe would have killed his wife at 8 p.m. on Oct. 27, at the Willow Clinic.
The facility is in the Fairmount Medical Building, which closes at 6 p.m. Ireland said she worked in the same building, on the same floor as Wiebe’s facility, for “many years.”
“The whole building is closed. … Nobody’s there,” Ireland said. “There’s basically a euthanasia clinic right there that operates after hours in downtown Vancouver.”
In 2017, Wiebe allegedly snuck into Vancouver’s Louis Brier Nursing Home, where she killed 83-year-old patient Barry Hyman, according to the Vancouver Sun. Wiebe claimed Hyman and his family requested this.
Since the nursing home is an Orthodox Jewish institution, it would not allow euthanasia on the grounds. Louis Brier CEO David Keselman told the Vancouver Sun the killing “was hidden” and “there’s no documentation.”
“We have a lot of Holocaust survivors,” Keselman said at the time. “They’re going to feel like they’re at risk when you learn someone was sneaking in and killing someone.”
The nursing home filed a complaint against Wiebe with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, but the doctor ultimately cleared the review process. “There was no discipline, and so she only just continues,” Ireland said. “The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia has done nothing to stop her.”
Wiebe also killed a man who was rejected for MAID because he did not have a serious illness and was incapable of making “informed decisions” about his health, according to The New Atlantis.
After previous providers rejected the patient as ineligible, Dying With Dignity Canada referred him to Wiebe, who arranged the rest.
“He flew all by himself to Vancouver. … I picked him up at the airport, um, brought him to my clinic and provided for [euthanized] him,” Wiebe said, according to The New Atlantis.
Wiebe said in a webinar she has faced “10 different College [of Physicians and Surgeons] complaints” regarding her euthanasia practices. “Everyone came out in my favor that I had in fact done everything right.”
“She will have people come to Vancouver to be killed,” Ireland said. “She’ll meet them at the airport, and then she’ll bring them back to her office, and then she’ll kill them.”
Slaughtering the Unborn
At the same location Wiebe performseuthanasia — the Willow Clinic — she also performs abortions. The facility offers “medication abortion” both in person and through video call appointments. Its website portrays a medical abortion as a “process which appears just like a miscarriage, which can be completed at home.” “For many people, this is more convenient, comfortable, and private.”
The abortion medication is free for those with a British Columbia Services Card, but patients are on their own to pay for painkillers.
Wiebe said in a webinar she has been aborting babies since the 1970s. She complained about facing pressure when she or other abortionists would botch an operation.
“If a patient had a complication from an abortion — an infection, a bleed, or whatever — we’d go into the hospital and our work would be scrutinized. And, you know, it was like, ‘Those terrible doctors who do those abortions, what a mess they make,’” Wiebe said. “Our colleagues really would come down on us; there’s an enormous stigma. And guess what? We get the same in MAID.”
Ireland said she has seen Wiebe multiple times “over the years” while working in the same medical building.
“She has a perpetual scowl on her face and never speaks to anyone, not even in passing or to be polite,” Ireland said. “Oddly, during her interviews, she actually smiles and giggles. … So bizarre! Perhaps she really enjoys recounting her ‘work’ which she describes as very satisfying.”
The Federalist asked the Willow Clinic for comment, but did not hear back in time for publication.
The Düsseldorf Administrative Court has ruled that a Muslim schoolgirl is not allowed to wear her niqab in class, as reported by the Rheinische Post. The 17-year-old had filed a lawsuit together with her parents because the Bachstraße vocational college in Düsseldorf had banned her from wearing the face veil. The court rejected the application for a temporary injunction and declared the ban to be lawful. The decision is not yet final. ‘The pupil is not authorised to cover her face with a niqab while attending lessons,’ said the court. Such a veil would contradict the pupil’s legal obligation to actively participate in the fulfilment of the school’s educational mission.
According to the court, the aims of the school include not only the pure transfer of knowledge, but also the promotion of communication and exchange. ‘Both pupils among themselves and pupils and teachers must be able to exchange ideas in such a way that full – verbal and non-verbal – communication is possible at all times,’ it says in the grounds of the judgement. However, open communication in the classroom is considerably restricted, if not impossible, without the perception of facial expressions.
The judges emphasised that the almost complete covering of the face by the niqab significantly impaired the state’s educational mission. This restriction also justified an interference with the pupil’s constitutionally protected freedom of religion. There is no need for an additional legal regulation prohibiting the wearing of the face veil at school.
In particular, the court saw a concrete impairment in the assessment of performance. Oral participation accounts for half of the assessment in North Rhine-Westphalia. Without visible facial expressions, an appropriate assessment of the pupil’s contributions by the teachers was not possible. The pupil had not been able to convincingly explain that she would have a conflict of conscience in class without a niqab. A conflict with her religious beliefs had also not been sufficiently explained. An appeal against the decision can be lodged with the Münster Higher Administrative Court. Until then, the decision of the Düsseldorf Administrative Court applies.
On Tuesday evening, there was a threatening situation at the Wuppertal Christmas market. An Algerian man, who had previously been carrying a cutter knife, stormed through the Kerstenplatz square in Elbfeld bare-chested and climbed onto barriers. Several police officers then arrived and arrested the man. NIUS has a video of the police operation. The video clip, which was shared on social media, shows a short and relatively hectic police operation: several officers run to the barriers and shout in the direction of the shirtless man: ‘Stop, police!’. Later you can hear: ‘Get down on the ground! Get down on the ground!’ A man without a T-shirt, who had previously climbed onto barriers, is arrested.
When asked by NIUS, the police confirmed the authenticity of the video. According to information from NIUS, the man is said to have got into a rage at around 06:15 p.m. because he had been refused entry to a café on Gathe, a main street in the centre of Wuppertal with numerous cafés, amusement arcades, bars and shops. There, the 26-year-old Algerian pulled out a box cutter and allegedly said to the café owners: ‘Fucking Albanians! Why won’t you let me in?’ The café operators blocked the door and then alerted the police.
After the man was refused entry to the café, he allegedly took off his T-shirt and ran towards the Christmas market on Neumarkt, where he made threats and was arrested. The man’s demeanour was aggressive. According to current information, the man is said to have thrown away the cutter knife on the way to the Christmas market, but the police did not know this at the time of the arrest. According to NIUS information, the suspect is a 26-year-old Algerian who is known to the police for several offences. According to the police, the man is said to have been drunk and under the influence of drugs. According to the public prosecutor’s office, there are no indications of a religiously motivated offence. According to information from NIUS, the man does not have a valid residence permit in Germany. The Algerian had already been deported in 2020, but subsequently re-entered the country illegally. However, an arrest warrant was not issued after the incident on Tuesday because the investigators lack clear evidence of the offence.
Meanwhile, officials say that the incident shows how sensitively emergency services now react to potentially dangerous situations. In November, a 17-year-old German-Turkish man was arrested in Elmshorn after authorities investigated the initial suspicion that he might have been planning an attack on the Christmas market. Last week, officers arrested a 37-year-old asylum seeker from Iraq who is suspected of planning an attack on Christmas markets, as the German newspaper Welt reported. At the end of November, it became public that the Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) assumed in an internal paper that the risk of an attack by Islamists was assessed as ‘persistently abstractly high’. Christmas markets in Germany are a particular focus.
According to Lyon Mag, the private Muslim high school Al-Kindi in Décines-Charpieu is facing an administrative procedure that could lead to the cancellation of its association contracts with the state. An inspection report found serious shortcomings, including the irregular use of contract funding for non-contractual activities and non-compliance with pedagogical obligations such as the prescribed timetables.
Among the more worrying elements is the presence of books that justify violent jihad, advocate violence against homosexuals and convey a backward-looking image of women. The house rules also stipulate special clothing for girls, but not for boys. In addition, a teacher is said to have supported controversial personalities on YouTube who are associated with the glorification of terrorism. These findings prompted the prefecture of the Rhône department to initiate adversarial proceedings, with a meeting scheduled for December 12 to give the school management the opportunity to respond to the allegations.
A new poll shows that nearly a majority of French people do not want any immigration at all, both legal and illegal.
The poll from CSA, which was conducted for Europe 1, CNews and the Journal du Dimanche, showed that 48 percent of French people want zero immigrants coming — that means not a single migrant entering French territory. That is a 7-point jump compared to the same poll conducted in October 2021. In that previous poll, only 41 percent of French said they were in favor of zero immigration.
Notably, the poll shows that young people and women — the two groups arguably most affected by mass immigration — are quickly turning against the idea of more immigrants. In fact, more women were in favor of zero migration than men, with 53 percent of women in favor versus 44 percent of men. In France, the professionals and white-collar class, designated as (CSP+), shows that 45 percent of this group wants zero immigration.
🇫🇷‼️ Sexual violence by migrants against women is out of control in France and the mainstream media doesn't want you to know about it.
Here are just some of the attacks across the country in the last few days:
The highest percentage for zero immigration were 18-24 year-olds, with 55 percent of these French youth for zero immigration. Meanwhile, the lowest support was among the 65+ group, with 54 percent of this group being against the policy of zero migration.
The 25-34-year-old group was at 49 percent in favor of zero migration, 5-49-year-olds at 48 percent and, 50-64-year-olds at 51 percent.
As was seen in national elections earlier this year, it was the baby boomers that saved French President Emmanuel Macron from electoral defeat, with this group overwhelmingly voting for the pro-migration president. In turn, the anti-immigration Marine Le Pen over-performed with the youth. However, currently polling shows that she is the most popular candidate in the country and if elections were held today, she would be chosen as France’s new leader. She is, however, facing a criminal trial that could bar her from electoral politics — a move criticized as a disaster for democracy.
The poll also found that 82 percent of National Rally supporters want zero immigration, while for the left parties combined — PS, the Greens, and LFI — only 21 percent were for zero immigration and 79 percent were against.
Overall, a majority were against zero immigration, coming in at 51 percent, while only 1 percent were undecided. However, it is important to note that the poll only asks about zero immigration. There may be, for example, voters who are against the idea of zero immigration who are still in favor of strict immigration controls in France, the deportation of illegal migrant criminals, and other harsh measures against immigration while not necessarily supporting a complete stop to immigration. Notably, other polls have shown strong majorities in support of immigration restriction, above 70 percent in many cases.
The fact that nearly a majority support a complete and total halt to all immigration signals that French society is strongly anti-immigration, and there are even larger majorities for strict immigration controls and caps on migrant numbers. Some of those opposing a halt to all immigration may also be in favor of, for example, a complete cut to illegal immigration or even a halt to all non-EU immigrants.
Despite initially validating it, the Romanian Constitutional Court (CCR) on Friday, December 6th, unanimously ruled to annul the first round of the country’s presidential elections—just two days before the final round between the two top candidates. The reason for the annulment is alleged Russian interference during the campaign period, claimed by reports that were declassified at the last minute by the country’s top intelligence agencies.
According to Romanian G4Media, which was the first to break the story, the CCR decision not only means that the first round will need to be repeated at an unspecified date picked by the incoming (and probably socialist-led) government, but also that each candidate will need to re-register and go through the validation process again.
This is seen as one of the most problematic aspects, as the Constitutional Court has already prevented another nationalist candidate from entering the initial race due to alleged ties to Russia, so there’s no telling whether the poll favorite Călin Georgescu—whose campaign is suspected to have been propped up by Russia—will even get past validation.
What’s more, in case it gets proven in court that Georgescu won the first round by intentionally employing illegal assistance from another state actor, he could get disqualified from running for office ever again.
The dramatic turn of events came on Wednesday, two days after the court initially validated the first-round results following a recount that found no evidence of electoral fraud. This followed the declassification of five separate reports by intelligence agencies, which detailed suspected foreign interference and were released on the order of outgoing President Klaus Iohannis. The intelligence reports showed that Georgescu’s rise from obscurity to the first place was “not a natural outcome,” and alleged that it was the result of a coordinated social media campaign most likely orchestrated by a foreign “state actor,” i.e., Russia.
Romania’s top intelligence agency, SRI, found an influence network of over 25,000 accounts on TikTok that was initially set up in 2016 but lay dormant until it was suddenly activated two weeks before the first round of the presidential elections to promote Georgescu.
Additionally, over a hundred real influencers (with a combined reach of eight million followers) were recruited to do the same, with a single Romanian entrepreneur paying nearly €1 million alone for their content, up to €950 per post.
Earlier this week, TikTok executives were summoned before the European Parliament to testify about the election, and while they admitted to having identified several networks aiming to influence the Romanian elections, they said these were “very small” operations with only a few dozen fake accounts. However, they were able to track about €360,000 worth of illegal payments sent to influencers for content promotion.
The now-annulled second round was supposed to be the race between the “radical populist” Georgescu and the liberal USR’s (Renew) Elena Lasconi, who only barely beat the socialist PM Marcel Ciolacu (PSD) for second place by less than three thousand votes.
This is why many observers regard the socialist-leaning court’s order to recount and then annul the vote as a scheme to give another chance for PSD and Ciolacu to stay in the race, even if the alleged Russian involvement in the campaign is true.
Romania is a key NATO member located in a strategic position next to neighboring Ukraine and Moldova. It not only houses one of two main bases of NATO’s ballistic missile shield that protects it from the east, but the alliance is currently building its largest-ever European base on its territory, close to the coveted Black Sea. With Georgescu repeatedly stating that he wished to close these NATO facilities, it’s not hard to imagine which candidate Russia would have an interest in supporting.
Now, regardless of what Russia did or didn’t do, the question of how to move forward is an incredibly hard one as both camps feel cheated by the court and the outgoing socialist government.
Despite being the “pro-West” candidate and polls showing that she would lose to the right-wing Georgescu, the liberal Lasconi strongly criticized the decision in a dramatic address on Friday—primarily because chances are she won’t get another chance to qualify for the runoffs.
“God, the people, the truth, and the law will prevail, and will find those guilty for destroying our democracy,” Lasconi said, warning that the CCR decision throws the country into “anarchy” and calling for the elections to resume on the scheduled day to “respect the will of the people.”
Right-wing parties that since endorsed Georgescu also criticized the move, seeing it not only as an attempt by the socialist’s PSD attempt to cling to power but as a maneuver by the establishment as a whole. George Simion, the leader of the largest nationalist party AUR—which threw out Georgescu two years ago for being too “extreme,” ironically—called the CCR decision a “coup d’etat” but urged his followers not to take the streets in protest. “The system must fall democratically,” he wrote on X.
Constitutional Court 🇷🇴 just annulled the entire electoral process for the presidential elections, i.e. both rounds.
SHAMEFUL!!! Coup d’etat in full force! We are not taking to the streets, we will not be challenged, this system must fall democratically!
Nonetheless, large-scale social unrest is all but guaranteed at this point. According to polls, Georgescu is favored over Lasconi by nearly 58% of the voters, including two-thirds of the socialist PSD (S&D) voters and a third of the centrist PNL (EPP) supporters.
There’s no guessing how much time the country will have to survive in this chaotic state until the new elections either, as picking the date will be the task of the new government that’s still subject to ongoing coalition talks after the recent parliamentary elections that left the Romanian parliament in an unusually fragmented state.
Outgoing Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby has faced strong criticism from abuse survivors after making a light-hearted resignation speech in the House of Lords yesterday.
Welby, who announced his resignation last month following the Church of England abuse scandal, drew condemnation for his “frivolous” tone and jokes while discussing safeguarding failures.
Victims said they were “dismayed” and “disgusted” by the speech, which they claim showed no remorse for survivors.
The controversy centres on comments made during a debate where the Archbishop appeared to distance himself from personal responsibility in handling the John Smyth abuse case.
Speaking in the Lords, Welby said: “The reality is that there comes a time if you are technically leading a particular institution or area of responsibility where the shame of what has gone wrong whether one is personally responsible or not must require a head to roll.”
He added: “And there is only, in this case, one head that rolls well enough.”
The Archbishop made light-hearted references to a 14th century predecessor who had been beheaded, adding: “I hope not literally.”
He began by joking about his diary secretary who had worked hard arranging his schedule before his resignation announcement.
Welby claimed that safeguarding in the Church of England was now “a completely different picture to the past”.
Mark Stibbe, who was groomed and beaten by Smyth in the 1970s, condemned the Archbishop’s remarks.
He said: “I object to the use of such a frivolous tone in such a serious matter – a matter that has been, and continues to be, a matter of life and death to some.”
Another victim, identified as Graham Jones in the Makin report, told the BBC he was “disgusted by the speech”.
“It did not appear to be one of sorrow which is what was required,” Jones added.
He criticised Welby for talking “frivolously about a matter that has led to suicide attempts by victims” instead of using the opportunity to apologise.
Jones also took issue with the Archbishop’s comments about his diary secretary, arguing: “He said he pitied his diary secretary without a word of pity for the victims of abuse.”
Smyth, a barrister and lay preacher, is believed to have abused more than 100 boys and young men at Christian summer camps in England during the 1970s and 1980s.
He continued his abuse in South Africa and Zimbabwe until his death in Cape Town in 2018, aged 75.
The independent Makin review found Church officials, including Welby, “could and should” have reported Smyth to police in 2013.
The review stated Welby had a “personal and moral responsibility” to do more to prevent further abuse in South Africa.
In his resignation statement last month, Welby said he “must take personal and institutional responsibility” for his response when first informed about the abuse.
The Bishop of Newcastle Helen-Ann Hartley added her voice to the criticism, saying she was “deeply disturbed” by the Archbishop’s language.
“To make light of serious matters of safeguarding failures in this way yet again treats victims and survivors of church abuse without proper respect or regard,” she said.
Hartley expressed disappointment at seeing other bishops in the House of Lords laughing at the jokes.
The Bishop of Newcastle, who was the most senior member of the clergy to call for Welby’s resignation after the Makin report, has reportedly been “frozen out” by her Church of England colleagues following her remarks.
Welby is due to step down from Lambeth Palace on January 6, with Archbishop of York Stephen Cottrell taking temporary charge until a permanent replacement is found.
The search for a successor is expected to take around six months.
Lambeth Palace confirmed this week that Welby will not deliver the traditional Christmas Day sermon at Canterbury Cathedral.
Image: Prayers in London. X screen grab. (Christians are not allowed to do this.)
By Andrea Widburg
Once, Great Britain was a colossus astride the world. The joke was that the sun never set on the British empire. However, the sun is now setting on Britain itself, or at least the Celtic, Roman, Anglo-Saxon, and Norman Britain that rose to greatness, shaped the West, and gave birth to America. The “tell” about Great Britain’s imminent demise is the name that dominates the list of popular boys’ names in England and Wales: Muhammad. The future belongs to those who show up, and the native Brits can’t be bothered.
Muhammad is now the most popular name for baby boys in England and Wales, toppling Noah in the official rankings.
More than 4,600 boys were given the specific spelling of Muhammad in 2023, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). This was almost 500 more than in 2022.
The number of Noahs, meanwhile, slid from 4,586 to 4,382. Oliver, which ranked third, also saw a slight drop in prevalence.
It’s actually worse than the above analysis shows. In the very next paragraph, we hear what’s really going on:
It marks the first time just one spelling of the Islamic name has topped the charts, although when all thirty-plus iterations are grouped together it has been the most common for over a decade, MailOnline analysis suggests.
Great Britain’s Muslim population is already so sizable that the nation is just a few years away from a full Muslim takeover. As I wrote in a post about a jihad in Leeds, which was a very English city when I lived there more than 40 years ago,
In the year from 2022 to 2023, England and Wales added over 600,000 people. In 2021, before those additions, almost 15% of the UK’s population consisted of immigrants—and they’re mostly young and enthusiastic about having children. India and Pakistan accounted for 15% of the migrants. We can guess that all the Pakistani migrants are Muslim, while we don’t know how many of the Indian ones have been. Call it “The Empire Strikes Back.”
[snip]
As of 2021, Islam was the second-largest religion in the UK, at 6.5% of the total population (and note that this was before the past three years of mass immigration. Also in 2021, Muslims were 15% of London’s population and 8% of Yorkshire’s population. Those percentages have surely grown.
In the most recent elections, Muslims won political offices across the UK, especially in Yorkshire. One of the first things the new Labour government has done is to re-fund UNRWA, which is Hamas.
The increasing growth of Islam in England (because the Muslims are the ones having babies), combined with a Labour government, drives the remarkably antisemitic politics that have been coming out of England lately. In a must-read Substack essay, Melanie Phillips describes how virulently antisemitic the current British government is. Meanwhile, King Charles happily sold out to Qatar, Hamas’s banker and, until recently, a hideaway home for Hamas’s blood-soaked leaders.
But honestly, when you look at 20th-century British history, this support for Islam isn’t new. When the Ottoman Empire, which sided with Germany during WWI, collapsed, Britain inherited the lands that are now Israel and Jordan.
Under Ottoman rule, for around 150 years, the flotsam and jetsam of the Ottoman empire had been drifting into the land denominated as Palestine (the historic nation of Israel and continuous home to the Jews for over 3,500 years). These were refugees from Algeria, Tunisia, etc. They didn’t own the land—Ottoman potentates who were resident in London, Paris, and Istanbul did—but they squatted there, living in unutterable, unrelieved squalor.
When Jews from Europe started pouring into this barren land (and they lived only on land they purchased), the local Arabs were delighted. The Jews brought energy, modern food production techniques, medicine, and compassion, and they promptly tried to help out their pathetic Arab neighbors.
As Pierre van Paassen’s 1943 book, The Forgotten Ally, explains, it was British bureaucrats, the second tier from India who got to be the first tier in British-mandate Palestine, who saw the Jews as a threat and stirred up enmity among the Arabs. In other words, 100 years ago, the British bureaucracy was just as vile as it is now.
This enmity and the need for Arab oil saw the British refuse to allow Hitler’s refugees into the mandate before WWII and then refuse them entry after WWII when Holocaust survivors were endlessly trapped in refugee camps. The first half of Leon Uris’s masterful (and sadly out-of-print) Exodus covers this story well and accurately. (Uris was an old-fashioned, honest journalist as well as a novelist).
In other words, when it mattered most, whether in the 20th century or today, England was and has been hideous, hateful, and horrible to the Jews.
This will end in one of two ways: Either Britain will soon be an Islamic country, or there will be a bloody civil war. Either way, for the native Brits who can’t even be bothered to reproduce, it’s going to be very painful. In Genesis 12:3, God tells Abraham, “And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee…” As the UK gets a taste of Islamic rule, it’s going to discover that, as always, God spoke the truth.
