Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev is suspended

Read the full story here.

HT: Blog reader John L.

My thoughts...

This is disturbing. Hilarion has a reputation as a staunch theological conservative. But, and this is extremely important, he is not believed to be a member of Putin's cheerleading squad. It has been hinted that this may have been the reason for his exile to Hungary. Over the last decade+ the ROC has become a de facto department of the government, serving as a religious propaganda agency for the Putin dictatorship. While not directly attacking Putin, that would have been dangerous (and not just politically), Hilarion has been notable for his public reticence on political subjects. Privately... well there have been a lot of rumors about his views on things like the war in Ukraine (not a supporter), political corruption and so on. And it is fair to note that Hilarion lives quite well. But this is not unusual among the princes of the Russian Church. 

For his part, Putin is an old KGB man. And one of their favorite tactics for dealing with clergy who wouldn't tow the party line from the old days in Soviet occupied Eastern Europe, was to accuse the priest of being homosexual. This was most commonly done with Roman Catholic priests because the Communist Party was never able to establish quite the same level of control over that church as they did over the ROC. Some church historians and biographers have suggested this as one of the reasons why John Paul II was so slow to act on the clergy abuse crisis in the Catholic Church. He had seen the secret police in Poland use that tactic to smear inconvenient members of the clergy on multiple occasions. 

To be clear, I don't have information that I would call coming from a credible source. And it's entirely possible that these new allegations could be true. It would be foolish to think that the ROC is immune from clerical sex scandals. But I will make a couple observations. First, the ROC clearly holds a special status of high favor within Russia and enjoys the patronage and protection of the Putin regime, which the church repays with its full throated professions of loyalty. Secondly, nothing of any real consequence at that level of government, or quasi government institutions, happens without the Kremlin's discreet nod. Which is to say that scandals touching on prominent persons or institutions don't become public without the approval of the state. 

Could this be the real thing? Yes. One thing worth noting is that the principle accuser is not living in Russia. But it also has all the hallmarks of an old fashioned KGB character assassination plot. For now, I would adopt a wait and see approach while keeping in mind who really controls things in Russia, and by extension, its branch of the Orthodox Church.

Religious Liberty in the States

Read the report here. 

Biden bows out

I don't think anyone needed a crystal ball to see that this was all but inevitable. On a human level I feel kinda bad for the man. But political parties exist to win elections. And politics broadly speaking is a full contact sport. If you can't take the hits you should stick to golf. 

I can so picture Nancy Pelosi channeling the Godfather when deciding that Biden had to go. "It's not personal Joe; it's strictly business."

The Republican Convention

“What starts out here as a mass movement ends up as a racket, a cult or a corporation.”
— Eric Hoffer, “The Temper of Our Time” (1967)

Well, it's over. That's probably the kindest thing that can be said. Long time readers of this blog will know I am not a fan of what the GOP has become over the last decade-plus, so I will keep this brief. One would be hard pressed to find a similar example of near endless mendacity coupled with sheer idolatry in the context of a political rally, outside of totalitarian states like Russia, China and N. Korea. The only thing missing was a golden calf with Donald Trump's likeness for its head. Trump's acceptance speech was agonizingly long and rambling, even for him. Filled with his usual litany of lies and grievances, excepting his cult followers and sycophants in the right wing press/media, it is likely to be recorded as among the worst acceptance speeches in modern American political history. By contrast, and as much as I detest Trump, I have to concede that his 2016 speech was actually pretty good as political theatre. 

And then there is the mess in the Democratic Party. Sometimes, it is difficult not to conclude that this country is under some especially harsh divine judgement.

Who has shaped JD Vance's World View?

In a political party whose populist base has come to embrace conspiracy theorism coupled with a deep suspicion of intellectuals, who are generally lumped in with the much disdained but vaguely defined "elites," JD Vance stands out as something of a rarity. Unlike Donald Trump, who appears to be borderline illiterate, at least on subjects like history and social/political philosophy, Vance is well read and intellectually curious. Politico has an interesting piece listing some of the people who are known to have helped shape his world view.

Read it here. 

The Debt Delusion: Why Modern Monetary Theory Is a Luxury Belief

While Fed Chair Jerome Powell made the rounds on Capitol Hill this week, discussions about the Federal Reserve’s expectations for inflation have once again come to the forefront. Unsustainable government spending is raising inflationary pressures with potentially devastating consequences for the US economy. In this context, the belief that debt doesn’t matter, especially championed by proponents of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), appears more detached from reality than ever.

This notion, prevalent on the political left, claims that a government that issues its own currency can never run out of money in the same way a household or business might. Advocates argue that such a government can always print more money to pay off its debts, thereby sidestepping any constraints imposed by traditional fiscal discipline. While this might sound appealing, it’s a classic example of what sociologists call a “luxury belief”—an idea that is primarily held by those insulated from its real-world consequences.

“We are a sovereign currency, we can print all the money we want”—former House Budget Committee Chair John Yarmuth (D‑KY) at a congressional hearing.

Luxury beliefs, as sociologist Rob Henderson describes, are ideas that confer status on the rich while often burdening the less fortunate. The concept has traditionally been associated with cultural and social norms, but it applies equally well to economic theories like MMT. Proponents of this “magic money” theory, often shielded by their own economic stability, pay too little heed to how elegant theories on paper can lead to catastrophic outcomes in the real world.

A key argument against MMT’s false promise is that printing money for the sake of financing government spending leads to inflation. When a government prints money to cover excessive spending, it increases the money supply without a corresponding increase in goods and services. This creates an imbalance between available resources and the money available to purchase them, with the result being inflation—an increase in the price level that erodes the purchasing power of money. For the wealthy, this might mean adjustments to their investment portfolios or higher prices on certain items. For the poor and working class, however, inflation can be devastating.

Read the rest here.

Peter III of Antioch, the Filioque and Rome

Not going to excerpt this one. But it's well worth the read. 

J D Vance and the triumph of the isolationists

MILWAUKEE — Former President Donald Trump didn’t just select a running mate here – he doused political kerosene on the raging Republican fire over foreign policy.

By tapping the 39-year-old Sen. J.D. Vance, one of the party’s leading national security doves, Trump strengthened the hand of the isolationist forces eager to undo the hawkish GOP consensus that has endured since the Reagan era.

Should Trump prevail in November, the non-interventionists will have one of their most articulate advocates at Trump’s side. What worries the hawks is that Vance may also be the last adviser in the former president’s ear.

While toeing the party line and praising Vance in their public comments, in private the interventionists ranged from horrified to merely alarmed that one of the loudest critics of aiding Ukraine could soon be first in line for the presidency. The grimaces, sighs and whispered frustrations from the old guard as they made their way through the convention reception circuit were easy to find in the day after the selection.

Read the rest here.

In case further evidence was required that the Eisenhower Reagan era of Republican engagement with the world is over.

Some really bad numbers for Biden

There has been much talk lately about Biden's sinking poll numbers since the debate. Generally speaking, Democrats seem to already be conceding they are likely to lose the election with Biden at the top of the ticket. Republicans are publicly very confident. Privately, some are predicting a near landslide in electoral votes and have quietly begun vying for cabinet posts in the next administration. The recent attempt on Mr. Trump's life seems likely to add fuel to Trump's post-debate surge (or perhaps more accurately, Biden's collapse). 

Perusing the various statistics out there, I started looking at the states everybody is ignoring because they are never in play. (You would be correct; I have no life) And what I found in one really jarred me. 

Some states are so obvious that they don't generate a lot of polling. One of them is New York. The Empire State has not voted Republican since 1984, the year I cast my first vote for Ronald Reagan. Democrats in New York enjoy a roughly 2:1 advantage in voter registration over Republicans, who represent less than 30% of registered voters overall. To give you some perspective, Republicans have a slightly higher percentage of voters in California. New York is the definition of a one-party state with every branch of government and all statewide elected offices controlled by Democrats. 

As of this post, the last two state specific polls conducted in New York were done back in May and June, before Biden's debate meltdown. Those polls gave Biden a lead of 7 and 8% respectively. That averages out to 7.5%.

That is nuts.

In any state other than New York, that would be close enough to move the state from "safe Democrat," to "leans Democrat." But this is still New York, and no, it is not in play. There are enough people in that state who would vote for a cadaver in advanced state of decomposition over Donald Trump to keep it firmly in the Democratic column. 

But Biden should be polling a solid double digit lead there. The fact that even before the debate, his lead was only in the single digits in a state as blue as New York should be a flashing red alert for Democrats (and anti-Trumpers of every persuasion). To my mind, this is a very clear signal that Democrats may be heading for an election wipe out. 

Russia: The brutal cost of Putin's war

Lies, damned lies, and statistics. If anyone knows how to falsify figures to bolster weak causes, it is the Kremlin. 

From Stalin’s manipulation of Soviet productivity statistics during his Five Year Plans, to Khrushchev’s exaggeration in the Cold War of his missile numbers, no entity has proved as effective at fabricating facts to demoralise, unsettle and outmanoeuvre opponents.

Today, in a similar manner, Putin points at Russia’s 144 million citizens and argues, through his propaganda mouthpieces, that it is “impossible” for Kyiv to win his war, given Ukraine’s population is a paltry 37 million.

By this logic, figures released by British intelligence this week – that Russia lost more than 70,000 troops in the past two months, averaging daily conflict highs of 1,262 and 1,163 in May and June – become irrelevant. “Russia can always find more men”, one hears people say, justifying Western inaction.

Except it can’t. Raised on documentaries about the “unstoppable” Russian bear – capable of tearing its way through Eastern Europe, as it did in the Second World War – we forget that this is not possible in modern Russia. Nor is it even desirable for Moscow.

For one, while Putin has conducted several large-scale mobilisations, he remains cautious both in terms of the numbers of men he recruits and where they come from, prioritising conscripting in poorer communities far away from the power centres of Moscow and St Petersburg; often marginalised ethnic minorities. Already, some of these communities have given all they can, with reports of entire generations of men being wiped out in some towns and villages, triggering widespread, if localised (for now), protests.

Moscow’s caution in this regard means it is obliged to empty prisons, exonerating murderers and rapists so they can serve in the Russian army or mercenary outfits like Wagner. Again, this resource is not infinite: numbers are now said to be so low that Moscow is turning to women’s prisons. Given that, by design, women only make up 4 per cent of the Russian army, this is extremely telling.

But these are still relatively minor impediments when considered against broader trends. Russia’s fighting age population, at 14 million, is not gargantuan. With many not eligible or undesirable for recruitment for geographic reasons, the number shrinks further. Many of Russia’s young fled after the full-scale invasion: an estimated 300,000 by mid-March 2022, 500,000 by the end of August, and an additional 400,000 by early October. Estimates put the current number of the departed at over a million.

Then there’s the fact that the full-scale invasion deepened Russia’s demographic crisis. Deaths have outnumbered births in the country since 2000. That – two and half years into the full-scale invasion – as many as 350,000 Russian troops have been killed or wounded is indicative of the scale of the catastrophe.

Read the rest here.

Trump v. US: With Great Power Comes Great Immunity

I have no end of uncharitable thoughts about recent American presidents; yet, when I’m cataloging their sins, the words “undue caution” have never sprung to mind. Could it fairly be said of any 21st-century president—George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, or Joe Biden—that his real flaw was being “unduly cautious in the discharge of his official duties”? When it comes to “the most powerful office in the world,” is “undue caution” a problem worth worrying about?

Chief Justice John Roberts insists that it is. In fact, the self-styled judicial “umpire” considers the specter of presidential risk aversion grave enough to justify rewriting the rules of the game. Toward that end, in Trump v. United States, Roberts conjures up a broad suite of criminal-process immunities previously unknown to our Constitution. The new privileges shield the president in the first instance, but they’re really for us—designed to ensure that we Americans will never suffer from an insufficiently energetic executive. Thanks.… I guess?

But if you think greater risks lie in presidential recklessness and contempt for the law, the president’s new immunities may give you pause. Just how much we should worry isn’t clear to me, in part because I’m not sure how much the historically remote threat of criminal prosecution has restrained presidents over the years. But what the Court’s just done definitely isn’t going to help.

I’m certain of this much at least: as a matter of constitutional exegesis, the chief justice’s majority opinion is creative lawyering at its worst. It’s the most flagrant instance of legislating from the bench since Harry Blackmun decamped to the Mayo Clinic medical library to bone up on obstetrics and write trimesters into the Constitution.

Read the rest here.

Prayers please

For all those effected by yesterday's violence. Lord have mercy!

Why Is the U.S. Still Pretending We Know Gender-Affirming Care Works?

Imagine a comprehensive review of research on a treatment for children found “remarkably weak evidence” that it was effective. Now imagine the medical establishment shrugged off the conclusions and continued providing the same unproven and life-altering treatment to its young patients.

This is where we are with gender medicine in the United States.

It’s been three months since the release of the Cass Review, an independent assessment of gender treatment for youths commissioned by England’s National Health Service. The four-year review of research, led by Dr. Hilary Cass, one of Britain’s top pediatricians, found no definitive proof that gender dysphoria in children or teenagers was resolved or alleviated by what advocates call gender-affirming care, in which a young person’s declared “gender identity” is affirmed and supported with social transition, puberty blockers and/or cross-sex hormones. Nor, she said, is there clear evidence that transitioning kids decreases the likelihood that gender dysphoric youths will turn to suicide, as adherents of gender-affirming care claim. These findings backed up what critics of this approach have been saying for years.

“The reality is that we have no good evidence on the long-term outcomes of interventions to manage gender-related distress,” Cass concluded. Instead, she wrote, mental health providers and pediatricians should provide holistic psychological care and psychosocial support for young people without defaulting to gender reassignment treatments until further research is conducted.

After the release of Cass’s findings, the British government issued an emergency ban on puberty blockers for people under 18. Medical societies, government officials and legislative panels in Germany, France, Switzerland, Scotland, the Netherlands and Belgium have proposed moving away from a medical approach to gender issues, in some cases directly acknowledging the Cass Review. Scandinavian countries have been moving away from the gender-affirming model for the past few years. Reem Alsalem, the United Nations special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, called the review’s recommendations “seminal” and said that policies on gender treatments have “breached fundamental principles” of children’s human rights, with “devastating consequences.”

But in the United States, federal agencies and professional associations that have staunchly supported the gender-affirming care model greeted the Cass Review with silence or utter disregard.

Read the rest here.

US & NATO accuse Russia of assassination plots and sabotage

US intelligence discovered earlier this year that the Russian government planned to assassinate the chief executive of a powerful German arms manufacturer that has been producing artillery shells and military vehicles for Ukraine, according to five US and western officials familiar with the episode.

The plot was one of a series of Russian plans to assassinate defense industry executives across Europe who were supporting Ukraine’s war effort, these sources said. The plan to kill Armin Papperger, a white-haired goliath who has led the German manufacturing charge in support of Kyiv, was the most mature.

When the Americans learned of the effort, they informed Germany, whose security services were then able to protect Papperger and foil the plot. A high-level German government official confirmed that Berlin was warned about the plot by the US.

For more than six months, Russia has been carrying out a sabotage campaign across Europe, largely by proxy. It has recruited local amateurs for everything from arson attacks on warehouses linked to arms for Ukraine to petty acts of vandalism — all designed to stymie the flow of weapons from the West to Ukraine and blunt public support for Kyiv.

But the intelligence suggesting that Russia was willing to assassinate private citizens underlined to Western officials just how far Moscow was willing to go in a parallel shadow war it is waging across the west.

Papperger was an obvious target: His company, Rheinmetall, is the largest and most successful German manufacturer of the vital 155mm artillery shells that have become the make-or-break weapon in Ukraine’s grinding war of attrition. The company is opening an armored vehicle plant inside of Ukraine in the coming weeks, an effort that one source familiar with the intelligence said was deeply concerning to Russia. After a series of gains earlier this year, Moscow’s war effort has once again stalled amid redoubled Ukrainian defenses and punishing losses in personnel.

Read the rest here.

Is Germany’s church tax ‘miracle’ over?

Each year, the journalist Peter Winnemöller noted, hundreds of thousands of people formally left the Catholic Church in Germany. But year after year, church tax income continued to grow.

But what Winnemöller facetiously called the “Kirchensteuerwunder” — the church tax miracle — may be over.

The German bishops’ conference announced July 8 that church tax revenue was 6.51 billion euros (around $7 billion) in 2023.

That’s a lot, of course, but it marked a 5% drop on the year before, when church tax income was a record 6.84 billion euros (roughly $7.4 billion).

What exactly is the church tax? How is the so-called miracle even possible? And is it truly coming to an end?

For many Catholics outside of Germany, the idea of a church tax is bizarre. But within Germany, it’s a largely unquestioned feature of Catholic life.

It’s telling that while Germany’s controversial “synodal way” produced 150 pages of resolutions calling for radical changes to Catholic teachings and practices, it did not offer a single proposal for reform of the Kirchensteuer. 

A cynic might say that’s because the tax helps to keep afloat the lay Central Committee of German Catholics (ZdK), which co-sponsored the synodal way alongside Germany’s bishops.

Perhaps, but it might simply be that few can imagine an alternative to a system that is rooted in the medieval practice of tithing but took on its present form in 1919.

In Germany today, religious communities that are corporations under public law have a right to levy taxes on their members. 

Every person in Germany — including foreigners — who says they are Catholic on an official registration form must pay an 8-9% surcharge on top of their income tax liability, depending on the state in which they live. 

This sum is collected directly from employees’ paychecks on the Church’s behalf by the state authorities, which claim roughly 3% of the total revenue.

The only way for baptized Catholics to opt out of the system is to declare formally that they are leaving the Church, after which they are told they may no longer receive the sacraments, hold Church posts, or serve as baptismal or confirmation sponsors.

Read the rest here.

HT: Dr. Tighe

Note: To the best of my knowledge, Orthodox Christians are not subject to the church tax in Germany. 

Cato Institute: The Court Went Too Far on Presidential Immunity

In Trump v. US, a majority of the Supreme Court has laid down an astonishingly broad view of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution over official actions, even those taken for heinous motives and with no show of justification. We should heed the warnings of dissenting Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, who charge the majority with concocting an “atextual, ahistorical, and unjustifiable” array of immunities that will too often place above the law a president bent on criminal misuse of his powers of office. 

Nowhere in the Constitution is there mention of executive immunity, which was a topic of peculiar interest to the Founders and Framers. Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 69 that unlike the “king of Great Britain,” the chief executive of the United States would “be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law,” and in Federalist 77 named “subsequent prosecution in the common course of law,” in addition to impeachment, as checks on “abuse of the executive authority.”

Notwithstanding this history, it was probably foreordained that the court would find some degree of presidential immunity. The US Justice Department under administrations of both parties has long taken for granted an immunity of some dimension or other, and the current Department, former President Trump’s adversary here, did not retreat from that view in this case. Although the court had never had to rule on criminal immunity, a 5–4 majority in the 1982 case of Nixon v. Fitzgerald had recognized an immunity from civil claims, such as for wrongful dismissal, over official presidential actions.

However, the Fitzgerald Court explicitly recognized that immunity from criminal prosecution would raise entirely different issues because the public welfare is far more deeply implicated when a president commits a crime than when he may happen to commit, say, a tort.

Read the rest here.

UK General Election (seeing red)

There is an old saying in politics, that each election is different. Some years you are the windshield, and in others you're the bug. (Unless you're Donald Trump, in which case you never lose.)

Early reports from the UK where the polls have now closed, suggest that Labour is on track for a record majority while the Conservatives appear to have suffered their worst defeat in modern political history. Labour's massive win and the corresponding collapse of the Tories, appears to be at least in part due to the infighting on the right. Specifically, the rise of the new Reform Party and its rightwing populist leader Nigel Farage. Exit polls suggest that Reform, on track to win perhaps 13 seats, actually got a larger share of the popular vote than the Liberal Democrats, on track to win around 60 seats. That means that they are almost certainly responsible for a very large number of normally safe Conservative seats swinging to Labour. 

The other news, some might call it a silver lining in a very dark cloud, is that it looks like the SNP, Scotland's leftwing secessionist party, has been absolutely pasted.  The numbers are not firm as of this post, but exit polling suggests they are on track to lose around 80% of their seats in Westminster. In all cases the beneficiary being Labour. It should be noted that Scotland has a devolved parliament, and the SNP still controls the government there with the next Scottish election not scheduled for another two years. 

Supreme Court punts on a potentially huge sleeper case

The Supreme Court has declined to hear a case with potentially major repercussions. The case involves a man convicted decades ago of a fairly trivial non-violent crime that could have allowed for a prison sentence. However, he served no time and has not been in trouble with the law before or since. Current Federal law prohibits anyone convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year in prison, the customary definition of a felony, from ever being able to own or possess a firearm, irrespective of whether the crime was violent or not. He has sued to have his gun rights restored. The US Court of Appeals in a split decision sided with him and the state appealed to the Supreme Court. The high court returned the case in question to the lower courts for reconsideration in light of its recent decision upholding a ban on firearms ownership by someone under a domestic violence restraining order. In that case, the 8-1 decision specifically stated that the government had a legitimate right to disarm people who could be reasonably seen as a threat to others. If that is now the legal standard, then this could have far ranged consequences. 

It is long established in law that convicted felons can be deprived of some of their civil rights. Until fairly recent times most states routinely barred felons from voting, serving on juries or holding elective office. Today, 49 of the 50 states have laws that more or less automatically restore some of those rights. (Virginia is the outlier.)  The conditions vary from state to state, but typically the right to vote is restored after an offender satisfies the terms of their sentence. However, almost all states do not allow for guns to be owned by persons with a criminal record, and the Federal law has been on the books since the late 1960s. 

I don't see how the courts could go down this particular path without upending all of this. Are they going to elevate the right to own a gun above the right to vote etc.? Are they prepared to strike down centuries of legal precedent and affirm basic civil rights for anyone not actually in prison? 

For the most part, the press and media have given only passing attention to this case and seem to be missing entirely its broader ramifications. This could be the legal equivalent to a ticking bomb.