Entire state of California one step away from Martial Law; Governor Newsom says 56% of residents will be infected



The state of California is about to go under a “shelter in place” order announced on Thursday by Governor Gavin Newsom. He calls this an “open ended” order and says he will not put a time frame on how long it could last. He says the next eight weeks are critical for controlling the spread of the virus. The Governor says more than half of all Californians could, eventually, be infected with the Coronavirus.

He says 56% of people living in the state will get it, which would be more than 20-million people.

The shelter-in-place rules will be similar to those already in effect in Fresno, the Bay Area, and other California counties and cities. Governor Gavin Newsom made that announcement around 6:45 p.m. on Thursday, March 19. He says a list of exempt and non-exempt businesses will be released “soon”.

He says he is worried that there won’t be enough hospital beds for all of the victims if nothing is done right now. He says if California acts strongly right now he feels the state can keep the number of victims under the number of hospital beds. He said, “let’s bend the curve together”.

“Wuhan, we have a problem, this does not compute”

A. It is claimed that Coronavirus carriers are both asymptomatic and contagious for the first two to four weeks after contraction; there is no way to know you have it. In addition, most people who do feel sick have such mild symptoms, it doesn’t even occur to them that it could be “flu.” So you need to stay inside and stop killing people. This is the rationale for the lock downs.

B. Wuhan Province has 19 million people packed on top of each other, each of them smoking five packs a day, plus inhaling the pervasive opaque smog (okay, translucent on a good day, I’ll give you that).

C. China stopped Coronavirus at 80,000 infected and 3200 dead. Think they are lying? Go ahead and quadruple those numbers. What do we get… 320K infected across a population of 19MM equals an infection rate of 0.0168… even though all the carriers were walking around (allegedly) spreading the disease for 2-4 weeks BEFORE ANYONE ON THE PLANET KNEW THE VIRUS EXISTED. No controls whatsoever, 0.0168 infection rate, 4% “Death rate.”

If B and C are true, this virus is mild, not very infectious, and not very deadly. And if B and C are true, A cannot also be true.

Yes, there are outliers, some younger healthy people who have come down with severe symptoms. I personally know of someone in Connecticut, two degrees of separation, who has been on a ventilator for the past week. He went from mild to near death in a 12 hour span. He is recovering, and went off the ventilator this morning. There are always outliers.

Meanwhile, Italy is the current darling because their numbers are “spiking,” now 32K infected and 3200 dead. We can’t calculate the infectious rate yet, because the number of cases is still growing, although it has now started to slow. Let’s say the number infected quadruples; 128K in a population of 60MM = 0.00213 infection rate, which is 87% lower than in Wuhan.

Point of comparison: 2009 H1N1 “Swine flu” infected 60MM Americans, fully 20% of the population. Do you even remember it? https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/2009-h1n1-pandemic.html

But why is the “death rate” so much higher in Italy? Perhaps we should be asking if we really know what they are even dying from, because nearly every one of these deaths could have multiple causes, because 99.2% of those people were already sick.

Also, median age of infected is 63 and median age of deaths is 81.


Italy has the second oldest population in the world. We have a contagion that kills old people who were already sick, half of whom already had at least three other serious illnesses. Isn’t this what the regular flu does every year, but in much greater numbers? Is it too much to ask for a little more information before we rend the entire fabric of Western Civilization over the threat of a mild cold?

What I am missing? Did China tell us it was an accidental release of a bioweapon, sorry about that, but watch out? It seems clear to me that if the actions of the past week in the U.S. are indeed warranted, then there is much more to the story than we are being told. How did all the sports leagues and the NCAA know fully a week ago that they needed to cancel everything? How did the airlines know they needed to ground 90% of their long-haul fleet until July, and take that decision in a matter of hours? Why did MGM and Wynn shut down Vegas like a light switch “until further notice?” What were they each told so that they would, literally overnight, unilaterally yet in unison, destroy their product for the sake of the greater good? Where are the facts? There must be some good reason to push tens of millions out of work, wreak havoc on the economy, tank the stock market, bankrupt the airlines, hotels, etc.

Combox is open!

“Half Of America Will Get Sick”: Here Is What Goldman Told 1,500 Clients In Its Emergency Conference Call

Thank goodness the for the moral sanctity of Goldman leadership, eh? No? Via ZeroHedge https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/half-america-will-get-sick-here-what-goldman-told-1500-clients-its-sunday-conference-call

Much more at the ZeroHedge link.

Is this all just an exercise to observe how sheep behave, so when it’s time for the real show, they’ll know their limits?

ABC15.com, “Arizona’s most trusted news source:” 18 cases of Coronavirus in the state. https://www.abc15.com/news/state/live-updates-tracking-coronavirus-in-arizona

Also ABC15.com, “Arizona’s most trusted news source:” We probably really truly have 70,000 cases of Coronavirus in the state. https://www.abc15.com/news/region-phoenix-metro/central-phoenix/as-many-as-70-000-az-residents-could-have-coronavirus-according-to-cdc-models

Yeah, about that CDC modeling that was done last month. Have you seen it? Well, this is what is driving all the big decisions. This is why all the sports have been cancelled, followed by concerts, and now they are shutting down all the restaurants. International air travel is done, we are days away from a total domestic travel ban, and “mandatory” home quarantine is coming. The economy is tanked, millions will lose their jobs, and the current CDC recommendation is EIGHT WEEKS of private isolation.

The following information was published by the NYT, was taken down, then mirrored at the site I link to at the end of this blockquote. This is what is driving the hysteria:

“Officials at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and epidemic experts from universities around the world conferred last month about what might happen if the new coronavirus gained a foothold in the United States. One of the agency’s top disease modelers, Matthew Biggerstaff, presented the group on the phone call with four possible scenarios. The assumptions, reviewed by The New York Times, were shared with about 50 expert teams to model how the virus could tear through the population — and what might stop it.

“The C.D.C.’s scenarios were depicted in terms of percentages of the population. Translated into absolute numbers by independent experts using simple models of how viruses spread, the worst-case figures would be staggering if no actions were taken to slow transmission. Between 160 million and 214 million people in the U.S. could be infected…As many as 200,000 to 1.7 million people could die…2.4 million to 21 million people in the U.S. could require hospitalization, potentially crushing the nation’s medical system…” https://dnyuz.com/2020/03/13/the-worst-case-estimate-for-u-s-coronavirus-deaths/

So there you have your smoking gun.

For perspective, the entire planet has 167K cases and 6K deaths. Here are the current stats (supposedly):

This chart is updated nightly. https://time.com/5800901/coronavirus-map/

The U.S. is a week behind Italy in terms of patient zero (supposedly), and we have 5x their population, so the math says we should have 100K infected and 9000 dead by 22 March. Let’s tune in next Monday and see where we are.

New prayers added to (after) all FSSP Masses

Pretty much everyone turned up for Mass this morning. No Masses have been cancelled here. No one has been dispensed except the elderly, the infirm, and the vulnerable. Our bishop explained the situation via video press release Friday, along with common sense precautions. All of the above was reiterated from the pulpit today.

The FSSP North American District Superior, Fr. Michael J. Stinson, has ordered the following prayers to be said at the foot of the altar after all Masses, including High Masses.

The priest and the people recited their parts in Latin.

It seems to me that there remains something deeply mysterious about this virus, in terms of its nature, its exposure, and possibly its provocation. How can a pathogen behave quite mildly in the vast majority of those infected, yet be so deadly to anyone already compromised? Is that even true? Is there something we still aren’t being told?

Is Coronavirus the demon spawn of Pachamama?


The regression model on the 6.4 days of doubling suggests the virus was “born” the day after the Pachamama demon worship Mass at St. Peter’s. Fascinating.

“Resigned to the Papacy: Does Benedict still claim he is Pope?”

I am posting here a work by Dr. Edmund J. Mazza, which first appeared yesterday at the blog of Bishop Rene Gracida. The essay is reprinted here in its entirety with permission from His Excellency and the author.

Dr. Mazza is the host of “The Bar of History” live show/podcast on VirginMostPowerfulRadio.org and his YouTube channel is “Discover Christ Channel.” He expresses his personal gratitude to Ann Barnhardt for first alerting us to the questionable resignation and to Cardinal Ratzinger’s 1977 speech, which is the primary focus of this essay and the lens through which many other things come into focus.

As a follow up, I suggest readers click over to read about a sermon delivered by Cardinal Ratzinger in 1978, wherein ++Ratzinger compared the Transfiguration of our Lord to a pope who transfigures the nature of his papacy, morphing it into a service of quiet suffering, yet while retaining the authority of the Office, allowing others to drag him where he does not wish to go, more and more allowing himself to be nailed to the cross. This sermon was referenced directly by Archbishop Ganswein during his famous speech at the Greg in May 2016, as he was explaining how Pope Benedict had created an Expanded Petrine Ministry. https://nonvenipacem.com/2019/06/24/he-has-not-abandoned-the-office-of-peter-something-which-would-have-been-entirely-impossible-for-him-after-his-irrevocable-acceptance-of-the-office/



Posted on March 7, 2020by abyssum

Resigned to the Papacy: Does Benedict still claim he is Pope?

Edmund J. Mazza, PhD

It’s a safe bet that even if seventy-three-year-old President Trump’s physical stamina suddenly caved, he would still seek re-election rather than allow his Democrat opponent to seize the oval office and reverse all his gains and policies. It is a curious question then why another incumbent Conservative, Pope Benedict XVI, resigned seven years ago citing the frailty of his eighty-five-year-old frame, certain in the knowledge that his successor would be a Leftist ideologue bent on undoing, not only his own legacy, but two thousand years of Catholic tradition. (Benedict may even have been reasonably sure that it would be Jorge Bergoglio, himself, since the Argentinian cardinal came up just shy of the votes needed to unseat Benedict back in 2005.) As George Neumayr writes in the The American Spectator:

In one of his last speeches before abdicating in 2013, Pope Benedict XVI decried the liberalism that had seeped into the Church after Vatican II. To this liberalism, he traced “so many problems, so much misery, in reality: seminaries closed, convents closed, the liturgy was trivialized.” But he then proceeded to hand the Church to the very liberals responsible for these problems and to a successor set upon liberalizing the Church even more.

The recent release of Netflix’s The Two Popes, the seventh anniversary of Benedict’s abdication and the firestorm over his co-authorship of a book advocating the retention of the celibate priesthood—a seeming slap in the face of Pope Francis—all conspire in calling for a reexamination of the infamous resignation. Indeed, ever since February 11, 2013 speculations have circulated that Benedict’s renunciation may have been invalid, that he—in some way—still retains the papacy. These allegations were fueled in part by Benedict’s own rather bizarre measures after formally stepping down, such keeping his name “Pope Benedict XVI,” his title “His Holiness,” his white cassock, imparting his “Apostolic Blessing,” and lastly—never departing the Vatican.  

These claims even received an unexpected boost thanks to a speech by Benedict’s Personal Secretary, Archbishop Georg Gänswein, Prefect of the Papal Household. At Rome’s Gregorianum in 2016, Gänswein declared “he has not abandoned this ministry at all. Instead, he has complemented the personal office with a collegial and synodal dimension, as a quasi-shared ministry.”  Gänswein adds: “He has not abandoned the office of Peter, a thing which would be completely impossible for him following his irrevocable acceptance of the office…”

Then in 2017, Last Testament: In His Own Words, was published in which journalist Peter Seewald conducted a lengthy interview with Benedict. At one point, Seewald pointedly asks His Holiness: “Is a slowdown in the ability to perform, reason enough to climb down from the chair of Peter?” Benedict replies:

One can of course make that accusation, but it would be a functional misunderstanding. The follower [successor] of Peter is not merely bound to a functionthe office [munus] enters into your very being. In this regard, fulfilling a function is not the only criterion. (Emphasis mine)

What “misunderstanding”? A simple “yes,” would do. 

But Benedict does not give a “yes” or “no” answer to this straightforward question. All the more bizarre since his answer, in fact, must be a “yes,” or otherwise he is contradicting the very reason he gave for stepping down in his official resignation speech:

“I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine office [non iam aptas esse ad munus Petrinum aeque administrandum]… strength…has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry [ministeriumentrusted to me. For this reason…I declare that I renounce the ministry [ministerioof Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter…”

But in his answer to Seewald, Benedict explains that a physical “slow-down” only affects the “functions” or “ministry” of a pope, his day-to-day tasks like any other official. But being Pope, Benedict insists, is not fundamentally about doing this or that, it’s about being. His answer is an ontological one: “the office [munus] enters into your very being,” not the “function” or “ministry,” but the office

Seewald then observes: “One objection is that the papacy has been secularized by the resignation; that it is no longer a unique office but an office like any other.” Benedict replies:

I had to…consider whether or not functionalism would completely encroach on the papacy …Earlier, bishops were not allowed to resign…a number of bishops…said ‘I am a father and that I’ll stay’, because you can’t simply stop being a father; stopping is a functionalization and secularization, something from the sort of concept of public office that shouldn’t apply to a bishop. To that I must reply: even a father’s role stops. Of course a father does not stop being a father, but he is relieved of concrete responsibility. He remains a father in a deep, inward sense, in a particular relationship which has responsibility, but not with day-to-day tasks as such…If he steps down, he remains in an inner sense within the responsibility he took on, but not in the function…one comes to understand that the office [munus] of the Pope has lost none of its greatness

Benedict again goes to great lengths to contrast the difference between I. “the office of the Pope” and II. the ministry or “function” associated with it. How to “decode” Benedict? By examining the words he has chosen and the ways he has deployed them before. 

In October 1977, during the symposium “On the Nature and Commission of the Petrine Ministry” marking the 80th birthday of Pope Paul VI, Ratzinger declared:

“In keeping with the three Persons in God, the argument went, the Church must also be led by a college of three, and the members of this triumvirate, acting together, would be the pope. There was no lack of ingenious speculations that (alluding, for instance, to Soloviev’s story about the Antichrist) discovered that in this way a Roman Catholic, an Orthodox, and a Protestant together could form the papal troika. Thus it appeared that the ultimate formula for ecumenism had been found, derived immediately from theology (from the concept of God), that they had discovered a way to square the circle, whereby the papacy, the chief stumbling block for non-Catholic Christianity, would have to become the definitive vehicle for bringing about the unity of all Christians.

2. The interior basis for the primacy: Faith as responsible personal witness

“Is this, then—the reconciliation of collegiality and primacy—the answer to the question posed by our subject: the primacy of the pope and the unity of the People of God? Although we need not conclude that such reflections are entirely sterile and useless, it is plain that they are a distortion of trinitarian doctrine and an intolerably oversimplified fusion of Creed and Church polity. What is needed is a more profound approach. It seems to me that it is important, first of all, to reestablish a clearer connection between the theology of communion, which had developed from the idea of collegiality, and a theology of personality, which is no less important in interpreting the biblical facts. Not only does the communal character of the history created by God belong to the structure of the Bible, but also and equally personal responsibility. The ‘‘we’’ does not dissolve the ‘‘I’’ and ‘‘you,’’ but rather it confirms and intensifies them so as to make them almost definitive. This is evident already in the importance that a name has in the Old Testament—for God and for men. One could even say that in the Bible ‘‘name’’ takes the place of what philosophical reflection would eventually designate by the word ‘‘person…

Martyrdom as a response to the Cross of Jesus Christ is nothing other than the ultimate confirmation of this principle of uncompromising particularity, of the named individual who is personally responsible

The Petrine theology of the New Testament is found along this line of reasoning, and therein it has its intrinsically necessary character. The ‘‘we’’ of the Church begins with the name of the one who in particular and as a person first uttered the profession of faith in Christ: ‘‘You are . . . the Son of the living God’’ (Mt 16:16)….

“Is Peter as a person the foundation of the Church, or is his profession of faith the foundation of the Church? The answer is: The profession of faith exists only as something for which someone is personally responsible, and hence the profession of faith is connected with the person. Conversely, the foundation is not a person regarded in a metaphysically neutral way, so to speak, but rather the person as the bearer of the profession of faith—one without the other would miss the significance of what is meant…

“The ‘‘we’’ unity of Christians, which God instituted in Christ through the Holy Spirit under the name of Jesus Christ and as a result of his witness, certified by his death and Resurrection, is in turn maintained by personal bearers of responsibility for this unity, and it is once again personified in Peter—in Peter, who receives a new name and is thus lifted up out of what is merely his own, yet precisely in a name, through which demands are made of him as a person with personal responsibility. In his new name, which transcends the historical individual, Peter becomes the institution that goes through history (for the ability to continue and continuance are included in this new appellation), yet in such a way that this institution can exist only as a person and in particular and personal responsibility

“The English Cardinal expresses it in the same way in another passage: ‘‘The office of the papacy is a cross, indeed, the greatest of all crosses. For what can be said to pertain more to the cross and anxiety of the soul than the care and responsibility for all the Churches throughout the world?’’ Moreover, he recalls Moses, who groaned under the burden of the whole Israelite people, could no longer bear it, and yet had to bear it.34 To be bound up with the will of God, with the Word of whom he is the messenger, is the experience of being girt and led against his will of which John 21 speaks. Yet this attachment to the Word and will of God because of the Lord is what makes the sedes a cross and thus proves the Vicar to be a representative. He abides in obedience and thus in personal responsibility for Christ; professing the Lord’s death and Resurrection is his whole commission and personal responsibility, in which the common profession of the Church is depicted as personally ‘‘binding’’ through the one who is bound . . . . This personal liability, which forms the heart of the doctrine of papal primacy, is therefore not opposed to the theology of the Cross or contrary to humilitas christiana but rather follows from it and is the point of its utmost concreteness and, at the same time, the public contradiction of the claim that the power of the world is the only power and also the establishment of the power of obedience in opposition to worldly power. Vicarius Christi is a title most profoundly rooted in the theology of the Cross and thus an interpretation of Matthew 16:16–19 and John 21:15–19 that points to the inner unity of these two passages. No doubt, another facet of the bondage that in light of John 21 can be described as a definitive characteristic of the papacy will be the fact that this being bound up with God’s will, which is expressed in God’s Word, means being bound up with the ‘‘we’’ of the whole Church: collegiality and primacy are interdependent. But they do not merge in such a way that the personal responsibility ultimately disappears into anonymous governing bodies. Precisely in their inseparability, personal responsibility serves unity, which it will doubtless bring about the more effectively, the more true it remains to its roots in the theology of the Cross.”

This 1977 speech is, in fact, the key to deciphering, not only Benedict’s 2017 interview, but his 2013 resignation speech.

In 2017 Benedict says: “If he [the pope] steps down, he remains in an inner sense within the responsibility” he took on, but not in the “function,” or “day-to-day” tasks.  In 1977 Ratzinger says: “this institution [the papacy] can exist only as a person and in particular and personal responsibility…”  He adds: “He abides in obedience and thus in personal responsibility for Christ; professing the Lord’s death and Resurrection is his whole commission and personal responsibility.” 

For Benedict, “personal responsibility” is the essence of what it means to be pope. To be responsible not as a public official filled with day to day tasks, but metaphysical responsibility for the flock of Christ. In his interview, Benedict says that although he “stepped down,” “HE REMAINS…WITHIN THE RESPONSIBILITY.” Translation: “He remains Pope!”

In 1977, Ratzinger says: ‘‘The office of the papacy is a cross, indeed, the greatest of all crosses. For what can be said to pertain more to the cross and anxiety of the soul than the care and [personal] responsibility for all the Churches…attachment to the Word and will of God because of the Lord is what makes the sedes [chair] a cross and thus proves the Vicar [the Pope] to be a representative [of Christ].” At his last General Audience, Benedict says: “I am not abandoning the cross, but remaining in a new way at the side of the crucified Lord.” Translation: “He remains Pope!”

Dr. Ludwig Ott, famous author of Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, writes: “In deciding the meaning of a text the Church does not pronounce judgment on the subjective intention of the author, but on the objective sense of the text.” But in the objective text of his renunciation, Benedict does not say “I no longer retain the office [munus],” he says instead, “I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry [ministerium] entrusted to me. For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry [ministerio] of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter.”

Now weighty matters like papal renunciations are governed by Canon law. And Canon 322 §2 states: “If it happens that the Roman Pontiff renounces his munus, it is required for validity that the renunciation is made freely and be properly manifested (rite manifestatur, i.e. properly according to the norms of law), but not that it be accepted by anyone at all.” However, Pope Benedict did not follow Canon 322—he did not actually “renounce the munus,” but the ministerium, nor did he “properly manifest,” in the objective sense of his text, his intention to renounce the munusif such was his intention! Legally, it does not matter if everyone believes Benedict has renounced the office of the papacy (or if only one person does), what matters is whether the act was carried out according to the canonical norm, which it objectively was not. Indeed, in his interview with Seewald, Benedict admits his belief in the ontological impossibility of him leaving the office: “the office [munus] enters into your very being.”

To conclude, can there be any doubt that to Benedict’s mind, he retains the essence of the papacy? Why then does he not speak and act plainly—as THE Pope? Quite frankly, this is a subject for a different article. A case can be made, however, that he has outwitted his ideological opponents in much the same fashion as “Superman” in the conclusion of Mario Puzo’s Superman II [SPOILER ALERT]. By entering the crystal chamber, Superman had seemingly been forced by his enemies to strip himself of his powers, when the reverse was really the case! Perhaps Benedict intentionally resigned the “ministry,” and not the “office” of the papacy so that by appearing to all intents and purposes a defeated man, he might actually strip away the validity of every measure Francis takes which departs from Catholic Orthodoxy, of whom Benedict is the Guardian. Why on earth does Benedict not speak and act as THE Pope? Perhaps in defense of celibacy, he finally has.