Forbidden Bible Verses — 1 Timothy 5:3-8

The three-year Lectionary that many Catholics and Protestants hear in public worship gives us a great variety of Holy Scripture.

Yet, it doesn’t tell the whole story.

My series Forbidden Bible Verses — ones the Lectionary editors and their clergy omit — examines the passages we do not hear in church. These missing verses are also Essential Bible Verses, ones we should study with care and attention. Often, we find that they carry difficult messages and warnings.

Today’s reading is from the English Standard Version Anglicised (ESVUK) with commentary by Matthew Henry and John MacArthur.

1 Timothy 5:3-8

³ Honour widows who are truly widows. ⁴ But if a widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn to show godliness to their own household and to make some return to their parents, for this is pleasing in the sight of God. ⁵ She who is truly a widow, left all alone, has set her hope on God and continues in supplications and prayers night and day, ⁶ but she who is self-indulgent is dead even while she lives. ⁷ Command these things as well, so that they may be without reproach. ⁸ But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

——————————————————————————————————————

Last week’s post introduced Paul’s instructions on how to properly rebuke those in the congregation who were falling away from their Christian duties.

The Apostle then goes on to provide more detail, beginning with widows.

He tells Timothy to honour widows who truly are widows (verse 3).

Paul gives more specifics later on in the chapter, but he wants Timothy to know that not every woman who has lost her husband is worthy of the church’s charity. In other words, there are widows and there are widows. Much depends on their conduct.

John MacArthur explains the context here (emphases mine):

Paul, then, wants Timothy and the church at Ephesus and us to understand our responsibility to widows. He gives five principles … The first principle is this – verse 3 – “Honor widows who are real widows.” Honor widows who are real widows. Now let me just give you enough background to understand where Paul is coming from as he writes. Keep this in mind. From the beginning of our study of 1 Timothy, I have told you that I believe this epistle is a polemic; that is to say, it speaks against some problem.

And I believe this church was filled with problems of ungodliness, problems of false doctrine, not the least of which was mishandling the matter of care for widows. The church was as inept at that as it was at all the other things Paul deals with. So this is a corrective passage. We can conclude, then, that widows were not being properly honored. We can conclude that unqualified, older widows were being allowed to serve semi-officially for the church and their lives were really not clear and clean and pure. We can also conclude that younger widows were remarrying unbelievers.

Younger widows were breaking vows made to Christ. There were families that weren’t supporting their own widows. There were women who could have supported many widows, such as Dorcas did, but they weren’t doing that either. In other words, the whole area of biblical instruction to widows needed to be taught because of what needed to be corrected at Ephesus. It is a very, very basic ministry of the church to care for these women.

Principle number one, then, in verse 3, the obligation of the church to support widows; the obligation of the church to support widows.

MacArthur says that the status of ‘widow’ in classical Greek encompasses more than we understand it to today:

Now what do we mean by widows? To us, the word means a woman whose husband is dead. The Greek word includes that but is not limited to that. That’s a very important statement: The Greek word includes that but is not limited to that.

The word “widow” is chēra. It is a word that’s a feminine form of an adjective used as a noun. It is an adjective, it means bereft. It means robbed. It means having suffered loss. It carries the idea of being alone. It comes from chēras, and that’s what that means, bereft, robbed, having suffered loss, being left alone. The word, then, doesn’t speak about how a woman got into the situation, it just describes the situation. She is alone, she is bereft, she has suffered the loss of her husband. It doesn’t say how she lost the husband.

Usually, of course, we would think she lost the husband through death. There’s nothing in this word to indicate that it is limited to that. In fact, if you do any kind of study of the word and trace it through any classical Greek usages, you will find that the word means a woman who lost her husband in any fashion – death, divorce, desertion – anything. That can all be summed up in this word.

William Barclay, for example, feels it should include those who were polygamists in the Roman world, and when they came to Jesus Christ in faith, they may have given freedom to their wives that – other than their first wife, to leave in order that they might be monogamous, according to the teaching of the Word of God. And when they sent those women away, those women would fall under this same kind of word. They also would be chēra, bereft of their husband, even though their husband was still alive.

There’s no reason to indicate that this should exclude people whose husband left them in desertion or divorced them through a legal means. The word simply describes a woman who has lost her husband, whatever that might be in terms of cause.

MacArthur gives us a modern-day example of a widow without a family structure upon which to rely:

What happens, for example, when a woman is raised in a broken home? Maybe her mother’s been married a couple of times, she’s had a father and a stepfather, which is not atypical at all but somewhat common. She goes off into a career kind of orientation. Maybe she doesn’t get married until she’s 26, 27, 28, 29. By that time, she’s charted her own course. She marries somebody who has charted his own course. They get together. Something happens to him. She’s out there, she’s had sort of a career kind of background. She’s had a very messed-up family situation.

He dies. She’s left with a couple of little kids on her hands. She can’t plug back into an intimate family network because it’s long gone, if there ever was one, and the burden on the church is even greater.

You see, the price to pay for the disintegration of the family is really monumental. Those widowed women, those women who lose their husbands, need to be able (as Genesis 38 illustrates) to move back into the home of family one way or another, but so often that can’t happen or it won’t happen because of the disintegration of the family. The tragedy in the breakdown of the family is the loss of the support network. And it puts the burden even greater on the church.

MacArthur says that there were many widows in the classical sense of the word at the time Paul wrote to Timothy:

Now, I want you to know that this expands the accountability and the responsibility of the church immeasurably because what we’re talking about here is a responsibility to take care of all those women who have lost their husband, which is a very, very large company of women. Maybe as large now as at any time in the world’s history with divorce and desertion and all of those things such a common, everyday matter.

Furthermore, unlike today, it was not possible for women to work in gainful employment and there was no welfare state:

In those days, women could not find honorable employment easily. There were no secular institutions to care for them. And so they were in serious straits. They were very often reduced to poverty unless their husband had left something with them or their father had left an inheritance to them or perhaps they were under the care of a father’s family or a mother-in-law’s family, or friends or whatever, but many widows were left destitute.

And as I said, there was no honorable employment available to women because women were seen as being cared for within the context of the family and the home, not caring for themselves outside that context. The treatment of these women, then, was a watershed, was a test case for the love of Christ borne in the hearts of the Christian community. Their spiritual character, the demonstration of their devotion to Christ could be seen in how they cared for people who were desperately in need of that care. And I might add that this has been a part of the church’s life throughout all of its history.

MacArthur discusses the Greek word for ‘honour’:

It’s the verb timaō. It means to show respect, to show care, to give support, to treat graciously, and it encompasses the idea of meeting needs – whatever they are – financially, of course.

In fact, it is used of pricing something in Matthew 27:9, to put a value on something and then to care for that in light of its value, and certainly there’s nothing more valuable than one made by God, than a believing woman, and nothing more precious to the church than a believing woman desperately in need of the church’s care.

Matthew Henry’s commentary says that Paul is talking not only about charity but admitting women into the office of deaconess, in which they take instruction from a deacon:

Honour widows that are widows indeed. Honour them, that is, maintain them, admit them into office. There was in those times an office in the church in which widows were employed, and that was to tend the sick and the aged, to look to them by the direction of the deacons. We read of the care taken of widows immediately upon the first forming of the Christian church (Acts 6 1), where the Grecians thought their widows were neglected in the daily ministration and provision made for poor widows. The general rule is to honour widows that are widows indeed, to maintain them, to relieve them with respect and tenderness.

Paul gives specific instructions on widows becoming deaconesses later in the chapter.

Paul says that, if a widow has children or grandchildren, then they should show their godliness by making some return — financially — to their parents, because it is pleasing in the sight of God (verse 4).

MacArthur says that Paul is telling Timothy to be discerning in using church funds to aid widows:

So first of all, the church has an obligation to support widows. Second point, and we’ll just introduce this with one verse, the obligation of the church to evaluate those widows needing support. It’s not a question of everybody get in line, we’re just going to give it away, we have to evaluate. The church cannot indiscriminately take on everyone who applies for help. There has to be some criteria, and that comes in verses 4 through 8 …

I just want to introduce verse 4. I think it’s so interesting, so important. If any woman who is bereft of a husband, any widow, has children or grandchildren, ekgonos means descendants or grandchildren, not nephews. Now, many widows in the church have children and grandchildren. It is the responsibility of the children and the grandchildren to support that widow. That’s what he’s saying. It says “Let them” – that is, the children and grandchildren – “learn first to show their godliness in the family.” The word home, oikos, referring to family. You say you’re godly, then let’s see it in your family …

And don’t tell me about your godliness – first put it on display in your family. First, show your godliness at home, in the house, before you make a speech about it anyplace else. I’ve thought to myself that one of the things we ought to do in a seminary application is to ask the mother to write a letter of reference. I don’t think we’ve ever done that but … as I think about it, that would be a great idea. What kind of son is this young man? And what are the evidences of godliness that you have seen in the home?

We might cut down our applications a bit with such a process, but it might be well worth it because that’s where godliness is proven, it’s proven in the home.

Of the family obligation to help a widow, Henry says:

This is called showing piety at home (v. 4), or showing piety towards their own families. Observe, The respect of children to their parents, with their care of them, is fitly called piety. This is requiting their parents. Children can never sufficiently requite their parents for the care they have taken of them, and the pains they have taken with them; but they must endeavour to do it. It is the indispensable duty of children, if their parents be in necessity, and they in ability to relieve them, to do it to the utmost of their power, for this is good and acceptable before God … If any men or women do not maintain their own poor relations who belong to them, they do in effect deny the faith; for the design of Christ was to confirm the law of Moses, and particularly the law of the fifth commandment, which is, Honour thy father and mother; so that those deny the faith who disobey that law, much more if they provide not for their wives and children, who are parts of themselves; if they spend that upon their lusts which should maintain their families, they have denied the faith and are worse than infidels.

MacArthur points out that, in ancient Greek law, children were obliged to support their elders:

Reading from the Greek culture, it was Greek law from the time of Solon that sons and daughters were not only morally but legally bound to support their parents. Anyone who refused that duty lost his civil rights.

Aeschines, the Athenian orator, said in one of his speeches, “And whom did our lawgiver condemn to silence in the assembly of the people? And where does he make this clear? Let there be,” he says, “a scrutiny of public speakers in case there be any speaker in the assembly of the people who is a striker of his father or mother or who neglects to maintain them or to give them a home.” Demosthenes said, “I regard the man who neglects his parents as unbelieving in and hateful to the gods, as well as to men.” And Philo talked about the fact that even old birds take care of their parents because they taught them how to fly. Should humans do less than that? And we have a responsibility to care for our parents, particularly those widowed ones.

Paul distinguishes two types of widow: one who is all alone but continues her devotions to God (verse 5) and one who is self-indulgent and dead, even though she is alive (verse 6). Paul means the second type of widow is dead in sin, not dead to sin, which the first widow is.

MacArthur gives us the Greek for ‘all alone’ in verse 5:

The verb here “has been left alone” monoō. We get the word mono, which means single. It’s in the perfect tense and it means a continual condition or state or permanent position of being forsaken without resources.

He discusses the first type of widow, the one devoted to God:

Verse 5, “She trusts in God.” Now, the Greek text says elpizō, the verb, “She has fixed her hope on God.” She has fixed her hope on God. That’s also a perfect tense. She not only is in a continual condition of being without means but she is in a continual condition of presenting herself to God as her only hope. Her settled condition is one of desolation. Her settled attitude is one of hope in God.

What does that tell us? She’s a Christian. What kind of widows is the church responsible to support? Number one, those who have no children or grandchildren who are supporting them. Two, a widow who is a believer, a single woman having lost her husband who is a believer. If she’s never had a husband and is single, she is still the care of her father. That’s another issue. But this woman is the woman who has no one to care for her and she has fixed her hope on God. She trusts in the God who has promised to care for widows, the God who has entrusted Himself to her to be her support when she has no support.

This means she’s a Christian lady. Only – now get this – only to such women does the church have this special responsibility. We may choose to help non-Christian women; we must help Christian women. This is a mandate. We might choose to do good to all men, especially those of the household of faith. We are bound to serve the Christian woman who is destitute. She looks to God for the supply of her needs …

So here is the kind of widow that is to be supported. We are to come to the aid of a woman who trusts in God, a believing woman, a godly woman. And her godliness is seen in the next phrase. “She continues in supplication and prayers night and day.” The fact that she had fixed her hope on God shows that she’s a Christian; the fact that she continues day and night in prayer and supplication shows that she’s a committed Christian, a godly woman – not just a saved woman but a godly woman.

Anna the prophetess was one such example of a godly widow:

Her name was Anna and she was there at the dedication of the baby Christ, the child Christ, when He was brought to the temple. “And there was one Anna,” Luke 2:36 says, “a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher, she was of great age and had lived with a husband seven years from her virginity.” She would have been married very young, no doubt in her teens, she lived seven years with her husband and her husband died.

“And she had never departed from the temple but served God with fastings and prayers” – there it is – “night and day.” She had the privilege of being there when the Messiah Himself arrived and was dedicated in the privilege of going out and speaking of Him to all those who looked for redemption in Israel. Here was a woman who lost her husband and devoted herself to God. This is a woman worthy of support. If God wanted to give her a husband, that’s fine. If God wanted her to be remaining single, that’s fine.

Her heart was given to God. And yes, she poured out her petition, and yes, she poured out her supplication, but also with it her praise and her thanks and her adoration and her worship.

Now let’s look at the widow of verse 6.

Henry says:

But she is not a widow indeed that lives in pleasure (v. 6), or who lives licentiously. A jovial widow is not a widow indeed, not fit to be taken under the care of the church. She that lives in pleasure is dead while she lives, is no living member of the church, but as a carcase in it, or a mortified member. We may apply it more generally; those who live in pleasure are dead while they live, spiritually dead, dead in trespasses and sins; they are in the world to no purpose, buried alive as to the great ends of living.

MacArthur would agree with that assessment:

The Greek says the living for pleasure one living is dead. In other words, the one who goes out and lives for her own ease and all she wants is her own satisfaction and her own indulgence, she may be living physically but she is dead – what? – spiritually.

There are women like that. They have no family. They have to go out and support themselves, but they don’t trust God for that. They don’t hope in God for their guidance. They don’t depend on God. They have no heart of devotion to Him, no love for Him, no dependence on Him, no desire to obey Him, but rather they live for pleasure. Now that Greek term means to live sensually. Some have translated – it’s a very rare verb, spatalaō, it means to plunge into dissipation. It means to lead a life of wanton pleasure. The word “wanton” means with disregard for what is right. To lead a life of pleasure with no thought for what is right or what is wrong …

Now, it’s likely because of the context here that such women existed in that church, that when their husband was around, they were active in the church. When the husband died or when the husband disappeared, they split and went into that kind of lifestyle. Whatever their past involvement in the church, they forsook it. They were the rocky soil where the plant grew for a little while and then it died. They were the weedy ground where it grew for a little while and then was choked out by the love of lustful desire and the pleasures of the world. For that woman, the church needs to provide nothing. She needs to be turned over to the consequence of her own choices.

And so I do not believe the church is under obligation according to the Word of God to be running around helping ungodly women continue to live their ungodly life.

Paul tells Timothy to command these things so that they may be without reproach (verse 7).

MacArthur explains the verse:

What are these things? Everything he said since verse 3. You command this to your people, Timothy, that they might be without blame, whether they are families who ought to support widows or whether they are widows who ought to live godly lives. He’s pulling everybody in. Everybody involved should be above reproach. The church should be above reproach. The church should be a model of virtue in this area, leaving no legitimate fault to be exploited by the critics.

… the reputation of the church is at stake, and if the church is to be blameless, then you better be commanding these things all the time. You tell your people they’re responsible for caring for widows, widows who are widows indeed, that is without support and who are godly and who walk with the Lord, have manifested their dependence and hope in Him through a life of prayer. If the church is careful and makes these distinctions and supports these women, it will be above criticism, it will gain a marvelous and wonderful reputation. 

Paul returns to the obligation for a household to care for its widows, saying that anyone who does not do so is denying the faith and no better than an unbeliever (verse 8).

MacArthur says:

That’s one of the strongest statements in the whole Bible. You say, “I didn’t think a Christian could be worse than a non-Christian.” Yeah, you can. In terms of the expression here, you are worse than an unbeliever if you don’t take care of your own.

Now, what is he saying here? There’s no break in thought. The term “but” keeps the same flow going, the break comes in verse 9 … he states in verse 8 negatively what he said in verse 4 positively. In verse 4 he said, first of all, children take care of your parents. Now in verse 8, he says if you don’t, you’re worse than an unbeliever. But he goes beyond parents here, and he gives us more criteria to evaluate our responsibility.

The fact that he said it in verse 4 in a positive way and now says it in verse 8 in a negative way leads me to believe that there were a lot of violations of this in Ephesus, and the level of Paul’s exasperation was rising and rising because so many people were violating the biblical ethic toward women in need. So he says, “If anyone doesn’t provide for his house” – and it’s a first-class condition and that means it states a fact so it could be translated, “When any of you doesn’t provide for your family” or “Since some of you are not providing for your family.”

It’s a very simple statement of fact. If you don’t provide, and that is pronoeō, to think before, to plan before, to care for someone, to take thought to help, if you’re not planning into your life the care of your own – your own what? – your own widows.

Now, what does he mean, your own widows? That’s very vague and it is purposely vague because it refers to anybody networked with you. In your family? Not specifically because that comes next, but in your circle of relationships, maybe your relatives, maybe your friends, maybe your neighbors, maybe your acquaintances, anybody networked in life through you, whether in your house or another house, it’s purposely vague. And again I say it isn’t the question of the organized church doing it, it’s the question of a believer doing it.

MacArthur says that the onus can fall upon us as individual churchgoers to support godly widows if we see their need before our church does:

… many people will come to me, and they will say the church ought to help this lady, she needs $200. Why can’t the church help her? Well, we want to do everything we can, but if you say that to me I’m liable to say back to you, “Why can’t you help her?” And if you say to me, “I can’t help her because I don’t have anything, either,” then we’ll help both of you gladly. But don’t come and expect the church to do what you won’t do. That’s not the idea. Where do you – who do you think the church is? If you have a burden for someone, then the responsibility lies with you to do what you can to see that that burden is alleviated.

So first of all, if you don’t provide for your own, that is the widows that are in your network, the bereft women that you know of, and especially of those of his own family. So we know the first phrase is beyond family, especially of your own family. He says if you don’t help the ones in your network and especially in your own family, your own parents or grandparents or your own aunt or your own sister or whatever, someone close to you, if you don’t help those along with everyone networked who in any sense belongs to you as a friend or an acquaintance, you are guilty of two things.

Look at the first one, you’ve denied the faith. Now, he doesn’t mean you personally have lost your personal faith in God. He doesn’t mean that. He’s not judging your soul. What he means is you deny the biblical principle of compassionate love that is the very center of the Christian faith. God so loved the world that He – what? – gave. And that’s the heart of the Christian faith. The love of Christ is shed abroad in our hearts, Romans 5:5. By this shall all men know that you’re my disciples, you have love one for another …

So first you’ve denied the faith, and if you’ve denied the faith, secondly, you’re worse than an unbeliever. In practice, you’ve denied the faith. In practice, you look worse than an unbeliever. Why? Because most unbelievers take care of their own. I mean, most pagans know that. And most unbelievers have no idea of the obligation of love that God has given, they just do it naturally.

And most unbelievers have no real model to follow since they don’t know Christ. And most unbelievers – obviously, all unbelievers don’t have the power to love that we have. So we have the mandate, we have the model, and we have the power, and if we don’t come up to the level of an unbeliever in caring for someone in need, then we’re worse than they are. That’s the point. Even pagans revere their ancestors and worship their elders. And the Christian who falls below that basic standard of loving provision is more to be blamed than anybody is to be blamed – blamed because of what he knows, the command he’s under, and the love he possesses.

I can attest to an example of anonymous giving at my church just a few months ago. Someone put £200 in an envelope which had a congregant’s name on it and gave it to one of our churchwardens. The churchwarden made sure that the person received the cash.

Our church has turned into an amazing place in the past couple of years. But I digress.

I would like to end with observations that John MacArthur has on feminism. In parliamentary debates here in the UK, I hear many Labour MPs, particularly women, lament the poverty levels in single-parent homes. Those Labour MPs are also very much pro-abortion.

MacArthur says the problem will only grow worse, and he delivered today’s sermons in 1986. He was speaking of the US here, but similar things are happening in Britain:

Seventy percent of today’s women in the labor force work out of economic necessity. More often than not, they are single, widowed, or divorced. And more often than not, they are poor. Seventy-seven percent of this nation’s poverty is borne by women and their children. The number of poor families headed by men has declined over the last 15 years by more than 25 percent.

Meanwhile, the number of women who headed families at the poverty level or lower has increased nearly 40 percent. Thus, today, one in three families headed by women is poor, compared with one in ten headed by men, and one in nineteen with two parents.

The point of all of this is to let you know that with women’s liberation has come female poverty. When you have the liberation of woman alongside the liberation of everybody from marriage commitment, you have women being thrown out of marriages and left to fend for themselves everywhere. According to the 13th annual report of the President’s National Advisory Council on Economic Opportunity, I’m quoting: “If the proportion of the poor among female householder families continues at the speed that it’s going now, the poverty population will be composed solely of women and their children before the year 2000.”

Women are being dispossessed. They are being left alone. Therefore, they don’t want children. The only way to deal with unwanted children in a society where they’re reaching out for every relationship they can find is to abort those children. And the Centers for Disease Control tell us now that abortion has reached the place where it is the sixth leading killer among maternal diseases. And according to the May ’85 issue of OB/GYN, obstetrics and gynecological journal, they estimate that 50 percent of the deaths related to abortion are not reported, so it’s double whatever the statistics indicate.

Women are victims of abortion in incredible ways. Not only death, pelvic abscess, perforation of the uterus and other internal organs, medical complications in abortion include sterility in as many as 25 percent of all women having abortions. Hemorrhaging occurs in ten percent of all cases, requiring transfusions. Viral hepatitis, cervical laceration, cardiorespiratory arrest, acute kidney failure, amniotic fluid embolus, and it goes on and on like that.

The result of this is medical care for men has gone up 12 percent in the last few years. Medical care for women has gone up nearly 30 percent. So what we have now are a rising population of dispossessed women who have to run their own life and their own family, earn their own living, take care of their own medical needs, and in the process of doing that, pay more money than men do for medical care because of the problem of abortion. Such is the cost of feminism: the loss of health, the loss of financial stability, the loss of care.

Since 1960, the number of women in the work force has doubled. Forty-five percent of the entire labor force of the United States is now female, and they still earn an average of $10,000 a year less than men, and get this: The average four-year-college-graduate female in the working place earns the same amount or less as a male high school dropout. Now, I’m not saying that’s right, I’m just saying that’s fact. What they have worked to get, they haven’t gotten, and what they didn’t expect to get, they got.

Demanding equality has backfired. Employees won’t pay women as much because of daycare center costs, because of maternity leave, because of sick-child absences, and 45 percent of the women in the work force are single, divorced, separated, or widowed, and they’re the only person to care for themselves and their children.

And women’s liberation and women’s equality and everybody saying, “Take care of yourself, baby” has backfired. You add to that casual, recreational sex and illegitimate children and abortion, you add no-fault divorces, which leaves them with no right to alimony, and you have the feminization of poverty. And women have become the victims of the second biggest con game in history. The first was when the serpent persuaded Eve she needed to upgrade her life and be equal to God. The second is when the serpent deceived woman into thinking she needed to upgrade her life and be equal to man. Women will never be equal to men, nor will men be equal to women, they’re just different.

According to Lenore Weitzman, in her book The Divorce Revolution: The Unexpected Social and Economic Consequences for Women and Children in America, she writes, “On the average, divorced women and the minor children in their households experience a 73 percent decline in their standard of living in the first year after divorce.” That’s devastating. Seventy-three percent decline. The former husbands, in the first year after divorce, experience a 42 percent rise in the standard of living. He’s unloaded all his baggage. And now – in 1940, one out of every six marriages ended in divorce. Fifty years later, half of all marriages end in divorce.

[The author George] Grant closes this chapter on this issue in his book by saying, “Poverty in America has taken on an increasingly feminine face. More and more women than ever are falling through the gaps in society’s safety net. Much of the cause for this abominable situation must be laid at the door of the very movements that sought to liberate women, the abortion movement, the careerist movement, and the no-fault divorce movement. Through them, the structures once built into our cultural system designed to protect women have been systematically dismantled. Dire poverty and even homelessness have become inevitable.”

And then he says this: “The solution to the feminization of poverty and the feminization of homelessness thus does not depend upon the advocacy of feminism. Indeed, it cannot. The solution lies with the church. Care for women caught in the clutches of poverty and homelessness, abandonment, widowhood, and distress is always a central sign of devotion to God because God cares so much.”

… By God’s design, women are always to be cared for. Whoever said, “Baby, you’re on your own” defied the purpose and plan of God. And what I’m saying in all of this is what we’re looking at, people, is a continual explosion of dispossessed, homeless, poor, alone, desolate, needy, non-supported women. And the burden for all of that is going to come right to the foot of the church initially because if we are the representation of God in the world, then we need to represent the compassion of God toward those people, and He cares, and we have to care as well.

You see, whenever you buy into Satan’s lies and deceptions, you never get what you think you’re promised. All you get is tragedy. So Paul, writing to Timothy and for us as well, sets in order the responsibility of the church for the care of dispossessed women who are in need.

Paul has more specific instructions for Timothy on the treatment of widows. More on that next week.

Next time — 1 Timothy 5:9-16

2022 Christmas news: some cheer, but not much

It’s hard to know where to begin with this year’s Christmas news, much of which is disappointing, to say the least.

That said, there is a bright Christmas message here, so please read on.

Scotland legislation latest

On Thursday, December 22, the Scottish Parliament — or Assembly, as I still call it — passed legislation for Gender Recognition Reform, specifically to grant Gender Recognition Certificates (GRCs).

The bill passed in the SNP-controlled government 86-39 with no abstentions. Only two Conservative MSPs voted for it. The rest were SNP (Scottish National Party), Scottish Greens (SNP coalition partners), Scottish Labour and Scottish Liberal Democrat MSPs.

The final contributions were largely made on the basis of feelings. Wednesday’s transcript shows that every Conservative motion proposing greater controls over who can apply for a GRC and under what conditions was defeated. Debate had also taken place on Tuesday in an attempt to rush this through before Christmas break.

The Scottish Parliament thought this so important that it even cancelled their annual Christmas carol service, which, this year, was to feature Ukrainian refugees living just outside of Edinburgh.

A pro-independence — though not a pro-SNP — Scot who lives in England, the Revd Stuart Campbell, summed up the legislation in one of his Wings Over Scotland posts, ‘On the hush-hush’ (emphases mine):

The last few days have been perhaps the most turbulent in the entire history of the modern Scottish Parliament. Proceedings have been suspended repeatedly, members of the public thrown out and threatened with arrest, filibusters attempted, carol services cancelled, tempers frayed and sittings going on until the wee small hours.

All of this has happened in the service of the policy that the SNP has made its flagship priority for the last two years and more – the destruction not only of women’s rights, but of the very CONCEPT of a woman …

So you’d imagine the party would have been tweeting about it constantly, keeping its supporters informed about all the dramatic events and the progress of the bill, if only to reassure them that they were determined to get it passed before the Christmas break come what may …

But there wasn’t one solitary word about the thing it just spent three solid days forcing into law. And since it was a thing that most of its own voters, and indeed a huge majority of all Scots, were opposed to, readers might be forgiven for thinking that they just wanted it all kept as quiet as possible, as if they were ashamed.

We suspect, and very much hope, that their wish may not be granted.

The Revd Mr Campbell means that the Secretary of State for Scotland in Westminster might refuse to present the Bill for King’s Assent. Let’s hope so.

Another Wings over Scotland post explains what the Bill actually does:

… one of the most regressive, dangerous and frankly absurd pieces of legislation the modern world has ever seen. Last week, [First Minister Nicola Sturgeon’s] government successfully managed to get the word ‘woman’ redefined from an adult human female to anyone to who has a piece of paper that says they are one.

Should obtaining this piece of paper involve a rigorous, measured process that takes psychological and criminal history into serious consideration and prioritises the safety of women and children, this would be permissible to the socially liberal. Alas though, the new GRA has shamelessly scrapped all safeguarding measures. For a man to legally become a woman now – and be entitled to access all female-only facilities, be it changing rooms or prisons, all he has to do is ‘live as’ a woman (whatever the hell that means) for three months followed by a three-month ‘reflection period’.

TRA-adjacent politicians have nowhere to hide with this now. They can no longer deny that sex-based rights will be grievously compromised and that predators and fetishists now have ease of access to women (and children’s) spaces, from bathrooms to sports teams.

In another post, Campbell linked to Tuesday’s proceedings where a Conservative MSP tried to raise an amendment calling for greater scrutiny of sex offenders wishing to change gender. Unfortunately, 64 SNP/Green/Lib Dem MSPs voted it down. In ‘The Disgraces of Scotland’, Campbell wrote:

The events marked simply and unquestionably the most shameful and contemptible moment in the history of the Scottish Parliament since 1707.

1707 was the year when the Act of Union was established between England and Scotland.

He also pointed out that voting down the amendment resulted in:

ceding the moral high ground to the Scottish Conservatives …

Anyone who knows the Scots knows that anything Conservative is unpopular there. That said, the Scottish Conservatives are the official opposition party in Edinburgh.

It should be noted that anyone aged 16 1/2 and over can apply for a GRC. It would appear that no formal medical diagnosis will be required with this new legislation.

Campbell’s readers have much to say on the matter. Some say this is a deleterious influence from American pressure groups. Others say that women will be in great danger.

Both are likely possibilities.

None of the MSPs supporting the Bill thinks that women will have any problem with sex offenders or deviants. However, a British substack begs to differ. ‘This Never Happens’ is a lengthy catalogue of gender-changers around the world who have committed horrific crimes, many of a sexual nature. Another site with a similar catalogue can be found here.

It is ironic that a woman is in charge of Scotland and she has overseen this legislation. In fact, she has supported it from beginning to end.

Scotland, like Canada, was such a beautiful country once upon a time. When I say ‘beautiful’, I’m referring to people. Another spirit — the devil — is moving through both nations.

One positive outcome is that the Scottish Conservatives can use this legislation to their advantage during the next election cycle. Unlike the SNP, Scottish Labour and Scottish Lib Dems, they alone voted en masse against it, showing that they are the true defenders of women and girls.

An UnHerd columnist, Joan Smith, says that this will come soon to England, should Labour win the next general election:

The man sitting next to you on a tram in Edinburgh, or turning up for a women-only swimming session, may self-identify as a woman — and the law will support him every step of the way. Centuries-old assumptions about what is real, about what people see in front of them, are being overturned. And it’s coming to Westminster as well, if Sir Keir Starmer follows through on his proposal to ‘update’ the 2004 Gender Recognition Act.

We have less than two years before a Labour government comes to power, weighed down by promises to import the idiocy (I’m being polite here) of self-ID to the rest of the UK. Two years, in other words, to watch what happens when politicians reject biology, common sense and the imperative to protect women against male violence. 

In the meantime, prisons, hospitals and refuges outside Scotland will face the headache of what to do when a man with a Scottish Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) — obtained with far fewer safeguards than elsewhere in the UK — demands access to women-only spaces. The prospect of expensive litigation is terrifying, but women’s organisations on both sides of the border are already preparing for the fight of their lives.

So crazed are MSPs by this ideology that on Tuesday evening they voted down an amendment that would have placed barriers in the way of convicted sex offenders who seek to apply for a GRC, complete with a new female name. They even rejected an amendment — proposed by Michelle Thomson, an SNP MSP who has waived anonymity to reveal her own experience of being raped when she was fourteen years old — that would have paused the process of acquiring a certificate for men charged with sexual offences.

This is an extremely troubling development. Let’s not forget that the SNP-Green government has pressed ahead with the legislation even after Lady Haldane’s judgment established last week that a GRC changes someone’s legal sex for the purposes of the 2010 Equality Act. Scottish women are now expected to accept that any man standing in front of them, waving a piece of paper, is a woman — even if they’re in court and the man is accused of raping them. 

It’s clear that a bill that was supposedly purely administrative has hugely expanded the number of individuals who can apply for a GRC, with catastrophic effects on women’s rights.

The rest of the UK is about to find out what it’s like living alongside a country in which observable sex no longer has any meaning. Welcome to Scotland, where the word ‘woman’ will now soon include any man who fancies it.

Conservatives in England and Wales can take heart from this for the general election in two years’ time, pointing to their colleagues north of the border. Who are the great defenders of women and girls? It certainly won’t be Labour.

Woman arrested for silent prayer

On December 6, a pro-life supporter from Worcestershire was arrested for praying silently in Birmingham in an exclusion zone around an abortion clinic.

Here is the video of her arrest:

Police in the UK arrest a woman for silently praying:

"Are you praying?"

"I might be praying in my head." pic.twitter.com/7Q8UnKmfa1

— Mary Margaret Olohan (@MaryMargOlohan) December 22, 2022

A fundraiser is open for her:

Here's @ADF_UK's fundraiser for Isabel: https://t.co/kjigLzt8l5

— Mary Margaret Olohan (@MaryMargOlohan) December 22, 2022

BirminghamLive filed their report on Tuesday, December 20:

A woman has been charged with breaching an exclusion zone outside a Birmingham abortion clinic. Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, aged 45, from Malvern in Worcestershire, was arrested near the BPAS Robert Clinic in Kings Norton on December 6.

She was later charged with breaking a Public Space Protection Order, said by Birmingham City Council to have been introduced to ensure “people visiting and working there have clear access without fear of confrontation”. Vaughan-Spruce will appear at Birmingham Magistrates’ Court on February 2 next year.

A West Midlands Police spokesperson said: “Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, aged 45 from Geraldine Road, Malvern, was arrested on December 6 and subsequently charged on December 15 with four counts of failing to comply with a Public Space Protection Order (PSPO). She was bailed to appear at Birmingham Magistrates Court on February 2 2023.”

The police must feel threatened by prayer, especially that of the silent sort.

On Friday, December 23, UnHerd ‘s Mary Harrington gave her thoughts on the arrest:

It’s customary in these situations to decry the breach of liberal norms involved in arresting someone not for doing something wrong but merely thinking. But if, as I’ve suggested elsewhere, all politics is now post-liberal, that means it’s once again explicitly the case that state power is aligned with a widely-shared moral order. 

This is a drum I’ve been banging for a little while, for contra the fond imaginings of some liberals we never really stopped ordering power to sacred values. After all, it’s not really possible to have a functioning polity otherwise. This, I argued shortly before the pandemic, is why hate crime laws appeared a scant few years after the abolition of blasphemy laws: they are blasphemy laws. We’ve just updated what we considered blasphemous …

…  Vaughan-Spruce’s arrest makes it clear that the zone surrounding an abortion centre is treated as sacred in a way that’s evidently no longer meaningfully the case (at least as far as the European court is concerned) of a church. She is an activist and director of March for Life UK, and has been previously arrested for protesting against abortion. But this in no way diminishes the growing sense that the activity being protected is also increasingly treated as sacred …

We have sacralised autonomy to such an extent that laws uphold women’s right to it, even at the cost of another radically dependent life. And the issue is growing ever more moralised, as evidenced by the fact that even thinking disapproving thoughts about this radical commitment to individual autonomy is now treated as blasphemous, in zones where its most extreme sacrifices are made. 

Wherever you stand on the practical issues surrounding abortion, this is indisputably a profound statement on the relative values we accord to freedom, care and dependency — one with profound ramifications for how we see the weak and helpless in any context. That the practice is taking on sacramental colouring, for a religion of atomisation, should give us all pause.

Indeed.

House of Lords Archbishop of Canterbury debate on asylum

On December 9, the House of Lords gave the Archbishop of Canterbury his annual debate. This year, the subject was the UK’s asylum and refugee policy.

I hope that readers will understand if I do not excerpt his speech here. They are free to read it for themselves.

We have taken in a record annual number of illegal migrants crossing the Channel this year, expected to be over 50,000.

We have also taken in large numbers of legitimate refugees and asylum seekers. We have also given visas to many thousands of legal migrants this year, particularly from Africa and Asia, namely India and Hong Kong.

UnHerd had a good analysis of what Welby said and our current predicament:

The Archbishop says he aims to support action that would “prevent small boats from crossing the channel”, but he also stresses that the UK is not taking many refugees and should take many more. 

Astonishingly, he dismisses the provision our country has made to welcome Hong Kong residents — well over 100,000 to date and many more to come — by saying “and that, by the way, is not asylum but financial visas”. It may not involve an application for asylum as such, but it clearly involves flight from oppression. Welby also draws the wrong conclusion from the fact that developing countries host many more refugees than developed countries. This is much cheaper than settlement in the West and makes return more likely. Developed countries should help pay the costs, and the UK leads the way in this regard.

The control Welby claims to support does not presently exist. The small boats cannot safely be turned around in the Channel and France will not accept their immediate return. The Rwanda plan is a rational (if imperfect) attempt to address the problem, removing asylum-seekers to a safe third country, where they will be protected, yet the Archbishop decries the plan on the grounds that it outsources our responsibilities. This makes no sense, for the UK not only accepts that Rwanda must comply with international standards, but also commits to funding the protection of those who prove to be refugees. Welby asserts that the plan has failed to deter. Indeed, because it has not yet been tried at all. 

The UK has good reason to resettle in safe third countries those who enter unlawfully on small boats, which would discourage others from (dangerous) unlawful entry and restore control of our borders. The historic tradition on which the Archbishop relies is alive and well in the provision our government has made, with wide public support, for temporary protection for Ukrainians escaping Russian aggression and for resettlement of the new Huguenots, the Hong Kong residents seeking to escape the oppressive reach of the Chinese Communist state. 

Lord Lilley — former Conservative MP Peter Lilley — posed the conundrum of loving one’s neighbour and not being able to accommodate everyone, especially those who arrive under false pretences:

This issue raises very difficult dilemmas for Christians. Being a very inadequate Christian myself, I take up the challenge from the most reverend Primate the Archbishop with trepidation: to try to formulate principles for governing our policy on asylum and migration. Not having direct access to the mind of God like the most reverend Primate the Archbishop, I seek those principles in the Bible.

I recall that our Lord said that the essence of Christianity is to love God and love our neighbour as ourselves. When asked who our neighbour is, he gave the parable of the good Samaritan, when a Samaritan helps a Jew—from which I deduce that our neighbour is not just the person next door to us and not necessarily a member of our own nation; it can be anyone. The first principle I therefore deduce is that, although charity begins at home, as a lot of my constituents used to tell me, it does not necessarily end at home. I am at one with the most reverend Primate the Archbishop on that.

Secondly, the Samaritan did what he practically could. We may be called on to help anyone we practically can, but we cannot help everyone. Again, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop recognised that and it is important that we recognise that our responsibilities are finite, in this respect.

Thirdly, when the Levite and the Jewish priest reached their destination, I have no doubt that they deplored how, owing to years of austerity, there had been insufficient spending on police and the health service to prevent the problem arising in the first place or to treat the person, instead of leaving it to the passing Samaritan. Therefore, my third principle is that, to be a good Samaritan, you have to give care, help and so on at your expense. We, as politicians, may have to take decisions on behalf of others but, in doing so, we should have consideration for the impact we are having on others and not imagine we are being virtuous when we do good at their expense.

The first principle is that charity begins at home, in how we treat people who have come to settle here. When I was a child, mass immigration into this country was just beginning. The parish in which I lived asked each family to link up with a migrant family, many of whom were lonely, isolated and, at worst, facing hostility. My family was linked up to a delightful Mauritian couple, whom we would invite to supper every few weeks. We became good friends. That was done by parishes across south London. I would love to hear from Bishops who have not yet spoken about what the churches are doing today to help integrate those who are here in our society and to be the good Samaritans to our neighbours from abroad.

But charity does not end at home. I pay tribute to those tens of thousands of people who opened their homes to families fleeing the bombing in Ukraine, while their menfolk remained to fight for their country. We should not imagine we are sharing in being good Samaritans if we throw open the doors of our country to everybody because, if we do that, we are doing good at others’ expense. We are, in effect, saying that migrants, be they legal or illegal, asylum seekers or otherwise, through housing benefit and social housing, will have access to rented and social homes. We all have our own homes, so we will not be affected. Therefore, more young people will have to wait at home or live in cramp bed-sitters for longer, because of what we, as legislators, think we are doing generously, without taking the impact on others into account.

The second principle is that our neighbour can be anyone, but it cannot be everyone. Millions of people want to come here. Look at the impact of the green card system the Americans operate, when they make 30,000 visas to the US available to certain countries and say, “Anyone can apply; there is a ballot.” Some 9% of the population of Albania applied when they heard about that being offered to them, as did 11% of the Armenian and 14% of the Liberian populations. These were only the people who heard about it and responded. The potential number who would like to come to America or Europe, if we open these so-called direct routes, would be enormous. Will we say to those who apply, at an embassy or some place abroad, that they would have the same legal rights, and opportunities to appeal or for judicial review if things are turned down? If so, potentially millions of people would join the queue. It would not shorten but lengthen it, so we have to restrict and to prioritise.

I submit to noble Lords that the priority should not be the boat people. They are not coming by boat from Basra, Somalia or Eritrea; they are coming from France, Belgium and Germany. Why are they coming here rather than staying in those safe countries? They are three or four times as likely to be rejected there. France, in the last year before the pandemic, forcibly repatriated 34,000 people. I find some strange double standards being applied here. There are no criticisms of France for being much stricter than us or of us for being much laxer than them, but one or the other must be the case.

I am coming to an end. If it is morally and legally right for the French to try to prevent people leaving their shores, and for us to pay and support the French in so doing, it should be morally and legally right for us to return them. If they cannot be returned, it is reasonable to try to deter them by saying, “If you come here, you will go to Rwanda. You always have the opportunity to stay in France.” I submit that we do not always consider these opportunities.

Later on, the Archbishop of York, the Right Revd Stephen Cottrell, spoke, an excerpt of which follows. The transcript hardly does his indignation justice. He ripped right into Lord Lilley:

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, that everyone is our neighbour. Of course, we cannot take everybody, but that makes it even more important that we have a fair system for everyone.

Dehumanising language promotes fear. Threat of destitution is used as a deterrent. Children are treated as if they are adults. Yet in our own country, among our own people, in our churches, other faith groups and communities, some things have gone well, such as the Homes for Ukraine scheme, where many people have found a home, other family members have joined them, and people have been able to get work. This is really good.

But why has our response to people fleeing other conflicts been different? Currently, the definition of family in our asylum system would not allow someone to join their sibling even if they were the last remaining relative, and being able to work and contribute is a long way off. The tragedy of our system lies in its exceptionalism, meaning that people receive differential treatment usually because of their country of origin. That underpins the Nationality and Borders Act, and I fear that further legislative action will be the same.

But we could learn from what is happening in our communities. The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, asked us directly about integration. I do not know where to begin. In hundreds of parishes and schools, and in other faith communities up and down our country, that is what we are doing—in English language classes, in befriending and in teaching people. I would be the first to admit that there are lots of things about the Church of England that could be better, but that is something that we are doing, alongside others, and it shows the best of British.

We need a system that will simply provide safe and legal routes for everyone to have equal opportunities to apply for asylum. All I am saying is that I think that would be good for us, as well as for the people who are fleeing unimaginable conflict and evil.

Finally, when it comes to being able to work, the Church of England, alongside the Refugee Council and the Government’s own Migration Advisory Committee, is a long-standing supporter of the Lift the Ban campaign.

I say all this—like many of us, I would wish to say more, but the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury said most of it—as winter arrives, and it is cold, and a cost of living crisis will inevitably affect the British people’s capacity to be hospitable. I say simply that a functioning asylum system is not a threat to our social cohesion as some fear or predict, but a dysfunctional, unfair one is.

As every small child knows at this time of the year, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, mentioned, Mary and Joseph came looking for somewhere to stay, but there was no room at the inn. Saying no, accusing those who are being hospitable of being naive, or passing the buck are easy, but saying yes, with a fair and equal system for everyone, opens up blessings for everyone.

A week later, Cottrell featured in an article in The Telegraph: ‘Forgive my “predictable leftie rant” on asylum, says Archbishop of York’.

It seems he knew he was out of order with Lord Lilley, who deserved the same courtesy as the peers agreeing with the Archbishop. It was good for Lord Lilley to speak politely on behalf of the British public.

Britons are paying upwards of £7 million a day just to house those crossing the Channel.

GB News’s Mark Steyn and his guest hosts have been covering the topic nearly every night:

Tonight #TheMarkSteynShow is live @GBNEWS at 8pm

In case you missed it, here's last night's show: https://t.co/yKITQ1AWsP

— Mark Steyn (@MarkSteynOnline) December 15, 2022

Taxpayers are deeply upset, especially during our cost of living crisis, which is causing many to choose between food and fuel.

Combine that with taxpayers’ personal expenses for Net Zero, and we are heading for disaster:

We are currently living through one of the biggest con-tricks in the history of the planet. The great virtue con. The parasitic elites are accumulating more power, wealth and control because of our compliance. It’s not virtuous. It’s greed at our expense.pic.twitter.com/cmajYqmHAH

— James Melville 🚜 (@JamesMelville) December 11, 2022

Red Wall Conservative MP Jonathan Gullis tried unsuccessfully to raise a Private Member’s Bill to get illegal migrants to Rwanda sooner rather than later:

‘We have a democratic, legal right, to protect our borders, to re-enforce our laws and people who come here illegally should be off shored.’

Conservative MP, Jonathan Gullis, who strongly backed the Rwanda policy reacts to the policy becoming law.’ pic.twitter.com/MGlQm7CRk7

— GB News (@GBNEWS) December 19, 2022

Hotels across England are being taken over by companies working for the Home Office to house the Channel-crossers:

The Mark Steyn Show: Room at the Inn …for Migrants https://t.co/oZlbojPAUK

— Mark Steyn (@MarkSteynOnline) December 20, 2022

Hospitality workers in those hotels are losing their jobs as the aforementioned companies install their own staff to manage them:

'Suddenly, it's like a factory.'

Journalist and former MEP Patrick O'Flynn talks about the 'disruption' for hotel workers, as UK hospitality staff are being sacked due to migrant hotels policy.

📺 Freeview 236, Sky 512, Virgin 604
🖥 GB News on YouTube https://t.co/Wa58gYYAod pic.twitter.com/9DV781sk9p

— GB News (@GBNEWS) December 20, 2022

The December 22 show also featured the seemingly intractable problem:

Former Sun editor Kelvin MacKenzie then swung by to weigh in on how much migrants are costing Britons.

The Home Office — read ‘civil servants’ — must do something now.

It’s obvious people are watching GB News, because they beat BBC News for the first time ever on December 14:

https://twitter.com/kelvmackenzie/status/1602981781833220097

Onwards and upwards!

House of Commons recess debate

On Tuesday, December 20, the House of Commons held its Christmas recess debate.

Normally, these are rather jolly affairs where MPs air wish lists for their constituencies for the New Year. However, this year’s contributions were rather grim, including those from Conservative MPs.

Once again, providentially, I tuned in at the right time to hear the member for Don Valley, Conservative MP Nick Fletcher. He closed his speech saying the following, the first part of which came as news to me:

Finally, Christian friends across the House tried to secure a Backbench debate on Christmas and Christianity, but by all accounts we were not successful. While I have this moment, I want to remind those in this place, and anyone who cares to watch, that although Christmas is celebrated in many ways across the world, the real reason is the birth of our saviour, Jesus Christ. He was sent as a saviour, and with the promise that whoever believes in him will have eternal life. I do not want anyone ever to forget that. Merry Christmas everybody.

Jim Shannon, a Democratic Unionist Party MP (i.e. from Northern Ireland), was one of the last MPs to speak. A devout Anglican — yes, they still exist — he gave a beautiful speech on the meaning of the season, most of which follows:

It is no secret that I love this time of year—I may have mentioned that a time or three in this House. There are so many things to love about Christmas: time with family; good food; fellowship; and, for me, the singing of an old Christmas carol as we gather in church. But the most wonderful thing about Christmas for me is the hope that it holds. I wish to speak this year about the Christ in Christmas, because, too often, we miss that. It would be good this year to focus on what Christmas is really all about. I ask Members to stick with me on this one.

The message of Christmas is not simply the nativity scene that is so beautifully portrayed in schools and churches throughout this country, but rather the hope that lies in the fact that the baby was born to provide a better future for each one of us in this House and across the world. What a message of hope that is; it is a message that each one of us needs. No matter who we are in the UK, life is tough. The past three years have been really, really tough—for those who wonder how to heat their homes; for those who have received bad news from their doctor; for those whose children have not caught up from the covid school closures; for those who mourn the loss of a loved one; for those who mourn the breakdown of a family unit; and for those who are alone and isolated. This life is not easy, and yet there is hope. That is because of the Christmas story. It is because Christ came to this world and took on the form of man so that redemption’s plan could be fulfilled. There is hope for each one of us to have that personal relationship with Christ that enables us to read the scriptures in the Bible and understand that the creator, God, stands by his promises.

I want to quote, if I may, from four Bible texts. To know that

“my God will meet all your needs according to the riches of his glory in Christ Jesus.”

That is from Philippians 4:19.

To trust that

“I am the Lord that heals you.”

To believe that

“all things are possible.”

That is Matthew 17:20.

We can be comforted by Psalm 147:3:

“He heals the brokenhearted, And binds up their wounds.”

Isaiah 41:10 says:

“So do not fear, for I am with you; do not be dismayed, for I am your God. I will strengthen you and help you; I will uphold you with my righteous right hand.”

The strength for today and bright hope for tomorrow come only when we understand who Christ is. One of my favourite Christmas passages is actually not the account of his birth, but the promise of who he is. We all know this:

“For to us a Child shall be born, to us a Son shall be given; And the government shall be upon His shoulder, And His name shall be called Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”

In a world where our very foundation seems to be shifting, how awesome it is to know that this our God is only a prayer away. A group of people come to the House of Commons two or three times a week, and pray for Parliament. I have to say how important it is to have those prayers.

As we think of this passing year—something that many of us do—we think about what has happened and perhaps look forward to 2023 with renewed hope for the future. I think we should look forward with hope; we have to do that. We should always try to be positive. In this passing year, my mind goes to the loss of Her Majesty the Queen. Many of us felt that so deeply, and yet her passing also carried the message of hope, because of Christ. I quoted this when we had the tributes to Her Majesty. It is important, I think, to put it on the record again.

The wonderful message that the Queen gave in one of her cherished Christmas messages—this one was in 2014—was crystal clear:

“For me, the life of Jesus Christ, the prince of peace, whose birth we celebrate today, is an inspiration and an anchor in my life.”

That was Her Majesty talking.

“A role model of reconciliation and forgiveness, he stretched out his hands in love, acceptance and healing. Christ’s example has taught me to seek to respect and value all people of whatever faith or none.”

It is my firm belief that this true message of Christmas is what can bring hope and healing to a nation that can seem so fractured. When I look at the headlines, I sometimes despair, but that is also when I most enjoy my constituency work, and getting to see glimpses of community spirit and goodness that are done daily and yet are rarely reported. Her Majesty’s speech in 2016 reflected that, when she said:

“Billions of people now follow Christ’s teaching and find in him the guiding light for their lives. I am one of them because Christ’s example helps me to see the value of doing small things with great love, whoever does them and whatever they themselves believe.”

At that point, Conservative MP John Hayes intervened:

It is heart-warming and refreshing to hear the hon. Gentleman’s plain and confident affirmation of his faith, and our faith too. By the way he speaks, he encourages all of us to reflect on the Judeo-Christian foundations on which our society and our civilisation are built, and I just wanted to thank him for that.

Jim Shannon thanked John Hayes before continuing:

The right hon. Gentleman is most kind. I am giving just a slight reminder of what Christmas is about. I think we all realise that, but sometimes it is good to remind ourselves of it. The example of Christ is one of humility, coming to the earth as a vulnerable baby, and of purpose, as we see the gold given that symbolises royalty, the frankincense to highlight his deity and myrrh to symbolise his purposeful death to redeem us all.

I am a strong advocate in this House for freedom of religion or belief, as the Leader of the House knows. She is always very kind; every week, when I suggest something that should be highlighted, she always takes those things back to the Ministers responsible. I appreciate that very much, as do others in this House. I am proud to be associated with that wonderful cause, and as long as God spares me I will speak for the downtrodden of my own faith and others. I speak for all faiths, because that is who I am, and so do others in this House with the same belief.

At the same time, however, like Her late Majesty, I am proud to be a follower of Christ. At this time of year I simply want the House to know the hope that can be found in Christ, not simply at Christmas, but for a lifetime. The babe of Bethlehem was Christ on the cross and our redeemer at the resurrection, and that gives me hope and offers hope for those who accept him and it.

From the bottom of my heart, Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you in particular, since you have presided over this speech and the past few hours. I thank Mr Speaker and all the other Deputy Speakers, with all the things that are happening to them, the Clerks and every staff member in this place for the tremendous job they do and the graceful spirit in which everything has been carried out in the last year. I thank right hon. and hon. Members, who are friends all—I say that honestly to everyone.

I thank my long-suffering wife, who is definitely long-suffering, and my mum—

At that point, Shannon broke down in tears.

Leader of the House Penny Mordaunt stepped in quickly and graciously while Shannon composed himself:

The hon. Gentleman has often summed up how people feel, particularly at this time of year. I know he has had losses over the past few years, and he always manages to sum up the feeling of this House. Many Members in this debate have spoken about constituents or family they have lost, and we appreciate his bringing up these issues, as I appreciate all Members’ doing so. There will be some people thinking about spending Christmas apart from family they are not able to see, or having suffered those losses. I thank him and we are all willing him strength as he continues his speech.

After a pause, Shannon resumed and concluded:

I thank the Leader of the House for that. I mentioned my long-suffering wife; we have been married 34 years, so she is very long-suffering, and that is probably a good thing, because we are still together. My mum is 91 years old and I suspect she is sitting watching the Parliament channel right now to see what her eldest son is up to and what he is saying, so again that is something.

I also thank my staff members. I told one of my Opposition colleagues last week that I live in a woman’s world, because I have six girls in my office who look after me and make sure I am right …

Lastly, I thank my Strangford constituents, who have stuck by me as a councillor, as a Member of the Legislative Assembly and as a Member of Parliament in this House. This is my 30th year of service in local government and elsewhere. They have been tremendously kind to me and I appreciate them. I want to put on record what a privilege it is to serve them in this House and to do my best for them.

I wish everyone a happy Christmas, and may everyone have a prosperous, peaceful and blessed new year, as we take the example of Christ and act with humility and purpose in this place to effect the change that we all want and that is so needed in our nation—this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, always better together.

Mr Deputy Speaker Nigel Evans said:

Your mother and wife will be as proud of you as we all are, Jim. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!] As a person of faith, I thank you very much for putting the Christ back into Christmas in your speech. We come now to the wind-ups.

When acknowledging MPs’ contributions in the debate, Penny Mordaunt said:

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) should never have to apologise for mentioning Christ in this place—especially at Christmas. We are in a place where the architecture is designed to turn our faces to God. I thank him for his Christmas message.

And, finally — best Christmas wishes to Mark Steyn

In closing, hearty Christmas wishes to Mark Steyn who is recovering from two successive heart attacks:

Get well soon Mark!

💻 GB News YouTube: https://t.co/Wa58gYGZwFhttps://t.co/ayT5Mn41ik

— GB News (@GBNEWS) December 19, 2022

He is recovering in France but told viewers more on December 19. Incredibly, the first heart attack happened before he presented one of his nightly shows on the self-styled People’s Channel. He presented it anyway. Wow:

The GB News host suffered the first one “without recognising” the symptoms, before hosting his show on The People’s Channel.

Speaking on his current absence from GB News, Steyn said: “I’m too medicated to manage artful evasions.

“I had two heart attacks. Because I didn’t recognise the first one, as such, the second one was rather more severe.”

The experienced broadcaster spoke about the shocking ordeal, saying he “doesn’t look right”, looking back at images of himself presenting the Mark Steyn show during the first heart attack.

Speaking on SteynOnline, he said: “The good news is that the first one occurred when I was in London. If you get a chance to see that day’s Mark Steyn Show, with hindsight, I don’t look quite right in close-ups.

“By not recognising it as a heart attack, I deftly avoided being one of those stories we feature on the show every couple of nights about people in the UK calling emergency and being left in the street for 15 hours before an ambulance shows up.

“I had a second heart attack in France. With Audrey [his wife?] helping me in the ambulance, she told me I was 15 minutes from death.”

The presenter also revealed he would remain in France over Christmas and New Year as he is unable to leave medical care and return to New Hampshire.

GB News viewers will be sending Mark every best wish for a speedy recovery — and a healthy, happy New Year! We look forward to seeing him on the airwaves soon!

Great tweets from Kevin McCarthy, Republican Minority Leader in the House of Representatives

Four years ago at this time, I was lukewarm about Kevin McCarthy, the Republican (Minority) Leader in America’s House of Representatives.

He represents California’s 23rd District, so he knows a lot about the state’s politics.

He wasn’t too keen on Donald Trump in 2016, but, since then, he got on board the Trump Train and makes a lot of sense.

Below are some of his latest and greatest tweets.

The 2020 results for the House

Six days after the 2020 election, he tweeted:

Here's a group photo of me with all the House Republicans who lost races this year. https://t.co/hmXdK0TA0Z pic.twitter.com/DypRSCts7K

— Kevin McCarthy (@SpeakerMcCarthy) December 9, 2020

He also had a go at Nancy Pelosi’s predictions about the election results. She was so wrong:

Pelosi on Election Day: "Democrats are poised to further strengthen our majority."

Pelosi today: "I never said that we were going to pick up" seats. pic.twitter.com/6s14zfA3LO

— Kevin McCarthy (@SpeakerMcCarthy) November 13, 2020

2020 election censorship

On Wednesday, December 9, YouTube posted a statement: ‘Supporting the 2020 U.S. Election’.

It reads in part (emphases mine):

Yesterday was the safe harbor deadline for the U.S. Presidential election and enough states have certified their election results to determine a President-elect. Given that, we will start removing any piece of content uploaded today (or anytime after) that misleads people by alleging that widespread fraud or errors changed the outcome of the 2020 U.S. Presidential election, in line with our approach towards historical U.S. Presidential elections. For example, we will remove videos claiming that a Presidential candidate won the election due to widespread software glitches or counting errors. We will begin enforcing this policy today, and will ramp up in the weeks to come. As always, news coverage and commentary on these issues can remain on our site if there’s sufficient education, documentary, scientific or artistic context.

While only a small portion of watch time is election-related content, YouTube continues to be an important source of election news. On average 88% of the videos in top 10 search results related to elections came from authoritative news sources (amongst the rest are things like newsy late-night shows, creator videos and commentary). And the most viewed channels and videos are from news channels like NBC and CBS.

NBC and CBS weren’t biased, were they?

Kevin McCarthy was quick to respond. He’s absolutely right. There was nothing like this in 2016:

YouTube is now targeting and removing videos from conservatives who expose election fraud.

Remember how they cracked down on the Left's propaganda about Trump in 2016? No?

Apparently, speech is only "dangerous" if it doesn't align with Big Tech's views. pic.twitter.com/0hWCAI2GT9

— Kevin McCarthy (@SpeakerMcCarthy) December 9, 2020

Praise for Trump’s historic five peace deals in four months

On Thursday, December 10, the Trump administration made history once again, with yet another exceptional peace deal, where people said none could be done.

Yes, Donald Trump is the Peace President:

President @realDonaldTrump is the Peace President !

🇺🇸 🇮🇱 🇦🇪 Israel-UAE peace

🇺🇸 🇮🇱 🇧🇭 Israel-Bahrain peace

🇺🇸 🇷🇸 🇽🇰 Serbia-Kosovo economic normalization

🇺🇸 🇮🇱 🇸🇩 Israel-Sudan peace 

and today… 🇺🇸 🇮🇱 🇲🇦 Israel-Morocco peace

👏👏👏 Jared Kushner! https://t.co/NqNysy957E

— Ivanka Trump (@IvankaTrump) December 10, 2020

I couldn’t agree more:

5 peace deals in 4 months—the Trump Administration's historic success in normalizing relations across the Middle East has been nothing short of remarkable. https://t.co/25MnJ0epqV

— Kevin McCarthy (@SpeakerMcCarthy) December 10, 2020

China

A week ago, I wrote on Orphans of Liberty about the revelations that a female Chinese spy was active in California and the Midwest for several years (see the part on China). The principal politician involved was Rep. Eric Swalwell. The Chinese national, Fang ‘Christine’ Fang, met him when he was councillor for a San Francisco Bay area town, Dublin City. At the time, she was a student at California State University East Bay and affiliated with the Chinese Student Association.

Swalwell was first elected to US Congress in 2012. He was re-elected in 2014. Fang was his ‘bundler’ for campaign contributions. That was ideal for her and for China. She ended up placing a few political interns in his offices, including one in Washington, DC.

Fang overplayed her hand in the months to come. By 2015 — and this was during Obama’s second term — the FBI was on to her. They gave Swalwell a defence briefing about Fang and he put an end to his association with her.

Nonetheless, Swalwell has served on the House Intelligence Committee for several years. He is still serving on the House Intelligence Committee.

Furthermore, few people are more vocally anti-Trump than Eric Swalwell. He was one of the principal peddlers of the ‘Russian collusion’ narrative.

Kevin McCarthy nailed it with this tweet from Tuesday, December 8:

Rep. Swalwell has long been disqualified from serving on the Intel Committee. For years he peddled Russian disinformation for political gain.

Now we find out he was involved in an effort by a reported spy to gather info for China.

Swalwell is a national security liability.

— Kevin McCarthy (@SpeakerMcCarthy) December 8, 2020

The following day, he explained to Laura Ingraham of Fox News that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi nominated him to that committee. Did Madam Speaker know about Swalwell’s connections? If so, she never should have nominated him:

Rep. Eric Swalwell has years-long ties with a reported spy from China. Did Nancy Pelosi know that when she appointed him to the House Intelligence Committee? pic.twitter.com/phxYWT7Yf5

— Kevin McCarthy (@SpeakerMcCarthy) December 9, 2020

On Monday, December 14, he also had a go at Adam Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, about Swalwell. Schiff, also a Democrat, is another US legislator from California:

Adam Schiff—the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee—was warned by @DNI_Ratcliffe about China's blackmail strategy this summer. Why did he keep Eric Swalwell on the committee given his ties to a reported Chinese spy? https://t.co/JUgwigOpRL

— Kevin McCarthy (@SpeakerMcCarthy) December 14, 2020

This is his message for the next session of Congress, when the Speaker of the House position is once again up for grabs:

If you're a Democrat Member of Congress and you vote for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker on January 3rd, you're also voting to put Eric Swalwell back on the Intel Committee. pic.twitter.com/CFWbIQ7CRN

— Kevin McCarthy (@SpeakerMcCarthy) December 13, 2020

Coronavirus lockdowns

For me, however, this is Kevin McCarthy’s best tweet:

RT to agree —> Lockdowns destroy livelihoods.

— Kevin McCarthy (@SpeakerMcCarthy) December 5, 2020

Yes, they do, indeed.

In August, he tweeted:

Dear Democrat Party leaders: This is an international health crisis—not a political opportunity to restructure American life.

— Kevin McCarthy (@SpeakerMcCarthy) August 5, 2020

Yet, the longer lockdowns and restrictions go on, the more people are likely to believe small business closures, particularly those in the hospitality sector, are a way of letting either big firms or the Chinese in to buy vacant property.

Yesterday, Howie Carr interviewed a restaurant owner from the North End in Boston who has a long-established restaurant that is opening and closing at the whims of city officials and the Massachusetts governor. The man was fighting back tears. This is not easy — at all. He said he does not know what is going on but he says that all the benefit is going to big corporations rather than to him and his brother as well as other small business owners.

When I found McCarthy’s ‘lockdowns destroy livelihoods’ tweet, I’d also spotted a prescient comment from someone who has been an ex-Democrat since 2008. The comment is excerpted below:

…Why are all the Dem leaders so blatantly cold & heartless & PUNITIVE towards destroying people’s lives…while continuing to party in their own lives

Why would Cuomo & DeBlasio let NY turn into a ghost town? and Newsome & Garcetti let the great state of California & the once grand city of Los Angeles die a slow death to the point of driving even Silicon Valley & Elon Musk to skedaddle out to greener & nicer pastures taking all their jobs & moola with them??? Why??

…and then it hit me……there is a strategy…the Dems want the businesses to fail; they want the small business people to fail…they want to kill their golden goose…WHY? Democrats have always been big supporters of Eminent Domain…I could not believe it when I found out years ago it is usually the Dems behind confisicating people’s land, homes, businesses…not really repubs…they believe in their right to do that…for the “greater good”

so my theory goes Dem leaders want to suffocate the small business & real estate & workers to the point of blight & where they give up, lose their businesses & property, have their business licenses & credentials taken away from them, etc

…and then Dems claim all the property & real estate, small businesses under eminent domain or some other concocted device…take what they want …demolish the rest & start selling the locations & properties to FOREIGN INVESTORS…namely CHINA, CHINA, CHINA…

Does anyone doubt that CHINA (given we are speaking about Dems, throw in Iran, etc) would love to own Los Angeles & New York City?

THIS is what I believe is the method to their madness…let things get as bad as they conceivably can without being too obvious…and then one by one Foreign money will appear & buy up the fire sales…& then recreate in their own image a “New America” with Dems in charge of who gets what & at what price.

That is very plausible, very plausible. And, if it is, it won’t just be true in the United States. What about the many European countries experiencing endless lockdowns and restrictions?

The Democrats — either at state or federal level — are not helping the normal American who has worked hard to make his or her living.

McCarthy retweeted this:

Translating this headline:

Increasingly Radical and Socialist Democrat Majority Led Least Productive Congress in Decades.https://t.co/JJBUi2zX9e

— Guy Reschenthaler (@GReschenthaler) December 14, 2020

As he told Maria Bartiromo of Fox News, Nancy Pelosi used this despicable strategy to hurt President Trump. Instead, it hurt millions of Americans:

McCarthy: Pelosi wanted to 'hurt' Trump by withholding stimulus https://t.co/qnnfFXICJg @MorningsMaria @FoxBusiness @GOPLeader || On Parler @Mariabartiromotv

— Maria Bartiromo (@MariaBartiromo) December 14, 2020

Civil rights

On civil rights, McCarthy knows the history of the Republican Party, which has championed them from the 19th century:

The Republican Party is the Party of Lincoln, grounded in the values of freedom and equality for all people.

150 years ago today, the first Black American was sworn into Congress—a Republican named Joseph Rainey from @SenatorTimScott's home of South Carolina. pic.twitter.com/I5lk1bGPgQ

— Kevin McCarthy (@SpeakerMcCarthy) December 12, 2020

150 years ago, South Carolina’s first congressional district elected the first Black American to the U.S. Congress. 140 years later, that same district honored me with the same opportunity. @GOPLeader and I spoke about this important legacy. pic.twitter.com/d8HB24JGtH

— Tim Scott (@SenatorTimScott) December 12, 2020

After the 2020 election, McCarthy pointed out the diversity among the Republican winners:

Pundits said Republicans would lose 15-20 seats in the House. But the reality is that we gained seats with an incredible group of candidates who are women, minorities, and veterans. pic.twitter.com/u5o3TTfKAc

— Kevin McCarthy (@SpeakerMcCarthy) November 6, 2020

Oldies but goodies from 2018 up to 2020

In 2018, McCarthy proved that a goodly number of Democrat congressmen don’t care whether illegals vote in a US election:

STAT OF THE DAY: 140 Democrats refused to vote ‘YES’ on a resolution condemning voting by illegal immigrants in our elections. pic.twitter.com/07wnF5p9ha

— Kevin McCarthy (@SpeakerMcCarthy) September 27, 2018

Nearly three weeks later — and three weeks before the mid-term election that year — Newt Gingrich lauded McCarthy for his stance on immigration: ‘Here’s a leader with a plan to genuinely control our southern border. He needs our support’.

California politics is part of this, too:

When House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., introduced the Build the Wall, Enforce the Law Act he set the stage for a vital national debate on important questions …

When contrasted with the open borders bill of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. – which every Democratic Senate incumbent has co-sponsored – the choice between the two parties is clear.

Republicans will control the border. Democrats will throw the border wide open to anyone who wants to enter.

On October 23 that year, Fox News reported that two men threw a large rock through the window of McCarthy’s office in Bakersfield, California. The men then burglarised the equipment inside:

McCarthy posted four photographs documenting the alleged episode on Instagram — three showing the individuals he identified as possible suspects, and one providing a clear view of a massive slab of rock lying on the floor amid shattered glass.

“Does anyone know these two guys?” McCarthy wrote on the social media site, next to images of two people spotted near his office.

The Bakersfield Police Department did not comment on the alleged incident when reached by Fox News and said it would have more information on Tuesday.

McCarthy, like several other congressional Republicans, has faced threats and harassment in the past several weeks. In August, protesters in Sacramento chanting “No justice, no peace” disrupted McCarthy’s event at the Public Policy Institute of California.

Ironically, on Thursday, McCarthy retweeted President Trump’s “#JobsNotMobs” slogan, underscoring the deteriorating level of civility in politics ahead of the Nov. 6 midterm elections.

After the November 6 election that year, McCarthy was approved by a vote of 159-43 to become the new House Minority Leader.

McCarthy is someone who appeals to all Republicans. Trump, however, also wanted a more controversial figure to also represent his interests — Jim Jordan from Ohio, a wrestler during his university days:

NEW: Trump has nudged Kevin McCarthy to make JIM JORDAN the top Republican in the Judiciary Committee — which would put Trump’s fiercest loyalist in position to defend him against investigations and impeachment.https://t.co/VMyDNDqp8U

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) November 14, 2018

Jim Jordan did not get his appointment as Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee until March 20, 2020. That said, Doug Collins (R-Georgia) did an excellent job defending the president during his impeachment hearings.

During Sen. Chuck Schumer’s (D-NY) shutdown early in 2019, McCarthy wanted Congress in session:

SWAMP STRIKES AGAIN → Every single House Democrat just voted to leave town after less than 4 hours on the job. Congress should stay in session until the #SchumerShutdown is over. pic.twitter.com/RxZSbYQW5g

— Kevin McCarthy (@SpeakerMcCarthy) January 3, 2019

During that time, he also made it clear that he supports small government:

While we seek cooperation, there is one core principle upon which we will not compromise. Republicans will always choose personal freedom over government control. pic.twitter.com/lannThXzFO

— Kevin McCarthy (@SpeakerMcCarthy) January 3, 2019

At the end of January 2019, in an effort for tighter border legislation, McCarthy gave a speech about the many Americans who had been the victims of crime at the hands of illegals. It was so moving that he received a bipartisan standing ovation.

A few days later, he upheld the right to life in criticising Virginia’s Democrat governor Ralph Northam for his egregious racist behaviour and stance on abortion:

VA Governor Ralph Northam’s past racist behavior caps a week where he displayed an egregious lack of respect for human dignity and the American values that we fight every day to uphold. Staying in office only poisons efforts to grow together as one nation. He should resign.

— Kevin McCarthy (@SpeakerMcCarthy) February 2, 2019

Sadly, Northam’s still there.

On February 19, 2019, he posited that Adam Schiff should have recused himself from investigating Trump’s notional ‘Russian collusion’ because Schiff met with Glenn Simpson, the founder of GPS Fusion, the opposition research firm behind the Democrat-funded Steele dossier at the Aspen Security Forum in July 2018.

The matter persisted through the end of March that year, but Schiff is still the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

In April, he warned Americans of the Democrat plan to regulate the Internet. He countered that Republicans want to keep the Internet free and open.

Two months later, he pointed out that YouTube considers itself a publisher, not a platform. It should be noted that a publisher can choose what to publish, a platform — which YouTube claims to be — cannot.

Kevin McCarthy also managed to raise a lot of money for President Trump’s 2020 campaign, starting in 2019:

….Paul Ryan almost killed the Republican Party. Weak, ineffective & stupid are not exactly the qualities that Republicans, or the CITIZENS of our Country, were looking for. Right now our spirit is at an all time high, far better than the Radical Left Dems. You’ll see next year!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 13, 2019

McCarthy had a strategy to win a House majority in 2020. Sadly, that didn’t work — and historically, it’s very difficult — BUT at least the Republicans did not lose any seats (see the first tweet in this post).

In late October 2019, McCarthy rightly criticised the secrecy that Adam Schiff engineered around the preparations for Trump’s impeachment. Republicans were not allowed to see some of the evidence.

McCarthy refused to give it legitimacy:

It’s been 34 days since Nancy Pelosi unilaterally declared her impeachment inquiry.

Today’s backtracking is an admission that this process has been botched from the start.

We will not legitimize the Schiff/Pelosi sham impeachment.

— Kevin McCarthy (@SpeakerMcCarthy) October 28, 2019

On December 6, 2019, McCarthy brought Pelosi’s forked tongue approach to the attention of all Americans:

Speaker Pelosi: "An impeachment is not a pleasant experience. It can be divisive. We don't take any glee in this at all."

Also Pelosi—hours later: "It's pretty exciting to have the role, to be here at this time." pic.twitter.com/9jtwBMpMXE

— Kevin McCarthy (@SpeakerMcCarthy) December 6, 2019

In January 2020, McCarthy set an all-time annual fundraising record for the Republicans:

Great job ⁦@GOPLeader⁩ nice to see real leadership at work.

Exclusive: McCarthy Sets All-Time Annual Fundraising Record as GOP Seeks to Retake Majority https://t.co/v8oyyHXEvc

— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) January 28, 2020

On February 5, 2020, McCarthy announced that Trump was ‘acquitted for life’:

Acquitted for life. pic.twitter.com/HgqBXwpoWK

— Kevin McCarthy (@SpeakerMcCarthy) February 5, 2020

He defended Attorney General Bill Barr (who is leaving his post this month) against 2,000 former DoJ — Department of Justice — employees who wanted him to resign.

In June, he saw the agenda that lies behind people who want to topple statues and destroy police stations, public housing as well as churches:

The left-wing mob presents a serious threat to the American way of life. They won’t stop at statues. They've already torched police precincts, low-income housing, and churches.

This violence against people and property cannot go unpunished. https://t.co/EhtGC9l3Dp

— Kevin McCarthy (@SpeakerMcCarthy) June 24, 2020

Later this past summer, he appeared in a moving campaign ad for President Trump:

A great nation because of great people. I’m proud to stand with @realdonaldtrump and to work for YOU. #RNC2020 🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/eeclyiCo1N

— Kevin McCarthy (@kevinomccarthy) August 28, 2020

In a change from four or more years ago, McCarthy stated that he did not want an endorsement from the Chamber of Commerce. That is because the Chamber of Commerce rejected Trump in 2020 and endorsed Democrats instead. Now please revisit the ex-Dem’s comment earlier in this post about what could happen to the property that businesses going bust from coronavirus leave behind. It is entirely possible that those properties could be sold to a foreign entity or to big real estate developers.

On Wednesday, November 4, the day after the election, he tweeted, ‘Americans rejected socialism and voted for freedom’, which was true at state and federal levels. Team Trump continues to contest the presidential results.

McCarthy wants the battle for truth to continue. On November 6, he told Laura Ingraham of Fox News, ‘Republicans will not be silenced’.

I have enjoyed what I have seen and heard from Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California over the past four years. I hope he continues like this, because, if he does, he would make an excellent Speaker of the House someday.

More on the phalanx of Democrats who support abortion

Yesterday’s post on Democrat support for abortion featured Pete Buttigieg and a Fordham University bioethics professor who was so distraught by the mayor’s pro-choice stance that he resigned from the board of Democrats for Life.

Last week, the Revd Franklin Graham was astonished to hear Bernie Sanders say that being ‘pro-choice’ — supporting abortion — was part and parcel of being a Democrat:

“The Democratic Party has changed so much that it’s hard to believe…Just a few days ago @BernieSanders declared that ‘being pro-choice is an absolutely essential part of being a Democrat.’ That’s shocking and disturbing.” @Franklin_Graham https://t.co/0QyMZ6PfJH

— Dan Scavino Jr.🇺🇸🦅 (@DanScavino) February 13, 2020

The son of the late Billy Graham rightly wondered where the ‘outcry’ was against such a stance.

The Breitbart article of February 12 linked in the tweet tells us that Graham sent a sharp warning about socialism before urging Christians to ‘wake up’ (emphases mine):

The evangelical leader went on to urge Christians to wake up to what is happening in the Democrat party and to take to heart their civic duty to vote.

“This is an example of why it is so important for people of faith to research who you vote for in every election and understand where they stand on issues that are important to you,” he said.

“I urge Christians to pray for our nation, our leaders, and the upcoming elections, from local to national. Make sure that you are registered to vote, otherwise we will lose our country,” he warned.

True.

This November, Republicans, the supporters of the rights of the unborn — and, yes, as God’s creation, the unborn do have rights — need to win back the House of Representatives and maintain, if not increase, their majority in the Senate.

I despair of notional Christians, including clergy, who are lukewarm on the subject of abortion. They laud the Democrats as the only politicians with ethics. The way it looks to many of us, even overseas, is that most Democrat politicians lack ethics, pure and simple. I am struggling to think of any in the House or Senate who deal honestly and fairly.

One thing is for sure: most Democrats no longer support life in the womb.

Democrats refuse to defend the rights of the unborn

Where do Democrats stand in defending the rights of the unborn? Sadly, nowhere.

Yet, it has taken several years for this truth to dawn on lifetime Democrat voters.

It is unfortunate that Pete ‘Mayor Pete’ Buttigieg (pron. ‘Budd-uh-judge’) of South Bend, Indiana, is an Episcopalian. He puts the denomination to shame in his support of late-term abortion. Yet, many other Episcopalians — also Democrats — do, too:

High profile Catholics are now leaving the Democratic Party, drawing many more to join them. The last remaining Pro-Life caucus within the party (Democrats for Life) is imploding…https://t.co/ChjFCqf8ty

— Shane Schaetzel (@ShaneSchaetzel) February 12, 2020

On Tuesday, February 11, 2020, at least one Catholic Democrat saw the light, as Mayor Pete defended abortion until the bitter end. Interestingly, Mayor Pete’s dad was a left-wing professor at the University of Notre Dame who was a co-founder and past president of the International Gramsci Society. Who can make sense out of that? But I digress.

LifeSite News reported that the professor who termed Mayor Pete’s views as ‘the straw that broke this camel’s back’ is:

Charles Camosy, an associate professor of Theology at Fordham University, has also resigned from the board of Democrats for Life. 

Camosy, who specializes in biomedical ethics, explained his reasons for his decision in an op ed he wrote for Thursday’s New York Post: the Democrats’ complete disregard for the unborn child.  

Also (emphases mine):

… it was same-sex married Pete Buttigieg’s attitude to late-term abortion, aired last week on The View, that convinced Camosy that pro-life Democrats are “fighting a losing battle” in convincing their party to respect their position. Buttigieg had indicated that he didn’t think the government should have any say regarding late-term abortion or post-birth infanticide. 

“The straw that broke this camel’s back was Pete Buttigieg’s extremism,” Camosy wrote. 

“Here was a mainstream Democratic candidate suggesting, at one point, that abortion is OK up to the point the baby draws her first breath.” 

He concluded that if the party was “willing to go all-in on the most volatile issue of our time with a position held by only 13 percent of the population, it was time to take no for an answer.”

Camosy also predicted that, thanks to its pro-abortion “extremism,” the Democratic Party will lose the next election. 

We can but hope. If they win, they will have cheated; of that, I’m sure.

Dr Camosy does not think he will be able to vote Republican, though:

“My broader values mean I can’t vote Republican, however, and this makes me one of many millions of Americans for whom our political duopoly doesn’t work,” he wrote.

That’s too bad. Opening up other minor yet established parties does not work, either. The British proved that in their December 12, 2019 election.

LifeSite News has more of what Camosy wrote for the New York Post, all of it worthwhile reading. It also quotes Mayor Pete’s views for The View.

In closing, this is what Camosy had to say in his op-ed about the Democrats’ stance on late-term abortion:

Camosy asked them to participate in a thought experiment in which they suppose that “hundreds of thousands of children are being killed each year in horrific ways,” either because they have Down syndrome, or because their grandparents think their parents are too young, or because an abusive partner demands it.

“And then suppose a political party claimed this killing was a social good. Just another kind of health care. Something to shout about with pride,” the ethicist asked.

“This party, it should go without saying, would be unsupportable,” he concluded.

Just so.

Sounds a lot like eugenics, doesn’t it?

More will follow on the Democrats’ views on abortion.

Historic first: US president — Donald Trump — addresses March for Life

On Friday, January 24, 2020, the thousands gathering for the annual March for Life witnessed an historic event, an address to them in person by a US president.

Donald Trump delivered a brief address to the 47th March for Life in Washington, DC. None of his predecessors have ever done that:

Here he is, arriving on stage. These short videos are worth watching:

https://t.co/9BwuMPBzjw pic.twitter.com/Zrb3lHXj6d

— Dan Scavino Jr. Archived (@Scavino45) January 24, 2020

https://t.co/c1KBtLnbQn pic.twitter.com/ZPoaFDppg2

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 25, 2020

Here are a few highlights from his speech:

President @realDonaldTrump: Every child is a precious and sacred gift from God#MarchForLife pic.twitter.com/LsV9JAgret

— Team Trump (Text TRUMP to 88022) (@TeamTrump) January 24, 2020

President @realDonaldTrump: Every child brings joy to a family #MarchForLife pic.twitter.com/gtdav9pGPr

— Team Trump (Text TRUMP to 88022) (@TeamTrump) January 24, 2020

President @realDonaldTrump: Young people are the heart of the #MarchForLife pic.twitter.com/V2aPPb2MKp

— Team Trump (Text TRUMP to 88022) (@TeamTrump) January 24, 2020

President @realDonaldTrump: We cannot know what our citizens yet unborn will achieve, the dreams they will imagine, the masterpieces they will create #MarchForLife pic.twitter.com/bdjrR37qF3

— Team Trump (Text TRUMP to 88022) (@TeamTrump) January 24, 2020

President @realDonaldTrump on his many Pro-Life accomplishments#MarchForLife pic.twitter.com/bCeU7XdEBc

— Team Trump (Text TRUMP to 88022) (@TeamTrump) January 24, 2020

President @realDonaldTrump: When it comes to abortion, Democrats have embraced the most radical and extreme positions#MarchForLife pic.twitter.com/OaO9Y88qAL

— Team Trump (Text TRUMP to 88022) (@TeamTrump) January 24, 2020

President @realDonaldTrump: They are coming after me, because I am fighting for you!#MarchForLife pic.twitter.com/mPv2XQJRMe

— Team Trump (Text TRUMP to 88022) (@TeamTrump) January 24, 2020

Read more in the transcript of his speech.

Donald Trump is the greatest pro-life president ever:

"Since his first day in office, they said, Trump has not only reversed pro-abortion policies and funding put in place by President Barack Obama, he has acted on nearly every request the pro-life movement has asked of him."

A historic pro-life presidency: https://t.co/6jAWxAmcHS

— The White House 45 Archived (@WhiteHouse45) January 25, 2020

Some say he is America’s most important Christian voice:

.@CatholicLeague's Bill Donohue writes re: @realDonaldTrump "His pro-life record, coupled with his record in defense of religious liberty, makes him the most important Christian voice in the United States." https://t.co/OqglfyNwQ2

— CNSNews (@cnsnews) January 24, 2020

Even the Vatican took notice:

OMG! I can die now. I’ve seen everything. Somebody at the Vatican said something nice about President Donald Trump. https://t.co/gxhWTIB90J

— Shane Schaetzel (@ShaneSchaetzel) January 24, 2020

The March for Life receives very little news coverage from the mainstream outlets. This is a great time-lapse photography video of the march taking place:

If this were a woman’s march or an impeachment protest it would be picked up by every outlet

But because they are Pro-Life, this HISTORIC march won’t get any coverage

THIS is how America feels about the unborn

RT so the media can’t ignore this movement! pic.twitter.com/L3vo3CBZuU

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) January 24, 2020

The designated thoroughfares were full of pro-life supporters:

https://twitter.com/ccpecknold/status/1220887696555548704

Here are the lucky thousands closest to the stage:

Woah 👀#MarchForLife #ProLifeVoicesForTrump pic.twitter.com/DWhYFbGvV4

— Team Trump (Text TRUMP to 88022) (@TeamTrump) January 24, 2020

So many Americans are grateful for the gift of their own lives. Adoption is very important:

One of the most beautiful things about today’s March for Life was seeing how many lives were changed by adoption!

This beautiful young lady is here today because of a woman who decided to keep her baby and a mother who welcomed her with open arms.

❤️ pic.twitter.com/I4V7W0k2JR

— Kayleigh McEnany (@kayleighmcenany) January 24, 2020

However, the media would prefer that you not see that. This is their line on the unborn:

Reminds me of this argument from pro-abortion @chriscquinn last year on CNN:

"When a woman gets pregnant, that is not a human being inside of her" pic.twitter.com/vTFrzEGS86

— Matt Wolking (@MattWolking) January 24, 2020

Wrong:

Human life begins at fertilization.

It's a scientific fact!#MarchforLife pic.twitter.com/d6VyvLxKD7

— PragerU (@prageru) January 24, 2020

In the 1980s, President Reagan made an excellent point:

"I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born."

– Ronald Reagan pic.twitter.com/U69DJTGpqV

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) January 24, 2020

It is most encouraging to see the March for Life go from strength to strength, especially among younger Americans.

It was also great to see President Trump appear before them to speak. He is the only president with enough mettle so to do.

May God continue to bless everyone involved in the March for Life.

May He also continue to bless President Trump, who has faced four years of relentless opposition, impeachment being the latest.

Michael Voris on anti-Trumpers and Roe v Wade

When I saw the title of the video below that Catholic commentator Michael Voris made, I thought, ‘Uh-huh’.

Whilst I agree that President Trump is fighting a battle of Good v Evil, I’m a bit weary of seeing it online every day, as if it were something new.

In the end, I gave in and watched it.

This is one of the best videos you will see on Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court and anti-Trumpers. It’s only seven-and-a-half minutes long:

Voris begins by discussing the pro-life convictions of Evangelical Protestant clergy in the United States, whom, he says, defend life in the womb wholeheartedly. By contrast, he points out that Catholic bishops are silent on the subject and promote causes like climate change and social justice instead.

Yes!

How is it that more Catholics have not yet become Protestants? Surely, the past decade or so has seen the gravest crisis the Church has faced since the Reformation. Perhaps they are afraid. Catholics — and I was one — are told from the time they are small children that they must never become Protestant because they will go to hell. I have friends and family who still believe this, even though they no longer attend Mass.

Then we have Francis in the Vatican, the pontiff who cannot muster a Christian blessing any more.

Gloria.tv has the story, complete with video:

Francis again refused to give a Papal blessing during a November 30 audience for a summit of 3,500 children of the international environmental World Summit “I can.”

At the end of the audience he asked to silently pray for one another.

Then Francis added to “ask God to bless us all. Amen.” He did not invoke God, nor speak as a priest in his name, nor make a sign of the cross …

That man is spiritually sick.

But I digress.

Back now to Michael Voris’s video.

Michael Voris says that the Democrats want to impeach Trump primarily because they fear that, if he stays in office, the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v Wade. He says that this is the reason the Left talk so much about Ruth Bader Ginsburg. If she goes, the next Supreme Court Justice is likely to be a young (relatively speaking) conservative.

Therefore, according to Democrat thinking, Trump has to go now before he can make that eventual nomination. If he remains in office — which, I think we all agree he will, even Michael Voris — and gets a new conservative Justice to replace Ginsburg when the time comes, then, the chances are likely that the Supreme Court could overturn Roe v Wade.

Voris says that, if such a vote took place now, Justice Roberts would have the deciding vote, and he would be unlikely to want to be in that position. (Roberts can be rather wet when his is the deciding vote.)

However, should there be another conservative Justice, then Roberts could vote against Roe v Wade more easily.

Voris then explores the sacrifice of children via abortion, saying that the Left are in league with Satan.

When you hear him explain it and watch the graphics, it sounds very plausible.

He ends by pointing out the irony of an ex-playboy billionaire being the most pro-life American president in living memory.

I couldn’t agree more.

Why Joe Biden was denied Holy Communion

On Sunday, October 27, 2019, Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden was denied Holy Communion at Mass in South Carolina because he has publicly supported abortion.

Fox News reported that Biden, a self-described ‘practising Catholic’, had no comment on being refused the Sacrament:

“I’m not going to discuss that,” Biden told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell in an on-air phone interview on Tuesday.

Biden and his wife attended Mass at the St. Anthony Catholic Church in Florence during a campaign stop, but he was denied Holy Communion — seen by Catholics as receiving the body and blood of Jesus Christ — after the pastor took issue with Biden’s support of a woman’s right to an abortion.

The pastor of St Anthony’s was quite open about the refusal:

“Sadly, this past Sunday, I had to refuse Holy Communion to former Vice President Joe Biden,” Rev. Robert Morey said in a statement on Monday. “Holy Communion signifies we are one with God, each other and the Church. Our actions should reflect that. Any public figure who advocates for abortion places himself or herself outside of Church teaching. As a priest, it is my responsibility to minister to those souls entrusted to my care, and I must do so even in the most difficult situations. I will keep Mr. Biden in my prayers.”

Good for him. It was unlikely to have been an easy decision to make, considering the former vice president’s status as a political celebrity.

A Catholic pastor, Fr Ryan of St Mary’s in Huntingburg, Indiana, explains the finer points of refusing Holy Communion:

https://twitter.com/FrHilderbrand/status/1189232617310380033

https://twitter.com/FrHilderbrand/status/1189233415515713542

However, Biden is on public record for his support of abortion ‘rights’. Note in particular the first tweet below. The Scripture citation is 1 Corinthians 11:29:

https://twitter.com/FrHilderbrand/status/1189234683030261764

https://twitter.com/FrHilderbrand/status/1189237121141428226

Every Catholic knows what the rules are for Holy Communion.

Joe Biden should have learned from John Kerry in 2004.

That said, perhaps supporting abortion means more to the two of them than receiving Communion.

Now there’s something to think about.

News in brief: making sense of life, death — and cloud computing

I intend to return to my reviews of Cannes restaurants.

However, so many strange news stories have appeared that it is worth taking note of a few.

Apple bans LifeSite News

Today, I happened across this tweet:

https://twitter.com/Skipeep1/status/1157680388543619072

On July 31, LifeSite News reported:

A little over one week ago, Apple approved LifeSiteNews’ application to publish our news on their Apple News platform.

Today, without warning, Apple News abruptly reversed course, telling LifeSite that they had deleted our channel and all of our content from their platform.

Apple claimed that LifeSite’s channel “didn’t comply with our Apple News guidelines.” Specifically, they stated that LifeSite’s “[c]hannel content shows intolerance towards a specific group.”

Planned Parenthood, perhaps?

Apple would not say:

“We don’t yet know the reason for Apple’s decision to delete our channel,” said LifeSiteNews Editor-in-Chief John-Henry Westen. “However, at a time when there is growing evidence that tech juggernauts are engaging in concerted censorship against even mainstream conservative viewpoints, Apple’s decision – made unilaterally, and without opportunity to appeal – is frightening.”

“It goes without saying that LifeSite would never promote intolerance or hatred against any group,” Westen continued. “However, in our current divisive political climate, even mild expressions of common conservative viewpoints are often written off as de facto hatred and intolerance. We certainly hope that this is not what Apple is doing. However, we urge our readers to contact Apple, and to respectfully demand that they reinstate LifeSite’s channel.”

Anyone who would like to support LifeSite in being reinstated can sign their petition.

LifeSite first applied to be listed on Apple News in November 2018. It took six months before they were accepted. Now they have been denied.

This is pure censorship.

Think of it this way:

https://twitter.com/Morgxn2001/status/1158169580625223680

El Paso shooting

Speaking of guns, Karl ‘Market Ticker’ Denninger has an excellent essay on the El Paso shooting, which took place on Saturday, August 3, 2019.

‘On El Paso’ is worth reading in full. Denninger makes salient points about the American shootings that cause the most outrage — and which are most easily cleared up.

Inner-city shooting cases rarely get solved (emphases in the original):

The clearance rate (that is, the odds of getting arrested if you shoot someone) in Chicago is 9%.  In Atlanta, 12%.  In almost every other major city (Baltimore anyone?), it’s roughly the same.  Yeah, if you go insane and start shooting people in a WallyWorld en-masse you’re either going to jail and will get the needle or will just get shot where you stand.

But if you shoot people one at a time you have a ten percent chance of getting caught; 9 out of 10 times you get away with it.  I know people who were close with someone who got shot, the dead person was not a gang member or otherwise engaged in activity that typically gets you shot (he was an ordinary businessman) and the perpetrator has not been identified or arrested a full year later.

That is not uncommon.  In fact it’s not only common it’s a 90% probability if you get plugged in a major city right here, right now.

He says that is why law-abiding Americans need guns:

If that doesn’t force your pea-sized brain awake long enough to realize that the cops are worthless in solving crimes and their best, highest and only calling is to zip your ass into a black bag and haul it away after you get killed then you are too stupid to deserve to be able to reproduce.  There is only one way to stop that sort of crap and that is for you to stop it, personally, if someone intends to whack you or someone you love.  To do that, especially if you’re not a 20 year old body-builder male, you’re going to need the only equalizing force ever invented by mankind and you better know how to use it too.

It’s called a gun.

Yet, as he points out, the small town or suburban mass shootings generate all the leftist outrage.

Of course, their cry is always for gun control. However, Denninger explains why gun control will not work:

… cut the crap on the “gun control” nonsense.  Just over the border, a few miles away, there are more guns than you can shake a stick at — everyone of them unregistered in America because they’re in Mexico.  Juarez is an insanely violent area, and it’s right there.  You want a gun and can’t pass a background check here, get it there.  93% of crimes go unreported in Juarez.  Without a real wall and enforceable border, what’s to stop you from bringing that gun here?  Hell, the Mexican you buy it from might have gotten it courtesy of Eric Holder, our former AG, who has never been held to account for running many guns into Mexico!

Every Demonscat on the planet has jumped on this demanding “more gun control” without even waiting for the bodies to reach room temperature.  Yeah, right.  You can blow me, lefties.  Your fantasy-land nonsense would prevent nothing.  Go look in Mexico; there is exactly one legal gun store in the entire country and it takes months to get paperwork processed to buy one.  Possession of even one firearm or one round of ammunition is good for a five year prison sentence there.

That does exactly zippo to prevent all those who want to murder from acquiring and using them in Juarez.

Since it is proved that just a few miles south the most-restrictive gun laws imaginable do exactly nothing to prevent hundreds of murders every year in that city alone no, I will not consent to any further infringement of the 2nd Amendment. 

Ben Carson’s visit to Baltimore

Dr Ben Carson, who heads HUD, visited Baltimore last week.

Karl Denninger wrote another great piece, ‘How Come Nobody Is Quoting Carson?’

Although the highly-experienced brain surgeon did not implore the city’s underprivileged youths to stop shooting each other, he did offer — unreported — advice on how to get ahead in life:

What did he say as the solution to poverty (which NPR did not report, as you can see)?

1. Finish High School.

2. Get married.

3. Don’t have children until you have accomplished #2.

Now does this somehow deal with the Federal Government impoverishing people by running fiscal deficits?  No.  But at a micro level — that is, individual people, not macro policy — he’s right.

Absolutely, but because this is a middle class way of living, this will get ignored.

That said, who would know best about those points? Ben Carson himself. The good doctor was raised by a single mother. He almost went to the dark side as a youth, then found religion and did his best to not only graduate from high school but also to go on to university and medical school — to become a brain surgeon, no less.

Denninger expands on the good doctor’s points:

… for the ordinary, average person they mean a lot.  And by the way, remember this rule that I drilled into my daughter:

“1 + 1 can be more than 2.  That’s the only real magic you will ever find in the world, but it is real, provided you choose wisely.  However, 1 – 1 is always 0 and can, if you choose poorly, be worse than that; it can be negative.”

One of the problems with this advice in today’s world is that there are an awful lot of zeros or worse walking around — of both sexes.  And by the way, almost without exception every one of those Hollywood “stars” or pro sports players in any league, ever, are all less than zeros in every respect except for being rich and if you emulate them without being rich first you will be destroyed.

He and Dr Carson are 110% correct.

Please share this advice with your children, if you haven’t already.

Cloud computing and Capital One

This year, a former Amazon.com employee hacked into Capital One Financial Corp. customer data that Amazon.com was storing on its cloud services.

On July 29, Bloomberg reported:

While the complaint doesn’t identify the cloud provider that stored the allegedly stolen data, the charging papers mention information stored in S3, a reference to Simple Storage Service, Amazon Web Services’ popular data storage software.

An AWS spokesman confirmed that the company’s cloud had stored the Capital One data that was stolen, and said it wasn’t accessed through a breach or vulnerability in AWS systems. Prosecutors alleged that the access to the bank data came through a misconfigured firewall protecting one of its applications.

Paige A. Thompson was arrested Monday and appeared in federal court in Seattle. The data theft occurred some time between March 12 and July 17, U.S. prosecutors in Seattle said.

Karl Denninger posted a hard-hitting article about this. Don’t miss ‘I TOLD YOU SO: “CLOUD” IS INSECURE’.

You bet it is. Yet, we have friends who store their personal — including financial — data on the cloud! No!

Denninger explains:

There you have it.  The bank had data that was highly confidential and let another company with thousands of people who could access it, none of whom the bank knew by name or could vet, have said data by intentionally putting it on that other firm’s computer systems in the name of “cloud computing.”

One of those people did allegedly access and steal it.  It doesn’t matter how they did so; the fact that the data was there provided the “honeypot” and a large base of people who knew it was there instead of said data being on your own corporate infrastructure behind access controls that you, and only you, are responsible for.

Gee, how dumb are you?

How many times have I pointed this out?  Dozens …

Once you use a “cloud provider” it’s not your data anymore despite your claims otherwise.  The data is, in fact, accessible by anyone who has administrative access at the cloud company and they don’t work for you nor can you vet them.  Further, those people working there now know the data is there which gives them a big fat “target list” to take a crack at.  Those people with that knowledge and at least some expertise in getting in, including perhaps even direct credentialed access through ordinary administrative procedures number in the thousands at large firms like Amazon or Microsoft if not tens of thousands and you not only can you as the “customer” not vet them you have no idea who the hell they are.  Some of them probably aren’t even American citizens! H1b (not this time, but you can bet in general) for the win!

[[Update 7/30 6:50 AM: It appears that the person who did the “hacking” not only was employed by Spamazon the individual claims to be here in the US illegally.  So how’d they get the job?  Spamazon, for its part, disclaims responsibility and says “it wasn’t hacked.”  Disclaim whatever you want Amazon; the fact is the data was on your box and was stolen by what appears to be an ex Amazon employee.  Such a wonderful job of vetting you do eh, never mind all the SJW/insanity connections allegedly present with this individual too.]]

Congratulations Capital Zero, 100 million records stolen because you were ****ing stupid and put saving a buck in front of data security.  This should be treated by banking regulators as criminal negligence; ditto for any other firm that has its data stolen after employing such a “cloud” environment where there was any expectation of privacy or protection of said data.

This is why you don’t use cloud computing for anything you give a crap about and has to be kept secure …

Yes, yes and yes!

You can read more about the hacker and see photos at the Daily Mail. Definitely worth viewing.

If you think you cannot provide enough resilience on your home computer, think again. This is what one of Denninger’s readers says (emphases mine):

I can buy multi-terabyte drives for a couple of hundred bucks (obviously price varies as a function of quality, intended use, etc.) just about anywhere. For a thousand bucks I can set up a pretty-near foolproof, multi-terabyte, automated RAID system with access times for any computer on my own network that have gotta be less than up- and downloading from the cloud.

Where exactly is the alleged cost savings for anyone to store any data “in the cloud”?

Spot on. If you cannot build it yourself, hire an expert.

———————-

And thus concludes my news in brief.

You couldn’t make it up.

UK court relents on abortion order for Nigerian woman

On Friday, June 21, 2019, the UK’s Court of Protection ordered a mentally disabled Nigerian woman in her 20s to abort her 22 week old baby.

Fortunately, the following Monday, the Court of Appeal reversed that decision:

BREAKING NEWS!!!

Today 3 Appeal Court judges in London have over-ruled the horrible decision made by Justice Lieven to have 22weeks unborn baby aborted. PRAISE BE TO GOD!!!! https://t.co/z8xASi0XK0

— Obianuju Ekeocha (@obianuju) June 24, 2019

The world had followed this story, and police are still investigating the circumstances of the woman’s pregnancy.

Going back to June 21, the Catholic News Agency reported:

The Court of Protection handles cases involving individuals judged to lack the mental capacity to make decisions for themselves.

The woman, who cannot been publicly identified, has been described as “in her twenties,” and is under the care of an NHS trust, part of the UK’s National Health Service.

Doctors at the trust wished to abort her pregnancy and argued that, due to her diminished mental capacity, the abortion would be less traumatic for the woman than giving birth, especially if the baby would then be placed in foster care.

The woman’s mother made clear to doctors and the court that she would assume care of her grandchild.

The woman is believed to have the mental capacity of a grade school-age child. She is reportedly Catholic, and her mother is Nigerian.

It is unknown if the pregnancy was conceived consensually, and police are investigating the circumstances of conception.

The woman’s mother, reported to be a former midwife, registered her absolute opposition to the abortion citing the Catholic faith of herself and her daughter. A social worker who cares for the woman also disagreed that she should be forced to have an abortion.

The judge said she did not believe the woman understood what it meant to have a baby.

The Washington Examiner had more on the story that day (emphases mine):

In her ruling for the Court of Protection on June 21, Justice Nathalie Lieven said, “I am acutely conscious of the fact that for the State to order a woman to have a termination where it appears that she doesn’t want it is an immense intrusion … [but] I have to operate in [her] best interests, not on society’s views of termination.”

“Immense intrusion” is a remarkable understatement. If the government can force you to abort your child, is there any limit to its power?

The pregnant mother and her family do not want an abortion, but she is under the care of a division of the U.K.’s National Health Service — thus why this matter has gone to court and why they have not already gotten one. But because the pregnant mother is mentally challenged, Lieven said, “I think she would like to have a baby in the same way she would like to have a nice doll,” completely dismissing the mother’s desire for her baby.

Barrister John McKendrick, who is leading the legal team for the pregnant woman’s mother, says the court has “no proper evidence” that having an abortion will be beneficial to the pregnant mother. “Their evidence is premised on a narrow clinical view. The application must be dismissed,” McKendrick said. The pregnant woman’s mother has added that abortion strongly violates her family’s Catholic values and that she would raise her grandchild herself.

I have no idea why the judge, a woman herself, wanted an abortion instead of adoption. Could she not bear to see the baby go to a good home?

A Canadian CEO considered the term ‘right to choose’:

When a British Court orders a woman to have an abortion, it turns justice on its head, is a gross violation of human rights, and represents the tyrannical suppression of the rights of a family. It also makes a mockery of the so-called “right to choose.” https://t.co/xEJCzY9p0W

— Declan Ganley (@declanganley) June 22, 2019

I have no doubt that millions of prayers ascended on this future mother’s behalf.

As is so often the case with prayer, the good Lord heard us and answered our pleas according to His will.

On June 24, Sky News reported on the welcome reversal (emphasis in the original):

Doctors must not be allowed to perform an abortion on a pregnant mentally-ill woman, Court of Appeal judges ruled on Monday.

This is a marvellous result, especially for the people of United Kingdom.

Thank you, Lord, for answering our prayers! Please bless this lady and her mother in the weeks and months ahead. Please also bless the child once s/he is born. To God be all glory, now and forever! Amen.