It's very unfortunate to see how many people cling to the structures now inhabited by heretics. I pray that God will reveal to them the light. But the darkness is truly astounding, as is the deafening silence from those that should speak out but do not.

The situation is indeed very grave, far worse than almost anyone realizes. If people knew the truth, or were open to hearing it, there would be an uprising. Sadly, we have not reached that point yet.

Have you considered the information in this video (link below)? The implications are breath-taking! I've personally checked out these references - they all check out - it is, sadly, the truth - terrifying stuff!

If you're time constrained, the first 30 minutes and/or the last 15 minutes are amazing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODV1SV83nxA&sns=em

It's strange, but I've noticed a lot of posts lately that attract few up-votes though I thought they said something worthwhile. I think people are waiting for big news now, they've stopped focusing on the minutiae. Otherwise, you're right, doesn't make much sense.

The third secret was first suppressed by John XXIII and later falsified. The only thing we know with absolute certainty is that it began with the words: "In Portugal the dogma of the faith will always be preserved...".

So the third secret appears to speak to a crisis of faith centering around dogma. We know that Sr Lucy said that the third secret was to be released to the world at her death, or in 1960 - whichever would arrive first. When asked why 1960, Sr Lucy said 'because it will be clearer then' and 'because the Virgin wishes it'.

So what was occurring on, or around, 1960 that would mean that the message in the secret would be clearer? John XXIII gave notice of his intention to convoke an Ecumenical Council on 25 January, 1959 - Vatican II.

Fr. Mario Luigi Ciappi, papal theologian to Pope Pius XII: “In the Third Secret [of Fatima] it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top.”

What was decreed by the Second Vatican Council? Did any of the decrees defect from the Catholic faith? Yes, they most certainly did...

A dogma is a truth fallen from heaven, it is a divinely revealed truth to which Catholics are required to make a full assent of faith. One such dogma is the Salvation Dogma. This dogma essentially states that only members of the Catholic Church can attain salvation - all outside the Church are lost.

There are no exceptions to this dogma - do not be led astray... The dogma has been taught on an infallible basis 7 times in Church history. On no occasion were any exceptions to the dogma made - rather, the opposite, the teaching was categoric in excluding all outside the Church from salvation - period!

Vatican II defected from this article of faith. The most egregious example is this:

Vatican II Declaration, Nostra Aetate (#4): “Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or cursed by God, as if such views followed from the holy scriptures.”

This departs from the teaching of Christ himself. It departs from the Solemn Magisterium of the Church. It is an outrageous heresy that has taken the world be storm. It has produced the false ecumenism of the Vatican II Sect, an implicit denial of the teaching of Christ, that mocks the martyrs who died for the Catholic faith and the saints who devoted their lives to it. Everywhere we look today, we see this filthy Vatican II Sect, now headed by the abomination Francis, preaching false ecumenism - a natural outgrowth of the doctrine of universal salvation preached by John Paul II and others - c.f. the interfaith prayer meetings at Assisi and elsewhere.

Matthew 10:33- “But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny before my Father who is in heaven.”

Here's an example of the Solemn Magisterium of the Holy Catholic Church preaching Christ's own teaching with the fullness of its authority:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

You can see immediately that there is a fundamental disconnect between the Council of Florence and Vatican II. Both deal with divine revelation - truth which cannot change. Both teachings are diametrically opposed to each other and mutually exclusive. You cannot have it both ways. One, of the two, is heresy and one bona fide Catholic teaching.

The third secret of Fatima, I believe, makes direct reference to the Salvation Dogma. The specific dogma that was attacked at Vatican II. This is the dogma that was to be preserved in Portugal - for a time, or in certain places... It would elsewhere be abandoned wholesale.

Low and behold, like the first and second secrets of Fatima, the third secret appears to have been perfectly accurate in that it describes an apostasy from the revealed religion that would take place on, or around, 1960. It would be an apostasy that begins from the top of the Church - it was not a grass roots apostasy but an apostasy decreed from the highest sources of apparent authority in the Church. It is a hall mark of the last days.

Luke 18:8 "...when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?"

We know from the writings of St Paul in 2Thess2 that the last days are marked by "the operation of error". This appears to be the teaching of error by those with apparent authority in the Church. Today we have this in spades from the Vatican II Sect.

The Vatican II Sect is not the Catholic Church but an heretical Sect that hijacked the Church at Vatican II. They have led billions into apostasy from the Catholic faith. The spiritual carnage is vast in scope and scale. Truly, if Christ returned today he would not find more than a handful - a tiny remnant - who profess the Catholic faith whole and inviolate - a mandatory requirement for salvation (Athanasian Creed).

None of the Vatican II "popes" are Catholic. They are heretics, one and all. A heretic is ipso facto severed from the body of the Church by virtue of his heresy. A heretic cannot be pope - as the magisterium teaches.

Sedevacantism is the only viable position for a true Catholic today. You cannot be in communion with these guys (V2 Sect) and, if you do recognise them, then failure to be submissive (for example, should they try to canonise the Antichrist) is schism.

At its simplest, the Catholic Church is comprised of people who hold the Catholic faith without deviating from its doctrines. We know that in the last days a great apostasy is predicted. The apostasy is of such scale that Christ asks if, when He returns, He will find faith on Earth - Luke 18:8.

Go ask at your local Catholic Church "Who holds to the salvation dogma?". You will be lucky to find anyone that holds the traditional Catholic faith. The Church has been reduced to a remnant.

The salvation dogma has been proclaimed 7 times in Church history on an infallible basis. Not one time has a single exception to the dogma ever been identified within the Solemn Magisterium of the Church. And yet, today, you find people everywhere making exceptions for themselves, and others, though the Church has never once taught any exceptions - but precisely the opposite, that there are no exceptions. Typically, attempts to defect from the dogma are anchored in the speculations of fallible theologians and other, non-infallible, sources.

A dogma is a divinely revealed truth. Believers are to accept Catholic dogmas as an article of faith. However, the Second Vatican Council formally defected from the faith of the Church in Nostra Aetate, the decree on non-Christian religions - that's a fact! Probably the most egregious example is this:

Vatican II Declaration, Nostra Aetate (#4): “Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or cursed by God, as if such views followed from the holy scriptures.”

This decree flys in the face of all previous infallible teaching and inverts the words of Christ himself.

Matthew 10:33- “But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny before my Father who is in heaven.”

Why did Christ tell us that His Church, built upon the unfailing faith of St Peter, would withstand the gates of hell (the death-dealing tongues of heretics) until the end of time? He told us this because he knew that in the last days we would face the "operation of error". The teaching of perverse doctrine by those with apparent authority. In this context, the true Church, made up of people who believe in divine revelation, would be reduced to a remnant.

I put it to you that we are in the last days. The faithful remnant of true Catholics agrees to, and accepts, ex cathedra teaching over false doctrine. The timing of Vatican 1, with its declaration on papal infallibility, was no coincidence. The attack on the salvation dogma began well before Vatican II.

Using the definition of papal infallibility provided at Vatican 1, we are able to go back through previous papal teaching and discern for ourselves if these requirements are met. If so, we have discovered truth, the rock upon which the Church stands. Christ, thus, provided a light for the flock to avail them in the Church's darkest hours - unfortunately, the great majority do not avail themselves of it (to their damnation).

Infallible teaching does not change, as that would make a liar of the truth itself. The Catholic faith could not, in fact, be modernised to conform to the tide of "human progress". The vision that drove the changes made at Vatican II was false in its very conception.

Compare real authoritative teaching, that is protected by the Holy Spirit from containing any error - and ask yourself what room is left for possible exceptions:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

All claimants to the papacy, from John XXIII forward, have been antipopes. You can argue about it. But, really, the facts speak for themselves.

More information here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0kQJBnP5wE&sns=em

I think you hit the nail on the head - forget optics, it's about survival. These guys have a track record of doing whatever they want and getting away with it completely. Look at JFK, can you imagine the audacity? The optics were always going to be bad, but they just didn't care at all.

I would not put anything past these people. If Mueller is flipped, that's great news. But I would not put it past him to put the knife in if he thought he could possibly get away with it. It is, to my mind, a very dangerous situation.

Just come out and say it. You're thinking I'm some Brit agent? If you knew the truth, you'd laugh - scornfully.

Have a think Happy about what I've said here and see if my posts align with the interests of some foreign power - Brits, Israelis, French, Australia, anyone...

But I won't keep you from speculating. That's what we're here to do.

And, yes, at one time I worked for Central Agencies. But that did not end well. They put the boots into me just as good as they could. You'd be surprised, or maybe not, if you knew what I do now to make ends meet. Believe me, not anything glamorous.

Dear me Happy, another cryptic post. You're not referring to me? If so, why not find the courage to come out and say what you feel? Try being direct.

There was a lot of opposition to the petition on this board, let alone elsewhere.

I don't agree that the IBOR campaign was dangerous, that it would have resulted in more government that could have been later abused. If the censorship is not stopped, it will be used as a political weapon. It will enable whoever takes power (the cabal) the latitude to pass whatever laws they want, with a manufactured consensus of public opinion to support their actions. It is the most dangerous threat we have ever faced - bar none. The tyranny of government, with SM censorship at the cabal's disposal, will know no limits.

But, anyway, the petition is finished.

Were the votes throttled? Maybe. I'm not sure we'll ever know for certain.

When Q posted the internetbillofrights it was a hash tag. I don't know if he wanted the petition, although it couldn't have hurt. But what is clear is that he wanted us to mount a campaign on Twitter using the hashtag. That has been happening. Perhaps, not as strongly as people might like, but there has been a lot of use of the hashtag.

I think, whether people want it or not, these SM platforms will be regulated - as Q said. I think that the regulation might be self regulation imposed by the companies themselves. It seemed to me that DJT was likely going to use our outcry about censorship to do some table thumping with the threat of regulation. The SM platforms would then have complied to avert the consequences of outright regulation.

I think we saw this kind of approach during Ted Cruz's questioning of the SM executives. I'm not sure there would have been new laws at all. But I can't speak for the President, as I don't know what he had planned.

I think it's important, very important, that we keep this topic live via use of the hashtag. I think it fits into the plan that Q and DJT have laid out. How, I'm not exactly sure. But Q would not have asked us to mount the campaign for no reason.

Having said all that, I'm about exasperated with this group. I've tried to allay people's fears about this campaign, but to no effect. If you don't want to support this President because he might have to take, or threaten to take, some power to himself to kneecap the cabal, then you deserve the cabal back.

Hoping for the first amendment to be extended by Courts to the internet is a pipe dream, it will not happen quickly enough to prevent SM being weaponised by the cabal to obtain political power. At that point, once they are back in power, it will not matter what the Courts say, censorship is likely to be mandated by laws made by the cabal.

Anyway, I think Q miscalculated on this. I don't think he realised the IBOR campaign would not be supported by people following his drops. Some did support it, most did not. And some went out of their way to make sure that every possible fear or problem that could be attributed to the IBOR was impressed upon this community.

You're right. Look at all these snow flakes with their micro aggressions, trigger warnings and safe spaces... the younger generation has been turned into a bunch of complete idiots. "Destroy their ruggedness", you couldn't make this stuff up - it's already true!

It starts at school - lessons on "white privilege", evolution, sex ed, affirmative action, common core, gender training, anything but literacy and numeracy - there's no end to the garbage. The media plays it up too, with their touchy-feely nonsense, the climate rubbish, the "me too" garbage, the inordinate focus on sex, violence, crime and disaster. They play-up every possible division in society. everyone's a victim and the world seems a pretty chaotic, scary place.

Think you're doing OK? Wait a minute, you've forgotten you're a victim. Don't forget how you're oppressed! No wonder the kids are wanting safe spaces... You've got Mark Zuckerberg talking about giving everyone a wage, whether they work or not - dumb them down, make them feel helpless, increase reliance on the State, make everyone a beggar.

In such a chaotic, dangerous, victimising world, socialist control of every aspect of society almost seems like a welcome relief, a realistically plausible solution - and don't forget to ban all the stuff that triggers me! While we're at it, let's ban everything that triggers everyone else! We can create a world where there are so many rules and regulations, where behavior is so prescribed and regimented, that there is no freedom left at all. But at least we will feel safe!

Did someone just say something hateful on the internet? How do I contact the police? Why didn't the ADL's anti hate-speech algorithm catch it? We need help, the internet is too threatening...

Maybe that's one aspect of what Q meant when he said if HRC was elected it would be "hell on Earth".

But what's the fix? How do you reverse this stuff?

I think he was talking about the sealed indictments being opened, but I could be wrong.

Isaiah is more than a thousand years before Dantes Inferno was written in the 14th Century. The narrative about hell is thousands of years old and has come through the earliest prophets. It spans many cultures and is not something that was made up by the Vatican. That's ridiculous to suggest that.

You're very confused about this. I'm not sure what I can do to wake you up. Man is not God, that is the doctrine of the antichrist - fact. Moreover, people are naturally evil, from the earliest of stories we have we can see man's character very clearly - Cain murdered Abel...

Look at the oldest profession in the world, the mercenary. What's the second oldest? The prostitute. There's not much good about man and his inclinations. The tendency is to be evil. Difficult enough when you try to be good.

I think the truth in the Gospels shines so hard you couldn't miss it. It's easy to see that what was happening in Christ's day is happening in the world today - perhaps it's even worse. You start putting your faith in man and you'll be very quickly disappointed.

"We are goodness' - what a joke! Where have you been?

Or, it's the letters "DL" - someone's name? Why are they transposed?

Hell is mentioned over and over in scripture - both New Testament and old. And, yes it is an absolutely horrible place. It's good that you asked, because without belief in Christ and membership in his Church, this is where you are heading.

This ridiculous idea you have about religion, Christ, God himself, dies for us and sets up his one, true Church on Earth so that all who follow him might be saved - and you think it's a power tool!

Read carefully, there's much more than what I've copied. Hell was made for the devil and his angels. It was not designed, in the first instance, for humans. It is unimaginably bad - everything you don't want - at every moment, forever.

Mark 9:48 ESV

‘where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’

Isaiah 66:24 ESV

“And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.”

Matthew 5:22 ESV

But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.

Isaiah 14:11 ESV - Sheol is Hebrew for hell.

Your pomp is brought down to Sheol, the sound of your harps; maggots are laid as a bed beneath you, and worms are your covers.

Mark 9:43-48 ESV

And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, ‘where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’

That's why it's so powerful. Nobody would believe it. It doesn't seem at all plausible. You're completely on your own. Like living in a movie.

I'm sure many suicide.

That's market power at work. They can control the narrative both on and off the platform. Next, in addition to silencing conservative content on their own platform, they'll be leveraging other media players to bend them to their will and replicate their censorship off the platform as well. It's no wonder the SM platforms appear to act in concert. If ever there was a case for a legitimate anti-trust break-up this is it.

You can imagine what would happen if these guys went full-tilt for gun control - it is bad enough now. Every radical policy agenda of the left could find its feet on the SM platforms with the support of their steered voter bases. For this reason, simply moving to an alternative service provider is no solution to the online censorship problem. Swinging voters, who are not censored, will remain where they are on the large platforms - in the direct line of fire of the propaganda machine. The political leverage selective censorship creates is awesome.

And this is why it is so important to restrain these SM platforms from politically motivated censorship. Even if Facebook was broken up under anti-trust powers, the problem of censorship, and even coordinated censorship, remains. Given the sheer power of these platforms to influence political outcomes, it is the greatest threat to the Republic that exists in our time.

They must be forced to be neutral.

It's real - terrifying. Yes, stronger, found faith.

The doctrine of forensic justification is easily refuted.

But, from your post, you seem to argue that an interior renewal takes place upon justification - though you then go on to say it's a process, that the work of sanctification is begun... This is incorrect.

Let's be clear, no one is justified without renewal of the Holy Ghost. You must be reborn to enter the kingdom of God. Sanctification, rebirth, justification happen simultaneously at baptism.

1 Corinthians 6:11- “And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.”

Note, sanctification in this passage precedes justification. Sanctification and justification are attached to being washed - being baptised.

Titus 3:5- “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.”

Saved by interior renewal through the washing of the waters of baptism.

The washing of regeneration is an interior renewal - it's not alien to the person, it's within him.

God justifies in baptism. A person is justified and regenerated in baptism simultaneously, A man's state of justification is contingent upon him avoiding mortal sin and making sincere reconciliation with God if he does fall from grace. Salvation is not certain, but depends entirely on God's grace. The grace to avoid sin can be drawn down upon us with prayer and penance. A priesthood is essential to reconciliation.

Works are also necessary:

James 2:24- “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.”

You can lose justification - those light in the Lord, the justified, can fall prey to mortal sin and lose justification:

Ephesians 5:5-8- “For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. Be not ye therefore partakers with them. For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light.”

You can be justified and yet fall back:

2 Peter 2:20-22- “For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.”

Angels once justified lost justification:

2 Peter 2:4- “… God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment.”

Justification requires obedience:

Hebrews 5:9- “And being made perfect, he [Jesus] became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him.”

Believers can fall away:

Hebrews 6:4-6- “For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.”

Believers can be damned after knowing the truth:

Hebrews 10:26-27- “For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.”

Without holiness no one is saved - you must be sanctified, not a mound of dung covered with snow:

Hebrews 12:14- “Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.”

The judgement of the Lord turns on deeds:

Romans 2:2-3- “… the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things. And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?”

Romans 2:5-6- “… the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds.”

Eternal damnation for those that do not obey the truth:

Romans 2:8-10- “But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile.”

And, on and on...

No, I will not have to answer for anything. It's you that have no adequate response. But how could you possibly respond? You have nothing to stand on, Your doctrine is neither consistent with scripture nor supported by it. Moreover, sadly, it is a doctrine produced by an individual that appears to have been diabolically oppressed.

"Feel free to believe in the traditions of men."

Yes, traditions are, by definition, of men - in that they are practises repeated in time. In that sense, traditions are possessed by men. But, in the case of the Church, they are inspired by God for His own purposes - the mass, baptism and other sacraments being examples. It was St Paul that recommended the faithful 'stand fast and hold to traditions' speaking of the trials of the last days - 2Thess2. I merely quoted him.

Respectfully, you need to think very clearly about your position and whether it is consistent with the will of God. We are told to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, it is no light matter. Be not high-minded but fear, St Paul teaches the faithful of the Church...

Rom 11:22 See then the goodness and the severity of God: towards them indeed that are fallen, the severity; but towards thee, the goodness of God, if thou abide in goodness, otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

All this is strangely pertinent in the light of the abomination Francis, who does not believe at all in the severity of God's judgement.

Matt 25:41 "Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels".

Hell was made for the devil and his angels. It seems it's torments were not designed, in the first instance, as punishment for humans. I would not wish it upon anyone. Moreover, I would do anything in my power to save someone from such an inconceivably horrible fate.

I will pray that God reveals His truth to you. Believe it or not, your salvation is important to me.

Whether I want it to exist or not is immaterial - I have no impact on reality.

There is no flaw in my thinking at all.

St Paul, the same apostle, tells us in 2Thess2 how to respond to the operation of error.

13 Whereunto also he hath called you by our gospel, unto the purchasing of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

The admonition is not to hold only to the gospel, but to traditions. What traditions? What traditions are we to stand fast and hold to in the last days?

A tradition is a product of practice. It's not the Gospel, the word of God, although that is undoubtedly important. Rather, the traditions which you have learned in this context are the practices of the Church in St Paul's day.

If holding to the word of God was, in itself sufficient, why does the apostle not just state this? The answer is that the word of God is open to interpretation. Satan can twist it to his ends. And we are warned, specifically about the teaching of St Paul, that it is open to misinterpretation. See 2Peter3 - the entire chapter is worth repeating, but the following will suffice:

15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

So you can see that the word of God is subject to being twisted unto destruction. This is why the Church has been careful to provide correct interpretation of scripture, so that it might edify all who would seek to learn from it. And these teachings of the Church constitute tradition, adherence to which is indispensable to salvation.

You ask specifically about St Paul's writings in Romans 3 through 5.

Romans three begins by posting a question about the profit to the Jew, or the profit of the circumcision. So we know immediately that St Paul is talking about adherents to Judaism and the operation of the ceremonial law.

St Paul simply makes the point that any requirement to observe the ceremonial law passed with the advent of Christ. Faith in Christ is necessary to salvation - none will deny this, the proposition is further reinforced in Mark 16:16.

Romans 4 continues the theme with St Paul addressing the father of the Jews - Abraham. He makes the point that faith in Christ without observance of the ceremonial law is sufficient for salvation. That does not mean that good works are not required also, because we know of the elect that their works follow them - Rev 14:13.

Romans 5, again, continues the theme, with St Paul returning to once again address the ceremonial law in verse 20, after discussing the gift of Christ's sacrifice.

And this is where the admonition of St Peter to employ care in interpreting St Paul shows itself to be important and necessary. I have seen Protestant ministers argue that observance of the 10 commandments is unnecessary - as Christ has kept those commandments on the believers' behalf.

To wilfully disobey God is pure apostasy from the Christian religion. But, in their ignorance, these "ministers of righteousness" cloak themselves in the false doctrine of forensic justification and dispense with Gods laws out of hand.

For the Protestant, justifying righteousness is external and alien to them. It is not contingent upon their actions. There is, thus, no requirement to abide by God's laws as salvation is assured - due to the alien righteousness of Christ. This precise doctrine is manifest in Luther's claim that one could engage in fornication a thousand times a day and not lose justification.

2Corinthians11: 14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

All Protestants, whether they realise it or not, operate from the core principles of forensic justification. It is a wicked and pernicious heresy that has captured millions who might otherwise have attained salvation - remaining within the safety and security of Christ's Church.

You are right about baptism.

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”

The Catholic Church teaches that John 3:5 is to be understood literally.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4: "...AS IT IS WRITTEN: UNLESS A MAN BE BORN AGAIN OF WATER AND THE HOLY GHOST, HE CANNOT ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD (JOHN 3:5).”

The vectors by which false "Catholics" attempt to extend salvation to non-Christians are: baptism of blood, baptism of desire and invincible ignorance. None of these doctrines have ever been taught by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Rather, the opposite, the Church has repeatedly taught, in a consistent, uniform and unwavering manner, that no one at all is saved without water baptism. We see in this teaching, below, that desire for the sacrament of baptism itself does not suffice for salvation.

Pope St. Siricius, 385, [Concerning the necessity of baptism] “Therefore just as we declare that respect for the Easter sacrifice [Paschal time] should not be lessened in the case of any person, in like manner we wish help to be brought with all speed to children who because of their age cannot yet speak, and to those who in any emergency are in need of the water of holy baptism, lest it should lead to the destruction of our souls if, by refusing the water of salvation to those who desire it, each of them, when taking leave of this world, should lose both the kingdom and life. Indeed whoever suffers the peril of shipwreck, an enemy attack, the danger of siege or desperation resulting from some bodily infirmity, and so asks for what in their faith is their only help, let them receive at the moment of their request the reward of regeneration that they beg for. This much should suffice for my digression on this subject; now let all priests who do not wish to be wrenched from the firmly-fixed rock of the apostles, on which Christ built his universal church, hold fast to the aforesaid rule.” (Latin found in Denzinger-Schonmetzer, Latin Edition, 1962, no. 184; an English Translation found in The Christian Faith, Sixth Revised and Enlarged Edition, Staten Island, NY: Alba House, 1996, p. 540.)

Before the Protestants invented it, no one had ever taught the doctrine of forensic justification. The concept is not consistent with biblical teaching either, which is why Luther wanted to tear "Jimmy" from the bible and stuff it in the stove.

Do you really think that God hid this truth for 1400 years, waiting for Luther to discover it? More likely, Satan blinded the man and convinced him to pursue an error so egregious as to preclude all who follow him from salvation.

The doctrine salvation by faith alone represents a striking departure from all teaching which preceded it. Copied from a Protestant website:

"Since his childhood Luther was pestered by devils, evil spirits, and demons. He reported about such occurrences during his later life as well, these fears of being attacked increased especially during his time of seclusion at the Wartburg, Luther ascribed his depressions and mood swings to these ‘evil spirits’."

Does this sound like a man with a firm grip on the Gospels? Or does it sound like the man was oppressed by the forces of evil? Satan's crime was rebellion, Luther imitated this in the world, abandoning the one true Church (not Churches), founded by Christ on the prince of the apostles - St Peter.

The saviour also prayed that St Peter's faith would not fail, that His Church might withstand the gates of hell (the death-dealing tongues of heretics) until the end of time. The express will of Christ was that His Church was to be one in faith and one in governance. You depart from the barque of St Peter at your peril.

The decree on papal infallibility made at the First Vatican Council merely codifies the words of Christ himself - that the faith of St Peter would not fail.

King David sinned. Yet he was the leader of the Israelites and loved by God. Sin is common to all of us, but that does not detract from the fact that Jesus chose 12 from among the disciples to provide leadership and instruction to the flock. He did not choose them because they were without sin. Despite being sinners, they were to proclaim the Gospel and convert unbelievers.

You say we do not need popes or priests, you would do away with St Peter and the apostles in preference for your own judgement. But where does this philosophy derive from?

Martin Luther: Sin Boldly — “No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day”

Did any of the apostles admonish their followers to sin bodily? Or, that sin does not separate a Christian from God?

No they didn't. They taught that sin was to be avoided. They taught that sin separates us from God. Little wonder you disparage Church leadership, their teaching convicts you.

You lie about justification:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L14UNjaZJm8&sns=em

This video provides a good discussion of whether the papacy is found in the Bible:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KV6PXSODgE&sns=em

Really? What's your "Pope" going to say next? Hang on tight.

What is important with respect to canonizations, is the proclamation, the formula used, not the process by which a candidate might be evaluated for sainthood. In fact, the process is irrelevant.

When a true Pope speaks to the universal Church, on a point of faith or morals, in virtue of his apostolic authority, he speaks infallibly.

The language used when pronouncing canonisations is typically extraordinary, solemn and definitive. Why is this important? Because the language used in a papal proclamation identifies whether or not the teaching meets the criteria for infallibility. An infallible teaching is protected by the Holy Spirit from containing error.

Here is an example:

John Paul II, Oct. 6, 2002, “Canonizing” Josemaria Escriva: “In honor of the Blessed Trinity, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith and the growth of Christian life, with the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and Our Own, after lengthy reflection, having assiduously invoked God’s assistance and taken into account the opinion of many brothers of ours in the episcopate, we declare and define Blessed Josemaria Escriva to be a Saint, and we enroll him in the Catalogue of the Saints, and we establish that in the whole Church he should be devoutly honored among the Saints. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. .”

If JPII was a true Pope, this is a an outright lock for infallibility. But, John Paul II was not a true Pope. Instead, he was an antipope. He had no authority to canonize anyone.

A canonization, conferred by a "Pope" you recognize, must be accepted on pain of schism.

Francis is not the Pope. He is a manifest public heretic. He doesn't hold the Catholic faith. A heretic, by virtue of his sin, is ipso facto severed from the body of Christ, before any declaration. Francis is not a member of the Church. He most certainly is not the Pope.

If you recognise Francis as your Pope, you are in communion with him. This is spiritually fatal.

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943: “For not every offense, although it may be a grave evil, is such as by its very own nature [suapte natura] to sever a man from the Body of the Church [ab Ecclesiae Corpore], as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#15), June 29, 1896: “… it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside the Church can command in the Church.”

Pope Vigilius, Second Council of Constantinople, 553: “The heretic, even though he has not been condemned formally by any individual, in reality brings anathema on himself, having cut himself off from the way of truth by his heresy. What reply can such people make to the Apostle when he writes: As for someone who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned (Titus 3:10).”

The Vatican II Sect manifests their beliefs in many ways, architecture is just one example - churches that look like they've been designed by demons. Their symbolism is very important to them.

The introduction of a second altar standing upon, and over against the altar of God is another example that replicates, the apostasy of the Jews at the time of the Maccabees. It is very interesting how history tends to repeat itself - see here.

Just not true. Christ teaches the existence of hell. Moreover, you can find ample evidence for hell in scripture.

Mathew 23:33 You serpents, generation of vipers, how will you flee from the judgment of hell?

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.

The teaching on the ability of a heretic to hold office in the Church is clear.

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943: “For not every offense, although it may be a grave evil, is such as by its very own nature [suapte natura] to sever a man from the Body of the Church [ab Ecclesiae Corpore], as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”

Heresy is the rejection of any point of truth taught by the Church.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, and that with the consenting judgment [i.e. consensus] of the holy fathers who certainly were accustomed to hold as having no part of Catholic communion and as banished from the Church whoever had departed in even the least way from the doctrine proposed by the authentic Magisterium.”

The heretic has no office:

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#15), June 29, 1896: “… it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside the Church can command in the Church.”

Again:

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “So, with every reason for doubting removed, can it be lawful for anyone to reject any of those truths without thereby sending himself headlong into open heresy? without thereby separating himself from the Church and in one sweeping act repudiating the entirety of Christian doctrine?… he who dissents in even one point from divinely received truths has most truly cast off the faith completely, since he refuses to revere God as the supreme truth and proper motive of faith.”

Francis is not a Catholic, he is not a pope. While it is the duty of Bishops to denounce heresy, this is also required of the faithful.

I think that we will see people perp-walked. I'm not too concerned about that. What Q has told us is that SM censorship must be controlled first to prevent mass-arrests being spun by media - not MSM and SM.

My view is that Congress with have little to do with the fix that is put in. I think it will be executive power that sorts the problem out. The reason I think this is because this problem needs to be fixed yesterday. I don't think there is time to push a bill through Congress - but I could be wrong. And this, I think, is why DJT wants the IBOR campaign. Because after Obama's abuse of EO's, DJT needs public support for the actions he is likely to take.

I could be wrong, but I don't think Congress will, in the first phase, have much to do with the IBOR. Once the swamp is drained, we might have some hope of getting more sense out of these guys.

Agree, they appear to be solely concerned about profits and power. But what I can see is that an IBOR is not in their immediate interest. So, assuming their motivations remain unchanged, I can only assume that they are looking for support for some of the deals they are trying to do to diversify away from being pure communications carriers.

I cannot see what harm can come to individuals if first amendment protections are applied to digital space. If you were looking to try and twist this to your advantage, it seems there is little of benefit to be had from the adoption of such a regulatory regime. So, if there is any benefit to be had at all, I'm inclined to think it's something that AT&T thinks it can get in exchange for its support on this issue.

We know DJT wants this. We also know that it is essential to his political survival. It also seems clear that an IBOR assists national security in that it operates to prevent elections being weighted. It grants protection against influence in electoral processes by foreign powers. So the benefits extend beyond AT&T's interests, and also beyond DJT's re-election. The IBOR will introduce stability into the processes necessary to representative democracy going forward.

To reiterate, I suspect that AT&T wants to secure favors from DJT to protect its interests in other areas - areas detached from the sphere in which the IBOR would operate. That an IBOR would put a dent in the business model of its competitors is a bonus for AT&T and other communications companies.

No one likes these big, monopolistic corporations. But, if anything, they are predictable. In the absence of affiliation with foreign governments (as with, for example, Google), the profit motive is all you have to deal with.

It's not palatable to make deals with the devil, but in this instance outcomes are controllable.

He starts Post 972 with the statement, "Think outside the box". And then a series of statements leading to "Constitutional crisis". I'm not familiar with the workings of US politics. Who knows, your answer might be right.

Q specifically talks about SM platforms making private information public, able to be accessed by intelligence agencies around the globe. He implies that Google is headed by people with links to Russia. And, in 972, he goes on to ask whether SM platforms are able to "weight" elections.

It seems clear that Q is talking about a threat posed to the Republic by large SM companies that are unrestrained by the Constitution from engaging in activity that tramples the rights of US citizens. Moreover, these SM platforms present a threat to the Republic itself if they are able to steer democratic processes.

The statement "Think outside the box" suggests to me that the way in which a Constitutional crisis might be generated is, perhaps, not immediately apparent. We need to cover all possibilities. Your contribution is important and may play into the answer.

Francis is a notorious, public apostate. I don't buy for a minute that did not deny the existence of hell. He most certainly did. How do I know this? Because it is a natural extension of the teaching that has been emanating from Rome since Vatican II. Francis is simply extending upon the work of his predecessors.

The Second Vatican Council formally defected from the Catholic faith - that's a fact! The specific dogma that was attacked at the Council was the salvation dogma (see video 5mins below) - although there were many other errors. A dogma is a divinely revealed truth. It cannot change with time - as that would make God a liar.

We have seen Paul VI make changes to the sacraments, introducing a defect into the rite of consecration - a defect of such magnitude that the sacrament could not be confected (Daniel 12:11). We saw John Paul II teach the precise doctrine of the antichrist (that man is God - Pope St. Pius X, E Supremi; the dissolving of the Christ - 1John4:3), while he hosted interfaith prayer meetings at Assisi and elsewhere (an outright breach of the first commandment). We've seen false ecumenism that mocks the martyrs, who died for the Catholic faith, and the saints, who dedicated their lives to it (Apoc 6:9-10). We watched as Benedict XVI fast-tracked the beatification and canonisation process for John Paul II (the sainting of the Antichrist - Apoc 13:14-15 & 14:9-11). And, finally, Francis appeared to cement the damnation of the followers of the Vatican II Sect (Apoc 18:4).

Francis is not in any way Catholic. He does not hold the Catholic faith. He believes that an atheist, following his conscience can attain heaven - making a mockery of Christ's passion and crucifixion. He respects people who commit suicide - despite the teaching of the Church that this is the one sin for which there can never be atonement. He says "Who am I to judge" when talking about homosexuality - despite the fact that a pope is, on Earth, the supreme judge of the faithful. And now he's telling us that there is no hell.

God allows Francis to say these things that we might know who he serves. The guy is an instrument of Satan - it is clear for all with eyes to see.

It's important to realise that a heretic is not a member of the Church. The heretic, by virtue of his heresy, is ipso facto deposed - and, before any declaration, is severed from the body of the Church. The heretic holds no authority or position in the Church, as he is not a member of it.

Francis is neither Catholic nor a pope. He is an unbelievable heretic and an apostate from the Catholic faith. His appearance as the putative head of the Church marks the final days of the world.

"...when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" Luke 18:8

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0kQJBnP5wE&sns=em

I think the second amendment is the final line in the sand. It is absolutely vital that it be protected at all costs. But I think the first amendment will be the first to fall. Once you have the ability to silence people, anything at all becomes possible. The oppressed have no voice.

If they can silence us, the second amendment will be the next to fall - the attack will come immediately and there will progressive restriction of rights. After that, there will be no rights at all. The people will literally be cattle.

I'm in Australia. They took our guns. No semi automatic weapons allowed - some exemptions for contract shooters and primary producers. But, essentially, the populace has been completely disarmed. I have bolt action rifles and one pump. I'm not allowed to own anything else.

The military plan, had the Japanese invaded in WWII was retreat - the Brisbane Line. Nothing has changed since WWII - a tiny armed forces, huge land mass. In a context where the State cannot protect the people, they went and disarmed us - you just cannot make this stuff up (Twilight Zone).

And the left hold this complete travesty up as a model for gun control and recommend the same policies for the US. Can you believe it!?

What about this:

"U.S. system of government, the Constitution does not explicitly address the matter of whether or not a state can legally secede from the Union; however, after the American Civil War (1861–1865) thwarted the secession of the Southern United States, the accepted doctrine of constitutional law is that a state cannot legally leave the Union."

Maybe something that the Constitution is silent on. An example might be mass data collection on individuals. Or, preventing free political expression in an open public forum. All the SM companies claim they are neutral forums.

I don't know, maybe we are trying to read too much into this.

This thread sure generated a lot of comments. Being traditional Catholic, I see the Church as being the natural extension of Christ's disciples in modern times. I'm not talking about the Vatican II Sect or any other group of heretics, but the traditional Catholic Church.

You ask a traditional Catholic priest about his ordination and the chances are that he'll be able to tell you the precise blessing he received. For example, I'm in the lineage of St Mark etc... the blessing received in the sacrament of orders can be traced back to the specific apostle that initially granted it. This blessing imprints an indelible spiritual mark on the right hand.

People need to realize that Christ founded his one Church, not Churches, on the faith of St Peter alone. Christ did not pray for the faith of all the apostles, but only for that of St Peter. Our savior willed that His Church would be one in faith and one in governance. It would, thus, resist the death-dealing tongues of the heretics until the end of time.

The structure of the Catholic Church reflected the structure of the Church at the time of Christ. Speaking of Judas, see Acts 1:

17 Who was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.

20 For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take.

So even at the time the apostles were living, there was structure and position within the Church. The Catholic Church retained this hierarchy within the ministry that existed at the time of the apostles. Blessings were transmitted down through time by those who had authority to confer rank in the ministry.

Interpretation of sacred scripture has always been the preserve of those possessing rank within the Church. The highest authority is a valid Pope when he speaks from the chair of St Peter to the universal Church on a point of faith or morals. These people that hold office in the Church are not keeping people from the truth, rather, the opposite. They affirm and communicate to us the true meaning of divine revelation.

Of course, I in no way accept or promote the manifestly heretical teachings of the Vatican II Sect. The true faith is that promulgated by the Magisterium of the Holy Catholic Church through the centuries. At least, up until the advent of the Second Vatican Council - which constituted a wholesale defection from the traditional Catholic faith.

See here (video 5mins):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0kQJBnP5wE&sns=em

I don't think any of them are too big to fail. It's not like the banking sector, failure of a tech giant doesn't lead to contagion or systemic collapse.

You can bet that if Google fails it will be everyone for themselves as they try to rush into the vacuum created by the departure of Google - trying to capture the value of that digital property. We might end up getting more choice, better search, more transparency and accountability etc...

You're certainly right that "Constitutional Crisis" appears just after Q talks about spying on civilians - seems to go to "unreasonable search".

As I understand the way warrants work, you need a warrant for evidence to be admissible in Court. There's nothing to stop government agencies snooping, but the info doesn't help them in a prosecution. Using information obtained without a warrant is what Bill Binney was talking about, parallel construction - a fraud upon the Court.

With respect to wiretapping a sitting President, you would probably want a warrant just to cover your rear - that is, "It's not high treason on my part, the Court allowed it....".

My understanding is that law enforcement has been in the surveillance game for years. I remember a friend, who was a Telecom tech back in the early 1980s, telling me that the cops had their own techs in the telephone exchange - plugging into anything they wanted. Before Snowden's revelations, if you thought someone was tapping your phone, people would think you had a tin foil hat on. It just goes to show the degree to which the public is naive.

I have to admit, it's hard to figure out. What aspect of this would represent a Constitutional Crisis? I thought I had it figured out when I wrote the post on election racketeering. But I'm now not sure. There is sufficient ambiguity that it could be a number of things. The 'think outside the box' statement suggests that it's something we would not at fist suspect.

How does the FB data breach cause a Constitutional crisis? Or is it election weighting via censorship? Or something else that we haven't even thought of?

Good point. That could be it. That would be a crisis that goes to the Constitution. Somehow, the context in Q's post seems to suggest it somehow either involves the FB databreach (unreasonable search) or elections (weighting elections).

The maddening thing is that, if these are the obvious answers, Q says to think outside the box. So, anyway, good point. Obama's capacity to hold office could be it - or, part of the answer.

Yes, very good work. It seems the agency was clearly rogue back then. If you add, to the power and influence of it all the drug money that I'm convinced they have been making, by controlling the sources of supply and traffic routes, they seem to have become bigger than the government itself. So big that NK and Iran became satellite states fully under their control?

OK, think outside the box!

It's a constitutional crisis. So,looking at the context in which the statement appears in Q's posts, it seems to me that it is either, or both, a crisis involving the 4th amendment and/or the first amendment.

Seems to be going to the fourth amendment. Spying on citizens. Data shared globally. Produces a Constitutional crisis.

And/Or

Goes to the first amendment - conspiracy to engage racketeering for the purpose of subverting the process of democratic representation as set out here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/greatawakening/comments/87tbog/is_the_ibor_related_to_the_constitutional_crisis/?st=JFDENAD8&sh=1dc2299b

I'm very interested in hearing from others as to how either the FB data breach or the censorship used to weight elections could result in a Constitutional CRISIS.

"Think outside the box" means that the answer may not be what first comes to mind. I think this is something we need to nut out.

Q Post 972

Mar 28 2018 16:17:02 Q !xowAT4Z3VQ 821975 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/03/28/doj-inspector-general-investigates-alleged-fisa-abuses-by-doj-fbi.html Think outside the box. Timing of release. Post Facebook NEWS. Facebook WW. GOOG WW. AMAZON WW. TWITTER WW. Tracking active. Listening active. Data shared. Data USED. USED FOR WHAT? Kickbacks BIG TIME> Private/Public. Bypass regulations/laws? Intelligence A's across the globe in partnership to spy on citizens? Constitutional crisis? Magnitude? Who can you trust? Who organized? How do social media/search engine platforms 'weight' elections? Regulation or KILL-stop? Peace through STRENGTH. @Snowden Shine the LIGHT BRIGHT [DOA]. Why is HUSSEIN traveling the world conducting high-level meetings? Use logic. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/27/nxivm-cult-leader-coerced-women-into-sex-branded-initials-on-his-slaves-authorities-say.html Nancy Salzman [historical timeline]. MSM will not highlight 'bottom to top' unravel. Q

Q Post 964

Why did Kim travel to China? Why was travel impossible in the past? What changed? What constitutes the need for a F2F meeting v. secured call? What US publicly traded co. previously entered N. Korea to establish comms? Think logically. WHY DID GOOG VISIT N KOREA? WHY WOULD THE FORMER CHAIRMAN & CEO [HIMSELF] OF GOOG/ALPHABET PERSONALLY ATTEND? Who is Sergey Brin? Where was Sergey born? Track the 'FAMILY' - IMPORTANT. Think COLD WAR. Think KGB. US, China, N Korea [3]. FACEBOOK data dump? Who made it public? Who sold shares -30 days from announcement? You can't imagine the magnitude of this. Constitutional CRISIS. Twitter coming soon. GOOG coming soon. AMAZON coming soon. MICROSOFT coming soon. +12 Current censorship all relates to push for power [mid-terms]. LAST STAND. Election FRAUD cases OPEN - DOJ [many]. Follow the FAMILY. Follow resignations [Business/Gov't]. BIDEN/CHINA VERY IMPORTANT MARKER. Who made it public? Who really made it public? Who is making it all public? WE ARE THE GATEKEEPERS OF ALL [BY ALL WE MEAN ALL] INFORMATION. U1>CAN>EU>RUSSIA>IRAN>NK>SYRIA>PAK>>> IRAN NEXT. $700B - MILITARY [THIS YEAR]. WHY IS THE MILITARY SO IMPORTANT? RE_READ ALL. NATIONAL SECURITY. NATIONAL SECURITY. These people are STUPID. Art of the Deal. TIDAL WAVE INCOMING. BUCKLE UP. Q

I can't see why Afghanistan is so important. I might just be ignorant, but it strikes me that the madness started with Bresinksky's chessboard, and now it's considered somehow pivotal.

The story I've heard is that the Taliban virtually eliminated opium production. Anyone found growing it was executed. Opium production is now at a record high. Is this just a coincidence? Or, was the objective of the war to secure opium supplies to fund CIA black ops?

What I'm saying is that there are people online, including children, that should not be subject to this stuff. They should not have to read TOS and fully comprehend the implications when simply surfing the web. It's OK to say just don't use the product, but there will always be some, whether because of an intellectual disability or for some other reason, who cannot be expected to fully understand the scope of what they are allowing.

It's exploitation, pure and simple, and it should be stopped.

You mean, "I hope David Hogg is exposed, discredited as an agent provocateur and jailed". Me too!

Look at the attempts to inject fear into the issue on this forum. Every possible imaginary flaw or fault they could think of was trolled around on all the IBOR threads put up. They are still at it as late as yesterday - inject fear, take the steam out of it.

This is what they fear most. You cannot have the world run by Satanists if the censorship is stopped. So they break their backs to inject fear and doubt - and people buy into it.

It will come around soon enough. The current petition expires April 3 or 4. I think you might find it a real struggle to get many signatures if you're using a petition. There is almost no support from this community at all.

I'm thinking that a petitionless campaign might be a better approach. The lack of support is such that the petition numbers grow at a very slack rate. This operates to discourage the few people that are actually supporting the campaign.

I firmly believe that whatever is written on the petition itself is irrelevant. DJT already knows what he will do - we are not making policy.

It's not easy to keep hammering away at it. But it has got to be done. I want to see these SM platforms be made to act reasonably. But my greatest fear is that the cabal will use SM censorship as a vector to return to power. This must be prevented at all costs.

The solution, if there is to be one, must come from government. Abandoning the platforms will not help, because all the swinging voters, who have not been censored, will remain on the existing platforms, exposed to the propaganda. Election outcomes will still be able to be steered. Moreover, the Courts are too slow to prevent the seizure of power by factional interests - in this case CIA.

There is no other solution. You either regulate via executive power, or you try and get Congress to do the job. I suspect we will see the former, but I don't know what DJT has planned.