The great prophet Roy Cooper (D) North Carolina said, “ye shall wear the sacred Corona mask to show we are all one. Even though it will neigh protect you from the evil one called Corona it will proclaim we sheep are all united”. And so with these words a new religion was born, the Cult of the mask.
Ye shall take of the mask and the wearing of the mask will protect you from all that is not politically correct. The sacred mask will save ye and deliver ye as you now walk lock step with your creator, the Democrat party.
Prayer to the mask
Oh sacred mask protect us! From our masters in government let us not stray. Keep watch on us sheep oh holy mask that the snares of a free Republic will not gather us and cause us to be separated from they divine providence oh holy government. Oh holy mask punish and ridicule those who refuse to wear your great glory. We shall forever imbibe in your most sacred carbon dioxide inhalations, Amen.
Just when you think it can not get any nuttier the Vatican II inspired church reaches deeper into its laugh bag and pulls out an even bigger joke. Cardinal Tommy Fenagle pretty much hit the nail on the head in calling it, the Liturgy of the mask.
For me the Novus Ordo is a lost cause anyway so their shenanigans generally go unnoticed. My main concern are the religious orders following the traditional rite within a diocese under the jack boot of the local bishop. I can only speak for myself in saying I not only will not but CAN NOT attend a liturgy of the mask.
In his open letter of apology for his work in the translation of the new mass Father Somerville described changing the text from “Lord find it for us” to “Lord help us find it”. In Somervilles own words, “Help us to seek implies that we could do this alone (Pelagian heresy) but would like some aid from God. Jesus teaches, without Me you can do nothing.” Its interesting to note here too that Cardinal Blase Cupich publicly said prayer can not stop the virus.
Isn’t this what we are seeing in the liturgy of the mask? Trust in your mask, your latex gloves, your social distancing. Trust in God is thrown out the window replaced with trust in man. To me it all reeks of sacrilege. Divine presence in the Eucharist? It can’t be, if we believe that the bread is truly transformed into the body of Christ then why wear masks and rubber gloves. Hypocritical at the least. God and the saints no longer dwell in these churches its now the domain of Dr. Fauci and the jack boots of the blue state governors of the nation. You are worshiping them and not God!
The mask will go down in history as both a symbol of tyranny and fear. Don’t let yourself be played into their hands. As Matthew 6:27 puts it, ” Can any of you, however much you worry, add one single cubit to your span of life?” Just a little something to remember as you put on your Hasmat gear and head for mass to be one of the lucky 10 people to be admitted spacing yourself exactly six feet apart. Just remember 3 people in a pew would be 666.
At last! Some churchmen are not being “nice.”
To fight the Devil, they need to pay that price!
Ever since governments all over the world clamped down on the lives of their citizens over two months ago because of dishonest reports of the danger of the “corona-virus” let loose from China, honest experts have contradicted these reports. Included in that clamp-down were severe measures taken against Catholics attending Mass or any of the Holy Week liturgy. And at the time Church leaders and laity set up little resistance. But earlier this month some churchmen published an “Appeal for Church and World” in which at last the sinister forces behind the so-called “pandemic” were openly denounced, even if they were not clearly named. It was high time that Catholics received guidance from high-ranking churchmen that they are being led like sheep to the slaughter by wolves of the Antichrist disguised as friends of mankind. Here is a summary of the 1375-word Appeal –
In today’s crisis, we undersigned Church leaders consider we are in duty bound to make this Appeal to all Catholics and souls of good will. People’s rights have been violated by worldwide government measures taken on the excuse of the coronavirus to restrict their liberties when the facts show that the media panic raised over the virus has been exaggerated out of all proportion. We believe that there are powers interested in creating panic among the world’s population with the sole aim of permanently imposing unacceptable forms of restriction on freedoms, of controlling people and tracking their movements, and that this is a disturbing prelude to the realisation of a world government beyond all control. Such measures have wrecked many an economy, and encouraged foreign interference, whereas governments must protect their citizens and not indulge in social engineering to split families and isolate individuals.
Let scientists tell the truth and beware of shady business interests and of pharmaceutical companies seeking huge profits by expensive cures for the not so dangerous virus. Let governments rigorously avoid all systems of tracking or locating their citizens, and let them not support the hidden intentions of supranational bodies that have very strong commercial and political interests in the plan to do so. Let citizens be free to refuse vaccines, and let self-styled “experts” enjoy no kind of immunity from prosecution. Let the media tell the truth and not practise various forms of censorship as are now being practised, to impose a single way of thinking, in fact a subtle dictatorship of opinion, all the more effective for being subtle.
And last but not least, let everyone remember that Our Lord Jesus Christ granted to His Church an entire independence from the State to worship God and to teach and govern citizens in accordance with her own purposes, the glory of God and the salvation of souls. The State may not interfere in any ruling of the Church upon her own affairs, nor may it in any way limit the sovereignty of God’ s own true Church, nor may it in any way restrict or ban public worship or Catholic priests doing their priestly duty. Therefore let all coronavirus restrictions upon Catholic worship be removed. If citizens have duties towards the State, so also they have rights, which include respect for natural law and for God’s interests coming first.
We are fighting against an invisible enemy that seeks to divide citizens, to separate children from parents, grandchildren from grandparents, souls from priests, students from teachers, and so on, in brief to erase centuries of Christian civilisation by an odious technological tyranny in which nameless and faceless people can decide the fate of the world by confining us to a virtual reality. But Christ will win. We pray for government leaders who face a special responsibility before the judgment seat of God, We beg Our Lord to protect His Church. And may Our Lady defeat the plans of the children of darkness.
And this appeal was signed by dozens of eminent laymen, in addition to several leading churchmen.
God bless President Trump, America’s savior! This post is a MUST-READ for every patriot!
President Donald Trump over the last week did the following, but you probably won’t hear about it from the News.
1. Made vaccines voluntary not mandatory. Military will check purity and distribute vaccines
2. Defunded WHO forever and wants an investigation into its operations
3. Cancelled the Democrats HR6666 bill, known as the Covid19TRACE Act that was the basis for BillGates’s diagnosis and tracking project, which was also cancelled.
4. Cancelled Bill Gates project known as ID2020
5. Opened a complaint platform to report censorship on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. It was overrun with complaints. They got the evidence.
6. Executive Order to reopen states: Governors who refuse to reopen will be sued.
7. EXECUTIVE Order for W.H. to take over all Electrical Grids: Which will include Internet servers, Broadcasting systems, Electronic systems.
8. Declares places of worship ‘EssentialSevices.’ Some mayors are fining people for going to church.
9. Applauded Australia and 116 countries for insisting on a China Probe into the spread of Covid19 despite several threats from China about refusing critical exports.
He’s changing the world!
-Credit to Patti Wiseman (Fellow Patriot)
non veni pacem
New England Journal of Medicine says wearing masks in public is stupid
Posted onMAY 28, 2020
A virus is so small, it sails right through cloth masks, not to mention around the sides of masks, not to mention into your eyes. The only good a mask can do, if you are highly symptomatic, is to stop your own cootie boogies from flying out of your face onto other people. Which is why sick people should stay home.
Here is the straight skinny, from an article first published last month, that is miraculously still available online. Thank you, Michael Klompas, M.D., M.P.H., Charles A. Morris, M.D., M.P.H., Julia Sinclair, M.B.A., Madelyn Pearson, D.N.P., R.N., and Erica S. Shenoy, M.D., Ph.D.
“We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.”
Written by Michael J. Matt | Editor
An interesting part of the Covid silver lining is that people are beginning to look at a lot of things in an entirely different light: From the real agenda of the globalists, to the “Church of Accompaniment” (which has abandoned us), to the “humble pope” who couldn’t possibly be more self absorbed, to the real motivations behind the attempted destruction of the Latin Mass, to the importance of family interaction and less dependence on big government and now to home schooling.
Studies now show, in fact, that many parents who were dragooned quite unexpectedly into educating their children at home, have in recent weeks begun moving much closer to choosing the homeschool option even after the lockdown.
In any case, homeschooling saved the day! Think what would have happened to America’s public school children during lockdown if the homeschool pioneers had not been blazing the trail for decades, showing the rest of the country, not only how it’s done but that, in most cases, it’s the superior option.
Good luck to the leftist progressivists in outlawing homeschooling next time around! God Himself has intervened, it seems, and if they want to orchestrate a second wave lockdown they’ll only be solidifying the permanent establishment of the most effective means of undermining public-school indoctrination camps on the face of the earth.
So knock yourselves out, guys! Homeschooling may ultimately well play a huge part in America’s salvation.
The video below offers insight into the “trending topic” that is home schooling in America. It comes from the vantage point of an avowed libertarian, thus providing some indication of just how widespread support for homeschooling is actually becoming. It’s definitely NOT just the Little House on the Prairie crowd any more. Homeschooling is gaining big momentum, and it will spread like wildfire if, after Covid, the crazy “experts” style America’s public schools after the Soviet model to “keep us safe”.
Congratulations, homeschoolers. You were the avant-garde. They made fun of you for years, but guess what? Nobody’s laughing now.
From the video description:
So, as media outlets put it, there are now “parents and guardians forced into full-time homeschooling.” Being out of school, they say, will “will set back a generation of children.”
Bunk. Media outlets make it sound awful, but the reality is that homeschooled kids — despite being from poorer families, on average, do better on tests. They also do better in college, and they are less likely to drink or do drugs. Here are the studies on it.
Homeschooling is also easier than ever, with new technology offering amazing new options for learning at home. Watch the video below to see how parents are switching to homeschooling in the pandemic.”
WASHINGTON, D.C., May 28, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Dr. Anthony Fauci, one of President Donald Trump’s top coronavirus advisors, has called on the Church not to distribute Holy Communion during the coronavirus pandemic, but last month said sex with strangers is fine “if you’re willing to take a risk.”
Asked if the Eucharist can be distributed in a safe way, Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, responded with an emphatic “no.”
“I think for the time being, you just gotta forestall that,” Fauci told America Magazine during an interview on Tuesday.
Fauci claims to be not only a Catholic but a practicing Catholic to boot. He was also educated by the Jesuits which explains a lot. If only he talked like a Catholic. Hey Doc, if you actually believed in Transubstantiation then you would realize that there is no way a consecrated host can harm you. Granted in the Novus Ordo mass there is some question there.
If a host is consecrated in the traditonal Latin right this is the only proof I need that it is perfectly safe to receive holy communion, unless of course your in a state of mortal sin.
Below is the only proof I need that communion is safe:
Ancient Anxanum, the city of the Frentanese, has contained for over twelve centuries the first and greatest Eucharistic Miracle of the Catholic Church. This wondrous Event took place in the 8th century A.D. in the little Church of St. Legontian, as a divine response to a Basilian monk’s doubt about Jesus’ Real Presence in the Eucharist.
During Holy Mass, after the two-fold consecration, the host was changed into live Flesh and the wine was changed into live Blood, which coagulated into five globules, irregular and differing in shape and size.
The Host-Flesh, as can be very distinctly observed today, has the same dimensions as the large host used today in the Latin church; it is light brown and appears rose-colored when lighted from the back.
The Blood is coagulated and has an earthy color resembling the yellow of ochre.
Various ecclesiastical investigation (“Recognitions”) were conducted since 1574.
In 1970-’71 and taken up again partly in 1981 there took place a scientific investigation by the most illustrious scientist Prof. Odoardo Linoli, eminent Professor in Anatomy and Pathological Histology and in Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy. He was assisted by Prof. Ruggero Bertelli of the University of Siena.
The analyses were conducted with absolute and unquestionable scientific precision and they were documented with a series of microscopic photographs.
These analyses sustained the following conclusions:
- The Flesh is real Flesh. The Blood is real Blood.
- The Flesh and the Blood belong to the human species.
- The Flesh consists of the muscular tissue of the heart.
- In the Flesh we see present in section: the myocardium, the endocardium, the vagus nerve and also the left ventricle of the heart for the large thickness of the myocardium.
- The Flesh is a “HEART” complete in its essential structure.
- The Flesh and the Blood have the same blood-type: AB (Blood-type identical to that which Prof. Baima Bollone uncovered in the Holy Shroud of Turin).
- In the Blood there were found proteins in the same normal proportions (percentage-wise) as are found in the sero-proteic make-up of the fresh normal blood.
- In the Blood there were also found these minerals: chlorides, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, sodium and calcium.
- The preservation of the Flesh and of the Blood, which were left in their natural state for twelve centuries and exposed to the action of atmospheric and biological agents, remains an extraordinary phenomenon.
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Policy. Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy. Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution. The freedom to express and debate ideas is the foundation for all of our rights as a free people.
In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet. This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic. When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power. They cease functioning as passive bulletin boards, and ought to be viewed and treated as content creators.
The growth of online platforms in recent years raises important questions about applying the ideals of the First Amendment to modern communications technology. Today, many Americans follow the news, stay in touch with friends and family, and share their views on current events through social media and other online platforms. As a result, these platforms function in many ways as a 21st century equivalent of the public square.
Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube wield immense, if not unprecedented, power to shape the interpretation of public events; to censor, delete, or disappear information; and to control what people see or do not see.
As President, I have made clear my commitment to free and open debate on the internet. Such debate is just as important online as it is in our universities, our town halls, and our homes. It is essential to sustaining our democracy.
Online platforms are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse. Tens of thousands of Americans have reported, among other troubling behaviors, online platforms “flagging” content as inappropriate, even though it does not violate any stated terms of service; making unannounced and unexplained changes to company policies that have the effect of disfavoring certain viewpoints; and deleting content and entire accounts with no warning, no rationale, and no recourse.
Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias. As has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician’s tweet. As recently as last week, Representative Adam Schiff was continuing to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax, and Twitter did not flag those tweets. Unsurprisingly, its officer in charge of so-called ‘Site Integrity’ has flaunted his political bias in his own tweets.
At the same time online platforms are invoking inconsistent, irrational, and groundless justifications to censor or otherwise restrict Americans’ speech here at home, several online platforms are profiting from and promoting the aggression and disinformation spread by foreign governments like China. One United States company, for example, created a search engine for the Chinese Communist Party that would have blacklisted searches for “human rights,” hid data unfavorable to the Chinese Communist Party, and tracked users determined appropriate for surveillance. It also established research partnerships in China that provide direct benefits to the Chinese military. Other companies have accepted advertisements paid for by the Chinese government that spread false information about China’s mass imprisonment of religious minorities, thereby enabling these abuses of human rights. They have also amplified China’s propaganda abroad, including by allowing Chinese government officials to use their platforms to spread misinformation regarding the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, and to undermine pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.
As a Nation, we must foster and protect diverse viewpoints in today’s digital communications environment where all Americans can and should have a voice. We must seek transparency and accountability from online platforms, and encourage standards and tools to protect and preserve the integrity and openness of American discourse and freedom of expression.
Sec. 2. Protections Against Online Censorship. (a) It is the policy of the United States to foster clear ground rules promoting free and open debate on the internet. Prominent among the ground rules governing that debate is the immunity from liability created by section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act (section 230(c)). 47 U.S.C. 230(c). It is the policy of the United States that the scope of that immunity should be clarified: the immunity should not extend beyond its text and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open speech, but in reality use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints.
Section 230(c) was designed to address early court decisions holding that, if an online platform restricted access to some content posted by others, it would thereby become a “publisher” of all the content posted on its site for purposes of torts such as defamation. As the title of section 230(c) makes clear, the provision provides limited liability “protection” to a provider of an interactive computer service (such as an online platform) that engages in “‘Good Samaritan’ blocking” of harmful content. In particular, the Congress sought to provide protections for online platforms that attempted to protect minors from harmful content and intended to ensure that such providers would not be discouraged from taking down harmful material. The provision was also intended to further the express vision of the Congress that the internet is a “forum for a true diversity of political discourse.” 47 U.S.C. 230(a)(3). The limited protections provided by the statute should be construed with these purposes in mind.
In particular, subparagraph (c)(2) expressly addresses protections from “civil liability” and specifies that an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable “on account of” its decision in “good faith” to restrict access to content that it considers to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.” It is the policy of the United States to ensure that, to the maximum extent permissible under the law, this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that — far from acting in “good faith” to remove objectionable content — instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree. Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike. When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct. It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.
(b) To advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section, all executive departments and agencies should ensure that their application of section 230(c) properly reflects the narrow purpose of the section and take all appropriate actions in this regard. In addition, within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), in consultation with the Attorney General, and acting through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), shall file a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requesting that the FCC expeditiously propose regulations to clarify:
(i) the interaction between subparagraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of section 230, in particular to clarify and determine the circumstances under which a provider of an interactive computer service that restricts access to content in a manner not specifically protected by subparagraph (c)(2)(A) may also not be able to claim protection under subparagraph (c)(1), which merely states that a provider shall not be treated as a publisher or speaker for making third-party content available and does not address the provider’s responsibility for its own editorial decisions;
(ii) the conditions under which an action restricting access to or availability of material is not “taken in good faith” within the meaning of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) of section 230, particularly whether actions can be “taken in good faith” if they are:
(A) deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with a provider’s terms of service; or
(B) taken after failing to provide adequate notice, reasoned explanation, or a meaningful opportunity to be heard; and
(iii) any other proposed regulations that the NTIA concludes may be appropriate to advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section.
Sec. 3. Protecting Federal Taxpayer Dollars from Financing Online Platforms That Restrict Free Speech. (a) The head of each executive department and agency (agency) shall review its agency’s Federal spending on advertising and marketing paid to online platforms. Such review shall include the amount of money spent, the online platforms that receive Federal dollars, and the statutory authorities available to restrict their receipt of advertising dollars.
(b) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency shall report its findings to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
(c) The Department of Justice shall review the viewpoint-based speech restrictions imposed by each online platform identified in the report described in subsection (b) of this section and assess whether any online platforms are problematic vehicles for government speech due to viewpoint discrimination, deception to consumers, or other bad practices.
Sec. 4. Federal Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices. (a) It is the policy of the United States that large online platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, as the critical means of promoting the free flow of speech and ideas today, should not restrict protected speech. The Supreme Court has noted that social media sites, as the modern public square, “can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard.” Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1737 (2017). Communication through these channels has become important for meaningful participation in American democracy, including to petition elected leaders. These sites are providing an important forum to the public for others to engage in free expression and debate. Cf. PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 85-89 (1980).
(b) In May of 2019, the White House launched a Tech Bias Reporting tool to allow Americans to report incidents of online censorship. In just weeks, the White House received over 16,000 complaints of online platforms censoring or otherwise taking action against users based on their political viewpoints. The White House will submit such complaints received to the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
(c) The FTC shall consider taking action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, pursuant to section 45 of title 15, United States Code. Such unfair or deceptive acts or practice may include practices by entities covered by section 230 that restrict speech in ways that do not align with those entities’ public representations about those practices.
(d) For large online platforms that are vast arenas for public debate, including the social media platform Twitter, the FTC shall also, consistent with its legal authority, consider whether complaints allege violations of law that implicate the policies set forth in section 4(a) of this order. The FTC shall consider developing a report describing such complaints and making the report publicly available, consistent with applicable law.
Sec. 5. State Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices and Anti-Discrimination Laws. (a) The Attorney General shall establish a working group regarding the potential enforcement of State statutes that prohibit online platforms from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The working group shall also develop model legislation for consideration by legislatures in States where existing statutes do not protect Americans from such unfair and deceptive acts and practices. The working group shall invite State Attorneys General for discussion and consultation, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.
(b) Complaints described in section 4(b) of this order will be shared with the working group, consistent with applicable law. The working group shall also collect publicly available information regarding the following:
(i) increased scrutiny of users based on the other users they choose to follow, or their interactions with other users;
(ii) algorithms to suppress content or users based on indications of political alignment or viewpoint;
(iii) differential policies allowing for otherwise impermissible behavior, when committed by accounts associated with the Chinese Communist Party or other anti-democratic associations or governments;
(iv) reliance on third-party entities, including contractors, media organizations, and individuals, with indicia of bias to review content; and
(v) acts that limit the ability of users with particular viewpoints to earn money on the platform compared with other users similarly situated.
Sec. 6. Legislation. The Attorney General shall develop a proposal for Federal legislation that would be useful to promote the policy objectives of this order.
Sec. 7. Definition. For purposes of this order, the term “online platform” means any website or application that allows users to create and share content or engage in social networking, or any general search engine.
Sec. 8. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.