The Q Phenomenon & Pope Francis… 

From The American Thinker…

Q first appeared in October 2017 on an anonymous online forum called 4Chan, posting messages that implied top-clearance knowledge of upcoming events. More than 3,000 messages later, Q has created a disturbing, multi-faceted portrait of a global crime syndicate that operates with impunity. Q’s followers in the QAnon community faithfully analyze every detail of Q’s drops, which are compiled here and here.

The mainstream media has published hundreds of articles attacking Q as an insane rightwing conspiracy, particularly after President Trump seemed to publicly confirm his connection to it. At a North Carolina rally in 2019, Trump made a point of drawing attention to a baby wearing a onesie with a big Q.

If you’re unfamiliar with Q or only know it through the media’s attacks, I’d like to provide a brief introduction to this extraordinary phenomenon. I’ve followed Q since the first drop, and I’ve grown increasingly impressed by the accuracy, breadth and depth of Q’s messages. Q followers were prepared long in advance for the easing of hostilities with North Korea, the deflation of the mullahs of Iran, and the discovery of Ukraine as a hotbed of corruption for American politicians. They knew a great deal about Jeffrey Epstein’s activities before the public did and anticipate even more shocking revelations to come. As Q likes to say, “Future proves past.” As Q’s predictions come true, they lend retroactive credibility to the entire enterprise.

Q’s followers believe that Q is a military intelligence operation, the first of its kind, whose goal is to provide the public with secret information. Many Q followers think the Q team was founded by Admiral Michael Rogers, the former Director of the National Security Agency and former Commander of US Cyber Command. Some suspect that Dan Scavino, White House Director of Social Media, is part of the team, because the high quality of Q’s writing has the luster of a communications expert.

Q is a new weapon in the game of information warfare, bypassing a hostile media and corrupt government to communicate directly with the public. Think of Q as a companion to Trump’s twitter. Whereas Trump communicates bluntly and directly, Q is cryptic, sly and subtle, offering only clues that beg for context and connection.
Here’s the way it works: Q posts messages (also known as “drops” or “crumbs”) on an anonymous online forum, which are discussed, analyzed, and critiqued by the board’s inhabitants. (The forum has changed a few times after massive online attacks.) Hundreds of social media accounts then spread Q’s latest posting to worldwide followers who share their research, analysis, and interpretations of Q’s latest information…

The “fake news” decried by President Trump is losing credibility and audience by the day. Q has exposed the 4 A.M. drops that provide the daily talking points to media personnel, so they can all parrot the same propaganda. Q has also named various journalists whom he says take bribes.

[It is painful to learn that] “those you trust the most” (in Q’s phrase) are deceiving you. Beloved celebrities, religious leaders, doctors, educators, innovators, and do-gooders are all in on the hoax…

[Deborah Franklin, author of above article in The American Thinker lists various sayings of Q including the following…]

We know what happens in the end. God wins. Many times, Q has asked us to pray. He’s quoted the famous Biblical lines of Ephesians 6:12, “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” We’re living through monumental times. It’s comforting that Q believes that if we work together, God wins. End of extracts…  Note: Deborah Franklin is the pen name of a writer who fears professional retribution.  Source

Comment: 

So, with “religious leaders” listed among those who are “in on the hoax”, what is the likelihood that Pope Francis might be implicated in the Q phenomenon?  Remember, as one commentator on YouTube notes: The term “conspiracy theories” was invented by the CIA in order to make people who question the JFK assassination look foolish. What is really foolish is to believe that there are no conspiracies.

Personally, I don’t know what to think about the Q phenomenon – what do YOU think?

Trump Impeachment: A Witchhunt…

Comment…

We’re not getting much about the impeachment on the mainstream news outlets here but the live hearings were broadcast on the BBC Parliament channel.  I watched quite a few and can see no evidence whatsoever that the President has done anything remotely wrong.  If you have evidence to the contrary, let’s hear it – share any videos, news reports, interviews etc that you think will clarify either the case for or against impeachment. 

A key question for us, however, has to be the question of a possible miscarriage of justice: is there a huge injustice being perpetrated against the U.S. President for no other reason than, as one of the politicians in the above clip admits, he has an “unorthodox” style and, as a result, is disliked?  Is that a good enough reason to sack anyone from any job – you just don’t like him/her?  Does the universal law of charity not apply to politicians?  One of the leading lights in pursuing this impeachment, remember, is Nancy Pelosi, who never misses an opportunity to tell the world that she is a Catholic (a pro-abortion-up-to-birth “Catholic”)…  

The entire impeachment saga smacks of bullying, a stitch-up,  in order to force the President out of office. 

Some would argue that the end justifies the means.  What do you think?  

Trump: Truth & Lies in Politics – Whistleblower or Blowhard?

Comment:

The anti-Trump news commentators here in the UK are in their element reporting on (and hoping for)  Nancy Pelosi’s threatened impeachment of Donald Trump in the wake of the (entirely contrived) “Ukraine scandal”.  But why?  Why do they hate him so much when, by objective standards, he seems to have done quite a bit to improve life for the American people.  What’s behind it all? 

Take a look at the video clip below and ask yourself – is this what’s behind it all? 

USA: Dramatic Loss of Belief in Real Presence – What About UK Catholics? 

Transubstantiation – the idea that during Mass, the bread and wine used for Communion become the body and blood of Jesus Christ – is central to the Catholic faith. Indeed, the Catholic Church teaches that “the Eucharist is ‘the source and summit of the Christian life.’”

But a new Pew Research Center survey finds that most self-described Catholics don’t believe this core teaching. In fact, nearly seven-in-ten Catholics (69%) say they personally believe that during Catholic Mass, the bread and wine used in Communion “are symbols of the body and blood of Jesus Christ.” Just one-third of U.S. Catholics (31%) say they believe that “during Catholic Mass, the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Jesus.”

In addition to asking Catholics what they believe about the Eucharist, the new survey also included a question that tested whether Catholics know what the church teaches on the subject. Most Catholics who believe that the bread and wine are symbolic do not know that the church holds that transubstantiation occurs. Overall, 43% of Catholics believe that the bread and wine are symbolic and also that this reflects the position of the church. Still, one-in-five Catholics (22%) reject the idea of transubstantiation, even though they know about the church’s teaching.

The vast majority of those who believe that the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ – 28% of all Catholics – do know that this is what the church teaches. A small share of Catholics (3%) profess to believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist despite not knowing the church’s teaching on transubstantiation.

About six-in-ten (63%) of the most observant Catholics — those who attend Mass at least once a week — accept the church’s teaching about transubstantiation. Still, even among this most observant group of Catholics, roughly one-third (37%) don’t believe that the Communion bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ (including 23% who don’t know the church’s teaching and 14% who know the church’s teaching but don’t believe it). And among Catholics who do not attend Mass weekly, large majorities say they believe the bread and wine are symbolic and do not actually become the body and blood of Jesus   Click here to read more...

Comment: 

This latest research (which confirms previous similar studies in the USA) reveals lots of things, notably the failure to teach the Faith in Catholic schools and pulpits.  This failure is every bit as true here in the UK as it is – manifestly so – in the USA. 

Catholics who reject the dogma of Transubstantiation show ignorance of Sacred Scripture because it was Christ Himself who said:  “For My flesh is real food and my blood is real drink….”  (John 6:56)  He did not even mention “symbols” of His Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity.  He gave us Himself as real food and real drink to sustain us on our spiritual journey and, from the very beginning, this was the belief of all Christians.  

How can this state of affairs be put right, then?  You can’t force someone to believe something but maybe somebody in authority should tell unbelieving Catholics that they are not free to reject any dogma of the Faith and still call themselves Catholics.  That might be a start?  

Since none of us is above temptation, we ought to frequently reflect on the glorious miracle that is Transubstantiation.  Feel free, then, not only to offer your comments on the Pew Center Research findings – especially as it relates to the UK – but post, as well, meditations on the Real Presence, quotes from the saints, favourite hymns and prayers, all with the aim of deepening our awareness and understanding of this wonderful gift from God, which, all too often, as we approach for Holy Communion, we may tend to take for granted.  Do we actually treat the Blessed Sacrament as a mere symbol?  Worth thinking about…  

USA Shootings in Texas & Ohio: Can These Massacres Be Prevented? How?

We discussed the subject of gun ownership in the USA back in 2015  here

Watching the news reports over this weekend, of the mass shootings in two American towns, it is unfathomable to many of us that  people of faith support, and even advocate, gun ownership – perhaps because it has never been the culture here in the UK.  However, in America, it is considered a very important constitutional right to bear arms.  Here’s the young American Jewish commentator, Ben Shapiro, debating the issue with Piers Morgan in 2017…

Comment: 

We know that the gun lobby, big guns business (so to speak), makes it very difficult for politicians to propose a ban on gun ownership, never mind the Second Amendment right to bear arms, cherished by the American people.   My own gut feeling is that, with the extent of the killing sprees now taking place almost routinely across the USA, a President – preparing for possible re-election – who boldly proposed doing whatever is reasonably possible to deal with the problem of widespread gun ownership, would be onto a winner.  Surely, the sheer number of deaths caused this weekend alone, in two different parts of the United States, would be sufficient to cause a change in the American mindset about the Second Amendment? 

Personally, I’d like to see a courageous President move to end widespread gun ownership, by whatever constitutional means are available, and if you agree, let’s hear it.  But if you disagree (and I can already see some of our American bloggers bristling with indignation 😀 ) then please suggest your preferred solution – but make it one that would truly make a difference…

Final thought:  I have a young (teenage) relative who says he would dearly love to move to the USA when he’s finished his education.  I keep reminding him of the two things that would be very different if he did so;  one, the gun culture (don’t get impatient – with anyone! If the bus is late, so be it! If that hamburger is cold, smile at the waiter and tip him/her anyway!) And the second – well, that’s irrelevant to the present discussion, so I’ll leave that hanging there for another day 😀 

For the purposes of this conversation, please, simply answer the questions in the headline –  can these massacres be prevented?  And if so, how

Trump Visit: Is Khan Guilty of Inciting Hatred? Think Baby Balloon & Name-calling -“Fascist” Is NOT Funny…

Comment

The above video interview dates from President Trump’s previous visit to the UK when the same ugly baby balloon image of him was permitted that will be flown in London during this week’s visit.  It’s a disgrace.  It’s insulting, as is his description of the President as a “fascist“.  One thought which crosses my mind is whether a Christian Mayor would have been so unkind, whatever his political views.  Now, before I’m arrested for “hate speech” let me make my position clear;  just try it – if anyone is guilty of hate speech and inciting to hatred, it is, in my considered view, Sadiq Khan.  And let me add, by way of emphasising that thought which crossed my mind, I sincerely hope that no Christian Mayor of London (or anywhere else for that matter) would be so cruelly unkind in his remarks and in permitting such an insulting image to be publicly displayed during such an important state visit.  I know it’s completely unfashionable to even hint at anything negative in any non-Christian religion but that’s too  bad.  I’m hinting.  In Christianity, we are taught to love even our enemies, to “do good to those who persecute you” – I’m wondering if there is anything similar is Islamic teaching that should have prevented Khan from being so nasty to Donald Trump?  Obviously, as a public figure, the President is not above criticism, but nasty personal remarks and caricatures?  

Headlines today scream that it is Trump who is insulting Khan!  Laughable.  As it is laughable that Trump is intervening in UK elections by suggesting Boris Johnson for PM.  Having watched the interview, I am appalled at the dishonesty.  The political editor of The Sun ASKED Donald Trump for his opinion on various people including Boris, so it is entirely disingenuous to give the impression that the President pushed for any particular candidate in the leadership race.  He simply answered a question.  End of. 

No wonder Donald Trump despises the mainstream media.  Me, too.  What about you?  IS Sadiq Khan guilty of inciting hatred against the President of the United States of  America?  

“Pro-Choice” Women Hard as Nails…

Comment: 

The wild reactions to the news that in the USA there are States which criminalise abortion (as they criminalise every other murder) has been really telling.  In TV discussions, including here in the UK, what stands out starkly is the way women who describe themselves as “pro-choice” (i.e. in favour of having the choice to kill their unborn child) have reacted to the very idea that there may be a return to protecting the unborn child in law.   Hard as nails, is the phrase which kept coming to my mind, watching and listening to them.  They speak about having had an abortion the way the rest of us would speak about having bought the wrong flavour of… let’s see… milkshake, perhaps?

This thread, then, isn’t really about abortion per se – we have a pro-life thread for that (and a segment in the above video to remind us, if any of us need reminding about the sheer barbarism involved in an abortion) and we’ve had many discussions on the subject in dedicated threads.  The purpose of this thread is to examine the extent to which the “right” to kill their unborn child has coarsened women and made them hard as nails.  I can see it plain as daylight in any conversation on the subject, whether on TV or in person.  And I see absolutely NO “agonising”.  Watching the delighted victors in the Irish abortion referendum literally dancing in the streets of Dublin put paid to that lie, once and for all. 

Personally, as a woman myself, I think the “pro-choice” females  are utterly self-centred women who – by the way – do not allow the fathers of their unborn child any say in the matter.  And that on the grounds that it’s the women’s body, her choice. 

Let’s hope they keep their mouths shut, then, in any conversation about men’s bodies – such as the current scandal of the high rate of male suicides.  Whether it’s their son (you know, the one who made it through the womb) or their “partner”/husband, or father, the message, in my world,  is clear;  it’s NOT your body so mind your own business.   

“Pro-choice” women are self-centred, coarse, and hard as nails.  That’s my view – what about you?