They're planning another election steal

 The problems with voting by mail are numerous.  See here.

There is a long history of vote fraud in the United States.  See here.

Elections are easy to rig.  See here.

Napoléon III (1808-1873), the nephew of Napoléon Bonaparte (1769-1821) and France's first president (1848-1852): "I care not who casts the votes of a nation, provided I can count them." (26 May, 1880)

"As long as I count the Votes, what are you going to do about it? say?" — attributed to William M. “Boss” Tweed in Thomas Nast cartoon, October 7, 1871).

"There’s more to an election than mere votin’, my boy, for as an eminent American once said: 'I care not who casts the votes of a nation if they’ll let me make the count.'" — from Uncle Henry, a novel by George Creel, 1922.

"It’s not the voting that’s democracy, it’s the counting, Archie says." — from Jumpers, a play by Tom Stoppard, 1972.

"Indeed, you won the elections, but I won the count." — Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza (1896-1956), The Guardian (London), June 17, 1977.

Covid-19 not as deadly as first thought concedes the CDC

 “If you cannot question it, it’s not science. It’s propaganda”

The CDC has finally conceded that Covid-19 is not nearly as deadly as they have been asserting for well over a year.  See here.

The question remains: When will the CDC follow the science?

Archbishop Vigano on massive election fraud

 

Archbishop Vigano on the massive election fraud and the attempt by Democrats and their allies in the media to steal the Presidential election here.

The Archbishop:

"Dear Brothers and Sisters,

As devout Christians and faithful citizens of the United States of America, you have intense and heartfelt concern for the fate of your beloved country while the final results of the Presidential election are still uncertain.

News of electoral fraud is multiplying, despite the shameful attempts of the mainstream media to censor the truth of the facts in order to give their candidate the advantage. There are states in which the number of votes is greater than the number of voters; others in which the mail-in vote seems to be exclusively in favor of Joe Biden; others in which the counting of ballots has been suspended for no reason or where sensational tampering has been discovered: always and only against President Donald J. Trump, always and only in favor of Biden.

In truth, for months now we have been witnessing a continuous trickle of staggered news, of manipulated or censored information, of crimes that have been silenced or covered up in the face of striking evidence and irrefutable testimony. We have seen the deep state organize itself, well in advance, to carry out the most colossal electoral fraud in history, in order to ensure the defeat of the man who has strenuously opposed the establishment of the New World Order that is wanted by the children of darkness. In this battle, you have not failed, as is your sacred duty, to make your own contribution by taking the side of the Good. Others, enslaved by vices or blinded by infernal hatred against Our Lord, have taken the side of Evil.

Do not think that the children of darkness act with honesty, and do not be scandalized if they operate with deception. Do you perhaps believe that Satan’s followers are honest, sincere, and loyal? The Lord has warned us against the Devil: “He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he speaks in character, because he is a liar and the father of lies” (Jn 8:44).

In these hours, while the gates of Hell seem to prevail, allow me to address myself to you with an appeal, which I trust that you will respond to promptly and with generosity. I ask you to make an act of trust in God, an act of humility and filial devotion to The Lord of Armies. I ask that all of you pray the Holy Rosary, if possible in your families or with your dear ones, your friends, your brothers and sisters, your colleagues, your fellow soldiers. Pray with the abandonment of children who know how to have recourse to their Most Holy Mother to ask her to intercede before the throne of the Divine Majesty. Pray with a sincere soul, with a pure heart, in the certainty of being heard and answered. Ask her – she who is the Help of Christians, Auxilium Christianorum – to defeat the forces of the Enemy; ask her – she who is terrible as an army set in battle array (Song 6:10) – to grant the victory to the forces of Good and to inflict a humiliating defeat on the forces of Evil.

Have your children pray, using the holy words that you have taught them: those confident prayers will rise to God and will not remain unheard. Have the elderly and sick pray, so that they may offer their sufferings in union with the sufferings that Our Lord suffered on the Cross when he shed His Precious Blood for Our Redemption. Have young ladies and women pray, so that they turn to her who is the model of purity and motherhood. And you, men, must also pray: your courage, your honor and your boldness will be refreshed and strengthened. All of you, take up this spiritual weapon, before which Satan and his minions retreat furiously, because they fear the Most Holy Virgin, she who is Almighty by Grace, even more than Almighty God."

This is an attempted Coup D'Etat.  And we all know the ultimate aim of Democratic Socialists who serve the Devil.  See here.

The Globalists want to steal this election and remove the last remaining opposition to their New World Order.  They already have a corrupt Vatican in their back pocket.  If they can steal this election, they will face no serious opposition to their Satanic plan.

Pray your Rosaries and prepare for battle.

Bishop Mitchell Rozanski the partisan: Not a word about President Trump's Executive Order protecting religious liberty

It wasn't long ago that Bishop Mitchell Rozanski was being critical of President Donald Trump's stance on illegal immigrants.  See here.

Bishop Rozanski was quoted as having said that,“As Christians, we must speak out against broad stroke measures that are an affront to the dignity of all human beings. It is part of the very fabric of our pro-life teaching that in each and every person we see the true and living presence of God.”

But Bishop Rozanski does not see "in every person" the true and living presence of God.  When I posted solid arguments charitably refuting his stance on the President's immigration policies on his Facebook page, he deleted the posts and blocked me from posting.

I wrote about Bishop Rozanski placing partisan politics above the demands of truth here.

Bishop Rozanski isn't interested in dialogue.  He's not interested in seeing God in every person.  The Bishop is a partisan ideologue.

Father George Rutler, of EWTN fame, wrote the following about such ideologues:

"The recent action of our government’s executive branch to protect our borders and enforce national security is based on Constitutional obligations (Art. 1 sec 10 and Art. 4 sec 4). It is a practical protection of the tranquility of order explained by Saint Augustine when he saw the tranquillitas ordinis of Roman civilization threatened. Saint Thomas Aquinas sanctioned border control (S. Th. I-II, Q. 105, Art. 3). No mobs shouted in the marketplace two years ago when the Terrorist Travel Prevention Act restricted visa waivers for Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya and Yemen. The present ban continues that, and only for a stipulated ninety days, save for Syria. There is no “Muslim ban” as should be obvious from the fact that the restrictions do not apply to other countries with Muslim majorities, such as Egypt, Indonesia, Pakistan, Malaysia, Bangladesh and Turkey.

These are facts ignored by demagogues who speak of tears running down the face of the Statue of Liberty. At issue is not immigration, but illegal immigration. It is certainly manipulative of reason to justify uncontrolled immigration by citing previous generations of immigrants to our shores, all of whom went through the legal process, mostly in the halls of Ellis Island. And it is close to blasphemy to invoke the Holy Family as antinomian refugees, for they went to Bethlehem in obedience to a civil decree requiring tax registration, and they violated no statutes when they sought protection in Egypt. Then there was Saint Paul, who worked within the legal system, and invoked his Roman citizenship through privileges granted to his native Tarsus in 66 B.C. (Acts 16:35-38; 22:25-29; 25:11-12) He followed ordered procedure, probably with the status of civis Romanus non optimo jure—a legal citizen, but not allowed to act as a magistrate.

It is obvious that the indignant demonstrators against the new Executive Orders are funded in no little part by wealthy interests who would provoke agitation. These same people have not shown any concern about the neglected Christians seeking refuge from persecution in the Middle East. In 2016 there was a 675% increase in the number of Syrian refugees over the previous year, but while 10% of the Syrian population is Christian, only one-half of one percent of the Syrian Christians were granted asylum. It is thankworthy that our changed government now wants to redress that. The logic of that policy must not be shouted down by those who screech rather than reason."


Now President Trump has signed another Executive Order, this one protecting religious liberty, saying as he did so:

“We remember this eternal truth. Freedom is not a gift from government. Freedom is a gift from God. It was Thomas Jefferson who said the God who gave us life gave us liberty. Our Founding Fathers believed that religious liberty was so fundamental that they enshrined it in the very First Amendment of our great beloved Constitution.”

When did we hear this from President Barack Obama?  Instead, through his HHS mandate, Obama was attempting to violate the religious liberties and conscience rights of Catholics and other Christians opposed to contraception.

Has Bishop Rozanski thanked President Trump or praised his Executive Order?

No.

And this too speaks volumes about this ecclesial fraud.


Related reading here.

Hillary Clinton supported Al Gore when he contested the 2000 election, what's really behind the mainstream media's fear of a contested election in 2016?

Michael Brown, over at Spirit Daily, ran this item from The New York Times (a bastion of journalistic integrity):


"Donald J. Trump refused to say on Wednesday night whether he would accept the results of the presidential election, rebuffing a reminder from Chris Wallace, the debate moderator, that the peaceful transfer of power is 'one of the prides of this country.'"

I guess Chris Wallace forgot about Al Gore and his contestation of the 2000 election.  In an interview with CNN’s John King on Nov 29, 2000, Gore said, "You know, the only way to avoid having a cloud over the next president is to count all the votes. Because our country is based on the consent of the governed, and the consent of the governed can only come through a vote by the people. And all the people who vote legally have to have their votes counted; that’s the basic principle. If all of the votes are counted, that’s the best way to confer legitimacy on the outcome of the election."

And there is reason to be concerned this election year.  Gateway Pundit notes:

"Dead people are voting and it’s something this administration does not want to do anything about. They must like it. They must like who they are voting for… Now we have four million, four million ineligible and dead voters on American voter rolls according to the Pew Charitable Trust."

When Gore contested the 2000 election results, Hillary Clinton supported him saying:

"I believe that it certainly is important that every American have the confidence that his or her vote is counted and certainly in Florida there are questions about votes that haven’t been counted. I think those should be resolved...America’s government institutions, including the presidency, are 'strong and resilient' enough to weather the current dispute.." (Source: CNN.com Nov 29, 2000).

If that was true in 2000, when Democrats contested the election results, why is it that the mere possibility of Donald Trump and his supporters contesting the election results concerns the liberal media so much?  Do they know something the rest of us don't?

Si palam res est, repetitio injuria non est....

When a woman asked a Bishop why Pope Francis, during his trip to the United States, failed to mention that marriage is between a man and a woman, the Bishop responded that the Holy Father wanted to avoid a "negative polemic."

Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand refutes this intellectual sophistry.  He writes, "Some might be tempted to believe that the rejection of error and falsehood [ and here, again, we are speaking of ideas not persons] is something "negative" and even cult-like....Perhaps never before has there been as much intellectual fraud as there is today. In the mass media - and even in discussions on university campuses - this intellectual fraud appears chiefly as the manipulation of slogans designed to bluff the hearer or reader, and prevent him from thinking clearly. For a typical example, let us consider how the terms positive and negative are now most often used to discredit the refutation of pernicious errors and to give credit to the most shallow speculations. The intellectual swindlers who play such an important role in public discussions will often denominate as 'positive' propositions and attitudes they favor. They thereby seek to forestall questions of truth and value by enveloping their prejudices in a vague suggestion of 'creativity,' 'originality,' 'openness,' 'unaggressiveness.' This is the device of the cuttlefish. The moment one tries to grasp it, it emits a murky substance to confuse and deceive.

In reality, the popular slogan usages of positive and negative is a distortion of the genuine meanings of the terms. In proper usage they can refer to existence and nonexistence or to value and disvalue. They can refer to desirability and undesirability, or to answers to questions and demands, or to results of tests and inquiries. But when these terms are applied to attitudes of mind or to theses - by way of suggesting an evaluation - an intellectual fraud is committed; for they are then being used to evoke vague associations that distract from the question that alone matters - namely: Is this attitude objectively called for? Or: Is this thesis true?...It is the nature of truth to exclude every contradiction of itself. Thus, the rejection of errors and falsehoods can never be separated from the affirmation of truth. The one implies the other...

To give the impression that affirmations are 'positive' and denials 'negative' is to misrepresent completely the nature of judgments and propositions. This abuse of the language transforms the terms positive and negative into deceptive slogans and thus amounts to an intellectual swindle..." (The Charitable Anathema, pp. 45-47).

Si palam res est, repetitio injuria non est: "To say what everybody knows is no injury."

In one of his last homilies, Archbishop Oscar Romero, the martyred Archbishop of San Salvador [whom Francis claims to admire], said: "A preaching that does not point out sin is not the preaching of the gospel. A preaching that makes sinners feel good so that they become entrenched in their sinful state, betrays the gospel's call. A preaching that does not discomfit sinners but lulls them in their sin leaves Zebulun and Naphtali in the shadow of death. A preaching that awakens, a preaching that enlightens -- as when a light turned on awakens and of course annoys a sleeper -- that is the preaching of Christ, calling, "wake up! Be converted!" this is the church's authentic preaching. Naturally, such preaching must meet conflict, must spoil what is miscalled prestige, must disturb, must be persecuted. It cannot get along with the powers of darkness and sin."


Francis has to decide whether he wants to please men or serve Christ (Galatians 1: 10).  I believe he has already decided.

Homosexual activists such as Michael Bayly see Jesus as a "sissy." On the Dies Irae, they will learn the truth

In their zeal to promote the Cult of Softness and effeminacy in general, many homosexual activists attempt to portray the Lord Jesus as being soft and effeminate Himself.  For example, at the homosexual Blog The Wild Reed, Michael J. Bayly, referring to the work of Dr. David Rankin, writes, "I’ve had a cassette tape of Rankin’s talk, 'Jesus Was A Sissy,' floating around for years. I can’t recall when and how I obtained it, and an Internet search for Rankin provides little information about him or when and where he gave this particular talk. Listening to it again this evening I realized that it actually dates back to the 1980s, as Rankin mentions that Ronald Reagan is president.


Regardless of all of this, I found much of what Rankin had to say still very pertinent, and so thought I would share it on this day that we honor the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

A fraud

Rankin begins his talk by noting that perhaps, in a sort of secret way, we have always known that Jesus was a sissy. All efforts to align him with soldiers, marching, battles, banners, and wars (as, for example, in hymns like 'Onward Christian Soldiers') are part of a widespread fraud – 'a pious, well-intentioned fraud,' says Rankin, 'but a fraud nonetheless. For Jesus was a sissy.'

Rankin himself was taught from an early age that male success was synonymous with aggressive physical behavior. Indeed, he internalized this message so well that he became a professional fighter – 'Rocky Rankin'! 'Violence was rewarded,' he remembers, and all his teachers were proud of him.

He has since learned that human behavior has been 'arbitrarily categorized as masculine and feminine,' that societies have 'carefully defined sexual stereotypes that lead to victimization,' and that 'according to our own particular stereotypes, Jesus was not a ‘soldier marching to war,’ but an honest-to-goodness sissy.' To insist otherwise is to feed into a 'dangerous and damaging fraud.'...Rankin declares his thesis absolutely inescapable: Jesus was a sissy. After all, Jesus was able to feel and express a wide range of tender emotions. He wept without shame, even raved and screamed and moaned and won no battles. He was an intuitive thinker, often the victim of wild imaginings and flights of fantasy. He responded to beauty, embracing the birds of the air and the lilies of the field. He nurtured little children, relating to them in the manner of a mother. He freely touched other men and kissed them.

'Does Jesus really fit the American ideal of manhood?' Rankin asks. Can we imagine Jesus as a United States Marine? As a linebacker for the Detroit Lions? As the Marlboro Man? 'By almost every standard in our culture,' concludes Rankin, 'Jesus was a real live honest-to-goodness sissy.'" (See full post here).

What of this?  Was Jesus a "sissy"?  The Sacred Scriptures show otherwise.  In the wonderful Catholic classic entitled "My Meditation on the Gospel," published by the Confraternity of the Precious Blood, Rev. James E. Sullivan provides us with the following meditation on Christian Fortitude:


"After a few days' stay at Capharnaum, Jesus and Mary and the first five Apostles made the journey to Jerusalem for the Passover. When they entered the Temple, they heard its usual peace broken by a great uproar. Men were shouting and bargaining, oxen and sheep were bleating. Jesus stiffened, His Father's house made into a market place! A fierce, set look came over His features. His hands seized some cords and tied them into a whip. His eyes never left the scene before Him. He walked forward then, arms outstretched. 'Take these things away!' He cried out. His voice was strong, yet trembling with anger. An uneasy fear came over the crowd, as His eyes burned into theirs. They hurried away their oxen and sheep, those in back urging on those in front. The money-changers alone held their ground. Jesus seized the end of their tables and sent them flying end over end. They became panic-stricken then. They grasped what coins they could and ran. Jesus stood alone in the courtyard. Peace settled again over the Temple.

My Lord, how I admire You in ths scene! We are so liable to think that being a Christian means being a weakling and a 'mouse'! How wonderful to see that distorted notion so firmly dispelled by the example of Your magnificent courage! Your Father's house was being desecrated; there was reason for the fighting - so You fought! You didn't care what they thought or what they would say. His glory was primary! Nor did it matter to You that You were alone against them all. Your courage was so great and Your cause so just that the entire crowd fled before You."

Does the cleansing of the Temple come across as the action of a "sissy"?

Jesus' Apostles were hardy men.  They were men used to hard labor and were by no means effeminate in any way.  But Jesus rebuked them for being frightened when it appeared their ship would capsize in the story Sea of Galilee:

"He got into a boat and his disciples followed him. Suddenly a violent storm came up on the sea, so that the boat was being swamped by waves; but he was asleep. They came and woke him, saying, 'Lord, save us! We are perishing!' He said to them, 'Why are you terrified, O you of little faith?' Then he got up, rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was great calm. The men were amazed and said, 'What sort of man is this, whom even the winds and the sea obey?'


The Apostles were afraid for their lives.  And they cried out to Jesus.  Sissy?  How many real men would cry out to a sissy for help when their lives are in danger?

Jesus is presented in the Gospels as one who taught with authority.  In fact, an evil spirit, so fearful of Him, instantly fled at His command:

"Then they came to Capernaum, and on the sabbath he entered the synagogue and taught. The people were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one having authority and not as the scribes.  In their synagogue was a man with an unclean spirit; he cried out, 'What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!' Jesus rebuked him and said, 'Quiet! Come out of him!' The unclean spirit convulsed him and with a loud cry came out of him. All were amazed and asked one another, 'What is this? A new teaching with authority. He commands even the unclean spirits and they obey him.' His fame spread everywhere throughout the whole region of Galilee." (Mark 1: 21-28).

Jesus came to die for our sins.  And His death involved a level of torture that was almost indescribably horrific.  Hardly the actions of a "sissy."

No, Dr. Rankin's idea of Jesus as "sissy" is the one which is a fraud.  And on the Dies Irae (the Day of Wrath) those who bought into his asinine idea will learn just how wrong he was.  For the King of Kings, the Lion of Judah, is not going to return as the suffering and sacrificial Lamb.  He tells us:

"..Behold, I make all things new..I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end.  To the thirsty I will give a gift from the spring of life-giving water.  The victor will inherit these gifts, and I shall be his God, and he will be my son.  But as for cowards [read sissies if you will], the unfaithful, the depraved, murderers, the unchaste, sorcerers, idol-worshipers, and deceivers of every sort, their lot is in the burning pool of fire and sulfur, which is the second death." (Revelation 21: 5-8).

Jesus a sissy?  Don't kid yourself.  The Word of God assures us that: "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." (Hebrews 10: 31). 

Now why would it be a fearful thing if Jesus were a "sissy"?