#286: Is China Planning to Attack Taiwan?—Steven Mosher, PhD

#286: Is China Planning to Attack Taiwan?—Steven Mosher, PhD

A shocking video leaked out of China shows a CCP military seeming to be planning for an invasion of the island of Taiwan. The legacy media are very busy with the usual distraction m.o. (Ukraine/Russia, celebrity trial, endless Texas shooting coverage, gas and food price obsession, etc) while the CCP gets its war machine in place.

Former atheist Dr. Steve Mosher was the first western social scientist allowed into China in 1979, and seeing the Once Child policy, and witnessing how the Communist Chinese Party operates, made him a pro-life practicing Catholic. This is a very good information exchange to share.

In this Interview You Will Learn

  • Signs that a video is not doctored, hence not fake news.
  • Recent history of the CCP’s attitude toward independent Taiwan
  • Why the CCP would chose now to invade
  • The definition and scope of the concept of a “Peoples’ War”
  • The true nature of life in China for innocent Chinese citizens
  • Why the Taiwan Straight is critical to international shipping
  • Why the CCP would want to get its hands on Taiwan’s computer chip manufacturing capabilities
  • The details of the disastrous Vatican/China agreement of 2018



YOUR ALL-IN-ONE IMMUNE-BOOSTING SUPER FORMULA Z Stack by Dc. Zelenko. Order yours here: Z Stack protocol Click the image below:

  • Promotes overall immune health
  • Scientifically formulated for best results
  • Made in the USA
  • Kosher certified
  • GMP Certified


Glory and ShineCatholic personal care handmade products for Catholic men. Their products are “good for the Body, Mind, and Soul.” I personally love them! Use coupon COFFIN and get a nice discount. Shop HERE.MyPillow.com: *Up to 66% off all his 100+ products, all US-made) and a special offer on his book What Are the Odds? From Crack Addict to CEO. Use promo code PATRICK or call: 800-794-9652

Covenant Eyes: It’s an accountability software designed to help you and those you love live a life free from pornography. Use code “Patrick” and try it out for FREE for 30 days.



Please share it using the social media buttons below.

The Declaratio of His Holiness Benedict XVI and the Myth of Substantial Error: Part One

The Declaratio of His Holiness Benedict XVI and the Myth of Substantial Error: Part One

I am posting a two-part refutation by Estefanía Acosta of the Substantial Error theory (that Pope Benedict XVI had an erroneous heterodox view of the papacy—that it is “bifurcate-able”—and that he is still Pope but only because he didn’t quite know what he was doing.

I seem to always post two-part treatments by the Colombian attorney and author Acosta. See HERE

This is partly because her writing style comes with an attorney’s attention to detail, and partly because there is no shortage of details. But the heart of the argument is simple: Now a kind of prisoner of the Vatican, Pope Benedict XVI is still pope not because of some inner mistake on his part but because he carefully resigned only the ministerium (the functions, external duties, etc) of the papacy and not the munus (the office or gift) of the papacy.

So what we have here is an Impeded See, not an empty chair. Pope Benedict XVI retains the office, did so consciously, and therefore Bergoglio is an antipope (we have had over 30 in history), a usurper of the office of Vicar of Christ. Do have to keep repeating that Francis proudly rejects the title Vicar of Christ?

Take your time going through this. The content is not overly technical but the whole matter is weighty and, at first, disturbing to contemplate. That is, until you let her whole argument unfurl before you. Part Two soon.


The non-renunciation of Benedict XVI to the pontificate: peaceful aspects and divergences

More and more Catholics around the world are opening their eyes to the fact that the famous Declaratio publicly communicated by His Holiness Benedict XVI on February 11, 2013 did not constitute a valid resignation from the pontificate[i]. An objective, verifiable, documented fact: the Pope explicitly stated that he resigned ” the ministry of bishop of Rome “, and not the Petrine munus , that is, he resigned from carrying out (some of) the functions of the Pope, but not from being the titular of the ecclesiastical position or office of the Roman Pontiff[ii]. This fact, as is known, was followed by the rigorous and generally silent self-exile of the Holy Father in the Vatican, so that the Apostolic See was paralyzed, in a way prevented[iii], and at the same time materially exposed to the attacks of the enemies of the Church. And so it was that ecclesiastical Freemasonry, embodied in the Satanist conspirators who led the infamous St. Gallo mafia , managed to install one of their own as usurper of Peter’s throne: Argentine Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, now known under the offensive and Francisco ‘s burlesque entelechy [iv]. Nine years later, “the two Popes” apparently continue their peaceful coexistence.

So far everything is clear: at the canonical level, we have a legitimate Pope but materially removed from his functions (SS Benedict XVI), and an anti-Pope who, de facto , intends to “govern, sanctify and teach” the Universal Church without having a iota of authority for it ( Francis ). Now, the panorama begins to get complicated, and the disputes to arise, as we delve into the reason for the situation: what was Benedict XVI thinking when drafting his Declaratio? Did he know, prior to its public reading, that the text contained a non-existent/invalid renunciation of the pontificate, or did he mistakenly believe that he was resigning on a juridical level? Did the Shepherd abandon his sheep? Has the Holy Father lied about the reasons for his “resignation”, or for supposedly recognizing Francis as Pope? Is Benedict XVI a heretic (formal or material) as regards the essence of the Papacy?

Naturally, we do not intend here to answer all these questions – which, moreover, we have already done to some extent elsewhere[v]–. Specifically, we intend to dismantle the so-called “theories of substantial error”, which proclaim that Benedict XVI ignores the canonical invalidity of his resignation, since his misconception about the nature and essential characteristics of the Papacy led him to think that it was possible for him to give foot to a valid “successor” in the pontificate and at the same time continue to be Pope. As we shall see, these theories are, at best, lacking in sufficient evidence, and at worst, openly contradicting existing evidence. In any case, they accentuate the already harmful traditionalist positions[I saw] that, seeing in the post-conciliar Popes hopeless heretics and modernists, or at least fifth-class theologians, they only contribute to deepening the wounds of division in the Church, and to hindering filial and loyal adherence to Peter . We will try to distort them, then, as part of our service to The Rock : our Lord Jesus Christ and his Vicar on Earth.

To fulfill this purpose, we will begin by defining the “substantial error” in the context of the legal act. Then we will address the two theories of substantial error that, due to their great diffusion and their at least internal coherence[vii], deserve consideration. We will treat both theories separately: we will briefly expose their postulates, and immediately we will present the respective counter-arguments. Finally, we will offer our conclusions on the assessment that these theories deserve in terms of veracity, necessity and convenience.

conceptual clarifications

The “substantial error” as a vice of consent in the legal act

Like almost all words in natural language, the term “error” has multiple meanings. Let us take, for what concerns us here, the first two definitions offered by the Royal Spanish Academy (RAE): ” Wrong concept or false judgment / Misguided or wrong action “[viii] [and by “misguided” is meant, lacking sanity, prudence or wisdom[ix]]. As an example of “mistake”, the dictionary presents us with the following sentence: “ When I wrote the address, I made a mistake with the portal number ” [x].

Let us now enter the context of the legal act. Let us remember that a legal act is nothing more than a socially recognizable decision (expression of will or consent) relevant to the law, that is, accepted by the pertinent norms as a source that generates legal consequences. Thus, for example, the legal consequences of a contract are the reciprocal obligations between the contracting parties, the legal consequences of an act of adoption correspond to the parentage relationship between adopters and adoptees, etc. As is logical, for the legal consequences that each legal act is given to generate to actually arise, it is necessary that it meets all the requirements provided by the law itself. These requirements are aimed, on the one hand, at guaranteeing the clarity, security and freedom of those who participate in the act, and on the other, at safeguarding certain requirements related to public order (public safety, morality and good customs,

What does all this have to do with the notion of “substantial error”?

The “substantial error”, understood in the first meaning that the RAE provided us -or, in the slightly more elaborated words of the canonists, as ” a defect of the act of understanding by which there is a false judgment or wrong estimate of an object ”[xi]–, is a phenomenon that excludes the freedom of the parties in the legal acts, and therefore it is generally foreseen as a cause of nullity of the same. Indeed, how could someone freely make the decision that the legal act consists of, if his intelligence is affected by a mistaken appreciation of the circumstances that in one way or another influence him? If the correct understanding of the reality on which to decide is lacking, the will in this decision will not be free (it will be vitiated ).), and consequently, the act in question may be annulled. In the canonical context, such nullity is provided for in canons 126 and 188 of the Code of Canon Law (CDC)[xii].

These theoretical considerations are necessary because, in the case of the presumed legal act of “renunciation of the pontificate” carried out by His Holiness Benedict XVI in February 2013, under the heading of supposedly invalidating errors, a number of circumstances have been pointed out that in no way fit in the concept of “substantial error” as vice of consent .

Thus, for example, there are those who have tried to analyze the grammatical errors of Latin[xiii], or even those of fingering[xiv], present in the Declaratio , from the perspective of this class of vices[xv]. But, what does a grammatical or typing error have to do with a mistaken appreciation of the reality that surrounds the act and, therefore, with a vice of consent? Obviously nothing.

It has also been said that “ the Holy Spirit led Benedict XVI to INTENTIONALLY make a MISTAKE ON PURPOSE ”[xvi] (sic). We do not know what specific “error” the commentator is referring to here, but, although in certain cases the presence of “errors” deliberately inserted in the text of a legal act would be conceivable –such as the aforementioned grammatical and typing errors– , the truth is that deliberation automatically excludes the defect of understanding that constitutes the “substantial error” as a vice of consent.

Still others have pointed out that, despite the fact that, for the valid renunciation of the papal office (and the consequent vacancy of the Apostolic See), canon 332.2 of the CDC expressly provides for the renunciation of the munus , Benedict resigned from the ministerium , and therefore, his assertion that the Headquarters would remain vacant was “erroneous”. This would be, they continue, a “substantial error” in terms of the effects of the act. The defenders of this position explain it in a simple way by comparing what the Pope affirmed in his Declaratio –in the sense that, by renouncing the ministerium , the See would remain vacant–, with the absurd hypothesis that it would be said: “I renounce eating bananas, in such a way that the Headquarters will remain vacant”[xvii].

The problem with this explanation is that it does not offer proof of the “substantial error” (understood as a vice of consent) that it advocates. What this position evidences is a deficiency referred to the object of the alleged legal act contained in the Declaratio : if the Pope intended to renounce the Papacy, he should precisely indicate the Papacy (or its synonyms: pontificate, primatial office, position of Roman Pontiff, etc.) as the object of his resignation; having pointed to a different object (ministry, bananas etc.), it was logically impossible for the act of renunciation of the Papacy to arise. But the fact that an object other than the one required for the emergence of the act has been indicated, does not allow us to know, per se , the reasonwhy the author has done so, and therefore the assertion that this reason would necessarily have been a “substantial error”, is simply gratuitous, unjustified . Is it not possible that Pope Benedict had been fully aware that his “resignation from the ministry” would in no way produce, legally, the vacancy of the See, and even then he had expressly alluded to it for reasons of convenience? Could this proceed not correspond to a deliberate and subtle use of ambiguity?

What we want to highlight here is that the fact that a legal act does not meet the necessary requirements for its existence and validity –that is, to produce the legal effects that are its own–, is not necessarily due to a “substantial error”, to poor knowledge or misjudgment on the part of its author. Thus, for example, I could, in the text of an alleged sales contract for one of my properties, mix correct data and erroneous data about its identification (location, area, license plate number, etc.), and this could obey, well because I mistakenly think that all the data entered is correct (and it would even be possible that I had a wrong judgment about the identity of the property that I am supposedly selling), or because I know and accept the inaccuracy of some of such data, because for some reason I am interested in causing confusion in the object sold so that, tomorrow, I can obtain a declaration of non-existence or nullity of the act.

The previous hypothesis shows us that the “substantial error” cannot be recognized only from the very words of the act in question . The “substantial error” is a phenomenon of a psychological nature , and as such requires further evidence to reconstruct the author’s assessment of the reality to which the act refers – these evidence could be linked, for example, to the intellectual level of the subject, their motivations, the circumstances in which he was when performing the act, etc.

None of the aforementioned complaints about the alleged “substantial errors” in Benedict XVI’s Declaratio – linked, respectively, to grammatical and typing errors, to “an intentional [or] purposeful error” and “an error as to the effects of the act”–, fulfills this necessary burden of proof in terms of the psychological, and therefore all of them are dismissed without further ado.

However, there are two theories of “substantial error” that effectively start from an adequate understanding of the need to satisfy this burden of proof, and in fact attempt to satisfy it. We turn to an individual examination of these two theories below.

[i] Patrick Coffin being perhaps, until now, the most prominent voice in defense of this reality. See https://www.patrickcoffin.media/seven-pieces-of-evidence-that-francis-is-an-antipope/


[ii] Cf. https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/la/speeches/2013/february/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20130211_declaratio.html

[iii] To tell the truth, the situation in which Pope Benedict XVI has been seen during these nine years does not fit technically and precisely in what canons 412 to 415 of the Code of Canon Law (CDC) understand and regulate by ” episcopal see impeded ” – what is more, we do not even have a specific canonical regulation of the “ impeded apostolic see ”. And this is hardly obvious: the current situation of the pontificate is completely unprecedented in the history of the Church, and escapes the legal provisions that have existed up to now. We are not in a “vacant seat”, because we still have Papam(Benedict XVI), but this Pope is not in the “normal” exercise of his functions. The concept of “sede impeda”, whose relevance has been proposed by the Italian journalist Andrea Cionci (cfr. https://www.byoblu.com/2022/01/07/papa-e-antipapa-linchiesta-fango-di- 40-anni-fa-contro-papa-ratzinger-il-tragico-boomerang-dei-pro-bergoglio-parte-60/ ), is the one that, at least provisionally, is closer to the adequate description of the crisis than the Papado crosses into the present moment.

[iv] Cf. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cardinal-danneels-admits-being-part-of-clerical-mafia-that-plotted-francis ; https://www.hispantv.com/noticias/europa/58849/iglesia-catolica-mafia-cardinal-danneels-papa-francisco-benedicto-xvi ;

https://www.infocatolica.com/?t=noticia&cod=24945 ;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuzV4zdAgpU ;

PIQUE, Elisabetta . Francis : Life and Revolution. A biography of Jorge Bergoglio. Chicago: Loyola Press, 2013, 315p; IVEREIGH, Austen . The Great Reformer : Francis, story of a radical Pope. Buenos Aires: Editions B, 2015. 567p.

[v] Benedict XVI: Pope “Emeritus”? :

https://mybook.to/BenedictoTP (Spanish);

https://mybook.to/BenedictTP (English);

https://mybook.to/BentoTP (Portuguese);

https://mybook.to/BenedettoTP (Italian).

[vi] Let’s not get confused: by definition, every true Catholic must be traditional (non- traditionalist ) and modern (non- modernist ) at the same time. It is that we follow the Risen Christ, always the same and always new!

[vii] By “internal consistency”, we mean that the two theories in question start from an adequate understanding of the concept of “substantial error”.

[viii] https://dle.rae.es/equivocar .

[ix] https://dle.rae.es/acierto .

[x] https://dle.rae.es/equivocar .

[xi] CODE OF CANON LAW . 6th ed. Pamplona: Editions University of Navarra SA, 2001; comment to c. 1097.

[xii] “ The act performed through ignorance or error is null when it affects what constitutes its substance or falls on a sine qua non condition ; otherwise, it is valid, unless the law establishes otherwise, but the act carried out by ignorance or by mistake may give rise to rescission action in accordance with law ” and “ Renunciation made out of fear is null under the law itself. serious unjustly provoked, fraud, substantial error or simony ”.

[xiii] Commissum vs. commisso , vitae vs. life .

[xiv] Hour 29 vs. hour 20 .

[xv] Cf. Josephmaryam , Analysis of the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI . [accessed May 04. 2022] Available at:


[xvi] https://nonvenipacem.com/2022/04/26/follow-the-munus-dr-mazza-via-dr-briggs-as-the-debate-heats-up-over-pope-benedicts-abdication /#comments

[xvii] Cf. https://www.fromrome.info/2018/11/19/the-validity-of-pope-benedict-vxis-resignation-must-be-questioned/ ; https://abyssum.org/2018/03/21/much-has-been-written-about-benedicts-resignation-and-francis-election-here-is-the-best-analysis-i-have-read- up-to-now/

Original article appears HERE

#285: Capitalism: Usury Vs. Labor—E. Michael Jones

#285: Capitalism: Usury Vs. Labor—E. Michael Jones

Dr. E. Michael Jones writes thick books, which only means you get several books between two covers. One of these is Barren Metal: A History of Capitalism As the Conflict Between Labor and Usury.

The founder and editor of Culture Wars magazine returns to the podcast to talk about capitalism in light of Catholic teaching, usury, and why God must matter to economics. “Barren metal” is a reference to coins in a line spoken by Antonio to Shylock in Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice

In this Interview You Will Learn

  • The various senses in which popes have used the word capitalism
  • The origins of modern Catholic economic thought
  • The traditional role played by the Jews in money lending industries
  • Why usury is unnatural and sinful, and why Dante placed usurers and sodomites in the same ring of hell in The Divine Comedy
  • Why capitalism is best understood as the conflict between usury and labor
  • How our Lord used money in parables and in teaching examples
  • Why mammon vs God is often the central biblical life decision


  • Fidelity Press book link to the works of Dr. E. Michael Jones, including Barren Metal: A History of Capitalism As the Conflict Between Labor and Usury
  • Culture Wars magazine


YOUR ALL-IN-ONE IMMUNE-BOOSTING SUPER FORMULA Z Stack by Dc. Zelenko. Order yours here: Z Stack protocol Click the image below:

  • Promotes overall immune health
  • Scientifically formulated for best results
  • Made in the USA
  • Kosher certified
  • GMP Certified


Glory and ShineCatholic personal care handmade products for Catholic men. Their products are “good for the Body, Mind, and Soul.” I personally love them! Use coupon COFFIN and get a nice discount. Shop HERE.MyPillow.com: *Up to 66% off all his 100+ products, all US-made) and a special offer on his book What Are the Odds? From Crack Addict to CEO. Use promo code PATRICK or call: 800-794-9652

Covenant Eyes: It’s an accountability software designed to help you and those you love live a life free from pornography. Use code “Patrick” and try it out for FREE for 30 days.




Please share it using the social media buttons below.

Benedict XVI and the absurd Substantial Error thesis: “Pope Ratzinger has misconceptions”?

Benedict XVI and the absurd Substantial Error thesis:

“Pope Ratzinger has misconceptions”?

This is the second message by the Italian writer and art historian Andrea Cionci to blogger Ann Barnhardt about the Substantial Error error, which I am now publishing in English.

We need a meeting of minds and frank talk about the rules of evidence for the good of the Church and to help souls understand the why behind the what of Pope Benedict XVI’s impeded See, which was announced on February 11, 2013, and begun 17 days later with no fanfare, no signed document.

Let the open discussion begin.

We summarize the issue by sending a second open letter to US Catholic blogger Ann Barnardt, a theorist of the so-called “substantial error.”

Dear Ms. Barnhardt,

a few days ago, I published an open letter addressed to you and Prof. Edmund Mazza, to discuss topics of enormous importance, that transcend any egoic issues and ideological personalistic territorialism.

I credited you with great merits, even historical, for identifying the invalidity of the Declaratio as a renunciation, and Bergoglio’s antipapacy. However, I have submitted to you incontrovertible documents, and logical reasonings, to take a step forward in understanding the Magna Quaestio.

I expected that you could either welcome with joy and a spirit of cooperation what I set forth, or maybe rebut it with strong rational arguments to defend your thesis, just as the gravity of the issue and the stature of the debate certainly deserve. Instead I am informed that you, in your latest podcast, responded (indirectly) in these terms:

“(…) There’s a group of people, they are absolutely desperate to make Pope Benedict to be some superhero, for some reason, who’s playing 15 dimensions underwater chess, and… oh no, he didn’t make a substancial error, this is all in his massive bavarian intellect, he’s got everybody tricked, and so on and so forth (…) ”


It has been said that Pope Benedict would be a liar for accepting this and would be responsible for all the souls that died as a result of Bergoglio’s horrible heresies (since they believed he is the pope).

I am also told that the co-blogger “Non Veni Pacem” asked how is Ratzinger not in mortal sin, according to the argument that this is a big maneuver on his part for the last 9 years? And that they also allude to the fact that the Ratzinger Code would be “ gnosticism ” (I do not understand why, since it is based on syntax and logical analysis of language).

We Italians are a bit of xenophiles, and tend to think that, outside our national borders “the grass of the neighbor is always greener.”. So I expected that, in a confrontation with American intellectuals, we could go beyond derision and avoidance of the issue, as it’s happening instead in Italy with the demeaning conduct of several intellectuals. They categorically refuse to examine writings of the Holy Father Benedict examined by several specialists, even of university rank.

Now, certainly what I have discovered is wonderfully puzzling, we agree.

But it is no more puzzling than the claim that Joseph Ratzinger, one of the greatest Catholic intellectuals of the 1900s, with an ecclesiastical career of some 60 years, had a “mistaken” view of the papacy.

Somewhat like saying that Elizabeth II, today, would still not quite understand what the role of a queen is. Doesn’t that seem a little bit bold?

Now, here there’s only one substantial error : to keep looking at the Declaratio with blinkers on, and considering it as an “invalid renunciation”.

I have demonstrated, in detail and with the help of authoritative Latinists HERE, that this document is by no means a lame and invalid “renunciation”: it is a candid and most consistent statement by which Pope Benedict simply “stopped working”, giving up exercising power because he was unable to go on. In fact, he has retired into Impeded See, a canonical situation that makes him remain pope and that, de facto again, has “anti-poped” Bergoglio.

Imagine there’s a professor with a class of little students: those are so anarchic and rowdy, that he cannot go on teaching, so at some point he simply leaves the classroom and crosses his arms. He doesn’t quit his teacher position, and remains a professor. If some random guy walks into the classroom and starts teaching in his place di lui, do you think he could be automatically hired by the school in place of the other professor? This could only happen in the jungle, not in a civilized institution.

I have also shown, by analyzing Ratzinger Code (which is collected in a volume of mine coming out next week), that Benedict managed to never lie, despite the fact that he could, being imprisoned, He used, instead, a subtly logical language . For example, when he says “I have renounced validly to my ministry ,” since munus and ministry are both translated by the word “ministry,” you do not know which of the two entities he is referring to. Or rather, you know, because in the Declaratio, he has renounced the “ministry-ministerium”. So he is not a liar at all, but a genius who managed to tell always the truth, in its essence, even in the face of his enemies di lui HERE.

This is just one of a thousand examples. I have shown that on every occasion, even in the very difficult 65th priesthood speech, the one about the word “Eucharistomen,” Benedict managed to subtly speak the truth in front of his persecutor HERE.

But one has to get down to the transparent and pure meaning of words and references. Only in silence and pure rational thought you can understand this reality.

Moreover, if Benedict had wanted, by his strange conception of the papacy, to split the office into two, one active and the other contemplative, why did he not first legally arrange the emeritate? Last year Bergoglio put his canonists to work, to rabble up a jurisprudence around the “emeritus papacy”. A clear sign that it does not exist.

Is Benedict doing things by halves? The pope emeritus is impossible. He and the canonists who have declared it so far know it. So “ emeritus ” is to be understood in its original latin 0meaning: “the one who deserves”, “who has the right” to be pope.

More importantly, what would have been the point of creating this confusion with a true active pope and a true contemplative one? Just to panic a billion 285 million faithful? Do you think Joseph Ratzinger is such a spiteful, vain man, so nostalgic for the tinsels of papal dignity?

But even if he had this whimsical idea of ​​the papacy, in nine years (given the bewilderment left in the faithful) Benedict should have constantly reiterated, according to his misconception: ” Look, there are two popes, an active one and one contemplative one . I am also pope, but I am retired. ” .

Instead he repeats, tapping his wrist on the armrest, ” There are not two popes, there is only one pope ” and he does not explain which one.

Bishop Gaenswein also confirms, “There is only one legitimate pope, but two living successors of St. Peter” (ergo one is legitimate and the other is illegitimate) and “there is a contemplative member (the legitimate pope, Benedict) and an active member “(the usurper Bergoglio). Too difficult? I don’t think so, considered your intelligence.

Then there is a theological argument to be made: if you are Catholic, you must believe that the pope is assisted by the Holy Spirit . Not only ex cathedra , but also in ordinary activity (Article 892 of the Catechism). According to the substantial error theory, the Holy Spirit would have abandoned the true pope at such a dramatically crucial moment in the history of the Church, legitimately handing it over to a total heretic (as you describe Bergoglio)? Forgive me, but this, I think is a horrible offense against the Third Person of the Trinity.

Just like those Bergoglio legitimists who think it’s plausible for the Holy Spirit to assist someone who enthrones the Pachamama, or who is “personally” in favor of civil unions (a law that in Italy was done to allow “gay marriages”, ndr), ie, the legalization of a practice that (according to Catholicism) is one of the four “Sins that cry to Heaven for Vengeance”. Perhaps the Holy Spirit has become modernist and heretical and we have not noticed?

As for the usual objection that many make, about the fact that Benedict XVI would have abandoned the souls to Bergoglio:

1) The pope is not the babysitter of human kind . Every war has its price to pay, and the Church certainly is suffering damage, but the doctrine of Supplet Ecclesiae affirms that God provides, make up for the absence of the Church, in case of good faith and unawareness of the people. So the sincere souls of the little ones and the unaware are saved anyway , and even the sacraments are legitimate for them (and for them only).

2) Benedict, moreover, continues to speak and teach at true Catholics not only with his books but also with the language of Jesus in the face of his enemies: those who have ears to hear perfectly understand the Ratzinger Code. The truly sincere sheep smell exactly who the shepherd is. On social media I often read simple people saying: “my pope is Benedict”. In reality he is everyone’s pope, but they, simple souls, sense it’s him, intuitively. Those that are in trouble instead, are the intellectuals, those who have lost this simplicity in recognizing the truth. And then, degrading themselves, they mock their opponents by their last name, as in my case HERE.

How was it? ” unless you change and become like little children …”

3) To say that Benedict sinned because he abandoned the faithful would be like complaining about a father who has been kidnapped by bandits because, by being kidnapped , he “abandoned his family .” The pope couldn’t do anything else: he was the victim of a deadly mutiny.

4) Without this ingenious self-impediment (had he heroically gotten himself killed, or had he actually abdicated), You would have Bergoglio today as legitimate pope .

5) Benedict XVI is neither stupid nor ignorant, all the opposite . You admit yourself that he is a genius, but now you reject the hypothesis that he could have prepared a genius plan to defend the Church from those whom You most detest. In short, make up your mind.

Well, I very much appreciated the work that you has done to date. And the conclusions you reached also had a certain logic: “If the renunciation is not valid, therefore Benedict must have had a very strange conception of the papacy.” But I am telling you that it was not a renunciation and that Benedict, with a subtle, but perfectly coherent statement, exiled himself into Impeded See (canon 412) and thus he “schismated” his enemies di lui.

Now, there are four possibilities:

1) You could lock yourself with a “no comment ” as so many do, certifying your intellectual surrender.

2) You prove me wrong by disputing point by point the arguments and documents I have

submitted in the above article and interview. If you succeed in doing so, on a logical and documentary basis, I will declare myself defeated.

3) You may continue to mock me (me and several martyr-priests who have been excommunicated rather than cease to defend the truth). You may continue to avoid direct confrontation and evade the merits of the issues. In this case, however, you would be taking a very serious responsibility, which would undo all your excellent work done so far. As a matter of obstinacy and pride, you would discredit yourself by producing a huge damage: in fact, the thesis of substantial error gives room to those traditionalists who see in Ratzinger a “modernist”, and therefore refuse to understand Bergoglio’s illegitimacy. They keep wallowing emotionally and masochistically in the hopeless tragedy. This path will lead to the end of the visible Church, the Bergoglio’s victory and the antipapal succession.

Here’s how: the sedevacantists will retreat, depressed and sneering, on their “Aventine Hill” ( a metaphore used by the italian politics of 1924 that decided to abstain from participating in the Parliament until the resolution of the Matteotti’s kidnapping case, ndr) by saying “No pope has been valid since 1958 anyway,”. So, there will be a new fake conclave with 70 invalid Bergoglian cardinals. The ” UNA CUM ” (from the phrase in the Latin mass “una cum famulo tuo – name of the pope -“, ed), as some of us call, in italy the conservative legitimists of Bergoglio, ( who criticize but still go to the mass “una cum famulo your Papa Francisco”, ed)will agree to endorse the fake conclave hoping for a diplomatic deal. But they will be duped.

Are you up for another ride? Then here we are, back on the merry-go-round with another antipope. Maybe Zuppi, Maradiaga or Tagle, who will assume the name John XXIV as Bergoglio anticipates? (unprecedented: no pope make predictions on the successor’s name). They would still end up with another antipope, even if, by the most unlikely chance, a traditionalist and a holy man were “elected.”

Possibility No. 4) is that, after taking a careful look at what I have submitted to you, you become conscious of this self-exile into the Impeded See, and show that you can do the most difficult thing in the world, with the courage that distinguishes you: abandoning your thesis of substantial error, burning it on the altar of the Logic (which You master very well). This thesis is an “outdated model”. Working together we can win back the Church to true Catholics. I cordially extend my hand to offer an alliance or, at the same time, I throw down the gauntlet (although traditionally one does not do that with a lady). It is up to you.

However, please don’t be like those small stature intellectuals I mentioned above, who make jokes about the last names, or bring up the “Da Vinci Code” or “A beautiful mind.” The matter is extremely – extremely – serious and it transcends our little personal lives.

History will judge us, and for those who believe, so will Someone far more important.

Looking forward to your reply, I cordially greet you,

Andrea Cionci

#284: Father James Altman Unplugged—Father James Altman

#284: Father James Altman Unplugged—Father James Altman

It was a Tuesday like any other. Tuesday, May 12, 2020, and Pastor James Altman mounted the pulpit at St. James the Lesser in LaCrosse, WI, to deliver his homily for daily Mass.

The topic was on how being a practicing Catholic and a devoted Democrat are incompatible. Delivered in his characteristic passion and clarity, it went viral. To say the least.

It led ultimately to a clash with his Bishop, William Callahan.

Father Altman was accused—wait for it—of being “divisive and ineffective” as a pastor, and removed from the parish, his priestly faculties suspended. There is a case pending from Rome regarding his status and future. His predicament as a “canceled priest” is a sign of the times in the Catholic Church.

Clergy and lait have much to learn from his witness to the truth of the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Faith. This interview was conducted in front of a live audience at a private event for members of Coffin Nation in and around Orange County.

In this Interview You Will Learn

  • Why Altman doubled down on calling out the anti-life, anti-Catholic nature of the Democratic Party platform, come what may
  • How courage is the most rare, and most needed, virtue today
  • Why the roots of the present Catholic crisis are over 100 years old but ramped up with Vatican II
  • Altman’s thoughts on the validity of Francis’ “papacy”
  • How priests need to band together intentionally
  • Why Altman remains hard-nosed about how bad things will get but hope-filled on God’s merciful presence and victory
  • Q&A open forum from audience members!




YOUR ALL-IN-ONE IMMUNE-BOOSTING SUPER FORMULA Z Stack by Dc. Zelenko. Order yours here: Z Stack protocol Click the image below:

  • Promotes overall immune health
  • Scientifically formulated for best results
  • Made in the USA
  • Kosher certified
  • GMP Certified


Glory and ShineCatholic personal care handmade products for Catholic men. Their products are “good for the Body, Mind, and Soul.” I personally love them! Use coupon COFFIN and get a nice discount. Shop HERE.MyPillow.com: *Up to 66% off all his 100+ products, all US-made) and a special offer on his book What Are the Odds? From Crack Addict to CEO. Use promo code PATRICK or call: 800-794-9652

Covenant Eyes: It’s an accountability software designed to help you and those you love live a life free from pornography. Use code “Patrick” and try it out for FREE for 30 days.




Please share it using the social media buttons below.

Andrea Cionci Replies to Ann Barnhardt and Dr. Ed Mazza on Substantial Error vs The Ratzinger Code

Andrea Cionci Replies to Ann Barnhardt and Dr. Ed Mazza on Substantial Error vs The Ratzinger Code


This is the English version of an essay first published in Italy by Andrea Cionci. I am releasing it in English here for the sake of the truth and the good of the Church. A meeting of the minds is much more productive than talking past each other. Another essay to follow in this space.

Blogger Ann Barnhardt and Prof. Edmund Mazza are among America’s best-known Catholic commentators. Both have historical merits for popularizing in the U.S. the reality of the invalidity of Pope Benedict XVI’s Declaratio as renunciation and, (especially Barnhardt), Bergoglio’s antipapacy. With different declinations, however, they are proponents of the so-called “Substantial Error,” an argument that Pope Benedict made, yes, an invalid renunciation, but unwittingly, based on his own misconceptions of the papacy.

The Substantial Error theory states that Benedict XVI, since he wanted to create the emeritus papacy and divide the papacy into two (an active pope and a contemplative emeritus pope), did not make a valid renunciation, and therefore remains the only pope. One of the bases of this theory is Bishop Gaenswein’s famous 2016 speech on “extended ministry,” which we wrote about HERE


We address overseas scholars with an open letter, to share (in a spirit of friendship and collaboration) our most recent acquisitions, fine-tuned through work involving numerous scholars.

Dear Mrs. Barnhardt and Prof. Mazza,

the Magna Quaestio, to the recomposition of which you have made such important contributions, is like a large jigsaw puzzle, on which so many scholars have worked for: each one has reassembled a piece of it. Without all those who, from the beginning, have questioned the Declaratio as a renunciation of the papacy, without the contribution of so many courageous specialists and even of many readers who have produced testimonies and documents, I couldn’t myself submit to your attention, today, the results of my two-year study. In a few days they will be published, in its entirety in a 340-page investigative book entitled “Ratzinger Code“.

Unfortunately, in Italy, many secular and religious scholars urged by me to a peaceful and constructive dialogue, disregarding of the “insignificant” possibilities on the horizon, (such as: the end of the Catholic Church, a third world war, the establishment of a new world order with a syncretist megareligion), they have preferred to close in on themselves, without either refuting or discussing the issue: the Impeded See. Those bitter words of Galileo Galilei come to mind, when he, referring to his critics, wrote: “What can we say of the most celebrated philosophers of this Study who, filled with the obstinacy of the asp, despite the fact that more than a thousand times I have offered them my availability, have not wanted to see either the planets, the moon or the telescope?”

I hope you will welcome more openly the facts and documents that follow because, as you well know, there is much more at stake here than professional point-scoring and defending one’s own ideological turf. Facts either are, or they are not and, as Alexis Carrel used to say, “little observation and much reasoning lead to error; much observation and little reasoning lead to truth.

The first point to make is that Declaratio is not invalid solely because of the munus/ministerium inversion. Pope Benedict literally “undermined” that document with a series of “canonical explosive charges.” For example, the postponement – totally unnecessary, if you think about it – of the entry into force of the renunciation of the ministerium. This postponement is in fact totally unacceptable for an abdication, since, theologically, it is God Himself who grants or withdraws the munus. And certainly He cannot be given expiring assignments as if He were a butler. There is also the failure to ratify the renunciation of the ministerium, which was never confirmed after 8 p.m. on Feb. 28, as said by theologian Carlo Maria Pace: HERE


Then there is the utterly fanciful use (as noted by Advocate Arthur Lambauer) of the expressions “See of St. Peter”, “See of Rome“, which have no juridical personality to be considered “vacant,” as (only) the Apostolic See can be. Hence the correct interpretation of the phrase “ut a die 28 februarii MMXIII, hora 20, sedes Romae, sedes Sancti Petri vacet“, which must be translated as “so that the See of St. Peter remains empty“. A promise fulfilled by Benedict when, at 5 p.m. he flight with his helicopter to Castel Gandolfo, leaving the physical See empty, by 8 p.m. Not to mention that objectively strange phrase in the Declaratio “(…)and the Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is” which refers precisely to the pre-2013 cardinals of appointment, the only valid ones HERE

Thus, if Declaratio was derived from Benedict’s “philosophical” error, it certainly could not have been infused with so many sabotaging mechanisms of an abdication that instead, as it happens, fit perfectly with the ingenious voluntary self-exile in an “Impeded See”. An extraordinary defense mechanism, since the Impeded See means that the 2013 conclave could not take place because the previous pope was neither dead nor abdicated. Bergoglio, then, never existed as pope for a reason far more basic and antecedent than questions about his heresies or irregularities in the election. The 2013 conclave could not take place, and this can never be healed by the Universalis Ecclesiae Adhaesio, the universal peaceful acceptance of the high clergy.

Already these contingencies, let me say, totally rule out the hypothesis of Pope Benedict’s unawareness. Rather, he knowingly applied this anti-usurpation plan, which as you read HERE.

he himself borrowed from German dynastic law. Like that, he lead into temptation, that is, tested the loyalty of his cardinals, with a candid and legitimate declaration. Not deceptive: his enemies, blinded by greed, accepted any document that smelled of resignation, and thus, “self-schismated” themselves.

But what is even more important and significant in ruling out substantive error, is the so-called “Ratzinger Code“.

You may have heard of it: it is a particular style of communication, inspired by that of Jesus with his accusers, HERE.

by which Pope Benedict confirms in dozens and dozens of sentences that the pope is only himself and that he is in the canonical state of “Impeded See”.

Already in March 2021, lawyer Carlo Taormina, Italy’s most famous jurist, had told Libero newspaper, HERE.

The continuous and studied ambivalence, over eight years, attributed to Ratzinger’s statements is striking. In substance, he seems to always reiterate the same thing, namely that the pope is not other than him, Benedict.”

From there we made numerous other discoveries such that other professionals and specialists signed, months later, this statement:

The objective and strange ambiguities in Benedict XVI’s language identified as the “Ratzinger Code,” also encountered by other journalists, or even readers, are not accidental, and are not due to the author’s age or, least of all, to his unpreparedness. They are subtle but unmistakable messages that lead back to the canonical situation described in the investigation. Pope Benedict communicates subtly because he is in a state of Impeded See, and therefore unable to express himself freely. The “Ratzinger Code” is his own form of logical and indirect communication. It’s based on apparent inconsistencies that do not escape the eye of trained people. Such phrases, “decoded” with due insights into the references the Pope makes to history, current events, and canon law, conceal a perfectly identifiable logical subtext with precise and unambiguous meanings. At other times, Benedict XVI opts for “amphibolic” phrases, not without humorous cues, that can be interpreted in two different ways. These communication techniques give him a way to make it clear, “to those who have ears to hear,” that he is still the pope and that he is in a situation of impediment. Therefore, anyone who claims that “Ratzinger Code” messages are fanciful interpretations, is either misunderstanding or denying the evidence.”

Prof. Rocco Quaglia, professor of dynamic psychology at the University of Turin

Prof. Antonio Sànchez Sàez, professor of law at the University of Seville

Prof. Gian Matteo Corrias, professor of literary subjects and historical-religious essayist

Prof. Alessandro Scali, professor of Classical Humanities, writer and essayist.

Prof. Gianluca Arca, professor of Latin and Greek, philologist, researcher, essayist.

Dr. Giuseppe Magnarapa, psychiatrist, essayist and writer.

And now I turn to quote to you the most significant and eloquent messages from the very rich parterre produced by Pope Benedict. They are what I have called “Kilometer Zero-Messages” in that no effort is required to understand them. (In fact, there are other phrases in Ratzinger’s messaging that require some application, but I do not intend to deal with them here.)

In his February 2021 interview with Corriere della Sera, Benedict XVI reiterated for the umpteenth time, tapping his hand on the armrest of his chair:

There are not two popes. There is only one pope.”

There Is Only One Pope…Andrea Cionci Asks: Which Is the Real One?

A phrase he has been repeating for nine years without ever explaining WHO the pope IS.

Now, if Benedict was convinced that there can be two popes, how could he say such a thing? And, more importantly, why does he not dissolve his reservations about who this one pope is, potentially throwing a billion 285 million faithful into panic?

Extremely significant is the November 13, 2021 letter in response to a faithful, https://sfero.me/article/the-pope-emeritus-is-the-supreme

through the Secretariat of State, Benedict made the official write:

“Dear Madam,

Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI has received your kind letter in which you wished to address to him expressions of filial affection. Acknowledging the sentiments of devotions manifested, the Supreme Pontiff encourages you to turn your gaze with ever greater confidence to your heavenly Father.”

See? The pope emeritus is, therefore, the Supreme Pontiff: they are infallibly the same person who appreciated the faithful woman’s affectionate letter.

Another very clear message is contained in Peter Seewald’s “Last Testament: in His Own Words” (2016), a real treasure trove of messages, which I invite you to read, especially Chapters II and III.

Question from the journalist: “One may think that the pope, the vicar of Christ on Earth, must have a particularly close, intimate relationship with the Lord.”

Pope Ratzinger’s response, “Yes, it should be that way, and it’s not that I have the feeling that He is far away”

Rhetorical syllogism. Benedict accepts the premise of the question: he is the pope and the Vicar of Christ. If the pope is one and if it was Francis, how could he possibly say such a thing?

February 2022. Responding to faithful who had expressed their solidarity with him during the judicial media attack in January, Benedict greeted them this way:

I gladly include you and your intentions in my prayers. With my apostolic blessing, Yours in the Lord, Benedict XVI.”


“His” apostolic blessing is the exclusive prerogative of the reigning pope. And it is not an isolated case: back in 2017 he greeted Card. Brandmueller with his apostolic blessing, in a letter replete with Ratzinger Codes:

Still from “Last Testament”, question: “According to St. Malachy’s list, the papacy would end with your pontificate. What if you were indeed the last to represent the figure of the pope as we have known him so far?”

Benedict XVI’s response: “Anything can be.

But after him, regardless if the prophecy is true or not, shouldn’t there be the legitimate successor Pope Francis, the 266th Roman pontiff?  Clearly not, because he is not the real pope.


An extremely learned and precise message is contained in the same book, on page 2: “With you (talking to the Holy Father – n.d.r.), for the first time in the history of the Church, a pontiff in the full and effective exercise of his functions resigned from his ‘office.’ Was there an inner conflict over the decision?

Pope Ratzinger’s response: “It’s not that simple, of course. No pope has resigned for a thousand years, and even in the first millennium there was only one exception.”

A glaring historical error (with six abdicating popes in the first millennium and four in the second) unless one considers precisely his resignation as from the ministerium alone and thus perfectly locates that pair of popes (Benedict VIII and Gregory V) who in the first millennium, before the Gregorian Reformation, were temporarily cast out by antipopes and lost precisely the practical exercise of power, but remained popes. As it happens, an ante litteram Impeded See.

HERE (english version)

May we quote, then, Pope Ratzinger’s famous response to Vaticanist Tornielli in 2016:

“The keeping of the white cassock and the name Benedict is simply a practical thing. At the time of the renunciation there were no other clothes available. After all, I wear the white cassock in a clearly different manner from that of the Pope.”

Benedict would have kept the white cassock because, in nine years, no ecclesiastical tailor could be found in all of Rome who could prepare the “former pope” a black, red or purple cassock other than the white one? Quite ridiculous, don’t you think? The interpretation, then, can only be this: keeping the white cassock and the name was the most practical thing that could be done since, by factually renouncing the ministerium, Benedict XVI remained THE pope. That is why there could be no other clothes available other than the white, pope’s clothes: there is no specific cassock for a self-exiled pope in Impeded See, but still he wears the white cassock in a clearly distinct way from the typical pope’s one (i.e., without the mozzetta and the sash).


I could go on for pages and pages, but I will stop here. Mrs. Barnhardt, thoroughly analyzing Bishop Gaenswein’s speech, with stringent logic considered that it was literally implosive (in a certain “politically correct” view.

Here is what Msgr. Gaenswein says: “As in the time of Peter, today too the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church continues to have only one legitimate pope. However, for the last three years, Catholics have lived with “two living successors of Peter among us” – who are not in a competition with each other, and yet both with an extraordinary presence.”

What does that mean? There is only one legitimate pope … but there are two popes. How is this possible? Only in one case: IF THERE IS ONE LEGITIMATE POPE AND ONE ILLEGITIMATE POPE! They are not in competition because one is pope and the other is not.

And the secretary recoils: “Since the election of his successor Francis on March 13, 2013, there are therefore not two popes, but de facto an extended ministry – with an active member and a contemplative member.” There ARE not two popes, that is, only one IS the pope. There is one MEMBER (active) who DOES the pope without being the pope (Bergoglio) and one who IS the pope (Ratzinger) and is the only legitimate pope. This is why Bishop Gaenswein uses the indistinct word “member” and uses auxiliary verbs perfectly. This explains the mystery of the extended ministry. It is not a canonical question, but a historical-theological-eschatological one.

So there are two popes, but one is legitimate and the other is illegitimate. That is why Benedict says that there IS only one (true) pope. Himself, because he never left the munus.

And it all adds up: Benedict, pressed to abdicate, applied the anti-usurpation system he had set up since 1983 with the “hypnotic” munus/ministerium breakdown. The St. Gallen Mafia forced him out of the way, he retreated to the Impeded See. Like that, Bergoglio and his people, who seized power abusively without the previous pope being dead or abdicated, were “schismed”.

He is pope “emeritus”, from emereus, the one “who deserves, who is entitled” to be pope. An adjective, spelled not coincidentally lowercase (Pope Emeritus) as opposed to Bishop Emeritus, a status that is instead entirely canonical. And so, from the perspective of faith, Bergoglio, devoid of the munus, devoid of any “seal of guarantee” involving the assistance of the Holy Spirit, can say whatever he wants. In a sense he is justified: he is not the pope.

Ratzinger is a genius, Ms. Barnhardt rightly admits, and as such he has set up an absolutely ingenious system that makes all the ends meet, theologically, canonically, historically. That’s how to find full consistency in all his statements, even when he seems to be on affectionate terms with Bergoglio. Let us not stop at appearances: he is not Francis’ friend, but he loves him, meek as a lamb, like Jesus who let himself be kissed and betrayed by Judas, for a final purification of the Church, in order to “separate believers from non-believers,” as Ratzinger himself declared to the Heder Korrespondenz this summer.

There will surely be a day when Benedict will no longer be impeded, and everything will be made explicit. but everything was already fixed in time in 2013, with that Declaratio that was not a Renunciatio, but a candid declaration of self-exile in the Impeded See. A truth that the real pope made us understand gradually, by logic, since he is the Vicar of the Logos. And a huge help has been given to us by Bergoglio who, an unwitting cooperator with the truth, with his brutal demolitions of Catholicism has revealed himself a mile away as anti-pope and anti-Catholic.

Too good to be true? No. Here we are, in the presence of something, the apostasy within the Church, known to the true popes since Fatima (1917): they had been preparing for decades. And, in any case, we are talking about the legitimate Vicar of Someone who is surely a great artist.

Please: let us cooperate, let us combine our research efforts like American Thomas A. Edison and Italian Alessandro Cruto, who both invented the light bulb each drawing on the other’s discoveries. And there is much need for light in this dark night.

History will not forgive any personalistic entrenchments.

With cordial greetings, and the utmost willingness to respond to any objections.

Andrea Cionci

TransformU— How to Stop the WHO—Dr. Peter Breggin, MD

TransformU— How to Stop the WHO—Dr. Peter Breggin, MD

Peter Breggin, MD, has been fighting medical and scientific malfeasance for over 40 years. He is known as “the conscience of psychiatry” and is the author of over  dozen book on Big Pharma corruption, drug withdrawal, and the power of empathy.

Breggin graduated from Harvard College with Honors and his psychiatric training included a Teaching Fellowship at Harvard Medical School. Following his training, he became a Full Time Consultant in the U.S. Public Health Service at NIH, assigned to the National Institute of Mental Health. Since then, he has taught at several universities, including Johns Hopkins ad the Washington School of Psychiatry.

This TransformU focuses on the terrifying proposal by the World Health Organization (WHO) to essentially override the national sovereignty of over 190 countries in the name of globalist control—and what you can do to stop it. 

This will be delivered for a vote to the World Health Organization’s governing legislative body, the World Health Assembly (WHA). Unless we do NOT comply.

Resources recommended in this episode

Downloadable Resources

Workbook pdf

MP3 File (Audio)

Join the Conversation

Join the conversation on Coffin Nation Facebook page HERE or go deeper on the subject inside the Forum Follow Patrick on his Fan Page on Facebook HERE

#283: Stop Quarantine Camps in New York —Bobby Anne Cox, Esq.

#283: Stop Quarantine Camps in New York —Bobby Anne Cox, Esq.

Bobby Anne Cox is the founding attorney at Cox Attorneys, a New York based law firm specializing in property tax certiorari lawsuits against municipalities, and real estate law. You might say she knows a thing or two how to fight in the courts against corporate and government injustice.

It’s providential preparation for the fight she just opened up: a lawsuit against NY Governor Kathy Hochul, who replaced Gov. Andrew Cuomo who resigned in disgrace last year.

And who, along with her Department of Health officials, is planning to force citizens into isolation or detention centers, or camps—call them what you will.

This is real, and these terrifying Orwellian “facilities” will go forward in New York State unless this battle is one. Your State and mine are next.

A reminder that Cox is doing this entire case pro bono (see the link below)

In this Interview You Will Learn:

  • Why this lawsuit is urgently needed, and MUST prevail to stop this unlawful gubernatorial overreach
  • The political history and context of Hochul’s (unelected) appointment as Governor of NY
  • The legal distinction between laws, regulations, and mandates
  • The details of this totalitarian DOH document “Section 2.13 Isolation and Quarantine Procedures”
  • The brave Assemblymen and Senators who have joined this lawsuit
  • Why this is not a “New York State only” problem but, unless stopped, will be repeated across the country
  • What voters can do to learn the basic civics lessons to better understand the whys and wherefores of this lawsuit and others like it.

Resources Mentioned in this Episode


YOUR ALL-IN-ONE IMMUNE-BOOSTING SUPER FORMULA Z Stack by Dc. Zelenko. Order yours here: Z Stack protocol Click the image below:

  • Promotes overall immune health
  • Scientifically formulated for best results
  • Made in the USA
  • Kosher certified
  • GMP Certified


Glory and ShineCatholic personal care handmade products for Catholic men. Their products are “good for the Body, Mind, and Soul.” I personally love them! Use coupon COFFIN and get a nice discount. Shop HERE.MyPillow.com: *Up to 66% off all his 100+ products, all US-made) and a special offer on his book What Are the Odds? From Crack Addict to CEO. Use promo code PATRICK or call: 800-794-9652

Covenant Eyes: It’s an accountability software designed to help you and those you love live a life free from pornography. Use code “Patrick” and try it out for FREE for 30 days.




Please share it using the social media buttons below.

#282: Ending Long Covid Tyranny—Dr. Ryan Cole, MD

#282: Ending Long Covid Tyranny—Dr. Ryan Cole, MD

Dr. Ryan Cole is Medical Director and CEO of Cole Diagnostics, an independent full service pathology laboratory located in Boise, Idaho and serving patients regionally and nationally. He is also an unusually clear communicator when to comes to exposing lies told in the name of “science.”

Dr. Cole was a featured presenter at the Truth Over Fear summit (check out the link), and has been telling anyone who will listen that this is a false pandemic, that masks do not work, and the mRNA injection is not even a vaccine. Here he reviews the least you need to know about the whole Covid phenomenon, both big picture, and local examples. A good interview to share with friends, skeptics, and those who are both.

In this Interview You Will Learn:

  • How the “vaccinated” have damaged their natural immunity and enhance their Omicron acquisition vulnerability
  • Why all mandates must be stopped NOW
  • How we know masks don’t work and never have
  • When Dr. Cole knew this whole spectacle was a mainly a deception
  • Collecting your data, and not caring for your health, is the whole point of vax passports
  • How to encourage the vital 3% to stand up and fight against this bold tyranny
  • The urgent need to contract your local Congressman to defund the ridiculous Disinformation Governance Board of the United States Department of Homeland Security under Nina Jankewisc
  • Why we must STOP the World Health Organization from overtaking national constitutions and laws for future “pandemics”

Resources mentioned in this episode


YOUR ALL-IN-ONE IMMUNE-BOOSTING SUPER FORMULA Z Stack by Dc. Zelenko. Order yours here: Z Stack protocol Click the image below:

  • Promotes overall immune health
  • Scientifically formulated for best results
  • Made in the USA
  • Kosher certified
  • GMP Certified


Glory and ShineCatholic personal care handmade products for Catholic men. Their products are “good for the Body, Mind, and Soul.” I personally love them! Use coupon COFFIN and get a nice discount. Shop HERE.MyPillow.com: *Up to 66% off all his 100+ products, all US-made) and a special offer on his book What Are the Odds? From Crack Addict to CEO. Use promo code PATRICK or call: 800-794-9652

Covenant Eyes: It’s an accountability software designed to help you and those you love live a life free from pornography. Use code “Patrick” and try it out for FREE for 30 days.




Please share it using the social media buttons below.