Separation of Church and State is a Sin: Here’s Why
(LifeSiteNews) — This headline might seem shocking to some readers. Many of us have grown up under political systems which enshrine separation of Church and State in constitutional law, or otherwise regard it as positive for society.
However, this headline reflects the teaching of the Catholic Church as transmitted to us by the Roman Pontiffs. This teaching has been explained with particular clarity and detail by Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical letter Immortale Dei, “On the Christian Constitution of States,” and in Libertas, “On Human Liberty.”
Rediscovering this doctrine will help us to understand many of the problems faced by the modern west. We know that something has gone badly wrong in our society: abortion, redefinition of marriage, transgenderism, spiraling crime, rising suicide rates, endless wars, and many other symptoms of a civilization in rapid collapse.
This, according to the popes, is what inevitably happens to a society which tries to live without God and without the divine revelation which has he entrusted to his Church.
The assertion made in the headline, that “separation of Church and State is a sin”, is derived from the teaching of Pope Leo XIII, who wrote:
It is a public crime to act as though there were no God. So, too, is it a sin for the State not to have care for religion as a something beyond its scope, or as of no practical benefit; or out of many forms of religion to adopt that one which chimes in with the fancy; for we are bound absolutely to worship God in that way which He has shown to be His will.[1]
He continues:
All who rule, therefore, would hold in honor the holy name of God, and one of their chief duties must be to favor religion, to protect it, to shield it under the credit and sanction of the laws, and neither to organize nor enact any measure that may compromise its safety. This is the bounden duty of rulers to the people over whom they rule.[2]
Many people today, including some who sincerely wish to be Catholic, reject this doctrine.
They insist that, while as individuals and families they are bound to follow God’s law and practice the true religion, the state may, perhaps must, be neutral in matters of religion. Pope Leo XIII rejects this position:
There are others, somewhat more moderate though not more consistent, who affirm that the morality of individuals is to be guided by the divine law, but not the morality of the State, for that in public affairs the commands of God may be passed over and may be entirely disregarded in the framing of laws.
Hence follows the fatal theory of the need of separation between Church and State. But the absurdity of such a position is manifest.[3]
The doctrine that Leo XIII regarded as manifestly absurd, is something which many people today regard as manifestly good.
The proper distinction between Church and State
There is a proper and necessary distinction of Church and State.
“The Almighty,” teaches Pope Leo XIII, “has given the charge of the human race to two powers, the ecclesiastical and the civil, the one being set over divine, and the other over human, things.”[4]
The civil authorities use natural means to achieve the end of natural happiness for their subjects. The ecclesiastical authorities use supernatural means to achieve the end supernatural happiness for all mankind.
The pope explains further:
Each in its kind is supreme, each has fixed limits within which it is contained, limits which are defined by the nature and special object of the province of each, so that there is, we may say, an orbit traced out, within which the action of each is brought into play by its own native right.[5]
Church and State both have their origin in God and ought to cooperate harmoniously with each other as they pursue their own proper work for the benefit of those subject to them.
And while they are two distinct societies, each possessing different ends, different means, and different authorities, they are united in their members. All the members of the Church are also the members of a State.[6] And it is this joint membership that leads to a necessary unity between Church and State.
The Holy Father teaches:
There must, accordingly, exist between these two powers a certain orderly connection, which may be compared to the union of the soul and body in man. The nature and scope of that connection can be determined only, as We have laid down, by having regard to the nature of each power, and by taking account of the relative excellence and nobleness of their purpose.
One of the two has for its proximate and chief object the well-being of this mortal life; the other, the everlasting joys of heaven. Whatever, therefore in things human is of a sacred character, whatever belongs either of its own nature or by reason of the end to which it is referred, to the salvation of souls, or to the worship of God, is subject to the power and judgment of the Church.
Whatever is to be ranged under the civil and political order is rightly subject to the civil authority.
Jesus Christ has Himself given command that what is Caesar’s is to be rendered to Caesar, and that what belongs to God is to be rendered to God.[7]
Church and State are distinct as societies but may be united in their members. The following sections explore the nature of this unity in more depth.
What we are bound to do as individuals, we are bound to do as a collective
Human beings are rational animals. As Aristotle famously wrote “All men by nature desire to know.”[8] Reflecting on the world around us, leads us to the knowledge that God exists, and reason tells us that such a God ought to be adored. All men and women have a moral obligation, binding under the natural law, to believe in God, and to worship Him.
God has also revealed Himself to us in Jesus Christ. By miracles and prophecy, he has given us all the evidence we need to know that Jesus Christ is God, and that His teaching is true. There is an obligation to accept the gospel once we have heard it preached. The gravity of this obligation was made clear by Our Lord Himself:
And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned. (Mk 16:15-16)
Every individual human being must believe in God, accept the gospel of Jesus Christ, and live according to it. That obligation does not cease when we come together as individuals. This is seen very clearly in family life. Catholic families pray together, have religious imagery in their homes, and raise children in the Catholic faith. Nobody argues that families should be “secular” even though the members are individually Catholic.
Many other societies are also given a Catholic character by their Catholic members; there are Catholic schools, Catholic orphanages, Catholic hospitals, and so on. When individual Catholics come together, they form Catholic societies.
It is the teaching of the Catholic Church, that when Catholics come together to form a state, that state should also have a Catholic character. And just as all men and women are obliged to believe in God, and to receive the gospel, so too are all states obliged to publicly acknowledge God, and the truth of the Catholic religion. The duty of states follows logically from the duty of individuals.
Pope Leo XIII teaches:
Nature and reason, which command every individual devoutly to worship God in holiness, because we belong to Him and must return to Him, since from Him we came, also bind the civil community by a like law.[9]
This is because:
[M]en living together in society are under the power of God no less than individuals are, and society, no less than individuals, owes gratitude to God who gave it being and maintains it and whose ever-bounteous goodness enriches it with countless blessings.[10]
Just as individuals have duties towards God, the State which is composed by those very individuals, must “act up to the manifold and weighty duties linking it to God, by the public profession of religion.”[11]
And the State cannot choose a religion for itself, but is bound to adhere to that religion which is true:
[N]o one is allowed to be remiss in the service due to God, and since the chief duty of all men is to cling to religion in both its teaching and practice – not such religion as they may have a preference for, but the religion which God enjoins, and which certain and most clear marks show to be the only one true religion – it is a public crime to act as though there were no God.
So, too, is it a sin for the State not to have care for religion as a something beyond its scope, or as of no practical benefit; or out of many forms of religion to adopt that one which chimes in with the fancy; for we are bound absolutely to worship God in that way which He has shown to be His will.[12]
And there is only one religion which God has shown to be true, as the pope makes clear:
Now, it cannot be difficult to find out which is the true religion, if only it be sought with an earnest and unbiased mind; for proofs are abundant and striking. We have, for example, the fulfilment of prophecies, miracles in great numbers, the rapid spread of the faith in the midst of enemies and in face of overwhelming obstacles, the witness of the martyrs, and the like. From all these it is evident that the only true religion is the one established by Jesus Christ Himself, and which He committed to His Church to protect and to propagate.[13]
And he continued:
For the only-begotten Son of God established on earth a society which is called the Church, and to it He handed over the exalted and divine office which He had received from His Father, to be continued through the ages to come. “As the Father hath sent Me, I also send you.” “Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.” Consequently, as Jesus Christ came into the world that men “might have life and have it more abundantly,” so also has the Church for its aim and end the eternal salvation of souls, and hence it is so constituted as to open wide its arms to all mankind, unhampered by any limit of either time or place. “Preach ye the Gospel to every creature.”[14]
Therefore, it is “one of the chief duties” of “all who rule” to “favor religion, to protect it, to shield it under the credit and sanction of the laws, and neither to organize nor enact any measure that may compromise its safety. This is the bounden duty of ruler to the people over whom they rule.”[15]
The happiness of the people requires the State to profess the true religion
The final end of human beings is to attain to the eternal vision of God in Heaven. In this man’s true happiness lies. Pope Leo XIII teaches:
For one and all are we destined by our birth and adoption to enjoy, when this frail and fleeting life is ended, a supreme and final good in heaven, and to the attainment of this every endeavor should be directed.[16]
The Church is the perfect supernatural society possessed of the supernatural means to sanctify souls and lead them to heaven. The state has as its proper end the natural happiness of the subject. But this does not mean that the State can be indifferent to the final end of its subjects, any more than other societies such as families, schools, and hospitals can be indifferent. As the pope made clear:
Since, then, upon this depends the full and perfect happiness of mankind, the securing of this end should be of all imaginable interests the most urgent.
Hence, civil society, established for the common welfare, should not only safeguard the well-being of the community, but have also at heart the interests of its individual members, in such mode as not in any way to hinder, but in every manner to render as easy as may be, the possession of that highest and unchangeable good for which all should seek.[17]
Therefore, “for this purpose” the State must “preserve unharmed and unimpeded the religion whereof the practice is the link connecting man with God.”[18]
In Libertas, Leo XIII writes:
Nature herself proclaims the necessity of the State providing means and opportunities whereby the community may be enabled to live properly, that is to say, according to the laws of God.
For, since God is the source of all goodness and justice, it is absolutely ridiculous that the State should pay no attention to these laws or render them abortive by contrary enactments.
Besides, those who are in authority owe it to the commonwealth not only to provide for its external well-being and the conveniences of life, but still more to consult the welfare of men’s souls in the wisdom of their legislation. But, for the increase of such benefits, nothing more suitable can be conceived than the laws which have God for their author; and, therefore, they who in their government of the State take no account of these laws abuse political power by causing it to deviate from its proper end and from what nature itself prescribes.[19]
Rev. Denis Fahey, writing in 1944, expands on this aspect of the doctrine:
Politics is the science which has for its object the organization of State in view of the complete Common Good of the citizens in the natural order and the means that conduce to it. As the final end of man is, however, not merely natural, the State, charged with the temporal social order, must ever act in such wise as not only not to hinder but to favor the attaining of man’s supreme end, the vision of God in Three Divine Persons.
Political thought and political action therefore, in an ordered State, will respect the jurisdiction and guidance of the Catholic Church, the divinely-instituted Guardian of the moral order, remembering that what is morally wrong cannot be politically good. Thus the natural or temporal Common Good will be always aimed at by those in authority in the way best calculated to favor family life, in view of the development of true personality, in and through, the Mystical Body of Christ.[20]
The Church is a more exalted society than the State
The Church does not have jurisdiction over the State as such, and its authorities cannot interfere with the State’s own proper operations, but it does, nonetheless, have the more “exalted authority” of the two. It has the “unrestrained” and “unfettered” power and right to carry out its mission, as Leo XIII explains:
This society is made up of men, just as civil society is, and yet is supernatural and spiritual, on account of the end for which it was founded, and of the means by which it aims at attaining that end.
Hence, it is distinguished and differs from civil society, and, what is of highest moment, it is a society chartered as of right divine, perfect in its nature and in its title, to possess in itself and by itself, through the will and loving kindness of its Founder, all needful provision for its maintenance and action.
And just as the end at which the Church aims is by far the noblest of ends, so is its authority the most exalted of all authority, nor can it be looked upon as inferior to the civil power, or in any manner dependent upon it.[21]
He continues:
In very truth, Jesus Christ gave to His Apostles unrestrained authority in regard to things sacred, together with the genuine and most true power of making laws, as also with the twofold right of judging and of punishing, which flow from that power. ‘All power is given to Me in heaven and on earth: going therefore teach all nations… teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.’ And in another place: ‘If he will not hear them, tell the Church.’ And again: ‘In readiness to revenge all disobedience.’ And once more: ‘That… I may not deal more severely according to the power which the Lord bath given me, unto edification and not unto destruction.’[22]
It is necessary that the Church of Christ possess this unrestrained authority because:
[I]t is the Church, and not the State, that is to be man’s guide to heaven. It is to the Church that God has assigned the charge of seeing to, and legislating for, all that concerns religion; of teaching all nations; of spreading the Christian faith as widely as possible; in short, of administering freely and without hindrance, in accordance with her own judgment, all matters that fall within its competence.[23]
The State can never possess any authority over the Church as such, even though it has authority over her members in civil matters. The State has no right to interfere in the proper operations of the Church and may not hinder them in any way. The pope teaches:
Now, this authority, perfect in itself, and plainly meant to be unfettered, so long assailed by a philosophy that truckles to the State, the Church, has never ceased to claim for herself and openly to exercise. The Apostles themselves were the first to uphold it, when, being forbidden by the rulers of the synagogue to preach the Gospel, they courageously answered: ‘We must obey God rather than men.’[24]
This authority, the pope remarked, has been maintained by the “weighty arguments” of the “holy Fathers of the Church” and ‘the Roman Pontiffs have never shrunk from defending it with unbending constancy.”[25]
It has also been frequently acknowledged by rulers themselves:
Nay, more, princes and all invested with power to rule have themselves approved it, in theory alike and in practice. It cannot be called in question that in the making of treaties, in the transaction of business matters, in the sending and receiving ambassadors, and in the interchange of other kinds of official dealings they have been wont to treat with the Church as with a supreme and legitimate power.[26]
Conflicts between Church and State
The Church and State share members and therefore a clash between their respective commands is possible. In Immortale Dei the Holy Father writes:
Inasmuch as each of these two powers has authority over the same subjects, and as it might come to pass that one and the same thing – related differently, but still remaining one and the same thing – might belong to the jurisdiction and determination of both, God, who foresees all things, and who is the author of these two powers, has marked out the course of each in right correlation to the other.[27]
And in Libertas he repeats:
We have more than once pointed out, [that] although the civil authority has not the same proximate end as the spiritual, nor proceeds on the same lines, nevertheless in the exercise of their separate powers they must occasionally meet. For their subjects are the same, and not infrequently they deal with the same objects, though in different ways.[28]
He continues:
Whenever this occurs, since a state of conflict is absurd and manifestly repugnant to the most wise ordinance of God, there must necessarily exist some order or mode of procedure to remove the occasions of difference and contention, and to secure harmony in all things. This harmony has not been inaptly compared to that which exists between the body and the soul for the well-being of both one and the other, the separation of which brings irremediable harm to the body, since it extinguishes its very life.[29]
Such clashes are to be avoided by each society respecting the proper sphere of the other, but in cases where the State commands something contrary to the law or teaching of the Church, it is the Church which must be obeyed for “We ought to obey God, rather than men” (Acts 5:29).
Civil authorities must yield to the authority of the Church in all things pertaining to her proper sphere, including conformity to each and every one of her teachings regarding faith and morals.
The authentic union of Church and State is beneficial to both
The Catholic Church so respects and upholds the legitimate authority of the State, and its divine origins, that:
In such organization of the State there is nothing that can be thought to infringe upon the dignity of rulers, and nothing unbecoming them; nay, so far from degrading the sovereign power in its due rights, it adds to it permanence and luster.[30]
If Church and State cooperate with each other, both will more easily attain their respective ends:
Indeed, when more fully pondered, this mutual co-ordination has a perfection in which all other forms of government are lacking, and from which excellent results would flow, were the several component parts to keep their place and duly discharge the office and work appointed respectively for each.
And, doubtless, in the constitution of the State such as We have described, divine and human things are equitably shared; the rights of citizens assured to them, and fenced round by divine, by natural, and by human law; the duties incumbent on each one being wisely marked out, and their fulfilment fittingly insured.
In their uncertain and toilsome journey to the everlasting city all see that they have safe guides and helpers on their way, and are conscious that others have charge to protect their persons alike and their possessions, and to obtain or preserve for them everything essential for their present life.[31]
The institution of the family will also benefit:
Furthermore, domestic society acquires that firmness and solidity so needful to it from the holiness of marriage, one and indissoluble, wherein the rights and duties of husband and wife are controlled with wise justice and equity; due honor is assured to the woman; the authority of the husband is conformed to the pattern afforded by the authority of God; the power of the father is tempered by a due regard for the dignity of the mother and her offspring; and the best possible provision is made for the guardianship, welfare, and education of the children.[32]
And union of Church and State is the best way to ensure just laws and their equitable enforcement:
In political affairs, and all matters civil, the laws aim at securing the common good, and are not framed according to the delusive caprices and opinions of the mass of the people, but by truth and by justice; the ruling powers are invested with a sacredness more than human, and are withheld from deviating from the path of duty, and from overstepping the bounds of rightful authority; and the obedience is not the servitude of man to man, but submission to the will of God, exercising His sovereignty through the medium of men.[33]
When men and women see that they are governed justly, they will respect and honortheir rulers in return, and there will be social peace:
Now, this being recognized as undeniable, it is felt that the high office of rulers should be held in respect; that public authority should be constantly and faithfully obeyed; that no act of sedition should be committed; and that the civic order of the commonwealth should be maintained as sacred.[34]
Finally, in such a state, every aspect of man’s life and conduct is elevated by the practice of the true religion:
So, also, as to the duties of each one toward his fellow men, mutual forbearance, kindliness, generosity are placed in the ascendant; the man who is at once a citizen and a Christian is not drawn aside by conflicting obligations; and, lastly, the abundant benefits with which the Christian religion, of its very nature, endows even the mortal life of man are acquired for the community and civil society.[35]
Therefore “it may be said in sober truth” that:
The condition of the commonwealth depends on the religion with which God is worshipped; and between one and the other there exists an intimate and abiding connection.[36]
The glory of Christendom
The vision proposed by Leo XIII of the Christian state is no idealistic fantasy. It was to a large extent achieved, though always imperfectly, in the composition of Catholic individuals, Catholic families, and Catholic states, that we call Christendom. The Supreme Pontiff writes:
There was once a time when States were governed by the philosophy of the Gospel. Then it was that the power and divine virtue of Christian wisdom had diffused itself throughout the laws, institutions, and morals of the people, permeating all ranks and relations of civil society. Then, too, the religion instituted by Jesus Christ, established firmly in befitting dignity, flourished everywhere, by the favor of princes and the legitimate protection of magistrates; and Church and State were happily united in concord and friendly interchange of good offices.
The State, constituted in this wise, bore fruits important beyond all expectation, whose remembrance is still, and always will be, in renown, witnessed to as they are by countless proofs which can never be blotted out or ever obscured by any craft of any enemies. Christian Europe has subdued barbarous nations, and changed them from a savage to a civilized condition, from superstition to true worship.
It victoriously rolled back the tide of Mohammedan conquest; retained the headship of civilization; stood forth in the front rank as the leader and teacher of all, in every branch of national culture; bestowed on the world the gift of true and many-sided liberty; and most wisely founded very numerous institutions for the solace of human suffering.
And if we inquire how it was able to bring about so altered a condition of things, the answer is-beyond all question, in large measure, through religion, under whose auspices so many great undertakings were set on foot, through whose aid they were brought to completion.[37]
If Church and State had remained united “a similar state of things would certainly have continued” indeed “more important results even might have been justly looked for” because “when kingdom and priesthood are at one, in complete accord, the world is well ruled, and the Church flourishes, and brings forth abundant fruit. But when they are at variance, not only smaller interests prosper not, but even things of greatest moment fall into deplorable decay.”[38]
But, tragically, the unity of western Christendom was broken, first by Protestantism, then by the rise of Liberalism:
But that harmful and deplorable passion for innovation which was aroused in the sixteenth century threw first of all into confusion the Christian religion, and next, by natural sequence, invaded the precincts of philosophy, whence it spread amongst all classes of society. From this source, as from a fountain-head, burst forth all those later tenets of unbridled license which, in the midst of the terrible upheavals of the last century, were wildly conceived and boldly proclaimed as the principles and foundation of that new conception of law which was not merely previously unknown, but was at variance on many points with not only the Christian, but even the natural law.[39]
Consequently:
The authority of God is passed over in silence, just as if there were no God; or as if He cared nothing for human society; or as if men, whether in their individual capacity or bound together in social relations, owed nothing to God; or as if there could be a government of which the whole origin and power and authority did not reside in God Himself.[40]
The deplorable consequences of such a state are increasingly obvious to all. But no solution will be found until men once again recognize Jesus Christ as King, and honorand obey him, as individuals, as families, and as states. For as Pope Pius XI taught:
We remember saying that these manifold evils in the world were due to the fact that the majority of men had thrust Jesus Christ and his holy law out of their lives; that these had no place either in private affairs or in politics: and we said further, that as long as individuals and states refused to submit to the rule of our Savior, there would be no really hopeful prospect of a lasting peace among nations.
Men must look for the peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ.[41]
References
| ↑1 | Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, No. 6. |
|---|---|
| ↑2 | Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, No. 6. |
| ↑3 | Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, No. 18. |
| ↑4 | Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, No. 13. |
| ↑5 | Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, No. 13. |
| ↑6 | Though, of course, it may be not all the members of a State are members of the Church. |
| ↑7 | Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, No. 14. |
| ↑8 | Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book I, Part I, trans. W. D. Ross. |
| ↑9 | Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, No. 6. |
| ↑10 | Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, No. 6. |
| ↑11 | Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, No. 6. |
| ↑12 | Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, No. 6. |
| ↑13 | Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, No. 7. |
| ↑14 | Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, No. 8. |
| ↑15 | Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, No. 6. |
| ↑16 | Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, No. 6. |
| ↑17 | Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, No. 6. |
| ↑18 | Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, No. 6. |
| ↑19 | Pope Leo XIII, Libertas, No. 18. |
| ↑20 | Rev. Denis Fahey, Money Manipulation and Social Order, (Dublin, 1944), p8. |
| ↑21 | Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, No. 8-10. |
| ↑22 | Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, No. 11. |
| ↑23 | Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, No. 11. |
| ↑24 | Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, No. 12. |
| ↑25 | Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, No. 12. |
| ↑26 | Pope Leo XIII,Immortale Dei, No. 12. |
| ↑27 | Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, No. 14. |
| ↑28 | Pope Leo XIII, Libertas, No. 18. |
| ↑29 | Pope Leo XIII, Libertas, No. 18. |
| ↑30 | Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, No. 17. |
| ↑31 | Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, No. 17. |
| ↑32 | Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, No. 17. |
| ↑33 | Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, No. 17. |
| ↑34 | Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, No. 17. |
| ↑35 | Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, No. 17. |
| ↑36 | Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, No. 17. |
| ↑37 | Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, No. 21. |
| ↑38 | Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, No. 22. |
| ↑39 | Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, No. 23. |
| ↑40 | Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, No. 25. |
| ↑41 | Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas, No. 1. |
Obesity Rate Doubles as Food Companies Fatten up Americans Like Cows with ‘Health at Any Size’ Propaganda Campaign
To keep Americans gobbling down their chemical-laced, genetically modified (GMO) poisons with glee, processed food giants like General Mills are pushing a “health at any size” narrative that presents obesity and chronic illness as trendy and “woke.”
The goal is to convince as many Americans as possible that being fat and sick is completely normal, all so they continue buying sugar- and preservative-filled feed slop that fattens them up like cows for slaughter.
Jaye Rochon learned this the hard way after she bought the “health at any size” mantra and quickly gained 50 pounds. Rochon was already overweight to begin with, so that extra 50 pounds brought her up to a very unhealthy 300 pounds.
Rochon fell for the lies being peddled by General Mills that “anti-dieting” is a scientifically proven strategy to get and stay healthy at any weight. The 51-year-old video editor from Wausau, Wisc., now knows that the food industry’s “anti-diet research” is a total sham, as is the idea that “food shaming” causes harm.
“They made me feel like I was safe eating whatever the hell I wanted,” Rochon told The Washington Post, which ran a profile on her and her story.
(Related: Learn more about how the Obesity Industrial Complex pushes junk food on children from an early age so they grow up to be fat, sluggish pharmaceutical junkies.)
Nestlé also pays dietitians to shove unhealthy junk food in people’s faces
In the case of General Mills, the company showers registered dietitians with cash and gifts in exchange for their support of the #DerailTheShame social media movement, which is similar to the pro-drugs movement behind Big Pharma.
Just like how the pharmaceutical industry showers doctors with cash, fancy dinners and vacations, and gifts for pushing pharmaceuticals and vaccines on their patients, General Mills is essentially bribing dietitians to promote junk food to their patients.
General Mills sponsors social media “influencers” whose job it is to influence the gullible. The company also pays a sizable team of lobbyists to push back against federal policies that aim to clean up the food supply and promote real health through non-obesity.
“You can help derail the cycle of shame,” said Amy Cohn, General Mills’ senior manager for nutrition and external affairs, in an anti-diet diatribe she delivered at a national food conference last fall.
“People need to feel heard and seen to break the cycle of shame around weight loss and eating,” tweeted Kathryn Lawson, a dietitian who works at Nestlé, during the conference at which Cohn spoke.
An analysis of 6,000 social media posts shared by 68 dietitians with more than 10,000 followers found that about 40 percent of them use this same anti-diet language, the vast majority of them taking money from food, beverage and supplement companies. All in all, these propagandists have reached around nine million people with their propaganda.
In 2023, no fewer than 10 dietitians promoted General Mills cereals on TikTok and Instagram using the hashtag #DerailTheShame. Many of the posts depicted personalized Cheerios boxes, Cheerios being one of General Mills’ most iconic cereal brands.
Last November, an “anti-diet” dietitian named Cara Harbstreet promoted Cinnamon Toast Crunch and Trix on her TikTok account, advocating for “fearlessly nourishing meals, including cereal.” In Harbstreet’s case, she at least included the hashtag #sponsored to indicate that she was paid to be cringe.
“Americans are being poisoned and turned into a bunch of fat, gay retards,” one commenter wrote. “Obesity is increasing. IQs are decreasing. Fertility is decreasing. Mortality is increasing. Enjoy the peaceful genocide. Just be sure to get some of the good footage of it on your cell phone.”
The latest news about America’s polluted food supply can be found at StopEatingPoison.com.
Trump Donations to Harris in 2011 Revealed
Former US President and Republican nominee Donald Trump previously donated to the campaign of Kamala Harris, who is now his potential rival.
According to records of the California Secretary of State, the Trump organization contributed $5,000 in 2011 when Harris was seeking reelection as attorney general, and a further $1,000 in 2013. His daughter Ivanka donated another $2,000 to Harris in 2014.
The revelation began circulating on social media on Sunday, following US President Joe Biden’s withdrawal from the November elections and his subsequent endorsement of Kamala Harris as his successor. The vice president claimed that she would “earn and win” the Democratic nomination to run for the Oval Office.
READ MORE: Biden endorses Kamala Harris as successor
During his 2016 campaign, Trump admitted to donating to both Democrats and Republicans, including his then-opponent Hillary Clinton, claiming that politicians can be bought and paid for.
“These politicians, they’re so bad,” he said at the time. “I’ve got to give it to them because when I want something, I get it. When I call, they kiss my a**.”
“You know, it’s interesting. I was looking at the ones I’m running against. I’ve contributed to most of them – can you believe it? I’ve contributed to most of them. And one of them said, ‘No, I don’t think you’ve contributed to me.’ They found out I did. I contribute to everybody. I’ve given to Democrats. I’ve given to Hillary. I’ve given to everybody because that was my job.”
According to OpenSecrets, the nation’s premier research group tracking money in US politics, Trump made a $1,000 donation to then-Senator Joe Biden’s campaign in 2001 and several contributions to Hillary Clinton’s campaign between 2006 and 2007, including a $100,000 donation to the Clinton Foundation.
Evidence of Multiple Shooters at Trump Assassination Attempt
Secret Service Head Cheatle says Agency ‘Totally Responsible’ For Security at Trump’s Butler, Penn., Rally
It was nobody else’s responsibility but Secret Service to keep Donald Trump safe at his recent rally in Butler, Penn., confirmed Kim Cheatle, the current head of the Secret Service.
In an interview with CNN, Cheatle admitted that the agency she oversees was “totally responsible” for security at the rally, which saw a gunman fire at Trump from around 150 yards away, injuring his ear and several rally attendees, one of whom was killed.
“At that particular site, we divided up areas of responsibility, but the Secret Service is totally responsible for the design and implementation and the execution of the site,” Cheatle confessed.
The admission comes as debates rage on over whose responsibility it was to keep Trump and his followers safe during the event. Some say local law enforcement is to blame for what occurred while others blame Secret Service for failing to do its job.
(Related: Did you hear the call that Trump made to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. after the assassination attempt to talk about vaccine injuries?)
“The buck stops here,” says Cheatle
In an exclusive interview with ABC News, Cheatle went further in calling the shooting “unacceptable” and “something that shouldn’t happen again.”
The incident marks the first time since 1981 that a former president has been wounded in an attempted assassination – the last time was Ronald Reagan.
“It was obviously a situation that as a Secret Service agent no one ever wants to occur in their career,” Cheatle said, implying that she is more upset the incident occurred under her watch because of how bad it makes her look than the fact that it occurred at all.
“The buck stops with me,” Cheatle continued, using buck language just a few days ahead of this month’s Buck Moon on July 21.
“I am the director of the Secret Service, and I need to make sure that we are performing a review and that we are giving resources to our personnel as necessary.”
Responding to claims that her agents and the local law enforcement officers they were coordinating with failed to do anything about Thomas Matthew Crooks despite seeing him behaving suspiciously a half hour before he opened fire, Cheatle said it was “a very short period of time” that made it “difficult” to adequately respond in time.
“I don’t have all the details yet,” she said. “Seeking that person out, finding them, identifying them, and eventually neutralizing them took place in a very short period of time, and it makes it very difficult.”
It was local police who were supposed to secure the building atop which the shooter perched himself before opening fire.
“In this particular instance, we did share support for that particular site and that the Secret Service was responsible for the inner perimeter,” Cheatle explained.
“And then we sought assistance from our local counterparts for the outer perimeter. There was local police in that building – there was local police in the area that were responsible for the outer perimeter of the building.”
Despite continued calls for her to resign from her role, Cheatle, like Joe Biden, says she is not going anywhere and will stay. She reportedly attempted to contact Trump “but has not yet spoken with him.”
According to reports, Cheatle is scheduled to testify before the GOP-led House Oversight Committee on July 22.
“Secret Service is not political,” Cheatle insists. “Security is not political. People’s safety is not political. And that’s what we’re focused on as an agency.”
As we approach election day when Trump’s ear should be healed, you can keep up with the latest news about his presidential campaign at Trump.news.
Kremlin Reacts to Biden Dropping out of US Presidential Race
Russia has other priorities than waiting for the outcome of the US presidential elections, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said, when reached for comment on US President Joe Biden withdrawing from the race.
Winning the conflict against Ukraine is among the top priorities for Russia, Peskov told Russian news outlet Life late on Sunday.
“For us, reaching the goals of the special military operation [against Ukraine] is a priority, rather than the outcome of the US elections,” Peskov stated.
The spokesman stood by the remarks by President Vladimir Putin, who said earlier this year he would have preferred Biden winning the election, describing him as “an old-school politician” and “more predictable” from the standpoint of Moscow’s interests.
READ MORE: Russia accuses US media of ‘collusion’ over Biden’s health
“That’s certainly the case, but the elections are still four months ahead. And it’s a long period, over which many things can change,” Peskov noted.
Biden dropped out of the race earlier in the day, stating that while it was his “intention” to get reelected, it was in “the best interest” of the Democratic Party and the whole country to withdraw.
The US leader also endorsed his vice president, Kamala Harris, as the best pick for the Democratic nominee. Harris has already been backed by multiple top Democratic politicians and major party donors.
Dan Proft: Democrats ‘Have Neither the Message to Deliver Nor the Horse to Deliver It’
In the late 1500s, Thomas Hobson worked as a carrier of messages and packages between Cambridge and London. He also owned a stable where he rented horses to university students. As some of those students took a liking to particular horses the favored horses got overworked. To solve this problem, Hobson simply placed the horses in a line, like taxis at an airport today, and compelled students to take the next horse in line. He provided only the appearance of a choice.
But I’m not talking about 16th century British transportation, I’m talking about the 2024 Democrat Party and the appearance of choice they have for their Presidential nominee.
They have neither the message to deliver nor the horse to deliver it. Regardless of the choice they make, Democrats are in for a Shakespearean-level comeuppance.
Particularly after the failed assassination attempt, Republicans are enthusiastically unified around Trump.
The convention speeches offered by Republicans vanquished by Trump in his first primary election like Rubio and Cruz as well as those in his last primary like DeSantis and Haley made clear that the interests of competing factions within the GOP are aligned.
You don’t hear much talk anymore even from the most outspoken Trump skeptics within the GOP about the former President’s ability to win in November, do you?
By contrast, the Democrats are splintered with only more acrimony and recriminations on the horizon.
Democrats are staring at an electoral equation Archimedes couldn’t solve.
Setting aside his catastrophic record, Democrats can’t stick with Biden simply because he still has a September 10th debate on his calendar.
They can’t turn to Kamala because, setting aside her own bouts with incoherence, she makes independent voters long for Hillary Clinton’s cackle.
They can’t end-run Kamala with a dude or a white chick because the Orthodox Identitarian Elites will don their vagina hats and revolt.
I’d suggest one of their tech billionaire financiers could come up with an AI solution but that donor class has already evacuated.
Even if they rode through the convention on a horse with a name, they have no message to deliver.
The hysterical Hitlerization of Trump is exposed as contrived when you offer thoughts and prayers for his well-being. And the calls for civil discourse come off as more than a bit disingenuous when you insist on that characterization.
The anti-democratic choices the Democrat Party made for the past eight years has left them without a message or a horse to carry it and instead only a Hobson’s Choice for President.