Don’t put it off any longer. Be sure to enter Advent already prepared for the preparation, if you know what I mean. Devote time these next few days to reflect on your journey this past year, where you are now, and where you want to be. Then spend time in prayer and private meditation to build your resolve. Commit yourself to sainthood, and pray for the gifts to get you there.
But also be prepared that those gifts are mostly hardships. Turning suffering into sainthood is how to use the tool properly. If you fly from suffering, instead of embracing it and using it for your own good, it’s like throwing away a precious gift. Don’t do that. Look to the model of Our Lady of Sorrows, and beg her to show you how it’s done.
Now here is a little something from Divine Intimacy. Happy pre-Advent!
It wasn’t even his meme. That was news to me. He simply retweeted someone else’s meme. Convicted of a felony. This is where we are.
I went for the timestamps, but ended up watching the whole thing. So will you. He’s not a great interview, as you will see, but the truth bombs just keep coming. Pray for this man.
Ep. 38 The First Amendment is done. Douglass Mackey is about to go to prison for mocking Hillary Clinton on the internet. We talked to him right before his sentencing. Remember as you watch that this could be you.
(3:12) The Hillary Clinton meme
(4:20) Hillary’s… pic.twitter.com/MLwz2SboGr
— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) November 9, 2023
This is really something to see. While it is over two hours long, and I confess I will never watch the whole thing, tune in at the 17:43 mark. The transcript is provided below the video. One correction: Maher states the election fraud cases were laughed out of 60 courts. Wrong. None of those cases were even allowed to present the evidence. They were dismissed out of hand, and nothing more was done. Who had standing to pursue the matter? Donald Trump. Who stood by and did nothing further? Donald Trump. Enjoy. -nvp
Even Oliver Stone is starting to question the 2020 election
Oliver Stone is a Hollywood leftist who has an odd way of being right at times.
His Academy Award-winning JFK was dismissed as a conspiracy theory.
Turns out he was likely closer to right all along — as Tucker Carlson noted in one of this segments.
That’s not the only one. His South of the Border documentary about Latin America’s wave of elected leftist dictators was initially criticized as Chavista propaganda, a glossing over of some of the region’s worst rulers … except that if you watch the thing, which I did twice, you realize he did an extraordinary job of revealing these people as the unattractive pigs that they were. Sleazy, covetous, Imelda-like, sidelong, gangsterly … he actually exposed them in all their glory in a way their worst critics couldn’t. That was a useful record of the era.
He’s criticized government bureaucracies’ demonization of ivermectin and vaccine mandates which is credibility right there.
His criticism of the way the Vietnam War was run by vested interests and swamp bureaucrats was probably spot on, too.
So now he’s dropped another truth bomb, or at least is circling around it.
According to RealClearPolitics, which showed a segment and transcript of Stone conversing with Bill Maher:
Some of the transcript (they go off on tangents) is here, emphasis mine:
MAHER: Well, I mean, [Trump] doesn’t concede elections. You know, the elections only count if we win theory of government. Okay. Well, come on. You know, Trump has he still has not conceded the election. He has not conceded. He does not honor them. Okay.
STONE: I mean, do you know for a fact that he lost? I’m just curious.
MAHER: Okay. You’re going to make me —
STONE: I just don’t know all of the facts.
MAHER: Well I do. Is there a conspiracy theory that you don’t believe?
STONE: Come on, Bill. You know I’m intelligent.
MAHER: Intelligent? Of course you are. But look, look, I’ve had many people sit here and I’d say the same thing to them. Like, the key to getting along in America is not getting into these tribal things. It’s understanding that you can have somebody in your life who you go for A, B, C, and D, We are so aligned and the person is so smart and they really get it.
And then E each of you thinks the other one’s crazy and there’s a couple of those with us, but we got A, B, C, and D, and so we just.
OLIVER STONE: We’ll start with that.
MAHER: Yes, that’s got to be enough. You can’t make people like agree with you on these things. And you’re right when you —
STONE: I’m just asking you, I’m not an expert on the election. I don’t go on. I’m not a political junkie. You are. And you follow it very closely. Okay.
MAHER: All right, then I’ll give you the thumbnail sketch. They tried it in like 60 courts. It was laughed out of every court, including by Republican judges. Report The people who save this democracy were Republicans. Good Republicans. In states where Trump pressured them like the guy, the one he’s on trial for in Georgia. Find me 11,000 votes. It’s on tape.
A guy like that saying to him, sir, we just don’t do that here. I voted for you. I’m a Republican, but we just don’t do that. That’s what saved us. And they were Republicans. So you don’t take their word for it. I mean, it would.
STONE: I don’t know. I mean, you went through the 2000 election. That was horrifying to me. What happened when the Supreme Court closed that down. What happened there? You know, the popular vote was —
MAHER: What should we do? Do we just keep counting votes forever? Or should we still be counting them now?
STONE: No. Count them correctly.
MAHER: The people who have testified that this was a fair and will [sic] run election. It’s a who’s who of people like Bill Barr. Mitch McConnell. You’re talking about Liz Cheney. You’re talking about dyed in the wool, serious conservative Republicans who went with Trump really further out than a lot of us thought they would go with a guy like McCain’s not a war hero.
STONE: Well, I don’t know the facts. And I think I would trust the accountants more than the politicians. And I’d like to know what the accountants, the guys who vote, who know the most about votes, who do the Electoral Commission’s, you know. I can’t take Biden’s word for it on anything.
MAHER: It’s not his word. It’s the Electoral Commission. It’s Trump’s own election security guy who said this was the most fair, well-run election that we’ve had ever.
STONE: I don’t know about that. Okay. I don’t know about that.
MAHER: Well, I mean, if there’s nothing that can be said or argued that would convince you —
STONE: You, I think it would shock people —
MAHER: Then they called it —
STONE: — Joe [Biden] got so many got so many votes. You know, that was what was shocking, that he did so well compared to what he was expected to do —
STONE: — because we believed all the East Coast media —
That’s the thinking of an independent thinker, someone who asks again and again what we really know from hard knowledge and what we really know only from the press.
It’s startling in its candor, not a full-blown admission of Trump support, but a person who can critically think and use his own knowledge to reason out strange things that have happened since. He cites the bad media treatment of Pete Rose as his theory on why people stick close to Trump, and his experience with the 2000 election, which he seems to think as stolen, as something that leaves the realm of stolen elections a distinct possibility since he believes it has happened before.
His views are not all that ‘conspiratorial’ as Maher seemed to want to dismiss them as. Polls show that a majority of Republicans believe the elections these days do have fraud — as do a sizable minority of Democrats. They didn’t get into it in the conversation, but many Democrats think our elections are compromised by cheating.
Stone stood his ground and didn’t back away from the questions that Maher had no serious answers to — claiming that the press, numerous neverTrumps and many neverTrump judges had reported the election as free and fair. Just because someone says so does not make it so, and that was why Maher kept misfiring at Stone and Stone held his ground. Stone also suggested that there were a lot of liars out there — from the COVID shambles around vaccines and the like, to Joe Biden himself, whom he couldn’t bring himself to believe a word he said.
One can only hope that Stone looks at this matter ever more closely. He’s onto something. He’s sniffing, he’s asking questions and he might come up with a tremendous new work from it. Once again, he could be confoundingly correct.
Dr. Mazza Minicourse: The Third Secret & The Francis Church
Starts Sunday December 3rd. This Advent uncover the Apostasy Our Lady of Fatima warned us about! And what YOU can do about it!
Live Classes Sun Dec 3rd, at 5pm PDT/8pm EDT and will run approximately 70-80 minutes. Q&A will follow for 10 minutes or more for those who can stay. Content: Ages 13 and up. Recorded video link sent afterwards so you can watch on your own time!
According to Fr. Gabriele Amorth (d. 2016), the late Chief Exorcist of the Diocese of Rome,
Fr. Amorth: “One day Padre Pio said to me very
sorrowfully: ‘You know, Gabriele? It is Satan who has been
introduced into the bosom of the Church and within a very
short time will come to rule a false Church.’”
Zavala: “Oh my God! Some kind of Antichrist! When did
he prophesy this to you?”
“The [papal] election of a heretic, schismatic, or female would be
null and void.”
The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911
“Satan Must Reign in the Vatican. The Pope Will Be His Slave.”
Roman Freemasonic Banner, 1917
“In an extreme case, a pope could become a heretic as a private
person and thus automatically lose his office if the contradiction to
the revelation and the dogmatic teaching of the church is
Cardinal Gerhard Müller, 2022
Pope Francis calls for a new theology not always ‘corresponding to the Christian face of God’
Draw from non-Christian images of God
Pope Francis’ new mode of theological study directed Catholic theologians to draw from, or promote, the “people’s common sense” in an “inductive method.”
Such a method would start from the “different contexts and concrete situations in which peoples are inserted, allowing itself to be seriously challenged by reality,” and all these contextual considerations would lead to theologians assessing “signs of the times.”
But in order to practice the new theological style, wrote Francis, theologians would have to prioritize “common” ideas found amongst people, even though such ideas reject the Catholic concept of God:
Therefore, it is necessary that the knowledge of people’s common sense, which is in fact a theological place in which so many images of God dwell, often not corresponding to the Christian face of God, only and always love, be privileged first of all.
Such an epochal change, argued Francis, requires an essentially different character and identity for the sacred science of theology. Citing his first ecological document, “Laudato si’,” Francis called for a “paradigm shift” in the Church’ approach to theology.
Francis further argued that theology would necessarily move away from a path of presenting and teaching truths, “into a culture of dialogue and encounter between different traditions and different knowledge, between different Christian denominations and different religions, openly confronting everyone, believers and non-believers alike.”
This argument, however, flies in the face of the unchanging teaching of the Church, regarding its God-given mission.
Pope Leo XIII writes in Satis Cognitum that the Church’s task is to teach the faith of Christ, not to look for knowledge from other traditions or religions. The pope wrote: “For what did Christ, the Lord, ask? What did He wish in regard to the Church founded, or about to be founded? This: to transmit to it the same mission and the same mandate which He had received from the Father, that they should be perpetuated.”
“Strive to preserve your heart in peace; let no event of this world disturb it.”
“The endurance of darkness is the preparation for great light.”
“The soul that is quick to turn to speaking and conversing is slow to turn to God.”
“It is best to learn to silence the faculties and to cause them to be still so that God may speak.”
“Who teaches the soul if not God?”
“What we need most in order to make progress is to be silent before this great God with our appetite and with our tongue, for the language he best hears is silent love.”
Faith “is like the feet wherewith the soul journeys to God, and love is the guide that directs it.”
“Contemplation is nothing else but a secret, peaceful, and loving infusion of God, which if admitted, will set the soul on fire with the Spirit of love.”
“Take God for your spouse and friend and walk with him continually, and you will not sin and will learn to love, and the things you must do will work out prosperously for you.”
“To saints, their very slumber is a prayer.”
“Love consists not in feeling great things but in having great detachment and in suffering for the Beloved.”
“The soul that is attached to anything however much good there may be in it, will not arrive at the liberty of divine union. For whether it be a strong wire rope or a slender and delicate thread that holds the bird, it matters not, if it really holds it fast; for, until the cord be broken the bird cannot fly.”
“At this point, however it seems that the faith of many Catholics will be more badly shaken should Francis turn out to be the true pope. How, it will be asked, could God allow his Church to be ruled by a man whose teachings contradict what Christ taught? Why does God permit the confusion and demoralization that Francis has wrought? Why does Francis bear so much animosity toward good and faithful Catholics like Bishop Strickland?
“The possibility that Francis is the pope does far more damage to the credibility of the Church than the possibility that he is not. If Francis continues to introduce novel and divisive changes to Church teachings on an almost weekly basis, then the credibility of the Church and the papacy will decline rapidly. If, on the other hand, he is revealed to be an imposter intent on subverting the Church, then much of the current turmoil would be seen in a new light. It would be seen not as the result of some inherent flaw in the Church, but as the result of a deliberate plot to destroy the Church.
“If Francis is actually an enemy of the Church, then it makes sense that he would favor harmful innovations—that he would be open to same-sex blessings, that he would participate in pagan rituals, that he would put the John Paul II Academy for Marriage and the Family in the hands of a man who would not be welcome in the homes of most Catholic families, that he would put another such man in charge of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, that he would issue a motu proprio calling for a radical paradigm shift in Catholic theology and on and on. All of these innovations have sown confusion in the Church. But that, it seems, is what they were intended to do.
“If Francis were really a false prophet, then it would be understandable that he thinks conversion is undesirable, that he tells seminarians to forgive all sin in the confessional even if there is no repentance, and that he maintains that sexual sins are nothing to worry about.
“If for some reason—an invalid resignation by Pope Benedict, a rigged papal election, or evidence that Bergoglio had no intention of guarding the Catholic faith—it becomes evident that Francis is not a valid pope, then many Catholics would breathe a sigh of relief. If Francis/Bergoglio is an antipope then the promises of Christ and the protection of the Holy Spirit do not apply to him. Catholics would be free to ignore his new doctrines, to resist him, and above all, to better understand the trial that has been visited on the Church.
“Some think that the antipope/false prophet accusations against Francis are reckless, but scripture teaches us that at some point in time, something of this nature is exactly what we should expect…”
Motives, and more video: Inviting, aiding and abetting the staged faux breach of the Capitol
Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser told federal law enforcement to stand down just one day before…
“To be clear, the District of Columbia is not requesting other federal law enforcement personnel and discourages any additional deployment without immediate notification to, and consultation with, MPD if such plans are underway,” Bowser wrote in a letter to acting U.S. Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, acting Secretary of Defense Chris Miller, and Secretary of the Army Ryan D. McCarthy.
According to Mayor Bowser, D.C.’s Metropolitan Police Department in coordination with the U.S. Park Police, Capitol Police, and Secret Service were well-equipped to handle whatever problems could come up during the Trump rallies planned for Wednesday.
“The District of Columbia Government has not requested personnel from any other federal law enforcement agencies,” she continued. “To avoid confusion, we ask that any request for additional assistance be coordinated using the same process and procedures.”
Bowser also explained that the presence of “unidentifiable” federal law enforcement agents in D.C. could “cause confusion” and “become a national security threat” because of the lack of distinction between them and “armed groups.” https://thefederalist.com/2021/01/06/dc-mayor-told-federal-law-enforcement-to-stand-down-day-before-violent-us-capitol-riot/
That last part is very interesting, when you consider that the police forces under the control of Mayor Bowser are the ones who opened the barricades and eventually OPENED THE DOORS and invited the protesters inside. Once inside, they were pretty much allowed to go anywhere they wanted for the next four hours, the only exception being Ashli Babbitt, whom they murdered. Those four hours were broadcast in pictures and video into every home in America, with every pearl-clutching Marxist journalisp seething with faux rage… in reality, they were loving it.
BTW, is it really criminal trespass or unlawful entry if you get invited in?
I will get back to Mayor Bowser in a moment, but first, let’s check out some more evidence. Always examine the evidence, folks. At the very beginning of this video, you can see police holding a line perhaps 50 meters from the door about to be opened. Which means that after allowing a select number of protesters to approach, they re-established some sort of perimeter. Once the doors are opened, you will see cops lining the entrance hall, like a receiving line. As they start to ascend the stairs, you see a lone man descending, and then a larger crowd in the rotunda, which means other doors had already been opened ahead of this one. One of the ubiquitous photographers of this staged event appears at the 0:50 mark.
Capitol police open doors for the protestors. They stand aside and invite them inside. pic.twitter.com/OnSd3KGzz5
— Christina Bobb (@christina_bobb) January 8, 2021
Think about this. Use your reasoning skills.
Mayor Bowser implies in her letter that she was expecting protesters in full kit with AR-15s, such that they would be indistinguishable from Fed LEO, and she uses this intel to ask federal law enforcement to fully stand down to avoid “confusion” on the ground. Then she issues ROEs to officers under her control whereby said officers would allow or even assist the protesters in gaining access to the Capital.
Is this sinking in? Do you understand what it means?
First of all, it means that the whole thing was orchestrated and the desired outcomes were (mostly) achieved: Global spectacle of “chaos” inside the Capital with Trump to blame, “democracy on the brink” due to MAGA “insurrectionists,” and hard evidence of voter fraud and illegal election tampering completely suppressed, never to see the light of day, ever. Biden stolen victory certified, nearly uncontested. Trump out.
But wait, there’s more. Perhaps one of the objectives was not achieved. After all, the protesters ended up being unarmed and mostly peaceful, which was unexpected. What if the protesters really had shown up with long guns, as expected or desired… did Mayor Bowser and her handlers ultimately want to see a firefight/executions carried out inside the House and Senate chambers, so they made sure to provide the necessary aid to the enemy, in the form of standing down the three-letter agencies and issuing neutered ROEs to their own boots on the ground?
What other logical conclusion is there?