Minneapolis to spend $6.4M to recruit more police officers
MINNEAPOLIS — Minneapolis is planning to spend $6.4 million to hire dozens of police officers, at a time when some City Council members and activist groups have been advocating to replace the police department following George Floyd’s death.
The City Council voted unanimously Friday to approve the additional funding that police requested. The department says it only has 638 officers available to work — roughly 200 fewer than usual. An unprecedented number of officers quit or went on extended medical leave after Floyd’s death and the unrest that followed, which included the burning of a police precinct…
While there have been calls to dismantle the department after Floyd’s death, some residents have begged the city to hire more officers, citing longer response times and an increase in violent crime...
Meanwhile, three City Council members have proposed replacing the police department with a public safety department that would include law enforcement and other services. Yes 4 Minneapolis, a coalition of local community groups, is also collecting signatures to try to get a similar proposal on the November ballot.
The Star Tribune reported the Yes 4 Minneapolis committee is being fueled by a half-million dollar grant from the Washington, D.C.-based group Open Society Policy Center, which is associated with billionaire George Soros. Organizers hope to collect 20,000 signatures by March 31...
In this episode, Ann is joined by Mark “Lenny” Docherty and Dr. Edmund “Squiggy” Mazza, where they explore the latest letter from Archbishop Vigano, highlighting therein various examples of his stunning departure from logic and reason. The pesky problem of holding a false base premise, exposition on the law of non-contradiction, the obedience due a true pope, and the dangers of a downright Protestant mindset are all explored. We then turn to current events, the January 6th Capital “riot”, faux-inauguration, the coming uber cancel culture purge, Feast of Our Lady of Lourdes (11 February, the date Pope Benedict chose to read out his quasi-renunciation), the Immaculate Conception, the Reichstag fire and subsequent abrogation of God-given rights, and the suspension of law/state of exception/state of necessity. So pour yourself a milk and Pepsi. Nothing’s gonna turn us back now, straight ahead and on the track now!
Feedback: please send your questions, comments, suggestions, and happy news item to podcast@barnhardt.biz (for sensitive items for which you would like to communicate via a secure, encrypted channel, just send an email saying you would like to go to a secure channel and instructions will follow).
Supernerd Media produces the Barnhardt Podcast; if you got some value from this podcast — or even just Ann’s website — and would like to return some value to support the technical effort, please visit SupernerdMedia.com — where the PayPal option is now back!
The Infant Jesus of Prague handles Ann’s financial stuff. Click image for details. [If you have a recurring donation set up and need to cancel for whatever reason – don’t hesitate to do so!]
O most Holy Virgin, immaculate in body and spirit, look kindly on me as I implore your powerful intercession.
O most Holy Mother, receive my prayers as I present them to God. (state your intentions here)
O Mary, Mother of Jesus and our Mother, you intercede for us with your Son. O Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.
Amen.
Sweet, sweet Saint Bernadette, pray for us. Happy feast to all!
Our Lady of Lourdes, Saint Bernadette, and God’s inscrutable ways
Originally posted on
Happy feast!
On his day, 11 Feb 1858, the Blessed Virgin made her first appearance to Bernadette in the grotto at Lourdes. Six weeks later, Our Lady would confirm to Bernadette that she was the Immaculate Conception, a fact that had been Dogmatically defined barely three years prior (8 Dec 1854 HERE).
Ah, sweet Bernadette. She was but 14 years old.
Laywoman.
Illiterate.
Dirt poor.
Yet chosen by God to receive this miraculous message and teach it to the world.
Most of the depictions, paintings, statues of this miracle are wrong. The picture I posted above is all wrong. Bernadette was so poor, her family lived in a one-room windowless cellar with a dirt floor. Her first encounter with Our Lady was during a hunt for firewood, trudging through mud, so she would have been wearing not just rags, which is all she owned, but the worst rags she had.
The other illusory image is that of the Blessed Virgin. She actually appeared as a 14 year old, same age as Bernadette, and even shorter than Bernadette’s diminutive 4’7″… which was caused by malnutrition. Mary was appearing at the age when she herself conceived… which aligns with her pronouncement of her own Immaculate Conception on the Feast of the Annunciation, Christ’s conception, which took place at the grotto on 25 March 1858.
When these depictions began appearing even within her own lifetime, especially the statuary, Bernadette was very upset with their inaccuracy. She also despised her celebrity, and once she entered the convent, wanted only to pray and offer penances. She was chronically sick. Mary had promised her suffering in this life, but happiness in the next. Suffering is a tool to attain holiness, and Mary was no stranger to suffering in her own lifetime. These things are meant as examples for us. Bernadette died 16 April 1879, and was raised to the altars on 8 December 1933. Her famous quote, upon reflecting on her own fate while in this world:
“What do you do with a broom when it is done being used? You put it behind a door; and that is what the Virgin has done with me.”
Our Lady of Lourdes, pray for us.
Saint Bernadette, pray for us.
“O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are his judgments, and how unsearchable his ways! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been his counselor?” Romans 11:33-34
The manifold heresies of Antipope Bergoglio are a proofset of his not being the Vicar of Christ, not the cause of it.
The reason that Bergoglio the Heretic is not the pope has nothing to do with his heresy. His heresy is simply a visible sign, really a gift, so that all with eyes to see can plainly observe that this man does not enjoy any of the supernatural protection afforded by the Petrine Promises, and he never did. This is because Pope Benedict’s resignation was invalid in several points of Canon Law, and so Benedict remains the Vicar of Christ, and has been since April 2005.
Bergoglio the Heretic leading the faithful into error and toward Perdition on matters of faith and morals is something IMPOSSIBLE for a true Vicar of Christ. And no, it’s not just about proclamations carrying the full weight of Papal Infallibility. Christ promised Peter, and thus his successors, that his faith would not fail, and that whatever he bound and loosed on earth would be bound and loosed in Heaven. Peter is the decider, and he can’t be wrong on matters of faith and morals. This is also an amazing gift, yet it could not have been any other way. If you don’t have a decider, you have chaos.
The true Vicar of Christ is the Standard of Unity to the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. The Standard of Unity cannot also be the vector of schism. A true Vicar of Christ cannot schism the Church from himself. Which is a really good reason we ought to cling to the true Vicar at all costs, to remain in the Barque.
So the folks who maintain that Bergoglio is definitely the one true Vicar of Christ, yet spend all day resisting him, taunting him, saying and writing the most awful disobedient things about him… those folks have a real problem on their hands. Worse still are those who recognize the danger to souls Bergoglio represents, yet remain silent, or think there is nothing they can do. Many of them cannot be bothered to investigate what the hell is going on here, even those whose job it is to do so.
There is a certain podcast dropping tomorrow, 11 February, Feast of Our Lady of Lourdes. It’s also the eighth anniversary of Pope Benedict not renouncing the Vicarship of Christ. These topics are covered at length therein. Be sure to tune in, I will mirror it here.
On resisting the teachings and even mere opinions of the true Vicar of Christ, here are a few notable true Vicars of Christ to explain it better than I can:
“As regards opinion, whatever the Roman Pontiffs have hitherto taught, or shall hereafter teach, must be held with a firm grasp of mind, and, so often as occasion requires, must be openly professed.”
“The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth — all of which truth is taught by the Holy Spirit. Should the church be able to order, yield to, or permit those things which tend toward the destruction of souls and the disgrace and detriment of the sacrament instituted by Christ?”
“It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in this the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. For, these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent: ‘He who heareth you, heareth Me’ (Luke 10:16); and usually what is set forth and inculcated in the Encyclical Letters already pertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their acts, after due consideration, express an opinion on a hitherto controversial matter, it is clear to all that this matter, according to the mind and the will of the same Pontiffs, cannot any longer be considered a question of free discussion among the theologians.”
—Pope Pius XII Humani Generis 1950
“…we are bound to believe and what we are obliged to do, are laid down, as we have stated, by the Church using her divine right, and in the Church by the supreme Pontiff. Wherefore it belongs to the Pope to judge authoritatively what things the sacred oracles contain, as well as what doctrines are in harmony, and what in disagreement, with them; and also, for the same reason, to show forth what things are to be accepted as right, and what to be rejected as worthless; what it is necessary to do and what to avoid doing, in order to attain eternal salvation. For,otherwise, there would be no sure interpreter of the commands of God, nor would there be any safe guide showing man the way he should live.” —Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, n. 24, 1890
“All who defend the faith should aim to implant deeply in your faithful people the virtues of piety, veneration, and respect for this supreme See of Peter. Let the faithful recall the fact that Peter, Prince of Apostles is alive here and rules in his successors, and that his office does not fail even in an unworthy heir. Let them recall that Christ the Lord placed the impregnable foundation of his Church on this See of Peter [Mt 16:18] and gave to Peter himself the keys of the kingdom of Heaven [Mt 16:19]. Christ then prayed that his faith would not fail, and commanded Peter to strengthen his brothers in the faith [Lk 22:32]. Consequently the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, holds a primacy over the whole world and is the true Vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christians.
“Indeed one simple way to keep men professing Catholic truth is to maintain their communion with and obedience to the Roman Pontiff. For it is impossible for a man ever to reject any portion of the Catholic faith without abandoning the authority of the Roman Church. In this authority, the unalterable teaching office of this faith lives on. It was set up by the divine Redeemer and, consequently, the tradition from the Apostles has always been preserved. So it has been a common characteristic both of the ancient heretics and of the more recent Protestants — whose disunity in all their other tenets is so great — to attack the authority of the Apostolic See. But never at any time were they able by any artifice or exertion to make this See tolerate even a single one of their errors.” Pope Pius IX Nostis et Nobiscum, 8 December 1849, nn. 16-17
But muh impeachment for inciting a false flag insurrection that was staged and started before the speech.
In a detailed letter addressed to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, former U.S. Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund said the department “did not fail” on Jan. 6, arguing that Capitol Police did everything it could with the intelligence available beforehand, but still did not expect a group of “thousands of well-coordinated, well-equipped violent criminals” to attack law enforcement at the Capitol building.
Sund, who resigned after the insurrection, revealed that a number of those in the crowd, “were wearing radio earpieces indicating a high level of coordination,” and many also carried, “weapons, chemical munitions, protective equipment, explosives and climbing gear.”
The letter addressed to Pelosi on Feb. 1 claimed that the first 150 members of the National Guard were not sworn in on Capitol grounds on Jan. 6 until about four and half hours after Sund’s request for their support was approved by the Capitol Police Board.
“What occurred on January 6th cannot be considered under any circumstances a protest, rally of civil disobedience. This was a well-planned, coordinated insurrection at the United States Capitol,” Sund wrote. “The USCP does not have the manpower, the training of the capabilities to handle an armed insurrection involving thousands of individuals bent on violence and destruction at all costs. Nevertheless, because of their bravery and professionalism in the face of this attack, USCP did not fail.”
CDC hopping mad about it too, suggest solutions like additional propaganda/re-education.
This came out three days ago. Have you seen it covered in the MSM anywhere?
Residents and staff members of long-term care facilities (LTCFs), because they live and work in congregate settings, are at increased risk for infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (1,2). In particular, skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), LTCFs that provide skilled nursing care and rehabilitation services for persons with complex medical needs, have been documented settings of COVID-19 outbreaks (3). In addition, residents of LTCFs might be at increased risk for severe outcomes because of their advanced age or the presence of underlying chronic medical conditions (4). As a result, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has recommended that residents and staff members of LTCFs be offered vaccination in the initial COVID-19 vaccine allocation phase (Phase 1a) in the United States (5). In December 2020, CDC launched the Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care Program* to facilitate on-site vaccination of residents and staff members at enrolled LTCFs. To evaluate early receipt of vaccine during the first month of the program, the number of eligible residents and staff members in enrolled SNFs was estimated using resident census data from the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN†) and staffing data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Payroll-Based Journal.§ Among 11,460 SNFs with at least one vaccination clinic during the first month of the program (December 18, 2020–January 17, 2021), an estimated median of 77.8% of residents (interquartile range [IQR] = 61.3%– 93.1%) and a median of 37.5% (IQR = 23.2%– 56.8%) of staff members per facility received ≥1 dose of COVID-19 vaccine through the Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care Program. The program achieved moderately high coverage among residents; however, continued development and implementation of focused communication and outreach strategies are needed to improve vaccination coverage among staff members in SNFs and other long-term care settings.
(An Opinion Piece in the Form of an Opening Statement — May 18, 2020)
In the matter of The People v Andrew Cuomo, on the charge of murder, I am Attorney Scott Lively, representing The People. You have been empaneled as the jury in this matter, and it will be your job to determine the guilt or innocence of the defendant in this case, Mr. Andrew Cuomo, Governor of the State of New York, on the charge of murder in the deaths of thousands of elderly Americans who lost their lives in nursing homes as a consequence of infection with Covid 19 disease caused by exposure to infected individuals intentionally discharged from hospitals and placed in these homes. These initial facts are uncontested and news reports have informed the entire world of the great human tragedy suffered by these victims and their families. But the question before you today, is the degree of responsibility for those deaths that should be borne by the defendant. This is a question of fact that only you, the jury, can decide.
What the evidence will show is that in the first five months of 2020, as the Covid-19 Pandemic raged through the State of New York, more than 5000 of New York’s citizens most vulnerable to the ravages of this terrible disease were killed by this virus in nursing homes. We will show that these nursing home deaths represented 25% – literally a quarter – of all Covid-19 deaths in the State of New York, a vastly disproportionate number of victims compared to the size of the general population of infected persons.
The People will call witnesses from the State Health Department to explain a March 25th policy directive of the state health department directive requiring nursing homes to take coronavirus patients. These witnesses will testify that this legally binding directive barred nursing homes from requiring incoming patients “to be tested for COVID-19 prior to admission or readmission.” They will also affirm that this policy was not just holdover bureaucratic red tape that forced nursing homes to accept infected patients, but was a premeditated policy change, specifically implemented at the height of the pandemic, in response to it!
We will show that the March 25 order states, “Residents are deemed appropriate for return to a [nursing home] upon a determination by the hospital physician or designee that the resident is medically stable for return.” And we will call witnesses to verify that while the notification gives no specific definition of “medically stable,” health experts insist that those patients should have been assumed to be contagious.
We will further show that even when the disease began rampaging through these care facilities like a hurricane, the state would not reverse the policy. We will call the head of Brooklyn’s Cobble Hill Health Center and introduce as evidence his frantic email exchange with state health officials on April 9th begging for permission to send suspected covid cases to the Javitz center or the medial ships in New York harbor. He will testify that he was denied permission and more than 50 residents at his home died. Other nursing home officials from around the state will tell similar stories.
The Defense will argue that Governor Cuomo should not be held responsible for the actions of his state health officials, and that in the month of May he eventually did intervene to rescind the March 25th directive, but we will show that Governor Cuomo’s policy recision occurred only after calls for an independent investigation had begun circulating in the media, and we will call a Cuomo aide who will state that the May policy change was not a reversal in recognition of error, but simply a new policy based on increased hospital capacity and testing. We will also show that Governor Cuomo wielded defacto dictatorial power during this period.
The People will call witnesses who will testify that the Cuomo administration intentionally withheld the data on nursing home deaths from the public, and it will be up to you, the jury, to decide whether this evidence proves knowledge of guilt, and whether precious lives could have been saved by an earlier public outcry.
In this trial, there will be a lot of back and forth about just how deadly the Covid 19 disease really is, and how many of the Governor’s actions and policies that now seem erroneous to critics can be justified by the exigent circumstances at the time. And surely the people would agree that no leader can bat a thousand in the best of circumstances, let alone under the pressure of a major public health emergency.
However, we will argue that this case is not about any one bad choice or policy, but a pattern of choices that reflect at the very least a gross and callous disregard for human life, and at worst, a deliberate intention to sacrifice the elderly and infirm as more expendable than others in the battle against Covid 19, or, even worse, considering them so disposable as to not be worthy of efforts to sequester them in less contagion-susceptible facilities.
That’s an extremely serious charge, but we will show that it is not an unreasonable conclusion, and that other policies enacted under Governor’s leadership bolster it. We will, for example, take a close look at an April 17th directive of New York state health officials ordering emergency service workers not to revive anyone without a pulse, stating in a memo, the change is “necessary during the COVID-19 response to protect the health and safety of EMS providers by limiting their exposure, conserve resources, and ensure optimal use of equipment to save the greatest number of lives.” Like the nursing home directive, this policy was also eventually rescinded, but only after public outcry.
In the end, however, your determination of Governor Cuomo’s culpability may have less to do with the enormous volume of evidence The People will present, than with the simple common sense observation that while the Governor was justifying the near total lock down of the State of New York, sacrificing hundreds of thousands if not millions of jobs, suspending the peoples’ most fundamental constitutional rights, and forcing mandatory masked-up social distancing on everyone in the name of protecting the most vulnerable – he was knowingly and intentionally sending hundreds of disease carriers into the very facilities where the very most vulnerable were congregated in conditions most optimal for the spread of the disease.
If that’s not murder, then words have lost their meaning.
