USA: Doctor Against Forced Covid-19 Vaccine References Nazi Doctors…

Comment:

Which of the arguments put forward by the young doctor in the video above do you find most persuasive?  And is he right to reference history, linking a forced vaccination programme now, to the activities of Nazi doctors during the Second World War, or are modern democratic Governments such as the USA and the UK highly unlikely to abuse their authority in any way akin to what happened during the war?  Remember, we haven’t been told the truth about Covid-19 which is not, as the doctor points out in the interview above, anything like as deadly as we were originally led to believe.  So, what do you think…  to force vaccinations on populations or not to force vaccinations – that is the question.

Vote in the poll below, and then share your thoughts. 

Converting to Catholicism: No Easy Task for a Protestant Pastor – Here’s Why… 

Comment: 

Keith Nester, the above speaker, made me wonder just how many people turn away from the Church due to the obstacles identified in the video. Happily, Mr Nester managed to get help to overcome the difficulties which he encountered, but how many others don’t move beyond initial enquiries or experiences, discouraged because of the Catholics they meet?  My favourite convert is a friend who became a Catholic after years of reading about Fatima.  What about you – any interesting conversion stories, whether your own, perhaps a favourite saint-convert,  or the conversion  of someone you know, family or friend?    We need a break from Covid and tyrannical governance so get typing those conversion stories and related issues – and that’s an order!  😀  

USA: Use of Executive Power to Declare Health Emergency has its Limits – Lawyer

Comment:  

The lawyer in the above video won, impressively, when he represented priests and rabbis in court, challenging the lockdown rules in New York which militated against places of worship…

As for Scotland – do we have any lawyers who are concerned at the way our personal and religious liberty is being eroded?  As we face the continual introduction of fresh rules and regulations, with a further lockdown always hanging over our heads, do we have any legal recourse to challenge the removal of our personal freedom?  Should we simply accept the fact that we cannot invite people into our home or visit the homes of our relatives and friends? Should the Government really be able to issue such orders?  Restrict the number of people who may gather for a chat?

And what about our religious liberty… In the event of another full-blown lockdown, with a repeated ban on attending church, do we have any clergy who might pursue a case to challenge the State’s interference in Church matters?  

The New York case, as Chris Ferrara points out, was not brought by diocesan clergy/bishops, but by traditional priests, so that means, in Scotland, that either the priests of the Society of St Peter (FSSP) or the priests of the Society of St Pius X (FSSPX) are in the frame.  There are not a lot of them, to be fair, so it seems unlikely that either of those groups will be plaintiffs in court any time soon.  And, of course, as we know, the diocesan bishops are very keen to keep the churches under the thumb of the Government.  So, they’re never going to institute a legal challenge.  In any case, is it desirable?  Or should we all just accept our lot, and offer up the injustice?   Share your thoughts…   

Archbishop Viganò: Don’t Leave the Church – Stay and Fight the Modernists! 

This new statement is important, inasmuch as in recent days, both Father Thomas Weinandy, as well as Father Raymond de Souza, spread the suspicion that the Italian prelate might be “schismatic,” thus intending to leave the Catholic Church. This suspicion had arisen because of Viganò’s critique of the Second Vatican Council and its detrimental effects on the life of the faith in the Church. For example, de Souza’s article is entitled: “Is Archbishop Viganò’s Rejection of the Second Vatican Council Promoting Schism?” And Weinandy stated: “My concern is that, in his radical reading of the Council, the archbishop is spawning his own schism.”

In an August 22 article published by the traditional Catholic newspaper Catholic Family News, Kokx had asked Viganò a set of questions with regard to what faithful laity can do in the midst of this Church crisis that is going back to the Council. 

Kokx suggested Viganò needs to give more advice to laity and priests on what to do next: “He’s certainly diagnosed the problem, but what are his solutions, if any? What, in other words, is it that he believes Catholics in the 21st century should do in response to the crisis?”

Archbishop Viganò’s response as published on September 1 by Catholic Family News (see full text below) is clear: it is not the faithful Catholics who oppose the changing of the faith, but those who perpetrate these changes that ought to be questioned. He writes that we need to discuss “the position of those who, declaring themselves Catholic, embrace the heterodox doctrines that have spread over these decades, with the awareness that these represent a rupture with the preceding Magisterium. In this case it is licit to doubt their real adherence to the Catholic Church, in which however they hold official roles that confer authority on them.”

If people who hold heterodox views are in positions of authority in the Church, he continues, “It is an illicitly exercised authority, if its purpose is to force the faithful to accept the revolution imposed since the Council.”

In addition and on a practical level, the Italian prelate gives us advice on how to live and grow in the faith, working on our sanctification and remaining in the state of “sanctifying grace.” But at the same time, we are to assist and “comfort” good priests and bishops, seeking out reverent Masses. 

“Faithful laity have the right and the duty to find priests, communities, and institutes that are faithful to the perennial Magisterium,” Viganò explains. “And may they know how to accompany the laudable celebration of the liturgy in the Ancient Rite with adherence to sound doctrine and morals, without any subsidence on the front of the Council.”

Finally, Archbishop Viganò also praises the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), which has defended the traditional faith for decades now. They “deserve recognition” for their work of preserving the Catholic faith, he says, and adds that he considers Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the founder of this Society, to be a “confessor of the Faith.”

Here we might remember that just recently, a cardinal stated that Lefebvre will one day be declared a “Doctor of the Church” and that he was “prophetic.”

Let us close with Viganò’s last words of his response to Kokx’s questions:

“The cure for rebellion is obedience. The cure for heresy is faithfulness to the teaching of Tradition. The cure for schism is filial devotion for the Sacred Pastors. The cure for apostasy is love for God and His Most Holy Mother. The cure for vice is the humble practice of virtue. The cure for the corruption of morals is to live constantly in the presence of God. But obedience cannot be perverted into stolid servility; respect for authority cannot be perverted into the obeisance of the court. And let’s not forget that if it is the duty of the laity to obey their Pastors, it is even a more grave duty of the Pastors to obey God, usque ad effusionem sanguinis.”

Below is the full statement by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, reprinted with permission:

Disclaimer: The following positions adopted and advice offered by Archbishop Viganò do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews and are presented only for your information.

Dear Mr. Kokx,

I read with lively interest your article “Questions for Viganò: His Excellency is Right about Vatican II, But What Does He Think Catholic Should Do Now?” which was published by Catholic Family News on August 22 (here). I am happy to respond to your questions, which address matters that are very important for the faithful.

You ask: “What would ‘separating’ from the Conciliar Church look like in Archbishop Viganò’s opinion?” I respond to you with another question: “What does it mean to separate from the Catholic Church according to the supporters of the Council?” While it is clear that no admixture is possible with those who propose adulterated doctrines of the conciliar ideological manifesto, it should be noted that the simple fact of being baptized and of being living members of the Church of Christ does not imply adherence to the conciliar team; this is true above all for the simple faithful and also for secular and regular clerics who, for various reasons, sincerely consider themselves Catholics and recognize the Hierarchy.

Instead, what needs to be clarified is the position of those who, declaring themselves Catholic, embrace the heterodox doctrines that have spread over these decades, with the awareness that these represent a rupture with the preceding Magisterium. In this case it is licit to doubt their real adherence to the Catholic Church, in which however they hold official roles that confer authority on them. It is an illicitly exercised authority, if its purpose is to force the faithful to accept the revolution imposed since the Council.

Once this point has been clarified, it is evident that it is not the traditional faithful – that is, true Catholics, in the words of Saint Pius X – that must abandon the Church in which they have the full right to remain and from which it would be unfortunate to separate; but rather the Modernists who usurp the Catholic name, precisely because it is only the bureaucratic element that permits them not to be considered on a par with any heretical sect. This claim of theirs serves in fact to prevent them from ending up among the hundreds of heretical movements that over the course of the centuries have believed to be able to reform the Church at their own pleasure, placing their pride ahead of humbly guarding the teaching of Our Lord. But just as it is not possible to claim citizenship in a homeland in which one does not know its language, law, faith and tradition; so it is impossible that those who do not share the faith, morals, liturgy, and discipline of the Catholic Church can arrogate to themselves the right to remain within her and even to ascend the levels of the hierarchy.

The situation is certainly more complex for clerics, who depend hierarchically on their bishop or religious superior, but who at the same time have the right to remain Catholic and be able to celebrate according to the Catholic Rite. On the one hand laity have more freedom of movement in choosing the community to which they turn for Mass, the Sacraments, and religious instruction, but less autonomy because of the fact that they still have to depend on a priest; on the other hand, clerics have less freedom of movement, since they are incardinated in a diocese or order and are subject to ecclesiastical authority, but they have more autonomy because of the fact that they can legitimately decide to celebrate the Mass and administer the Sacraments in the Tridentine Rite and to preach in conformity with sound doctrine. The Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum reaffirmed that faithful and priests have the inalienable right – which cannot be denied – to avail themselves of the liturgy that more perfectly expresses their Catholic Faith. But this right must be used today not only and not so much to preserve the extraordinary form of the rite, but to testify to adherence to the depositum fidei that finds perfect correspondence only in the Ancient Rite.

I daily receive heartfelt letters from priests and religious who are marginalized or transferred or ostracized because of their fidelity to the Church: the temptation to find an ubi consistam [a place to stand] far from the clamor of the Innovators is strong, but we ought to take an example from the persecutions that many saints have undergone, including Saint Athanasius, who offers us a model of how to behave in the face of widespread heresy and persecuting fury. As my venerable brother Bishop Athanasius Schneider has many times recalled, the Arianism that afflicted the Church at the time of the Holy Doctor of Alexandria in Egypt was so widespread among the bishops that it leaves one almost to believe that Catholic orthodoxy had completely disappeared. But it was thanks to the fidelity and heroic testimony of the few bishops who remained faithful that the Church knew how to get back up again. Without this testimony, Arianism would not have been defeated; without our testimony today, Modernism and the globalist apostasy of this pontificate will not be defeated.

It is therefore not a question of working from within the Church or outside it: the winemakers are called to work in the Lord’s Vineyard, and it is there that they must remain even at the cost of their lives; the pastors are called to pastor the Lord’s Flock, to keep the ravenous wolves at bay and to drive away the mercenaries who are not concerned with the salvation of the sheep and lambs.

This hidden and often silent work has been carried out by the Society of Saint Pius X, which deserves recognition for not having allowed the flame of Tradition to be extinguished at a moment in which celebrating the ancient Mass was considered subversive and a reason for excommunication. Its priests have been a healthy thorn in the side for a hierarchy that has seen in them an unacceptable point of comparison for the faithful, a constant reproach for the betrayal committed against the people of God, an inadmissible alternative to the new conciliar path. And if their fidelity made disobedience to the pope inevitable with the episcopal consecrations, thanks to them the Society was able to protect herself from the furious attack of the Innovators and by its very existence it allowed the possibility of the liberalization of the Ancient Rite, which until then was prohibited. Its presence also allowed the contradictions and errors of the conciliar sect to emerge, always winking at heretics and idolaters but implacably rigid and intolerant towards Catholic Truth.

I consider Archbishop Lefebvre an exemplary confessor of the Faith, and I think that by now it is obvious that his denunciation of the Council and the modernist apostasy is more relevant than ever. It should not be forgotten that the persecution to which Archbishop Lefebvre was subjected by the Holy See and the world episcopate served above all as a deterrent for Catholics who were refractory toward the conciliar revolution.

I also agree with the observation of His Excellency Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais about the co-presence of two entities in Rome: the Church of Christ has been occupied and eclipsed by the modernist conciliar structure, which has established itself in the same hierarchy and uses the authority of its ministers to prevail over the Spouse of Christ and our Mother.

The Church of Christ – which not only subsists in the Catholic Church, but is exclusively the Catholic Church – is only obscured and eclipsed by a strange extravagant Church established in Rome, according to the vision of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich. It coexists, like wheat with the tare, in the Roman Curia, in dioceses, in parishes. We cannot judge our pastors for their intentions, nor suppose that all of them are corrupt in faith and morals; on the contrary, we can hope that many of them, hitherto intimidated and silent, will understand, as confusion and apostasy continue to spread, the deception to which they have been subjected and will finally shake off their slumber. There are many laity who are raising their voice; others will necessarily follow, together with good priests, certainly present in every diocese. This awakening of the Church militant – I would dare to call it almost a resurrection – is necessary, urgent and inevitable: no son tolerates his mother being outraged by the servants, or his father being tyrannized by the administrators of his goods. The Lord offers us, in these painful situations, the possibility of being His allies in fighting this holy battle under His banner: the King Who is victorious over error and death permits us to share the honor of triumphal victory and the eternal reward that derives from it, after having endured and suffered with Him.

But in order to deserve the immortal glory of Heaven we are called to rediscover – in an emasculated age devoid of values such as honor, faithfulness to one’s word, and heroism – a fundamental aspect of the faith of every baptized person: the Christian life is a militia, and with the Sacrament of Confirmation we are called to be soldiers of Christ, under whose insignia we must fight. Of course, in most cases it is essentially a spiritual battle, but over the course of history we have seen how often, faced with the violation of the sovereign rights of God and the liberty of the Church, it was also necessary to take up arms: we are taught this by the strenuous resistance to repel the Islamic invasions in Lepanto and on the outskirts of Vienna, the persecution of the Cristeros in Mexico, of the Catholics in Spain, and even today by the cruel war against Christians throughout the world. Never as today can we understand the theological hatred coming from the enemies of God, inspired by Satan. The attack on everything that recalls the Cross of Christ – on Virtue, on the Good and the Beautiful, on purity – must spur us to get up, in a leap of pride, in order to claim our right not only not to be persecuted by our external enemies but also and above all to have strong and courageous pastors, holy and God-fearing, who will do exactly what their predecessors have done for centuries: preach the Gospel of Christ, convert individuals and nations, and expand the Kingdom of the living and true God throughout the world.

We are all called to make an act of Fortitude – a forgotten cardinal virtue, which not by chance in Greek recalls virile strength, ἀνδρεία – in knowing how to resist the Modernists: a resistance that is rooted in Charity and Truth, which are attributes of God.

If you only celebrate the Tridentine Mass and preach sound doctrine without ever mentioning the Council, what can they ever do to you? Throw you out of your churches, perhaps, and then what? No one can ever prevent you from renewing the Holy Sacrifice, even if it is on a makeshift altar in a cellar or an attic, as the refractory priests did during the French Revolution, or as happens still today in China. And if they try to distance you, resist: canon law serves to guarantee the government of the Church in the pursuit of its primary purposes, not to demolish it. Let’s stop fearing that the fault of the schism lies with those who denounce it, and not, instead, with those who carry it out: the ones who are schismatics and heretics are those who wound and crucify the Mystical Body of Christ, not those who defend it by denouncing the executioners!

The laity can expect their ministers to behave as such, preferring those who prove that they are not contaminated by present errors. If a Mass becomes an occasion of torture for the faithful, if they are forced to assist at sacrileges or to support heresies and ramblings unworthy of the House of the Lord, it is a thousand times preferable to go to a church where the priest celebrates the Holy Sacrifice worthily, in the rite given to us by Tradition, with preaching in conformity with sound doctrine. When parish priests and bishops realize that the Christian people demand the Bread of Faith, and not the stones and scorpions of the neo-church, they will lay aside their fears and comply with the legitimate requests of the faithful. The others, true mercenaries, will show themselves for what they are and will be able to gather around them only those who share their errors and perversions. They will be extinguished by themselves: the Lord dries up the swamp and makes the land on which brambles grow arid; he extinguishes vocations in corrupt seminaries and in convents rebellious to the Rule.

The lay faithful today have a sacred task: to comfort good priests and good bishops, gathering like sheep around their shepherds. Give them hospitality, help them, console them in their trials. Create community in which murmuring and division do not predominate, but rather fraternal charity in the bond of Faith. And since in the order established by God – κόσμος – subjects owe obedience to authority and cannot do otherwise than resist it when it abuses its power, no fault will be attributed to them for the infidelity of their leaders, on whom rests the very serious responsibility for the way in which they exercise the vicarious power which has been given to them. We must not rebel, but oppose; we must not be pleased with the errors of our pastors, but pray for them and admonish them respectfully; we must not question their authority but the way in which they use it.

I am certain, with a certainty that comes to me from Faith, that the Lord will not fail to reward our fidelity, after having punished us for the faults of the men of the Church, granting us holy priests, holy bishops, holy cardinals, and above all a holy Pope. But these saints will arise from our families, from our communities, from our churches: families, communities, and churches in which the grace of God must be cultivated with constant prayer, with the frequenting of Holy Mass and the Sacraments, with the offering of sacrifices and penances that the Communion of Saints permits us to offer to the Divine Majesty in order to expiate our sins and those of our brethren, including those who exercise authority. The laity have a fundamental role in this, guarding the Faith within their families, in such a way that our young people who are educated in love and in the fear of God may one day be responsible fathers and mothers, but also worthy ministers of the Lord, His heralds in the male and female religious orders, and His apostles in civil society.

The cure for rebellion is obedience. The cure for heresy is faithfulness to the teaching of Tradition. The cure for schism is filial devotion for the Sacred Pastors. The cure for apostasy is love for God and His Most Holy Mother.

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!

The cure for vice is the humble practice of virtue. The cure for the corruption of morals is to live constantly in the presence of God. But obedience cannot be perverted into stolid servility; respect for authority cannot be perverted into the obeisance of the court. And let’s not forget that if it is the duty of the laity to obey their Pastors, it is even a more grave duty of the Pastors to obey God, usque ad effusionem sanguinis.

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop
September 1, 2020               

Source               

Comments invited…                                    

Sinister, Rogue UK Government(s) Rule By Diktat – MPs MUST Speak Out…

Comment: 

The following letter was written by a couple in England and is offered here as an encouragement to others to write to MPs right across the UK – we really do need to make our voices heard as the governments of the UK continue to rule by decree or diktat – the form of governance normally associated with Communist-style tyrannical regimes.  As we have seen on this blog via a number of video clips, the UK is quickly becoming a police state, with officers acting as agents of the State, by enforcing measures (supposedly temporary) which are based on political ideology, masquerading as science.  So, read the letter below and share your thoughts:  are we being led, now by sinister forces?  Are we no longer sleep-walking, but now marching into a permanent form of tyrannical government, where no dissent is permitted and will, in fact, lead to hefty fines or imprisonment?  Our personal freedom is being trampled underfoot, right across the UK where each of the four devolved administrations is ruling by diktat.  Writing to our local MPs is important – they need to know that we are extremely angry about the loss of our liberty.  The couple below have made their feelings very clear – hopefully, after reading the text of their letter, you will be motivated to write to your own MP, as a matter of urgency. 

Letter to an MP in England…

Dear…. MP…

Re: Coronavirus Regulations

Boris Johnson said today:

“The world we want to move to is one where everyone can take an enabling test at the start of every day.”

Is that the world you want your children to live in? Since my letter of 23 May 2020, we continue to live, as we have since in the passage of the Coronavirus Act 2020, subject to the absolute diktat of our incompetent health secretary, Matthew Hancock, with no scrutiny from parliament, no transparency on government advice and decision-making, and no accountability. This is strange, as serious cases of Covid-19 have reduced to statistically negligible levels, notwithstanding continued government lies about a “second wave”, as shown by these chart [sic]

This is against a backdrop of significantly increased testing (see below), which is known to yield a high percentage of false positive results.

It is incredible that more MPs are not speaking out against this abuse of power, or the fact that the stated reasons for these restrictions on liberty have been repeatedly superseded by further specious reasons. You are paid to represent the interests of your constituents, whose remaining liberties are now the plaything of a rogue government. Please let me know what you intend to do to hold the government to account for its reckless and sinister actions. In particular, I trust you will be able to confirm you intend to vote against extending the current intolerable despotism for a further two years when the act comes up for a parliamentary vote at the end of September. If not, please can you explain why you believe should continue to draw your salary?

The government has just announced that it will be restricting gatherings to 6 persons as of Monday. It has done no impact assessment for this. This is in addition to numerous other harmful measures introduced on a similar basis, including:

1. Mandatory face coverings on public transport.

2. Mandatory face coverings in shops.

3. A £10,000 fine for organising an “illegal gathering” (which since the case of Piers Corbyn we now know will now include any  political  protest to challenge the government’s action, but not protests organised by terrorist groups such as BLM and Extinction Rebellion).

None of these measures is remotely justified, given the fact that the risk now posed to the general public by Covid-19 is in line with background risks encountered every day. What is particularly monstrous is the reinforcement and redoubling of such restrictions against a backdrop of diminishing risk. I can see no reason for this other than the government’s desire to promote public fear to perpetuate its autocratic and unaccountable rule – whether because it is hoping its incompetence is not found out, or for more sinister reasons.

The government now proposes to roll out vaccines to vulnerable people that have not been properly subject to full clinical trials and concerning which no evidence exists on long-term side effects. It is certain that, given the public appetite for such a vaccine, this action will result directly in many deaths and many more life-changing side effects; and more again, if the vaccine is mandated. The fact that the government is aware of this risk is evident in the consultation document issued in respect of these proposed measures (see here: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/distributing-vaccines-and- s-and-treatments-for-covid-19-and-flu).
Ed:  this link leads to an Error Page. I think the author of the letter may have meant to link to this page

The government still refuses to rule out vaccine mandation – a crime against human dignity worthy of Josef Mengele –  and in addition there are plans to introduce a digital ID card (see the article in the Times available here: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/digital-id-cards-lead-the-dominic-cummings-data-revolution-v750fn3kt), likely containing immunisation status information. I repeat what I wrote in my last letter; if such a card is introduced I will consider myself under an obligation to disregard such a wicked law. A UK parliamentary petition opposing any enforcement of vaccination has exceeded 100,000 subscriptions (see here: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/323442).

Such invasive and far-reaching measures could only be contemplated (if at all) for the most severe reasons, and in light of a thorough and transparent risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis. I pointed out the deplorable lack of any such analysis in my earlier correspondence. Mr Hancock incredibly dismissed the need for any such analysis in a press conference on 15 June 2020. The fact that the government still refuses to offer transparency on its decision-making is sinister beyond description.

The lack of vigour or urgency with which the official opposition has conducted itself in this matter is frankly disgraceful. I look forward to hearing what you plan to do to restore our liberties, the rule of law, and hold the government to account. If you plan to do nothing, I look forward to hearing your evidence-based reasons for doing nothing.

Yours sincerely,   Ends – all emphases added…

Comments invited…
___________________________________________________________________________

Scots Catholics For Trump Discuss Subversive, Mis-Named, Democratic Party

Below, a very informative article by one of our American bloggers – RCA Victor – to get us thinking about the forthcoming election in November, where the choice is between another term of office (four years) for President Trump or a new President, Joe Biden, a man who is a great friend of Communist China but no friend at all of the unborn child. A nominal Catholic, Biden is promising abortion up to the ninth month.  RCA Victor writes –

The Subversive Democratic Party: If at First You Don’t Succeed…

The [utterly mis-named] Democratic Party, long disguised as the “party of the working man,” has
dropped all pretense of advocacy for the well-being of our Republic, let alone the working man, and is now nakedly exposed as a Satanic cult of liars, thugs, subversives and smear artists obsessed with the acquisition of power by any means, at any price. This unmasking took place during a relatively short period: the eight years of the Obama “administration” (a regime more accurately labeled as the George Soros administration: Obama was merely his stooge).  This shorter link exposes the Soros network:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mItj4bA9Rn4

Their evil intentions and agenda appeared sporadically during those eight years, but since the first Presidential campaign of Donald Trump, and especially since his election, this Cult has orchestrated a full-court press to destroy not only Mr. Trump, but any trace of America-first policies, in favor of the perverse and sinister agenda of the New World Order, which is nothing more than International Communism with yet another new face.

The Cult includes politicians and former politicians, bureaucrats, so-called journalists, media celebrities, social network mobs, Marxist thugs, Silicon Valley oligarchs and other billionaires, academics, and even ex-military figures. Their well-funded but incompetent schemes failed to destroy the Trump Presidency, but that has not stopped them from developing a more comprehensive plan, this time to prevent Trump’s re-election. This scheme has many facets and is very dangerous, not only to Mr. Trump’s re-election, but especially to the future viability of the Republic. It includes the following:

1. Vote Fraud. This is actually an umbrella strategy that includes, but is not limited to, mail-in voting, encouraging non-citizens to vote, ballot harvesting, lowering the voting age to 16, allowing incarcerated criminals to vote, and abolishing the Electoral College.

2. False Accusations. A favorite tactic of the Cult is to accuse Trump of everything they are guilty
of, a psychological warfare strategy known as “projection.” Accusations already surfaced include such bizarre claims as: Trump will fix and steal the election, Trump will refuse to step down if he loses, Trump is an illegitimate President (a tactic tried out after his first victory) and Trump will have to be removed by military coup. Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House and a thoroughly corrupt, vicious and deranged woman (who claims to be Catholic!), has recently accused Trump and the Republicans of being “domestic enemies” and “enemies of the state” – an accurate description of Pelosi herself, and of her fellow Cult members.

3. Compromised Vote Tabulations. Ever faithful to their icon Stalin’s famous dictum, “it’s not the people who vote that count, it’s the people  who count the votes,” election researchers have already found evidence that voting machines can be and are compromised, and tallies manipulated by disabling security protections.

4. Create Litigation Chaos. Hillary Clinton has already telegraphed some of this strategy by publicly stating that Joe Biden “should not concede under any circumstances.” That is, election results unfavorable to the Satanists will be thrown into countless court battles via a “massive legal operation,” which will not only dispute any invalidation of suspicious or faulty ballots, but even attempt to delay certification in Democrat-controlled states so that the Electoral College cannot declare a winner.

5. Big Tech Weaponization. It is well-known that Google, YouTube, Facebook and Twitter have been suppressing conservative information, i.e. the truth, for several years now. An investigation into this by Project Veritas can be found here.

6. Riots and Unrest. You can be sure that mobs of George Soros-funded paramilitary thugs, especially his two favorite Marxist guerilla gangs –  Antifa and Black Lives Matter – will be present at targeted polling locations to intimidate voters and suppress votes, shouting slogans of “systemic racism,” “white privilege,” “capitalist imperialism,” and other threats specifically adapted to each location. Should Trump actually win the election, these same gangs are poised to engage in widespread violence and rioting.

7. Finally, all this and more is enabled and facilitated by the Cult’s control of the media, who have long since abandoned all pretense of journalistic integrity and accuracy in favor of overt electioneering and character assassination. As soon as the Cult produces a lie, their media partners, following the Joseph Goebbels axiom, begin screeching their attempt to validate it. This process also works in reverse, as media-produced lies are repeated ad nauseam by the rest of the Cult. Such is the power of evil in America, now gathered with fearsome strength against a seemingly lone warrior, Donald Trump. But all this power is hollow, because it is from Satan himself. We need to pray to Our Lady to crush the head of this satanic attack against Mr. Trump, against the United States of America, and against the once-Christian West. This election is the beginning, in my opinion, of Satan’s penultimate battle, which will culminate in his defeat by the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Editor’s Comment…                               

Informed Scots Catholics recognise that Donald Trump is our only hope, humanly speaking, to avert the introduction of Communist rule into  previously democratic nations like the USA and the UK.  So, we add our voices to those of our American friends, who are praying and working to achieve a second term for President Trump. 

We’ve chosen to launch this discussion on the 8 September, the day marked in the traditional calendar as the Nativity of Our Lady, asking our beloved Blessed Mother for her intercession to win many graces for the American people and politicians, as the election campaigns begin.  We pray that she might soften the hearts of the Democratic Party politicians, and enlighten the minds of those who normally wouldn’t vote for the Republican Party. 

We need Donald Trump in office for another four years because, as the UN Economist, Jeffrey Sachs has admitted publicly, President Trump is the only thing standing between [the elite] and the New World Order – which we know is a euphemism for one world tyrannical governance.  The most pro-life President in the history of America is opposed by a political party promoting abortion up to and including delivery – do Catholics have any choice…seriously?  How will any Catholic face God at his/her judgment if they do NOT vote for Trump in November?  Answers on the proverbial postcard, please and thank you! 

 Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!  Our Lady of Good Success, pray for us!  Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!   

Covid-19: Is the Pandemic Panic Dying? 

Comment…

Does the optimism in the above video, hopeful that the end of the pandemic restrictions is nigh, reflect what is happening in the UK?  Or is the fact that we are living under the persistent threat of more local lockdowns and fresh restrictions, an indication that, on this side of The Pond, at least, life as before, life under the “old normal” is not set to return any time soon – if ever?   See, in the short video clip below, the Scottish First Minister, just a few short days ago, setting out the latest limits to the freedom of Glaswegians – the majority of whom will humbly (or stupidly, depending on your point of view) comply, without question…  The USA is led by a President who wants to restore the “old normal” – the UK is led by those who appear to be committed to the “new” normal – tyrannical rule, “rule by decree”.  Is that a fair interpretation of current events? 

 

American Commentator Dennis Prager: Lockdown is a Crime – Is He Right? 

Dennis Prager

Four months ago, I wrote a column  titled “The Worldwide Lockdown May Be the Greatest  Mistake in History.” I explained that “‘mistake’ and ‘evil’ are not synonyms. The lockdown is a mistake; the Holocaust, slavery, communism, fascism, etc., were evils. Massive mistakes are made by arrogant fools; massive evils are committed by evil people.”

Regarding the economic catastrophe in America and around the world — especially among the world’s poor who are dependent upon America and other first-world countries for their income through exports and tourism — I wrote, “It is panic and hysteria, not the coronavirus, that created this catastrophe.”

Unfortunately, I was right.

The world should have followed Sweden’s example. That country never locked down and has even kept children under 16 in school the entire time. As Reuters reported on July 15, the number of Swedish children between 1 and 19 years of age who have died of COVID-19 is zero. And the percentage of children who contracted the illness was the exact same in Sweden as it was in Finland, which locked down its schools.

As regards teachers, Sweden’s Public Health Agency reported that “a comparison of the incidence of COVID-19 in different professions suggested no increased risk for teachers.” Nevertheless, with few exceptions, teachers in Los Angeles and elsewhere refuse to enter a classroom that has students in it. Their disdain for their profession has been superseded only by that of the Los Angeles teachers union, which announced that teachers will not resume teaching until the police are defunded.

People who defend lockdowns and closing schools point out that Sweden has the eighth-highest death rate per million in the Western world. But, needless to say, this has no bearing at all on the issue of whether Sweden was right to keep schools open or whether our country was wrong to close them, let alone keep them closed now. The overwhelming majority of deaths from COVID-19 in Sweden were among people over 70 years of age, and most of those were people over 80 and with compromised immune systems.

Swedish flag

Reuters reported that three separate studies, including one by UNICEF, “showed that Swedish children fared better than children in other countries during the pandemic, both in terms of education and mental health.”

For more than a month, Sweden has had almost no deaths from COVID-19 while the entire society remains open and almost no one wears masks. (In Holland, too, almost no one wears masks.) For all intents and purposes, the virus is over in Sweden.

I live in California, a state governed by that most dangerous of leaders: a fool with unlimited power. Despite the fact that California ranks 28th among the 50 states in deaths per million, Gov. Gavin Newsom has destroyed and continues to destroy tens of thousands of small businesses and untold numbers of livelihoods. His continuing to forbid — a half-year after the onset of the pandemic — indoor dining in restaurants is leading to a projected permanent closure of approximately 1 in every 3 restaurants in the state. The same catastrophic destruction will likely affect retail businesses and services such as hair and nail salons. But all this human tragedy — not to mention increased depression and suicides among the young and increased abuse of children and partners — means nothing to Newsom, to Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti or to the Los Angeles Times, whose editors and columnists continue to advocate for the lockdown while they receive their salaries.

Why can people eat with no mask in an airplane — inches, not six feet, from strangers — but cannot eat in a California restaurant, which is so much bigger than the inside of an airplane, while sitting six feet from others? Because Newsom ordered it, the Los Angeles Times supports it and, like sheep, Californians have accepted it.

According to the California Association of Museums, “Museums are losing over $22 million a day due to the statewide quarantine. As of August 1, 2020, California museums have lost more than $2.9 billion in revenue. Museums have a $6.55 billion financial impact on California’s economy, support 80,722 jobs, and generated $492 million in tax revenues for the State of California in 2017 and over $1 billion in federal taxes.”

And the American Alliance of Museums issued results from a survey on July 22, 2020, that warned 1 out of every 3 museums may shutter forever as funding sources and financial reserves run dry.

On Aug. 3, The Wall Street Journal wrote, “In March … There was broad public support for the prudent goals of preventing hospitals from being overwhelmed and buying scientists time to develop therapies.” But the left — the media and Democratic governors and mayors — immediately moved the goal posts to “bending the curve” and “saving one life,” enabling them to get away with destroying lives and livelihoods.

“Covid is over in Sweden. People have gone back to their normal lives and barely anyone is getting infected any more. I am willing to bet that the countries that have shut down completely will see rates spike when they open up. If that is the case, then there won’t have been any point in shutting down in the first place … Shutting down completely in order to decrease the total number of deaths only makes sense if you are willing to stay shut down until a vaccine is available. That could take years. No country is willing to wait that long.”

The lockdown is a crime. But even more upsetting is that it is supported by so many Americans. This country is unrecognizable to those of us who lived through the 1968-1970 pandemic, which killed, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately 100,000 Americans — the 2020 equivalent of 170,000 Americans. Nothing shut down. Not one mask was worn.

Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host and columnist. His latest book, published by Regnery in May 2019, is “The Rational Bible,” a commentary on the book of Genesis. His film, “No Safe Spaces,” will be released to home entertainment nationwide on Sept. 15, 2020. He is the founder of Prager University and may be contacted at dennisprager.com.   

To read the above article at source, click here [Emphasis added]

Comment: 

Lockdown is no longer a mistake – it’s now a crime.  I’m inclined to agree – big time.  What about you?   

And surely, if lockdowns are a crime, then someone has to be held accountable – but who?  And what might be the consequences for those politicians who kept these lockdowns in place, and/or are reintroducing them on a whim, keeping us in a state of fear?  Resignations galore? Prison? What then?   

What, too, about those in positions of authority within the Church – the bishops who offered to close churches and those others in authority who were in a position to resist?  These alleged men of God are enforcing the Government imposed restrictions on how we pray and worship God – many of them, to their eternal shame, doing so enthusiastically. Are they just as guilty as our political masters –  or even more guilty?   

Piers Morgan: Star of Covid-19 Biased, Brain-Dead, Bullying Media Coverage … 

Comment: 

Piers Morgan is insufferable at the best of times, but his treatment of Piers Corbyn in the above interview/attack,  is utterly disgraceful.  As for his sidekick, Susanna Reid, she’s a stereotypical female  birdbrain – as a female myself, I take no pleasure in admitting that some of us are birdbrains, but facts are stubborn things; she (like Piers Morgan) is always on the side of whatever is in fashion at any given moment.  The really culpable member of the above attack-pack, however, is the doctor, Hilary Jones, who is the undisputed media expert on all things health-related (which makes him a promoter of every sin under the sun, but that’s for another time – you’ll get my drift… Clue:  he wouldn’t be the  undisputed media health expert if he were encouraging young people to “wait for marriage”.  Get it, now?)

Be that as it may, for the purpose of this conversation, reflect on the reliability of Dr Jones’s accusation that Piers Corbyn’s remarks were “dangerous”, including his mention of Hydroxychloroquine

Doesn’t it strike you as odd, to say the least, that we have to “believe” in the Covid-19 virus?  As one commentator said on another blog:  “If  they have to convince us that there’s a pandemic, there isn’t one.”   Let’s be clear: there’s a virus all right – no question about that, but it’s not remotely deadly, as is being falsely claimed for the purpose of keeping us all in fear and thus easy to control.  In other words, there’s a virus all right but it’s a political virus.  The evidence is all around us, and as tangible as the people you see when you venture out of your home (now that we’re allowed – for now) and find yourself surrounded by people wearing assorted face-coverings – but don’t try to convince them they’re useless because, invariably, they’ll reply, well, if masks don’t work, why do surgeons wear them?  

Anyway, whether or not you might agree with Piers Corbyn’s (or his brother’s) politics, was he treated fairly in the Good Morning Britain interview in the video above?

Finally, it would be good if those of you with Twitter accounts would post the link to this thread on Piers Morgan’s Twitter Feed.  Sending anything via the alleged “have your say” links on the ITV website  is an utter waste of time, as I’ve discovered more than once. I seriously doubt if anyone ever reads those messages.  It seems to me that they’re there merely to give the illusion of listening to the viewers. In fact, I think it’s reasonable to conclude that they don’t give a toss about what any of us think…   If they did,  there would have been a doctor with an alternative take on the pandemic/lockdown instead of allowing Hilarious Hilary to take centre-stage, yet again, without challenge.   

Or, maybe you disagree?  Let’s hear it! 

**********************************************************************************

3 September: Feast of St Pius X: Greatest Pope of 20 Century – “Miracle Saint”…

The light that shone in the Church during eleven years of pontificate was extinguished on August 20, 1914. Pope Pius X fell sick on the Feast of the Assumption of Our Lady (Aug. 15) and received extreme unction and Holy Viaticum before dying. He was buried August 23, and his tomb immediately became the object of a popular devotion. 

Santo Subito

Pope Pius X’s reputation of sanctity was immediate. This was undoubtedly due to his qualities as a “miracle-saint” but also on account of the respect he inspired by his supernatural bearing. A number of cardinals, archbishops, bishops, vicars and prefects apostolic, pious societies, groups of Catholic Action, Catholic universities, and many of the faithful quickly wrote expressing their desire to see Pius X proclaimed a saint without delay. Thus in a letter dated September 24, 1916, Msgr. Leo, Bishop of Nicotera and Tropea, speaks of “a great saint and a great pope.”

The flood of pilgrims was such that the Vatican crypt could no longer contain them all. As a result, Cardinal Merry del Val, archpriest of St. Peter’s Basilica, had a small metal cross set into the floor of the basilica so that the faithful might kneel down directly above the tomb. The cross bore the inscription Pius Papa X.

Cardinal Merry del Val, the former Secretary of State of Pope Pius X celebrated Holy Mass near the tomb on the 20th of every month, until February 20, 1930, when he did so for the last time–six days before his own death.   Click here to read more…

Comment: 

Do you agree with the Pope’s claim about weak Catholics?   Can there be any doubt?  Is there anything, in particular, in the above article which provides insights into the greatness of Pius X?  Share your thoughts…