Category Archives: Catholicism
I have published all three parts of the “With Burning Concern” letter; therefore, you all know which side I am on.
I think it very wrong that those (names not named) who should all be on our side waste their time and undoubted intelligence for this kind of mini-squabble.
I will offer this thought: it is bad to want to be “mainstream”, and it is bad to want to have a big readership. The world is such, that if you want to have a big readership, and be able to boast that you are so and so big, you will have to get “middle of the road” positions even when more uncomfortable roads are the only ones indicated. The “mainstream” is unlikely to ever be persuaded that the Pope is a heretic. They will drink all the cool-aid they have to drink to persuade themselves of the contrary instead.
This Pope is a heretic. A tool of Satan. An old, lewd man obsessed with sex and social so-called “justice”. He is an Atheist through and through. In short, he is an Evil Clown. That’s it. If you still can’t see the evidence, you will always refuse to see it. Still, the harsh truth of a heretical Pope will never be “mainstream”.
And please don’t give me that rubbish that we can’t judge people’s heart. No one uses the argument with Hitler. We can see actions, and from the actions we see the motives. As outside, so inside. You can’t act like Martin Luther outside and be Padre Pio inside.
This Pope may repent one day, and we should all pray as much as we can that he may one day come back to be (or, more likely, become) a Catholic. But if he swims like a heretic, walks like a heretic, and quacks like a heretic, I will leave this rubbish about the “not judging” to others.
Let your nay be nay. Don’t go to your judgment and be told you listened to hundreds of episodes of defiance of the Church, and all you could say was that you were “surprised” or “confused”.
Being neither cold nor hot is rather dangerous.
This part deals with the “pastoral heresy”, the blatant situational ethics, the aggressive secularist and anti-catholic behaviour demonstrated at every turn and, last but not least, why faithful Catholics cannot remain silent in the face of such a disgrace.
Once again I repeat my appeal: please spread these links as much as you can. Opposition to the Evil Clown can only be effective if more and more people are helped to understand the reality of this truly unbelievable Pontificate.
Part II of “With Burning Concern” is Out.
This part focuses on Francis’ shameless defence of Islam, his ignorance and superficiality, his worldly megalomania, his brutal attacks on orthodox catholic faithful and institutions, and his attacks to the sacraments.
Please post these links everywhere you can.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Schism (from the Greek schisma, rent, division) is, in the language of theology and canon law, the rupture of ecclesiastical union and unity, i.e. either the act by which one of the faithful severs as far as in him lies the ties which bind him to the social organization of the Church and make him a member of the mystical body of Christ, or the state of dissociation or separation which is the result of that act.
This definition coincides with what the average Pewsitter answers when he is requested to define schism: someone separates himself from the union with the Church.
Mind, here, that the definition – and the common parlance – refers schism to the Church, not to the Pope. One is not in schism purely because he separates himself from the Pope, or the Pope separates himself from him. One is in schism because he has cut himself off from the Church.
Let us, therefore, imagine Francis (he about whom nothing is unimaginable) state that those who support the death penalty have separated themselves from the body of the Church and are now officially in schism. Most certainly, every well-instructed Catholic would refuse to give obedience to the Evil Clown in such a matter. However, they would most certainly not be in any schism whatsoever. They would be as part of the Church as they always were. They would also (being Catholics) most certainly not go around creating a parallel “church” under, say, Pope Pius XIII Williamson (no, I think even he would never do that). They would never declare themselves “severed” from the Church in any way whatsoever. They would simply point out that the Pope is a heretic, and a heretical Pope will not be obeyed in everything that is heretical or going against the Church.
I also would find confusing to state, in such a circumstance, that the Pope is in schism himself. No, he clearly isn’t, because he has never declared severed the ties who bind him to the social organisation of the Church. In order to do so, he would have to resign and declare himself separated from the Church, which he will clearly never do. One might say that he has put himself in a factual state of schism (as in the case of the notorious Dutch Schism), but even in this case this factual separation would concern him, not you; and would still make of him the Pope exactly in the same way as the Dutch bishops remained bishops, continued to validly ordain priests, and were never deposed.
What Francis would be doing, and what he actually does with Fornicationis Laetitia and his many satanical statements, is “restricting belief to certain points of Christ’s doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure, which is the way of heretics“.
Pope is heretic. Faithful remain faithful to the Church, and refuse to obey the Pope. No schism happens. Pope is deposed, or not. If Pope is not deposed, his appointments of Cardinals are valid – and therefore his successors are validly elected – until a Council decides on the matter of the orthodoxy of both his papacy and his successors. If Pope is deposed, Council decides about the validity of his acts and appointments whilst being a heretical Pope.
We, the simple Pewsitters, do not decide any of that. We cannot depose Popes. We are worried about dying in the state of Grace. To do this, it is highly advisable to do our best to help the right side. But it’s not for us to foresee when, and how, the Lord will put an end to this. It is also not for us to talk of schism, because no matter how heretical the Pope becomes, we remain and want to die in communion with the Church. Church, obviously, seen as the Bride of Christ, not the Vatican Gay Mafia, no matter how bad the latter may become.
The Church is the “society founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ”, not Francis’ Gay Sauna. It is not for Francis to declare you in or out, if he is being heretical in so doing.
You are still in. He is still a heretic. That’s it.
Once again, it seems to me this talk of “schism” derives from excessive and wrong consideration for the figure of the Pope. It is as if some people would think that if the Pope officially converted to Islam the Catholics would have to a) do the same or b) be in schism, because ubi Petrus ibi ecclesia and if the Pope is now within Islam, then so must you. Nonsense.
Francis will cause no schism. He will cause (more or less) widespread disobedience to his heresy, but he will not be able to cause any schism, or to cause obedient Catholics to declare themselves in schism, or to separate even only one of the faithful from the “society founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ”.
Pray for the painless death of the Evil Clown. Pray also for his conversion as sincerely as you can, though I think his death is by far the most probable and the only assured outcome. Pray that the Lord may soon put an end to this scourge. But never, never go around talking of schism.
Let him be a heretic.
You will remain faithful.
The following is from the latest blog post from Father Blake (emphasis mine):
When we ask for clarification from the Cardinals of the Church, as we are bound to do, we are met with either silence or told, as we were in England, by many of our superiors that Cardinal Nichols ‘was displeased’ that we should even voice such a concern in a private communication to him and his fellow Cardinals, that is the absolute moral low ground, though maybe a not entirely unexpected response.
Yep, it’s “officially official”. Cardinal Vincent “Quisling” Nichols let England’s priests know, by way of their own bishops, that he “was displeased” that they should voice their concern to him.
We understand from this something of what is going on behind the scenes in England: a reckless hierarchy scolds those among the priests who dare to think their job is to be Catholic, and the job of their bishops more so.
“Absolute moral low ground” says it very well.
I hope the retaliation against Father will be slow to come, and not too painful. Though that it will come at some point and in some form seems likely.
Welcome to the (earthly) church in the time of the Evil Clown: a place where perversion is celebrated without consequences, and fidelity to the Church causes “displeasure” in her own Princes.
Identifying likely voters by asking them how likely they are to vote shifts the electorate from the demographic composition observed in recent presidential elections towards a whiter, older electorate. While it is always possible that the electorate will be older and whiter in 2016 than it was in 2012 and 2008 — we will not know what the electorate in 2016 looks like until Election Day — given the demographic stability evident in past presidential elections we are reluctant to rely on screens that shift the composition of the electorate too far away from the composition of recent elections. Given historical patterns and the relative stability of presidential voting, our working assumption is that the electorate in 2016 is more likely than not to resemble the 2012 electorate; we trust the stable patterns in the data more than self-reported responses. (emphases mine)
I had to read it twice, because I could not believe that even NBC could be so brazen.
What they are saying is this:
“we are well noticing that we are seeing an increase in White and older voters among Likely Voters only six weeks away from the vote. Clearly, there is change afoot. However, this is very bad news for Crooked Hillary’s fans. Therefore, we prefer to adjust the reality we are seeing to something pretty similar to what we have seen in 2012. Because you see, in 2012 we had far less Whites and far more Blacks voting than it seems likely this year. Therefore, we will make Crooked Hillary look better and give her apathetic supporters some much- needed morale boost”.
2012? With Mulatto President running and mobilising (racist) Blacks all over the Country; and his flip-flopper, Mormon antagonist clearly unable to do the same with his core electorate?
2012? Without the Most Hated Bitch Alive running? The woman almost destroyed by an underfunded Socialist ostracised by his own party machine? The woman embroiled in scandals concerning her behaviou rin government, her behaviour out of government, her “pay to play” tricks, her health, and her chronic inability to tell the truth even by mistake?
2012? Did Romney pulverise Gay Mulatto for public attendance at his rallies in 2012? Can we really not see that things appear to be different in 2016? Is this not a matter of simple observation of facts?
What is a poll worth, if the pollster decide they are going to ignore the reality they see in front of them, a reality they openly admit to you they are seeing and measuring, and give you the manipulation of the data they see “safer” (read: not a disaster for Hillary) instead?
Then there is this other pearl:
Our respondents are selected from the nearly 3 million people who take surveys on the SurveyMonkey platform each day. To do so, for a random sample of those taking a survey, SurveyMonkey displays a map of past election results colored in gradations of red, blue and purple and they ask those individuals to “help us predict the 2016 elections.” Because individuals choose whether or not they want to help predict the election, those individuals choosing to participate are arguably more likely to be politically interested and likely to vote [ and younger, and more urban] than respondents who see the same invitation and decline to participate. (red and emphasis mine).
Are they telling us that their data are taken exclusively from a sample of people who are Internet-savvy enough to a) participate to online surveys and b) tell the pollster they want to be counted? Seriously?
Does it take a genius to understand that among a sample of real likely voters out there, those who will vote for Trump but are not interested in these Internet plays will easily exceed those Hillary fans who do the same? Trump’s voters are more likely to be Midwest welders and motorbike mechanics. Crooked Hillary’s voters are more likely to be students, internet-savvy young employees, or Starbucks failures spending a lot of time on their laptops.
I understand it when a pollster tells me that he has adjusted the data in order to make the, say, 3,000 respondents better match the reality out there. But it is very different from a pollster saying that he sees a clear reality out there, and he adjusts it because he can’t ( = does not want to) believe what’s really happening.
This reminds me of Brexit. Tweeters from all over the Country reported long lines in “deep England” full of old-ish people and people who had not voted for a long time, whilst the BBC & assorted faggots kept explaining to us how their statistical models returned a clear victory for “Remain”.
I am not saying this is in the bag. What I am saying is that even the polls which try to explain to us why Hillary is not sinking like she is the Titanic fail to persuade.
Can’t wait for a) the TV debates, and b) the leaks, and c) the next fit of cough, or d) fainting caused by (what was that? Oh, another lie…) “dehydration”.
Liber Accusationis “With Burning Concern”: Matt, Ferrara, Vennari Publish Open Accusation Against Francis
“With Burning Concern”, the title of the document, is the English translation of the German Mit Brennender Sorge, Pius XI’s encyclical (actually written by Eugenio Pacelli, the future Pastor Angelicus) against the Nazi regime. And in fact, Francis is being more devastating for Catholicism than Hitler was.
Please post/email/link to this document everywhere you can! Let it spread like wildfire!
As I was reading it, it was like every new breaths of. Refreshing, invigorating, exhilarating!
It is beautiful to know that as we all die and go into the ground, our struggle for the defence of Truth will live on and will be remembered by others, who will carry it out and remind the faithful of the public opposition of the laity since the time of Francis.
Let this mess continue for as long as God pleases. Let those disgraceful bishops and cardinals damn themselves as surely as they like. Let Francis II, Francis III and Francis IV, if our sins are so big, ravage the Church as much as they can.
Truth will never die. In His Mercy, the Lord will take care that there are always voices who speak in its defence, no matter how many bishops stay silent.
Let every bastard – of whom God has, in His justice, so disposed – rot in hell.
But you, you will stay faithful to your last breath.
“The universal Church of the faithful is one outside of which none is saved.” -Pope Innocent III, ex cathedra, Fourth Lateran Council (1215 AD)
“We declare, say , define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” -Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (1302 AD)
“The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, also Jews, heretics, and schismatics can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire ‘which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her… No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” -Pope Eugene IV, ex cathedra, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino (1441 AD)
“The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in Her and asserts that all who are outside of Her will not be saved.” -Pope Saint Gregory the Great (590-604)
“By heart we believe and by mouth confess the one Church, not of heretics but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside which we believe that no one is saved.” -Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, 18 December 1208 (DS 423)
“You see, dearly beloved sons and venerable brothers, how much vigilance is needed to keep the disease of this terrible evil from infecting and killing your flocks. Do not cease to diligently defend your people against these pernicious errors. Saturate them with the doctrine of Catholic truth more accurately each day. Teach them that just as there is only one God, one Christ, one Holy Spirit, so there is also only one truth which is divinely revealed. There is only one divine faith which is the beginning of salvation for mankind and the basis of all justification, the faith by which the just person lives and without which it is impossible to please God and to come to the community of His children.[Rom 1; Heb 11; Council of Trent, session 6, chap. 8.] There is only one true, holy, Catholic church, which is the Apostolic Roman Church. There is only one See founded in Peter by the word of the Lord,[St. Cyprian, epistle 43.] outside of which we cannot find either true faith or eternal salvation. He who does not have the Church for a mother cannot have God for a father, and whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church.[St. Cyprian,de unitat. Eccl.] Thus, there can be no greater crime, no more hideous stain than to stand up against Christ, than to divide the Church engendered and purchased by His blood, than to forget evangelical love and to combat with the furor of hostile discord the harmony of the people of God.[St. Cyprian, epistle 72.]” -Blessed Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quidem, #4, 17 March 1856
“Some say they are not bound by the doctrine which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing. Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation. Others finally belittle the reasonable character of the credibility of Christian Faith. These and like errors, it is clear, have crept in among certain of our sons who are deceived by imprudent zeal for souls or by false science.” -Venerable Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, #27, 12 August 1950
All the statements above are beautifully coherent. There is no contradiction in them. In them, the Church explains and teaches one Truth. The emphases are obviously mine.
Please read all these statements attentively. Then reflect on the following:
Cantate domino does not state that a man who does not want to be damned must make a conscious, voluntary, publicly communicated decision to leave his heresy and join the Only Church. The requirement to avoid hell is that he be joined with Her before Death.
God, who is Omnipotent, can certainly join anyone He wishes to save to the Only Church before death. He can do that either by giving the soul of the man the consciousness that he is wrong and the Church is right, and a desire to be part of Her, just before his death (and neither you or I need be informed about the fact), or by joining him with Her of His own decree because the man was particularly good and God has decreed that he has died in invincible ignorance and is, therefore, worthy of becoming part of the Church before his death.
Christ is the Bridegroom. The Church is the Bride. It follows that Christ will not admit to the presence of the Bridegroom those whom He has not decreed to be joined with the Bride.
This is all very linear, very logical, elegantly unavoidable from the premises of Truth.
Where the problems begin is when the “imprudent zeal for souls” leads people to talk nonsense for an apparently good, but ultimately childish desire to see everyone (or almost everyone) saved; a childish desire and wishful thinking which, in fact, contributes to the damnation of those the childish person is so desirous to see saved, and might well be dangerous for the salvation of this person himself.
We cannot say, with absolute certainty, that this or that just deceased Proddie, or Infidel, or Unbeliever has gone to hell. Every single one of them might, just might, have saved his ass to Purgatory in the end. Odds don’t count here. We can just not exclude it, no matter how little the odds.
But we also cannot say that one particular sperm will not manage to fecundate the ovule. We cannot say that, no matter how little the odds!
Good luck, you little sperm. I wish you well. I really do.
Allow me not to bet my pint on you, though…
Being humans, we can’t avoid asking ourselves: “how are the odds”?
The answer lies in the simple phrase extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Seen that the “being joined with Her before death” by Divine Decree must be an exceptional circumstance (otherwise, you will agree, it would not make much sense, and in the extreme it would not make any sense at all, to be a Catholic in the first place) the odds can’t be good at all; in fact they must be, in descending order, from bad to absolutely terrifying for Proddies, Infidels, and Unbelievers*. How many of them will, without any obvious decision to convert, be fished out from Christ from the very jaws of Hell? We don’t know, but as stated above, it can only be the exception. He who stakes his salvation on God making an exception for him is, it seems to me, a presumptuous idiot.
Another important element must be derived from these reflections: there can be no true saintliness outside of the Church. “No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
There is nothing like a “Protestant Saint”. There is also nothing like “protestant saintliness”. Every Protestant is marching towards hell. His piety and love for the Lord, his Christian zeal – no matter how strong; and I am sure it is very strong in many of them – avail him nothing, until and unless he is joined with the Church before death. Let us not kid ourselves about this, lest our “imprudent zeal for souls” makes their path far more difficult, and encourages them to walk toward a cliff out of which only the merciful hand of the Lord can save the one or other of them when they have their feet almost in mid-air.
What a blessing it is, to be a Catholic! How easier it is for us to safely travel through the perilous sea of life from the security of the Barque! How many, who think themselves too good for it, will drown! The greatest blessing of my life was to be born a Catholic. The second, to be born with a strong faith. Yes, in this order.
There is no salvation outside of the Church. The one or other will save their backside by being fished in by Our Lord just at the very last moment. But no one can say that he thinks that they will be very many and believe in extra ecclesiam nulla salus at the same time.
* For these, of course, they might have received the grace of faith and being joined with the Church before dying. If they died in their atheism, the matter is settled already. But this is why the Church teaches us to pray for our relatives and loved ones who apparently died in their atheism.
After the first Bizarro World post, we assist to the continuation of this utterly unreal situation.
The Catholic Herald has a fairly decent article (for their standards, at least) concerning the reaction of the Catholic world to Lettergate and the utterly stupid title of the Irish so-called Catholic, which I do not even repeat. The best part of the linked article is this one:
In the CDF’s 1994 Letter to Bishops, publicly approved by John Paul and signed by Cardinal Ratzinger, the practice is referred to as “doctrine” three times; it adds that a change in discipline would be “impossible”, that this is a “constant and universal practice”, which is “binding” and “cannot be modified because of different situations”. In Sacramentum Caritatis, Benedict XVI affirmed this practice as “based on Sacred Scripture” – that is, God gave it to us.
This is a teaching of formidable authority. The idea that a Pope could snap his fingers and overturn it – in a private letter which does not even mention the words “communion” or “remarried” – is a fantasy.
Yes, it is a fantasy. Truths are things. The truth of marriage, and the reality of adultery, do not exist since 1994. They are integral part of the fabric of the Universe. Nothing could ever change them; not even God, because God – by His own nature – cannot change. Marriage and the Catholic understanding of adultery should, by the by, never be defended with the help of V II documents. They are part of the Depositum Fidei. Therefore, they are not based on the one or other official document. Rather, it is exactly the one or other official document that is judged according to how well it represents and explains the teaching that has always been there.
Therefore, we have the following – utterly unreal – situation:
- Evil Clown implies in a footnote that in certain circumstances two and two can be five.
- Argentinian clown bishops write a letter to Francis and ask him: “we interpret your document so, that in some special circumstances two and two is five. Are we correct?”
- Evil Clown answers in writing: “there are no other interpretations”
- Irish Wannabe Catholic titles in huge letters: “Two And Two Is Now Five”
- Various bishops insist that two and two can only be four.
What all these people – the Argentinian clown bishops, the Irish wannabe “c”atholic newspaper, the Catholic Herald, and the other bishops – forget to mention is the huge elephant in the room: the Pope has issued a written heretical statement going against two thousand years of Catholicism: an open challenge to the Church and Her Sacraments, and a spittle in the face of Christ.
It is high time we stop living in this Bizarro World and state what every person with a brain can see: the Pope is openly, officially heretic, and must be deposed.
He proclaimed his heresy very openly. There are no other interpretations.
How long will we live in this Bizarro World?
The Remnant reports of a DCLeaks revelation that George Soros’ OSF prepares weekly (laudatory) reports about the social and political activism of the Evil Clown.
Now, this does not mean that Francis prepares these reports, or helps them to be prepared. It does not mean that Francis himself is in Soros’ pocket, either. But what this makes clear is that the two are perfectly aligned in their own utterly diabolical Weltanschauung.
Francis has appointed himself the high priest of the religion of Soros: a satanical sect promoting everything that is evil from environmentalism to Muslim invasion to the destruction of borders.
The naive part of the Catholic world needs to wake up to the reality of a Pope working against all that the Church represents day in and day out.
They can choose to close their eyes, but they must pay attention: at some point, obstinate naivety becomes willing silence in the face of an evil that was certainly recognised, if brushed away because of convenience and cowardice.
We live in very stupid times if we think that countless adults, people who are fully functional in all other spheres of life, can systematically ignore or excuse this Pope’s behaviour and get away with it.
A child of seven can commit a mortal sin.
Think of this, you Pollyannas out there, and shiver.
This one here makes for interesting reading.
Or from here: (emphaisis mine)
A person is more susceptible to pneumonia if they are elderly, have a weakened or compromised immune system, are a cigarette smoker, are an alcoholic or are suffering for some other illness
Or you can read here about (again) the Bronko’s episode, the drinking contest, the (you don’t say?) “accident” of (cough) falling.
Or do you want to know more about what happened in Cartagena?
And several more episodes..
Now “barking Hillary” makes more sense?
No, this is not a “light” problem. Before knowing she was going around barking, I remember reading an article on the “American Thinker” stating her entourage had suggested to her she goes into a clinic to deal with the “problem” before starting the campaign, in order to both keep the issue under control and defuse the otherwise unavoidable rumours, hints and allegations. She apparently declined stating it was not necessary, and the author of the article went on wondering how a person who already has an issue with drinking will react to the prolonged stress of a long, ferocious battle for the White House.
I think I might know how this ended up.
The question in the title is asked in a LifeSiteNews article, and it is answered in a variety of ways, none of them wrong. Yours truly had his own take on the matter pretty recently, albeit seen from the angle of enviro-faggotry now becoming spread among the Prius Generation*.
I have abandoned the idea that masculinity was shown by physical strength at about third grade, when I started to learn in detail about men who were either at their strongest in their old-ish age (Julius Caesar come to mind) or those greatness was not in the least dependent from their physical strength (Hannibal, say). However, I am sure a Napoleon exuded a masculinity fully uncaring of his small dimensions.
Masculinity consists in thinking, moving, talking, acting, praying like a man. And you are in front of a man who is made in such a way, you will immediately recognise him irrespective of his physical attributes. Which is why the relatively small Putin commands a respect – and exudes a manliness – his much bigger predecessor never had, not even when sober. Though I do not doubt that, when sober and of same age, Eltsin would have defeated Putin in every lumberjack test.
It is wrong to identify masculinity with physical strength, but it is right to see in Obama’s faggoty demeanor a sign of faggotry. It’s the limp-wristedness, not the physical strength, that makes the unmanly man.
* Prius owners of this forum excluded. Though I wish they had a Mustang.
I follow the polls about Trump & Crooked Hillary almost every day. I must have written already about the obvious bias of many pollsters (typical ways of distorting a poll: asking to speak to the youngest registered voter in the household, and interviewing more registered Democrats than Republicans when nationwide they are on par). I have also written about the “shy Tory effect”, which has been massive during the Primaries and has certainly not vanished in thin air.
Notwithstanding all this, Trump is gaining ground. Not only he is advancing nationally, but he appears increasingly stronger in Florida and Ohio, with states like Nevada apparently now within reach. I am eagerly awaiting for good news from Pennsylvania, where the “shy Tory effect” might be particularly strong because of the composition of the electorate.
I see two elements of danger now: the first is that Trump might soon give us the next blunder (how long without one now, four weeks?), and the second is that the Libertarian voters would appear to lean for Clinton more than for Trump. If confirmed at the polling station this would be bad news, albeit I can’t imagine Clinton really cleaning up among them. And no, I do not think many will vote for alternative candidates; in my eyes, it will be like almost always and most supporters of alternative candidates will end up choosing reality and voting Trump or Clinton in the end.
On the other hand, Crooked Hillary can still self-destroy in a variety of ways: each one of a) further health problems, b) being truly and well beaten by Trump in televised debates and c) being further compromised by Wikileaks revelation could destroy her campaign. She can also help us herself with some other unexpected gift like d) the one with the “Deplorables” (keep pounding on this, dear readers!).
We shall see.
Pray for sound voters, and pray for Donald Trump, that he may bring this to a happy end without too many blunders.
And don’t be a Sanctimonious Judas.