The Worm-Filled Vatican Synodal Church

The Catholic Church has had the great misfortune of having elected two modern popes who identify with Latin America. Francis, who was Italian, identified as Argentinean and embraced Latin American liberation theology, a Marxist doctrine posing as concern for the poor and the “oppressed” while circumventing the Church’s primary mission concerning the salvation of souls. Because cantankerous Francis liked to make a show of his humility, he opted to forgo living at the official papal residence, the Apostolic Palace, instead taking a so-called modest apartment in the Domus Sanctae Marthae, a building where cardinals stay during papal conclaves. This move enhanced the myth of the man’s humility although this fact was recently revealed to be a lie. Catholic podcaster John-Henry Westen’s interview with Rome professor, theologian, and mariologist Dr. William Anthony Thomas, sheds light on Francis’s decision to not live in the Apostolic Palace as having nothing to do with humility but everything to do with his hatred of former popes and long-standing papal traditions. Ironically, Francis’s “humble” apartment, according to Thomas, contained an entire floor of the building – larger space than the Apostolic Palace – and his move there prevented anyone else from living in the building. Thomas also recounts that by the end of his papacy, some $26 million dollars had been spent on this special living arrangement. The theologian also reported that the only publication Francis read on a daily basis was a Communist publication – this alone is pretty shocking – and that his vision and obsession of a new Synodal Church came from Justin Welby, the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury from 2013 to 2025. The Synodal Church idea, says Thomas, was concocted when Welby met Francis for a special meeting. That meeting caused a bit of a scandal among real Catholics when Francis knelt before the Anglican archbishop and asked for his blessing, in effect canceling out what the Catholic Church has always believed: that Anglican religious orders are invalid. In other words, Francis received a fake blessing from a fake archbishop as the two of them came up with an even bigger fake idea: a Synodal Church based on conversations, listening, and feelings rather than the old biblical notions of sin and personal accountability. When Francis was Cardinal-Archbishop of Buenos Aires, he waged a holy war against many forms of traditional Catholicism, while simultaneously posing as a peoples’ bishop who rode the subway to work every day. In Latin American liberation theology, the concept of the worker-priest meant less emphasis on being a priest and more emphasis on working to improve the conditions of the impoverished; one thinks of Peace Corp volunteers although many worker-priests ditched priestly cassocks for worker costumes and a cocked beret reminiscent of Che Guevara. Fast forward to Leo XIV, the first American pope, educated at a minimalist Catholic university, Villanova, noted for its obsession with sports teams and weekend frat parties. Leo, once known as Robert Prevost, had a long tenure as a missionary in Peru and, from what I can see, returned to the United States a changed man. When Catholic clerics spend any time in Latin America they almost always come back radicalized to some degree. This is no reflection on the people of Latin America. What it reflects is the ideological component of the Church’s mission there, when fighting poverty and for social justice replaces the greater message of the gospel. This perversion eats away at the ‘Catholic’ soul and gives birth to what one might call the quasi-Catholic priest with a soft spot for communism. Leo is definitely a quasi-Catholic of the new Synodal Way. This is the new Catholic Church slowly being built from the Anglican template promulgated by Justin Welby. The Synodal Catholic Church is not the Catholic Church of history and apostolic times, but a new worm-filled creation, divorced from tradition and the Church Fathers. It is a new religion based on feelings and sentimentality where the concept of personal sin is minimized or ignored.

Robert Prevost was brought to power by a cabal of progressive cardinals bent on carrying forth the heresies of Pope Francis. Immediately after his election, Prevost-as-Leo declared he was going to continue the mission and reforms of Francis, or the new Synodal Way: Papa Bergoglio would be his lord and master, not Jesus Christ. Leo would be a copycat pope with no vision of his own. Would Bergoglio approve? What would Bergoglio do? Bergoglio idolatry has come to define Pope Leo XIV’s papacy and most Vatican bureaucrats. Note, also, that the cardinals who elected Leo came under scrutiny recently when Msgr. Marco Agostini, who for more than 16 years served as the Vatican’s pontifical master of ceremonies, described them in an off-moment before a hot mike: “They are faggots, all together.” The contested hot mike moment was captured by a progressive, rainbow-bracelet wearing Catholic blogger who then published the comment on the Italian blog, Silere Non Possum. The publication resulted in the removal of Msgr. Agostini, who served under three popes. It was Pope Francis who set a precedent regarding the use of that slur. He said the word while commenting that there were too many liberal priests in the Church and then apologized. While he was “forgiven,” Agostini was fired. The so-called Holy See has not commented on Agostini’s removal; it’s also doubtful that the weak Villanova grad on the Throne of Peter will say anything about it, either. The disposal of Agostini is a valuable lesson when it comes to knowing who’s in charge at the Vatican. It’s been estimated that up to 70% of Catholic bishops and cardinals are gay, and while gay may not be a “bad” thing when it comes to the general population, when it’s a building block of the Catholic hierarchy it becomes politicized and merges with a progressive agenda that has only one aim: the creation of the new Synodal Catholic Church, the fake Catholic Church that many Catholic mystics of old predicted would eclipse the historic Church.

While the dismissal of Msgr. Agostini didn’t generate a lot of publicity – it was a main feature on the Catholic podcast, Return to Tradition – Pope Leo’s comments on President Trump’s capture of Venezuelan dictator Maduro and his wife went viral. They went viral because the media loves him when he challenges President Trump. In many ways, Leo the mega-mouth won’t shut up. He gives too many off-the-cuff interviews. His lips start moving automatically whenever a microphone is thrust in his face. About that capture, Leo said: “The good of the beloved Venezuelan people must prevail over every other consideration and lead us to overcome violence and to undertake paths of justice and peace, safeguarding the country’s sovereignty, ensuring the rule of law enshrined in the Constitution, respecting the human and civil rights of each person and of all, and working to build together a serene future of collaboration, stability, and concord, with special attention to the poorest…” ‘Overcome violence’ can be read as a reference to Trump for taking Maduro out by force; ‘safeguarding the country’s sovereignty,’ can be read as giving respect to a dictator not democratically elected; ‘ensuring the rule of law enshrined in the Constitution,’ makes no mention of the Monroe Doctrine, “once ranked with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution in the pantheon of American reverence,” according to historian, Gaddis Smith.

Notice Leo’s choice of empty words like “collaboration, stability, and concord,” which would never apply to a dictatorship. Then there’s the big Francis-Leo-worker-priest obsession: “…With special attention to the poorest who suffer….” Yet not one word on how President Trump saved Venezuela and gave it a second chance to become the great democracy it once was.

The Trouble with Leftist Female Reporters (Frontpage) Thom Nickels

Legacy media news outlets have been having a field day with President Trump’s “relationship” with certain female reporters. From CNN, MSNBC, Huff Post to the New York Times, the stories have documented every perceived slight, snort, or actual insult hurled at a number of highly ambitious female journalists. Trump’s checkered history with the press also includes his disdain for a fair number of male journalists. George Stephanopoulos became George Slopadopoulos or Lil’ George, Jake Tapper became Fake Tapper, and Chuck Todd became Sleepy Eyes. During his first term in 2018, Trump had major clashes with CNN’s Jim Acosta. In the insult department, Trump is an equal opportunity “employer,” yet it is leftist female journalists who really get under his skin.

In many ways, Trump’s reluctance to tolerate uppity virtue-signaling female journalists coincides with those satirical memes that address the danger of leftist white women. The danger comes when progressive white women go overboard in their advocacy for their causes. Aren’t they the ones who go running after ICE vehicles during migrant raids? Aren’t they the ones who get in the face of ICE agents to try and stop deportations? Aren’t they the ones who sit in the middle of the street while blowing whistles and chanting open border mantras? The situation with female leftist journalists may not be as visceral, but it’s vehement in a different way. Female leftist journalists, it is said, have long been underestimated in their ability to ask tough questions and hold those in power accountable. To break that mold, the ever-emerging feminist inside these reporters is inclined to go overboard and “outman” what they see as the standard male journalist approach. Often something odd happens during this process: the journalistic method somehow becomes “contorted,” so the reporter’s questions at press conferences are delivered with an accompanying snotty attitude. I call this the NPR effect, because on public radio, especially when a leftist female reporter is conducting an interview and they hit upon names (Donald Trump) or concepts they don’t like, the tone of the reporter’s voice dips or rises in a not so subliminal blast of disapproval.

Trump’s fixation on journalists was not created out of a vacuum, however, but from years of relentless leftist press abuse directed at him from every angle imaginable. As a result, he has sued various media outlets for inaccuracies and biases, and at times has threatened to revoke broadcast licenses of funding for left-wing public broadcasting. One could say that Donald Trump has had enough. Post Traumatic Leftist Press Syndrome (PTLPS) has done him in. While one can argue that he could still exercise self-control before lashing out at (mainly) female reporters who question him in a snotty tone of voice, the fact remains he is only human. When you poke a bear relentlessly with TDS-stabs, you risk getting your attitude back in spades. Consider CNN’s Kaitlan Collins, whose straight low-on-the-forehead long hair frames eyebrows that look like poisoned arrows. Collins’ penetrating gaze isn’t a look that necessarily indicates stupidity, though one can see nastiness lurking beneath the surface. Trump called Collins “stupid and nasty” after she asked about the rising costs of the White House ballroom. Again, as Trump has said many times, it’s often not the question that irks or bothers him but the tone and attitude behind the question. With Collins especially we see the schoolmarm corrective tone in all its glory. Bloomsday reporter Catherine Lucey, who used to write for the Philadelphia Daily News, also came under fire when she attempted to ask Trump aboard Air Force One about the Epstein files. The president’s retort, “Quiet, piggy” went viral. This was Lucey’s second question to the president during that press conference. The first question was asked without a hitch but as anyone who has watched presidential press conferences knows, some reporters don’t know when to stop talking. They hog center stage like the career narcissists they are. A White House official explained Trump’s remarks on Air Force One to the leftist The Guardian: “This reporter behaved in an inappropriate and unprofessional way towards her colleagues on the plane…If you’re going to give it, you have to be able to take it.” Unfortunately, the White House didn’t go into detail here. A backstory might have helped the viral one-sided take on the confrontation which portrayed Trump as rude and a misogynist.

On December 8, Trump tore into two female journalists who attempted to ask him off-topic questions during an agriculture round table at the White House. One of the women was ABC News’ Rachel Scott who wanted to know if Trump was going to release the full video of the September 2 strike on a Venezuelan drug boat. Trump then called her “the most obnoxious reporter in the whole place”, because she didn’t seem to remember that he had previously announced that, “Whatever Pete Hegseth wants to do is OK with me.” It was Scott, after all, who interviewed Trump in 2024 for the National Association of Black Journalists. Scott, at that time, tore into him and asked him about past statements he made about black leaders, including Barack Obama. “Why should black voters trust you after you have used language like that?” she asked. Her mood was abrasive and scolding. “I don’t think I’ve ever been asked a question in such a horrible manner, a first question,” Trump replied. “You don’t even say ‘hello, how are you.’ Are you with ABC? Because I think they’re a fake news network.” And Trump was right. There wasn’t even a “How are you?” when the interview began. It was extremely hostile from the start. From that moment on, the dye was cast: Rachel Scott is horrible. Finally, Trump lashed out at ABC News’ Mary Bruce when she asked him how he could reconcile having Saudi Arabia’s crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, join him in the Oval Office even though the prince had ordered the violent killing of a Washington Post columnist in 2018. Trump had every right to be offended considering the crown prince was sitting next to him. “You don’t have to embarrass our guest by asking a question like that,” he said. And he was right. He was more than right. Only an unhinged “more manly than men” feminist journalist would dare ask a question like that. “It’s not the question that I mind; it’s your attitude,” Trump told Bruce. “It’s the way you ask these questions.” As the famous leftist (female) journalist Molly Ivins once said, “Being slightly delusional is good. It keeps things fun.”

TRUMP'S COMMENTS ON ROB REINER'S DEATH

The fallout over President Trump’s comments on the death of Rob Reiner can be compared to one of those atomic bomb mushroom clouds in Japanese Sci-Fi movies. The legacy media, never the president’s friend no matter the issue, quoted a number of conservatives disgusted by Trump’s “crude” comments on the killing of the Brentwood, California native.

You had Republican Kentucky representative Thomas Massie, who has clashed with Trump since the president returned to the White House in January, writing on X: “Regardless of how you felt about Rob Reiner, this is inappropriate and disrespectful discourse about a man who was just brutally murdered.” The Trump-hating BBC doubled down with reports on Republicans critical of the president’s comments on Reiner. What I found odd about the BBC reportage was its “constructive criticism” approach to the issue, as if it were merely calling for a president it hated immensely to be compassionate despite its editorial record of wanting only one thing: Trump’s demise. The BBC seemed to be saying, “If only you had more empathy, Mr. President, we might be persuaded to love you a little bit!” CNN had fun calling Trump’s comments that Reiner was “very bad for our country” and that his death could be “linked to Trump derangement syndrome,” as “Indefensible,” despite the fact that Trump began his comments on Reiner by stating that the killing was “very sad.” “Very sad,” in Trumpian terms, contains a world of feeling. Trump is not one to wax ad infinitum on sentimental feelings. A bull in a china shop has a hard time understanding nuance. Some have even described his reaction and comments after the death of Charlie Kirk as being strangely abrupt and a little cold.

Yet that simple, “very sad,” was much more than the armies of crazed leftists ever said about the murder of Charlie Kirk. The word “sad” was not even in the leftist vocabulary after Kirk was shot. Some lefty talking heads in the media were careful to preface critical remarks about Kirk with generic statements about the importance of free speech and how violence should never be used to eliminate unpopular views. For the most part this was just protective ‘career-speak,’ because once they were finished talking about free speech, they laid into Kirk’s views with a sledge hammer. I don’t think any of these media lefties ever used the word “sad” when describing Kirk’s murder. Their stock responses to the murder reminded me of the mechanics of diagramming complex sentences in grammar school: the first clause is highlighted while the second clause is arranged under the first in a platform-like design. But it’s always the second clause in these diagrammed sentences that usually deliver the “punch” or the real meaning of the sentence. How easy it is to sit in judgment of a president who has been reviled in every way imaginable by hatred so severe it led to two assassination attempts, one in which he skirted death by a hair, but even here there were lefties who said the assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania was an orchestrated campaign ploy designed to arouse sympathy and boost Trump’s chances to win the 2024 election. “It was a staged event so the world could see Orange Man raise his fist defiantly against the haters who wanted him dead,” they said. “How could anyone get up like that after being shot and raise his fist?” Donald Trump could, and he did just that. Every single one of the critics who condemned Trump for his lack of empathy and compassion regarding Reiner’s death never survived an assassination attempt. Consider Ann Coulter, her long blond hair framing a face that could double as an icon in the Museum of Modern Art. Coulter may have had to hire security when she was booed off a number of college campuses, but as far as I know she’s never had her ear grazed by a bullet from someone suffering from Coulter Derangement Syndrome. In fact, when Coulter was challenged by those who pointed out that Reiner had criticized commentator Rush Limbaugh after his death – it should be noted that one day after Limbaugh died, Reiner attacked the late conservative radio host as a purveyor of disinformation – she responded that, “Rush died peacefully of natural causes. He wasn’t stabbed to death.” She then added that the reaction from some conservatives was “indistinguishable from liberals justifying the hate after Charlie Kirk was murdered.” Call this give-and-take a karmic balance, something that easily and sadly happens in a war. Make no mistake: Violent political discord and uncontrolled TDS is a national shredding tantamount to a civil war. You have only to look at the debasement and condemnation of Donald Trump from every corner of the legacy and entertainment news media – from Chuck Schumer to the bowels of late-night Jimmy Kimmel TV – to know that a house divided is a house at war. And war is always ugly. It’s also true that civil wars breed a certain degree of insensitivity when the “other side” loses warriors or heroes. How bad do you think New York Yankee families in 1861 felt about the war deaths of Confederate distant relatives in Virginia or North Carolina? They may have felt a vague generic sadness for a few days but that feeling was no doubt rationalized away as “unfortunate but understandable” considering the deceased had the misguided views and was on the “wrong side.”

Even that scion of mega-mouth adolescent immaturity, Nick Fuentes, claimed to have been shocked by Trump’s “insensitive” comments on Rob Reiner. Fuentes, a guy on record as calling Hitler “cool,” suddenly became a major virtue signaler, the male version of Emily Post clutching her pearls. When was Nick Fuentes ever sensitive? Fuentes’s’ comments on Trump and Reiner did it for me: this conservative Bolshevik really wants Republicans to lose the White House in 2028. Fuentes and cohort pundits like Candace Owens want to fracture the conservative movement, making it malleable for a Democrat takeover. Author Rod Dreher recently commented on Fuentes on his blog when he wrote that Fuentes is every much a punk as was Sid Vicious of the Sex Pistols. Referring to the infamous Piers Morgan interview, Dreher writes: “I’m telling you, watch a few minutes of the exchange, and you’ll see why. Fuentes is abhorrent – and doesn’t care that you abhor him. He makes fun of British intellectual Daniel Finkelstein’s stories about family members being slaughtered in the Holocaust, and persecuted by Stalin, that other Fuentes hero.” Fuentes is a heterodox divider who doesn’t care if the movement fractures in time for the 2026 mid-terms so the Democrats can sweep in, impeach Trump, put a hold on ICE deportations, end the war on DEI, and continue the “transification” of the United States. With Fuentes brandishing his own version of TDS – he outrageously claims that the Trump administration has not delivered on any of its 2024 election promises – he is setting a path for a Newsom victory in 2028, which will, of course, end and dismantle everything Trump has put into place. That day will be a sad reckoning. America was almost great again but the Democrats were allowed to come back and restart the woke revolution. This surely will be Jimmy Kimmel’s last laugh. It will also be a time for Kamala Harris to dance, as Tim Walz looks straight into the lineup of CNN and ABC cameras and boasts: “Who’s the retard now?”

Saint Michael the Archangel Russian Orthodox Church, Philadelphia

A parishoner of St. Michael's for some 40 years shares her thoughts with me about the parish: As long as our church focuses on something we are not instead of on Jesus, we cannot grow. Its become a private club not teaching the love of God or His salvation. It teaches cannons written by men, imposes absurd fasts and suffering while ignoring Jesus and his direct message of hypocrisy of the Jewish Pharisees and Sadducees whom he directly challenged. They killed Him for it. Meanwhile all the miraculous appearances of the Blessed Mother, message of forgiveness and salvation as well as Gods love are downplayed. Where are their charitable works, doing good for the sick, poor, hungry, homeless and lost? Why are we using ridiculous Russian names for study groups and Russian novels only? Why a Novgorod Ball in Philadelphia? This isn't Czarist Russia. The Pentecost saw the Holy Spirit change the apostles' tongues and the same day when they went out preaching the gospel over 30000 were instantly converted. God showed you must speak in the language of the people and tell the Gospel of repentance, baptism and becoming a new being in Christ. My heart weeps at what is happening

Ileana of Romania: Princess, Exilt and Mother Superior. May 30, 2026

Foreign-born new neighbors send up hostile flares. Are they Somalies?

Private driveway or condo drive-thru? The condo unit at 2600 Albert Street in Old Richmond (Philadelphia) has been up and running for several years. It was built during the pandemic and for many months construction was dormant. The place filled up when the project wsa finally finished, but 2-3 years after that some residents began moving out. The wandering, vagabond American! Always looking for someplace "nicer." One unit currently stands empty. Unit #6 on Harold Street has become the home of new neighbors. Who knows where they are from. They appear to be Indian or Somalies, but who knows. One wishes they were nice people. I have Indian friends, especially in the medical field. But something went terribly amiss one day this week when I found myself taking my usual short-cut along this drive-thru from Harold Street to Mercer Street. The short cut has been essential because of the ongoing, annoying road construction on Almond Street, which has made walking there difficult. The resident of the Harold Street condo told me I was tresspassing and that the drive-thru was his private driveway. Private driveway? The condo is a shared enviornment and the drive-thru would then have to be available to all the residents there. Yet this individual insisted that he owned it alone and had the authoity to ban nearby neighbors from taking this popular short-cut from Mercer to Harold, and vice versa. When I argued with this gentleman, he told me, "Okay, I tried to be nice, but now I'm gonna say the next time I see you walk through here, I'm gonna f-ck you up!" How neighborly! I lost it, amazed at the inhospitability and unfriendliness. He then said he was going to build a fence to prevent people from walking back and forth. I told him I was going to file a police report, which I did do. What happens next is anybody's guess.

LIPSTICK ON WOKE: NANCY PELOSI

Emerita Nancy Pelosi’s retirement marks the end of a stunning career, complete with a million photo ops that show her in 4-inch stilettos while on official government business. To wit, the time she held the House floor for 8 hours-in heels-while advocating for Dreamers; the press at that time remarked, “What man could ever hope to match such an athletic fete!” (In today’s Democrat Party, there could be quite a few.) Search the Web for shots of Pelosi in heels and you’ll find many dedicated to the topic: Pelosi playing darts in heels; Pelosi showing up for work, in heels; Pelosi returning to Congress in 2025 after hip surgery without her trademark 4-inch stilettos. In 2018, The Washington Post featured a story about Pelosi with the headline: “What is it about women and power and shoes?” Then there’s the lipstick. There are articles devoted to her fashion and lipstick. In a New York Times interview with Pelosi right after Harris’ loss to Trump, there are numerous bracketed references [Pelosi bangs on the table] indicating her emotional response to certain questions. During that interview, Pelosi said, “When the candidate for president [Trump] is saying that these people coming in [illegally] are murderers, rapists, thieves and all the rest of that. He made that a cultural issue….He said they were criminals. And they weren’t. They weren’t. I don’t think we were clear enough by saying fewer people came in under President Biden than came under Donald Trump.” This is nothing but lipstick on a lie. Politico, summing up Pelosi’s political style as a “realpolitk approach,” went into detail about why she “stands alone” and why “Mike Johnson will never have that level of [4-inch heel] name recognition.”

In an October 2025, Harvard Institute of Politics interview, Pelosi answered questions about her career and the future of the Democrat Party. After stating that her main concerns had always been working families, social justice and reproductive freedom, she was asked if the Democrats had drifted too far to the Left. Her answer was that the Democrat Party was a reflection of the country (never mind the nation’s sweeping rejection of Democrat values in the 2024 election). Then she U-turned and said, “Most elected official govern from the center,” while calling herself a leftwing liberal. She didn’t stop there. She accelerated gears and slipped into a stream of consciousness rant, going from one topic to another, rambling at times while waving her hands and then extending her arms in great sweeping motions as if conducting an orchestra. She slurred some words while mispronouncing others. Her face seemed to move in a big choreographed spasm. The journalist, afraid to interrupt, let her proceed. At one point Pelosi even stood up and walked out near the audience, waving to people she recognized. She praised Ronald Reagan. “What a great communicator,” she said, commenting on the last speech he gave before switching to Republicans who criticize her views. “Oh you’re too walk!” they say. She blinked harshly and corrected herself. “I mean woke!” She talked about social policies that have come to be associated with Democrats like “affordability,” and paired this with a phrase that took me by surprise: “When Christ came down from Heaven He enabled us to partake in His divinity.” Suddenly she was Bishop Fulton F. Sheen. Do leftwing liberals really talk like this? The juxtaposition of a 2nd grade catechism lesson with Democrat policies advocating abortion, transgender and gender insanity left me spellbound. A friend told me to watch Pelosi’s interviews for facial movements and mannerisms reminiscent of Marilyn Monroe. I did that and concurred this was sometimes the case. Pelosi’s look of wide-eyed astonishment accelerates when she talks politics; her tongue rolls around inside her mouth and then seems to push out her upper lip, while her lipstick adds a surrealist touch. Recorded before Mamdani’s victory in New York City, the Harvard interview gave her the opportunity to comment on whether the communist represented the future of the Democrat Party. “It’s up to the people of New York,” she said, “but Republicans will tattoo Mamdani on every Democrat running for office.” Obviously, she doesn’t have a good feeling about Mamdani because she refused to comment further. One wonders what her thoughts will be when New York City is no longer the nation’s chief financial hub because of a Mamdani-driven mass exodus to Texas. Pelosi prefers political brawling on lighter issues, especially when it comes to the art of winning elections. This became obvious when she flipped the interviewer’s question to say how Republicans have demonized her, leading to how, “Somebody came in my house and hurt my husband with a hammer.” Yet not a single word about how Democrats and their ilk have demonized Donald Trump. She’s been called the ‘Queen of Stock Trading’ and an alcoholic, though there are claims that she doesn’t drink at all while other claims and posts on X “document” how at 84 years of age she’ll have 7 alcoholic drinks on a 4 hour airline flight. The truth is hard to discern. In March 2018, she appeared on Ru Paul’s ‘Drag Race’ where she posed with Paul in a power-to-the people salute. The photo of the two of them together has become a Democrat “icon” representing all the ways in which “Christ’s coming down from Heaven enables us to partake in His [woke] divinity.” In 2020, CNN reported how she felt “liberated” when she ripped up a copy of President Trump’s State of the Union address on camera. Her face wasn’t moving or shaking then, and her lipstick wasn’t all that bright red, but the action constituted a sort of soft insurrection that should have had severe consequences. She should have been censured, but wasn’t. Republicans denounced her actions and introduced a resolution calling the speaker’s conduct at the State of the Union “a breach of decorum” that “degraded the proceedings of the joint session,” but it fell on deaf ears. She did it, she said, because she felt Trump was “shredding the truth” and so she would shred his speech. She claimed the move was largely unplanned; it was spontaneous, like the movement of the muscles on her face. Susan Page, the author of a new book, “Madam Speaker: Nancy Pelosi and the Lessons of Power,” explained that Pelosi tore the speech up because she couldn’t find a pen. “So she made a tiny tear in the margin of the paper so that she could find this untruth. Then she found another thing she thought was untrue, and another, and another. She said by the time he was through speaking, the whole speech had little tears along the margins of things he had said that she said she thought were false. That’s when she decided, ‘I might as well tear this up.” All in all, the process was a little bit like applying make-up, Pelosi-style. Put it on and take it off and gloss over the truth until its time to walk off-stage in your 4-inch heels. Thom Nickels (Frontpage Magazine)