Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: January 2026

Saturday, January 31, 2026

About Prevent

State-Mandated Racist Goth Girls For Mass Deportations
Connor Tomlinson | 12 Jan. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-Pgg5BAsW8

Amelia Breaks the Internet
Lotus Eaters Daily | 13 Jan. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5ADrWWk7qM

At the end, he mentioned the Church

I give my answer to that on the top of these comments under the video:

Protestant Finds 2 Demonic Things in Orthodoxy
Robert Ayar | 28 Jan. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=in9xUHZkA2g

Speaking of the Church, I invite you to submit to Pope Michael II, successor of St. Peter, bishop of the Church of Sts. Peter and Paul.

[She did not die for our sins.]

5:42 However, She suffered, for our sins, the pain of seeing Her Beloved Son die.

His sacrifice is sufficient and beyond payment. But Her's is a plea worthy to be heard.

If She didn't aid in our redemption, why did not just Elisabeth, but before She was even pregnant with God, the angel say, She had basically killed Satan?

Blessed art thou among women. Holy Spirit shall come over thee.

How was She accorded a military award, like Jael and Judith, if She had not in Herself already redemption and that was already, basically, killing Satan?

You see, "blessed among women" was said to only two women before Her. They had killed Sisera and Holophernes.

I believe this confirms the reading of St. Jerome in Genesis 3:15. Ipsa conteret. She shall crush thy head.

True Tradition
@trutrad5314: The suffering she went through was even prophesied by Simeon in the Temple.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
@hglundahl: @trutrad5314 Indeed.

6:31 Plus Our Lady is not currently dead. After the Dormition, She was raised body and soul to Heaven.

7:32 How about this:

And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held 10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying: How long, O Lord (holy and true) dost thou not judge and revenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 6:9-10]

And I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit, and a great chain in his hand And he laid hold on the dragon the old serpent, which is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years And he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should no more seduce the nations, till the thousand years be finished. And after that, he must be loosed a little time And I saw seats; and they sat upon them; and judgment was given unto them; and the souls of them that were beheaded for the testimony of Jesus, and for the word of God, and who had not adored the beast nor his image, nor received his character on their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years The rest of the dead lived not, till the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 20:1-5]

So, the ladies and gentlemen that the Protestant refers to as "dead" are in fact enjoying the first resurrection. Already from their lifetime, last time they were justfied, or, for Our Lady, from Her conception. She also has the final resurrection, not just the first one.

7:44 I really don't think any Catholic or Orthodox visited a voodoo medium to ask Mary or the other saints for intercession.

What the law of Moses actually forbids, we see how the ghost of Samuel is condemning Saul for visiting that Witch (or Medium) of Endor.

9:20 sth, "the only people who prayed to dead people" — Did he say "only"?

The Rich man directed prayers to Abraham, who has died and is so far waiting for the Resurrection.

He was not rebuffed for that, but for his request being for himself (a damned man) or his brothers (whom Abraham knew already would be damned).

Shariah POV, Sharing About England's Muslim Problem

It's HAPPENING! Muslims DEMAND Cross REMOVED From English Flag!!!
Andy The Gabby Cabby | 28 Jan. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHGJ-dqzpi8

It can be mentioned he is citing the Act of Settlement, but not the Anti-Catholic paragraphs as such, but this one:

Fifth, no foreigner ("no Person born out of the Kingdoms of England Scotland or Ireland or the Dominions thereunto belonging"), even if naturalised or made a denizen (unless born of English parents), can be a Privy Councillor or a member of either House of Parliament, or hold "any Office or Place of Trust, either Civill [sic] or Military, or to [sic] have any Grant of Lands, Tenements or Hereditaments from the Crown, to himself or to any other or others in Trust for him".[9]

He's obviously against the subsequent nationality acts. At the moment, this was of course against Englishmen or Irishmen born in exile having fled as Catholics, but that was temporary. He has a point this would have been useful now.

Rieckert Defends Prevost Wrong

Orthodox Apologist Accuses Pope Leo Of Heresy... Then This Happens
Cameron Riecker | 30 Jan. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U2t5hItxhk

[You have dogma A which 3:21 evolves into dogma B which moves into 3:23 dogma C, etc., etc. That's not what the 3:26 church teaches.]

Trent Session V. The first three canons are very relevant:

1. If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offence of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offence of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema.

2. If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema:–whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

3. If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,–which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propagation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own, –is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, santification, and redemption; or if he denies that the said merit of Jesus Christ is applied, both to adults and to infants, by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the church; let him be anathema: For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be [Page 23] saved. Whence that voice; Behold the lamb of God behold him who taketh away the sins of the world; and that other; As many as have been baptized, have put on Christ.

CCC § 283

The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can say: "It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements... for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me."

Note, Trent calls Adam "the first man" ... any Homo erectus, any Neanderthal and any Denisovan we find, but also anyone looking more closely like ourselves (Homo sapiens sapiens) is, descended from Adam. Unfortunately it is all too clear that CCC § 283 is not referring to studies by Ken Ham or Robert Carter (if only because they came into the game later than 1992, perhaps not totally true for Ken Ham, however, before the internet he was hardly known in Rome, Krakow or Munich).

[The teachings aren't 3:53 dynamic in so far as they change from, 3:55 well, we used to think Jesus was fully 3:57 divine, but we don't think that anymore. 3:59 Of course not. That would be absolute 4:00 heresy.]

How about, "we used to believe Mary and Jesus were prophecied in a setting literally and historically depicted in Genesis 3, before any human person other than Adam and Eve were alive, but we don't believe that anymore"?

Jimmy Akin feels this is not obligatory, an "Assumptionist" in Paris assured in his paper, before 100,000's of readers, that Adam and Eve never existed like I and you exist, as real, concrete human persons.

There is a slight shade of distinction between person, as required by Trent V, and personification, as Sébastien Antoni preferred.

4:51 Have you heard of the Jewish division of mitsvoth? Rabbis are wrong to think they apply as they did in Moses' time, but the positive mitsvoth, things to do at least once in your life, are the number (or reputed such) of bones in a body. However, negative mitzvoth are 365, because those things must be avoided every day of the year.

Eating rabbit had to be avoided every day of the year up to Golgatha. The symbolism which applies is, we cannot ourselves be like rabbits, "chewing the cud" (the Hebrew word means lifting up, doesn't specify which way) like meditating, but doing so with a "meat" (St. Paul actually uses the word for doctrine, while some doctrine is "milk") which walks on other things than fully cloven hooves (symbolising the two testaments), in this case has some kind of "fingers" clearly more than two (symbolising polytheism).

Your example of the basket ball player is about "things to do" (definitely not all of them at once). But doctrine and morals are partly about things to avoid every day, including error, so things to believe every day have to stay the same. Just like the rich man who had kept the commandments from childhood did not eat rabbit meat even once (prior to later joining the Christians, if Damien Mackey is right about his identity). It was not "oh, today I can eat rabbit, because it's pork I'm avoiding today" ...

Recall, St. Thomas states the OT mitzvoth were symbolic of our Christian duties, and the dietary rules specifically about faith and prayer life. The one animal with fully cloven hooves (two testaments) that is to be avoided is the pork that doesn't "chew the cud" (i e meditate). Good reason to pray the Rosary, but not a good reason to defend Prevost.

5:35 Humanae Vitae promotes NFP in the counterprocreative use.

However, one OT rule about sexual purity between spouses imposes the opposite monthly rhythm to that use of NFP. And St. Thomas says that if it is in the NT just a venial sin to come together in weeks forbidden in the OT (under pain of stoning), it's because NFP as contraceptive is not a guaranteed one. NFP would involve a mortal if denying the spouse intercourse in response to a previous agreement on NFP.

isoldam
@isoldam: That sounds like complete nonsense. I'll accept the Magisterium's opinion on NFP rather than some random guy on the internet.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
@hglundahl: @isoldam Can you trace the position of "Paul VI" back to certainly traditional Popes or episcopates?

@isoldam Supplement to the III Part.

Q 64. Article 3. Whether it is allowable for a menstruous wife to ask for the marriage debt? / Article 4. Whether a menstruous woman should or may lawfully pay the marriage debt to her husband if he ask for it?

These articles are omitted in the Leonine edition.

Thursday, January 29, 2026

Third Bullet Killed Her, It Seems

1:47 The third bullet though entered through 1:50 her left temple and exited on the right 1:53 side of her head. ... So, this proves beyond a shadow of 2:02 a doubt Ross executed her even though 2:06 when he fired those last two shots, he 2:09 was in absolutely no danger.

He was in no danger. He could pretend others were, but that could have been averted by firing on the tires.

Has Trump / ICE ~ Venezuela ... Contributed to Apostasy?

Catholicism is collapsing in Latin America, and young people are leading the charge
Friendly Atheist | 28 Jan. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDHHQe9VWls

11:47 US American Catholics have a tendency to compromise religion in the political sphere.

I think the party closest to Catholicism right now (assuming Nick Fuentes has no actual party) is Solidarity Party. They have three elected officials in the US, none of these being states or federal legislatures or governors, just local politicians.

Peter Sonski attained 47,070 votes for president of the United States, comprising 0.03% of the total votes cast. Sonski did best in states where he was on the ballot, with Ohio being his best state.

They had ballot access in seven states, and could be written in in most others.

Here is how he started the campaign:

In January 2024 Catholic News Agency interviewed Sonski in which he said that he wants to "provide a means for Catholics to vote in accord with the conscience, rather than just for the 'lesser of two evils.'"[13] Crisis Magazine also published an interview, conducted by Fr. Dwight Longenecker, which describes how Sonski "was born into a blue-collar Catholic family and went on to work in agriculture, insurance, journalism, and public relations."[14]

I only heard of him after Trump had won. On my blogs, I promoted Trump on pro-life issues, while (once in a blue moon) cautioning against his immigration policy, which I thought could not be effected properly and was likely to spark unrest.

Now given the interview, the words cited on wiki indicate, American or rather Usonian Catholics have a history of voting for the lesser of two evils. It was often Democrats given Republicans weren't actually pro-life, that changed with Trump, first election, I'm still happy about Dobbs.

The American Solidarity Party has been characterized as socially conservative and economically progressive.[12] The ASP encourages social development along the lines of subsidiarity and sphere sovereignty, with a stated emphasis on "the importance of strong families, local communities, and voluntary associations".[13] The party adheres to a consistent life ethic, opposing abortion, assisted suicide, capital punishment, euthanasia, IVF, surrogacy, and unjust war. They support universal healthcare, immigration, and welfare.[14] It favors fiscally progressive policies,[10][15][16] as well as a social market economy with a distributist character,[17][18] which seeks "widespread economic participation and ownership",[18] and providing a social safety net program.

12:43 We are not on the same line here.

I consider The Great Apostasy is usshering in the rule of the Antichrist.

15:01 I think Atheism is in Sweden rolling back a bit in favour of "spiritual but not religious" ...

I cited, with or without quotation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Sonski_2024_presidential_campaign

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Solidarity_Party

Something Tells Me, Peter Sonski would NOT Have Promised Mass Deportations
Monday, November 11, 2024 | Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 10:43 AM
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2024/11/something-tells-me-peter-sonski-would.html

Wednesday, January 28, 2026

Two Sides Are Escalating

New blog on the kid: Renee Nicole Good · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Both Videos (Except the Guy's Own) · A Veteran Analysing · "Clearly Hit" · Metatron weighed in · Two Sides Are Escalating · Third Bullet Killed Her, It Seems

Trying to unbalance the other party is a kind of escalation.

ICE against certain states?

Why are ICE agents targeting Minneapolis?
The Economist | 26 Jan. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_DWKIugWvY

To be fair, in Minnesota, there was also the question of Somalian fraud. However, not sure why ICE would be even as Federal Agents the best, wouldn't FBI be more on the target?

Protesters against ICE?

New Alex Pretti Details Confirm Coordinated Attack
Robert Gouveia Esq. | 27 Jan. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDx9cAIfBEY

So far, the killings are on the ICE side.

And, as some remind us, ICE was very much active under Obama:

ICE's Optics Are Bad. But THIS Is Worse
Vanessa Mares | 22 Jan. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ND3yfeBB84c

This video was posted before Pretti died.

After receiving more than 220,000 applications to join ICE from patriotic Americans, ICE blew past its original hiring target of 10,000 new officers and agents within a year. In fact, we have more than doubled our officers and agents from 10,000 to 22,000. With these new patriots on the team, we will be able to accomplish what many say was impossible and fulfill President Trump’s promise to make America safe again.

ICE Announces Historic 120% Manpower Increase, Thanks to Recruitment Campaign that Brought in 12,000 Officers and Agents
Release Date: January 3, 2026
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2026/01/03/ice-announces-historic-120-manpower-increase-thanks-recruitment-campaign-brought

10 000 out of 22 000, and Jonathan Ross is among the original 10 000, have been working for Biden and perhaps even Obama. I'd not endorse Democrats. Have you heard of Third Party?

Senior FBI QUITS Rather Than Give ICE Immunity!
Combat Veteran News | 27 Jan. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBimkrZ8uSY

Fr. Gregory Pine OP is pretty much agreeing with my assessment in the title:

Godsplaining Reacts: The Minnesota Protests & Shootings | Fr. Gregory Pine
Godsplaining | Catholic Podcast | 27 Jan. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjPLCtkxvMw

Minnesota confrontations mirror simulation of how civil war begins, law professor says
PBS NewsHour | 28 Jan. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GIWzn4pk1I

Appearance: Evil Dictator Pulling Strings | Reality: Emergent Behavior of System
The New Enlightenment with Ashley | 24 Jan. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8m3by-mgFWI

@alimariehere
The Dehumanizing Epidemic in America
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/HfzZ1U7i-YM

Tuesday, January 27, 2026

Sharing on Duckweed / Phum

Twice The Protein Of Eggs. Grows In 7 Days. Why Every Government Wants It Gone.
Lost Plant Remedies | 22 Jan. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UqTUHE7NFA

Metatron weighed in

"Minnesota does not ban lawful carry at protests"

Possibly the agent was from a state where this was not the case.

I'm reminded of a black man being arrested for carrying a gun in one of the South States. It turns out, he had a licence, and he was from Missouri, a former French colony, with less of a racist heritage than some English ones, where a black man having a licence is perfectly normal. That was a few years ago.

Perhaps if DHS was going to monitor the protest, they should have been told and be telling every agent, "lawful carry, even at a protest, is not a threat" ...

E Dennis
@edennis8578: He actually wasn't lawfully carrying. It's illegal to carry at a protest without also bringing your permit and ID; he had neither.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
@hglundahl: @edennis8578 It is quite possible he had, and they subtilised those items to cover up for the killing.

It is also quite possible that you are misrepresenting the law of Minnesota.

20:11 How many shots were heard?

If only one shot was heard, it was the one that killed him. But if more than one, it's still possible that already the first one was deliberately aimed at him.

It could be mentioned that if Alex Pretti's own gun incidentally went off, that would be probably testable.

Hence the subpoena for federals not to tamper with evidence.

lasko24
@lasko24: From what I could tell in the video the agents had him down trying to cuff him another agent appears to take something and started walking away. Then as he was a few steps away other agents started running so that was where the first shot happened right after that is when the agent pulled his gun and shot Pretti. Both deaths are on the far left liberals they are the ones posting videos threatening to kill ICE and border control agents or telling others to do it. Then you have people physically attacking ICE and border control. Then you get situations like these and people act surprised.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @lasko24 Thank you for your observations on the video.

...

If we want to look at the broader picture, I don't support ICE.

And while you have a point on how some gestures look to the law enforcement, there is also how the law enforcement looks to the public.

I supported Trump (from my blogs in France) in the election. Sometimes had 700 views per day from the US. When I heard about "mass expulsion" of illegals, I was despondent.

Dollfuss and Schuschnigg certainly deported Czechs back to then Czechoslovakia, probably over Gmünd or sth, but they were batches of industrial workers, men, no families, it was kind of a game on both sides.

Austrian industries could survive without Communist agitators. In this case, many of the technically illegal residents are part of the backbone of agriculture in certain states. A former Mormon who's gone slightly left stated that border crossings increased under Biden only or mainly because Biden increased deportations. For a certain point, a few months back, the deportations by ICE since Trump took over are just 2 times and some of what they were under Biden. Trying to deport people who are part of communities will lead to civil war, unless someone, and I don't mean Waltz, he's not likely to, takes a step back.

In Minnesota, there are arguably fewer people from Latin America. ICE shouldn't have dealt with the Somalians, much as there is a reason to suppose some kind of fraud.

As to immigration from Latin America, the best way to have a safe border is, if that's ever possible, unite the US and Mexico, and the South border of those 81 states would be a shorter stretch in partly rougher terrain, so, easier to patrol. If that happens, every Mexican would automatically be legal, btw.

When it comes to the shooting of Renee, this traumatised ICE agent shouldn't have been back in service. But mainly, the proper way for safe borders is turning suspicious people and transports around at the border not letting police roam the streets "sicut leo rugiens quaerens quem devoret" ...

Alex Pretti Shooting: Federal Agents Fired After He Was Disarmed?
Christopher Winchell | 26 Jan. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnrIaX84uPI

Whether this Republican applies this correctly to the Pretti killing or not, this is useful information:

7:04 If you want to carry, you must avoid 7:06 confrontation. If you want to film, you 7:08 must avoid interference with lawful 7:11 operations. If you want to protest, you 7:14 must avoid impedment. 7:17 Those aren't my political opinions. 7:19 Those are the laws of our land.

The Pretti Case Exposes a Dangerous Lie
Walter Hudson's 'Closing Argument' | 28 Jan. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QePoawDA_48

Sunday, January 25, 2026

Ktzi'ot in the States?

The end of the video is about an ICE facility.

More than one if those that strike a Ktzi'ot like note.

The unexpected faces on the frontlines of ICE raids
The News Movement | 2 Dec. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yKSgM0G1xQ

Woman who was arrested, shackled and detained at ICE center shares her experience
ABC News | 19 Jan. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OBCT8WoP84

Friday, January 23, 2026

Did St. Luke make a mistake in Chapter 2 of his Gospel? Answered in the Negative

Did St. Luke make a mistake in Chapter 2 of his Gospel?
Decrevi Determined to be Catholic @thecatholicman | 21 janv. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWLIxGXYxgk

The ensuing dialogue starts with my first comment to the title, ignoring all the rest.

No, he didn't. Quirinius was not THE governor, and Luke doesn't say he was, he was in the business of governing (along with Saturninus) Syria, and St. Luke says he was.

Again, there were many Roman censuses over Roman provinces, the one that Josephus remembered from 6 AD was in Judaea, and it's recalled because it caused a revolt.

The one Luke mentions was in Galilee, already a province, while Judaea was just a protectorate. There was no Roman census official in Bethlehem, the census Joseph most chaste Spouse took was for the Temple tax. Shekels were still the common currency in Bethlehem and in Jerusalem, or at least a common one.

Joe Bloggs
@joebloggs1356: Bethlehem is stones throw from Jerusalem. If they didnt use some sort of common money I'd be very suprised. As for the debate about the status of Judea and Samaria in the time of Jesus, history is very very clear. Pompey the Great put the Edomite Herodians into power, creating a Patron/Client relationship between Rome and Judea-Samaria, this alone gave the Romans a very big interest in knowing the wealth status of this entity which has effectively lost independence long before and legates or governors officially sat in power.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
@hglundahl: @joebloggs1356 Nevertheless, Judaea was a vassal kingdom, not a province, making it a thing outside normal Roman taxation (at that point only of provincials) and so, presumably, of censuses.
Joe Bloggs: @hglundahl no, in the time of Jesus Judea was a part of Syria for administration reasons. Romans, you cant beat em😂

This is what chatgpt said, but its very solid history It happened in AD 6.
When Herod Archelaus (ethnarch of Judaea, Samaria, and Idumaea) was deposed by Augustus in AD 6, his territory was converted into a Roman province (often called Judaea/Iudaea) and placed under the oversight of the legate (governor) of Roman Syria. That’s the moment Josephus describes as Judaea being “added/annexed” to Syria for administrative purposes, and it’s when Quirinius came to conduct the property assessment that sparked opposition.
---------

So as you can see that Judea/Edom/Samaria wasnt as independent as you think.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @joebloggs1356 Exactly.

AD 6, the independence of Judaea was over.

And that's too late for Luke 2, so it's not the census Luke is talking about.
Joe Bloggs: @hglundahl the census luke mentions isnt the taxation type, its a 'census of the world', and Joseph goes to register, with Mary. Because he is of the House of David. Quirinius is made governor in Syria of which Judea is part in ad 6. Im not sure what people are missing.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @joebloggs1356 "a 'census of the world',"

Was there actually such a thing?

As mentioned, AD 6 is too late, since Herod the Great had already died by then.
Joe Bloggs: @hglundahl it's hard to make people understand that yes, the Roman's thought the Mediterranean civilisation and near attached lands were the "world" even if they were only slightly aware of anything bigger, it didn't matter to them

@hglundahl I see the point about Herod being dead. I'm also not going to say that 'muh bible is wrong' just because I'm too stupid to explain what's happening. The Bible is the inspired Word of God and if theres a mystery there then by faith I believe it's there for a reason, and not some 2000 year old error, because even the ancients were aware of it.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @joebloggs1356 Quirinius was in the title position of Governor in 6 AD, but he was doing the job of one under Saturninus "in the title" back when Jesus was born.

As to "the whole world" I think the actual words of Augustus would have been "in all of the provinces of the Roman Empire" and then a certain tax or census officer in Galilee somewhat overreported this to the Holy Family. Or even, it was the actual wording of Octavian, but involved an overreach which has so far not been quite filled with actuality.

Noting that the census edict is available for registered users (I'm so far not one) on the Valtorta app.

So, I can't check if I agree or disagree with her.

[Wait, did Robert Nugent say sth about Saturninus? The thing is Saturninus, as I recall, was actually "in office" as to the title, but it was Quirinius who was doing the job.]

Thursday, January 22, 2026

Hinduism is False (as Most Commonly Understood)

Hinduism is FALSE and here's why
Sanctus | 20 Jan. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCg3rsEDB0g

Unlike the story-lines of Ramayana and Mahabharata (if you reverse the order), Hindu theology is a total mess.

And a story-line is not a complete theology.

Wednesday, January 21, 2026

Best Documentation to Us is Not About Who was Best Documented Back Then, But Whose Documentation Survives Best

Christians, Stop Saying This About Jesus
The Counsel of Trent | 21 Jan. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMHZgtahZuE

1:41 Prove Anaphora Pilati is a forgery?

BrentenApologetics
@BrentenApologetics: If you’re looking for evidence that the Anaphora Pilati is a forgery, the scholarship is actually unanimous on this. There are zero early manuscripts of it, the earliest Greek copies show up over a thousand years after Pilate, and no Roman administrative record ever mentions such a report even though we have thousands of surviving Roman documents. The style and vocabulary are clearly Christian and post‑Nicene, not Roman bureaucratic, and the text uses theological language that didn’t even exist in the first century. Early Christian writers like Justin Martyr and Tertullian only reference the idea of Pilate reporting to Tiberius as an apologetic trope, not as an actual document, and none of them ever quote a text. On top of that, the content contradicts known Roman procedure, because a governor would never send a theological reflection to the emperor praising a man he just executed. Modern scholars classify it as an apocryphal pseudepigraphon, with works like Baudoin’s “Truth in the Details: The Report of Pilate to Tiberius as an Authentic Forgery” explicitly identifying it as a later Christian composition falsely attributed to Pilate.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
@hglundahl: @BrentenApologetics "There are zero early manuscripts of it,"

Did you just attack Caesar's writings?

"the earliest Greek copies show up over a thousand years after Pilate,"

Them being Greek might be a problem, if one could show Zeno and others were too interested in religious forgeries. Can one do so, or does that depend on viewing other things as forgeries which have also been accepted as genuine, just because they theoretically could be and it sounds "over the top"?

A thousand years after Pilate? So, one century worse than Caesar, but some centuries better than the epistles of Cicero.

"and no Roman administrative record ever mentions such a report even though we have thousands of surviving Roman documents."

I don't know what you mean by us having thousands of surviving Roman "documents" ... if you mean administrative reports, sorry, we don't.

We have thousands of literary works that are based on administrative reports, and we may have thousands of fragments of administration, like wage rolls for militaries or inscriptions saying "such and such an administrator did this building, while so and so were consuls" ... neither of these would be likely to mention Pilate, unless you mean Roman historians of Nero's time, like Labienus, none of whom have survived in full if they dealt with contemporary issues.

[Pilate is mentioned inscriptionwise as builder in Caesarea Maritima, I think, though]

"The style and vocabulary are clearly Christian and post‑Nicene, not Roman bureaucratic, and the text uses theological language that didn’t even exist in the first century."

You are presuming very much on 1) Pilate never having Christian convictions and 2) 1st C. Christians never using language close to Nicene theology. If Nicene theology is correct, at least the ideas should have been there.

"Early Christian writers like Justin Martyr and Tertullian only reference the idea of Pilate reporting to Tiberius as an apologetic trope, not as an actual document, and none of them ever quote a text."

Oh, they did reference that idea. How if it happened, but they couldn't access the document, but had a reliable rumour about it?

"a governor would never send a theological reflection to the emperor praising a man he just executed"

As in changes of heart and stepping out of the routine never happens?

You might be overdoing the routine aspect of Tiberius' administration after analogy with later administrators, like Pliny the Younger.

"[Anne-Catherine] Baudoin"

She's in these institutions and conferences:

1 AOROC - Archéologies d'Orient et d'Occident et Sciences des textes
2 ENS-PSL - École normale supérieure - Paris
3 LEM - Laboratoire d'Etudes sur les Monothéismes
4 Cultures de l’écrit

In, very Secularist academic culture, France. I think there is a bias.

3:15 How much evidence do you have for the Rubicon?

"Bellum Civile" is his own words, earliest manuscript 10th C AD.
Livy, Velleius, Tacitus and Suetonius, but by the latter two, it's like comparing to Early CCFF for Jesus.

3:18 Cicero wasn't precisely a historian, he was a historic source, and we have his letters from one manuscript discovered by Petrarca.

3:25 Between Cicero and Bellum Civile, you insert a letter from Pompey.

Is it in Cicero's correspondence, or where else?

Anthony Zav
@anthonyzav3769: Only in Cicero’s letters back and forth to each other. The Poet Lucan has Pompey as a charter - he prob used sources we lost.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @anthonyzav3769 Ah, thank you!

It's a while since I read Cicero, does Pompey mention the Rubicon?

Lucan using lost sources is obviously a parallel to Justin Martyr mentioning a real report by Pilate if the Anaphora is after all even a forgery.

3:34 Coinage commemorates Pallas Athena.

Is she a real goddess, or is the coin just showing her statue?

4:52 We have enough manuscripts for Bellum Civile, but enough isn't as many as for Jesus, or especially, as early as for Jesus.

Assume someone had wanted to forge history about Caesar, the production of manuscripts of fake documentation would have had more time.

7:38 I begin to think, both you and the Orthodox priest have read my work on the issue, and he's repeating me badly, you are partially correcting and partially repeating me, badly, both without mentioning my name.

The blogs in question, mainly "somewhere else" (than in the comments section of Tim O'Neill, hence the name of my blog) have made these points:

on manuscript evidence, Moses is comparable and Gospels better than Corpus Caesareum
on other authors confirming Caesar, they also have late manuscript evidence
on George Washington, he is, per definition, the origin story or "aetiological myth" about the US, doesn't prove he isn't historical, and neither should the origin stories of Israel or of the Church be assumed to be such
on comparable documentation, in the sense of contemporary surviving to us, Alexander the Great has lots less than the Crucifixion, Caesar conquering Gaul less (not as good as the crossing of the Rubicon), Tiberius has less, if only because Velleius says nearly nothing except "Tiberius is perfect, let this be perfectly clear" and after Velleius no contemporary historian speaks up before Tacitus' Agricola, but obviously, Joseph Smith and George Washington have more, because he lived in a much more written age, with newspapers, and a closer and therefore better preserved age.

8:25 I did go on and on about historians who wouldn't have mentioned Jesus and why.

Like if Varro died in 4 AD ...

11:30 I would, for reasons mentioned, not call it an overstatement.

I respect your mention of the Testimonium Flavianum, to which I have done parallel work.

Returning to the Rubicon, we don't have much sources for it:

Cicero, contemporary of Caesar, does not mention Rubicon or the cast of the die in his letters.

Neither does the historian Livy in his Ab Urbe Condita, written only 17 years or so after the event. (Tucker, p. 246) The relevant volume (liber 109), however, containing these events is missing. What we have left is the Periochae, i.e. summaries of the book itself. The summary does not mention the Rubicon or Iacta alea est, the book might have.

Another Roman historian, Marcus Velleius Paterculus (c. 19 B.C.- c. 31 A.D.), mentions Rubicon, but not the expression:

“…ratus bellandum Caesar cum exercitu Rubiconem transiit.”

— Velleius, 2.49

i.e. ”Caesar concluded that war was inevitable and crossed the Rubicon with his army.” (transl. Shipley, 1924)

Iacta Alea Est: Crossing the Rubicon
By Amelie Rosengren
https://latinitium.com/iacta-alea-est-crossing-the-rubicon/

Both Velleius and Lucan were born after Caesar had been killed.

Tuesday, January 20, 2026

Exegesis, a Protestant and My Response

They Say 'The Greek Means This.' Here's Why They're WRONG!
BiblicallyMotivated | 19 Jan. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AswxB6gBTbM

3:54 Were Jesus and Nicodemus speaking Greek or Aramaic?

If Aramaic, is there an Aramaic word that means both "from above" and "again"?

Because a word used in translation being misunderstandable or punnable doesn't guarantee the original is.

I suppose you are not pretending the dialogue was ahistoric and originally written in Greek by John after the Resurrection, in order to make a point?

A
BiblicallyMotivated
@BiblicallyMotivated: The data we have about the conversation is written in Greek. That’s all we have. How would the conversation actually have sounded? Couldn’t say for sure. But it’s irrelevant because we don’t have that data.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
@hglundahl: @BiblicallyMotivated You can check Aramaic lexica.

Is there a single word in Aramaic which has both meanings or not?

13:09 The two meanings do not exclude each other.

Baptism is from above, not from the flesh.

But it comes after birth (as some Catholic midwives know: after birth has started ... if there is a danger of death, you remember Jacob's hand and the red string? ... that hand could have been baptised by a midwife, if she feared the head wouldn't come out alive). In that sense it really is a second birth.

I
BiblicallyMotivated: The English translation is correct because it’s trying to show that Nicodemus misunderstood Jesus, which is apparent because Jesus corrects him and then highlights the heavenly “from above origin”
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @BiblicallyMotivated The Latin is correct.

It has "denuo" and that means again, and the "from above" items are never resumed as "from above" but given in detail.
BiblicallyMotivated: @hglundahl the Latin is irrelevant. The Bible was written in Greek and that’s the data that matters.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @BiblicallyMotivated Not if Matthew 28:20 is a promise Jesus kept, if so, what the Catholic Church uses matters.

Or any other single persisting Church you might prefer, I don't recommend tracing your line from Novatians over Albigensians, though.
II
john irish
@johnirish989: Jesus was baptized. So He was born twice. His Father was never birthed.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @johnirish989 The Baptism of John was not the Baptism in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost.

Jesus, even as Man, was already Son of the Father.
john irish: @hglundahl His first creation. A creature. Still God. Created before time and place.

Without sin. Needing no cleansing. Baptized to fulfill Scripture.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @johnirish989 To fulfill scripture is correct, no sin, needing no cleansing is correct.

But first creation is not. Creature is not.
john irish: @hglundahl So you believe. LOL. My condolences.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @johnirish989 So you don't believe? My condolences!
john irish: @hglundahl Wow. Shameless plagiarism. I forgive you.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Thanks, I suppose.
B
Nicholas George
@nicholasgeorge7825: Nicodemus is is a Greek name, so...but we have no solid way of knowing what language or mix of languages they were using except where specified (llama sabacthani for example). We only know how John records it.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @nicholasgeorge7825 While Greek remains possible, Aramaic would seem very much more probable.

17:22 Thank you for the lesson. I was not unaware of this stuff. On βατταλογέω, Matthew 6:7 I have done my own work. It is a hapax. The meaning in Strong matches a Protestant reading. The one Greek occurrence outside the NT is lacking from the LXX and is centuries later. Can't be bothered to repeat the Perseus search.

You know what I did?

The Vulgate, one fairly early translation, doesn't use "repeat" but inserts "multum loqui" from the context. I asked on quora about the Syriac and Coptic translations, which I also knew to be early, I just don't know the languages. Both of them use "stammer" (or stutter, if you prefer) ... the most probable isn't that battologein or battalogein means "speak like Mr. Battos" (if such a man existed) but more like "speak like you were stuttering" ... what exact attitude comes across both as "stuttering" and as "many words"?

Putting a prayer on repeat, until you fly over the single words, thinking about sth else entirely, hopefully something related to the reason of the words (like, in the Rosary, the mysteries instead of the words of Hail Mary)? No.

The attitude you want is, like a teen not following school rules, trying to explain himself with the principal, he'll both start many diverse trains of thought and be insecure about many of them.

And what do we find among Greco-Roman Pagans? Not just that, but the very same year that Jesus preached, i e the sixteenth year of Tiberius? Velleius Paterculus ends book II of Roman Histories with a prayer to his gods. I'm not sure the Christian copyists have left it entirely intact. But half short as it is, it has the traits of a teen before the principal (like Edmund would have before the White Witch at a point, if she hadn't cut him short). To god after god, three different ones, with well-chosen attribute after well-chosen attribute, he requests, with no word repetitions, except "Romani" and "orbis" a preservation and blessing on the rule of Tiberius and giving him successors to the end of time ... but obviously he has to explain, he doesn't mean weak successors, but capable ones ....

The point is, the real God Who takes us as His children and becomes our Father, doesn't need those kinds of explanation. He doesn't love tricking people with the verbal meanings of their requests, unless the words are very carefully chosen.

This verse says nothing against (and also not much for) repeating prayers. Unless you fall into the trap of trusting Strong and Perseus (both operating under the KJV tradition) to tell you the word meaning.

Nicholas George: Nice job locating the hapax but I don't follow you easily. Your point is that its ok to pray repetitious prayers but not immature or relatively thoughtless ones? Ok.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @nicholasgeorge7825 No, my point is it is not OK to approach God as if one were approaching a potentially hostile and strange authority figure, with nervousness.

The point of the teenager before the principal isn't his immaturity, but his lack of power and trust in the school (often rational with quite a few schools).

So, I could have taken a small businessman in Palmermo taken before a Mafia boss instead. The small businessman is not immature.

These situations are situations where you are prone to stutter or use many, that is longwinded, words. Endless explanations.

Repeating prayers isn't mentioned in Matthew 6, except we are kind of encouraged to repeat the one Jesus taught.

Sunday, January 18, 2026

I'm Not Part of the Ones he's Calling Out

Catholic Apologists, STOP Saying THIS
Scholastic Answers | 17 janv. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPgprPQPnvY

Or, I don't need to know Dorcas / Tabitha lived in Lydda near Joppe to be saved, therefore someone denying it is not a heretic.

RandomKnight
@randomknight5236: You're confusing two things. You're confusing the things necessary for faith with everything that is an object of faith. If you culpably deny something that is divinely revealed you do not have faith. It doesn't matter how necessary that thing is for salvation. If you culpably deny it, you don't have faith
Hans-Georg Lundahl
@hglundahl: @randomknight5236 Thank you.

My "or" was in reference to what Wagner said, I totally agree with you.

And, judging from the words so far, Wagner.

Adam begat Seth when he was 130 / 230 (depending on text) years old. You apply this principle to the add-up of Genesis 5 and of Genesis 11 too?

Dávid Bernhardt
@davidbernhardt551: We have good reason to believe that is not meant to be literal history, based on style, external evidence and the fact that other similar ancient texts in that region also used symbolic numbers for ages.

A better example would be something like the Ten Commandments and other clear statements, obviously you didn't need to wait until Evangelium Vitae to know that killing an innocent human being is intrinsically wrong.

But I agree that it would be ridiculous to apply this to these random statements not concerning faith and morals.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @davidbernhardt551 "based on style"

Like bone dry genealogy. Sounds pretty pointless other than as literal history.

"external evidence"

Like what?

"and the fact that other similar ancient texts in that region also used symbolic numbers for ages."

How do you prove they were meant as "symbolical"?

How similar are the texts? If the similarity is on subject matter, is it a matter of diverging accounts of the same events?

"something like the Ten Commandments and other clear statements"

You keep the Sabbath, abstain from all images and call God the Tetragrammaton, or avoid doing so by saying Adonai?

"it would be ridiculous to apply this to these random statements not concerning faith and morals."

Not on Christian Wagner's view and certainly not on mine. Watch the video once again!

It is specifically about statements that themselves are not matters of "faith and morals" in the subject matter.

Other dialogue:

Billy G
@billyg898: Genesis, on a plain reading, depicts the world as flat with a hard dome over it, with water above the dome and below the earth. The dome (the firmament) has windows which is how rain comes through.

Even the most determined young earth creationist doesn't go this far. But why shouldn't they if we are to take the plain reading of scripture?
I
RandomKnight: Bro, Wagner is talking about when the sense of the text is plain, not interpreting Scripture in a plain way
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @randomknight5236 How are these different?
RandomKnight: @hglundahl When Scripture says "God is my rock" to interpret it plainly would be to say that Scripture is saying that God is quite literally a rock. While the sense being plain means that what the sense of the text is is plain to us. Ignoring that OPs examples were poor examples
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @randomknight5236 No, wooden literalism is not plain meaning.

The metaphor is perfectly clear even to a plain understanding.

I'm not sure how the OP's examples were bad, he got them wrong.
RandomKnight: @hglundahl That's the point. Reading something plainly and the meaning being plain are two different things. OP is confusing the two. And the reason OPs examples were bad is because they're either wrong (the earth being flat) or ignorantly informed (his understanding of the firmament)
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @randomknight5236 I'm not sure he is confusing the two, he's misapplying plain reading.

Most of his examples are such that the meaning is plain if we presume the things to be true and use our knowledge of the globe.

The firmament is the exception.

The earth being flat is in fact not in the text, and he might be deriving this from a confusion between waters being below the earth (surface) and this meaning below an earth disc.
II
Hans-Georg Lundahl: "depicts the world as flat"

No. Give me the passage, I'll give the correct meaning. It won't be abstruse.

"with a hard dome over it"

"firm" need not mean "hard"

"with water above the dome"

Or in the upper parts of it.

"and below the earth."

Or below the surface of the earth, below the land.

"has windows which is how rain comes through."

The Floodgates of Heaven could have been a mechanism applying to only the Flood. Like an upper atmosphere mixing of Oxygen and Hydrogen into Brown's gas.
Billy G: @hglundahl thank you for the reply. I should note that we can help understand Genesis by other passages in scripture.

What do you suppose is meant by the word "face", as in "face of the deep", "face of the waters", "face of the whole earth", etc? The rest of scripture also seems to depict a flat earth, sitting on a foundation.

The text does seem to explicitly say the water is "above" the firmament in gen 1:7, so the firmament is able to hold the water up, indicating it is firm. We still must contend with the fact that it plainly says that the windows of the heavens were opened and closed. Like with the "fountains of the deep" bursting open and then being closed, we all know what that is. Applying it to floodgates or windows, the plain reading is that there was a physical opening and closing in the firmament. This all indicates something physical hard.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @billyg898 "What do you suppose is meant by the word "face" "

Surface.

A globe has as much a surface as a disc has.

"The rest of scripture also seems to depict a flat earth, sitting on a foundation."

If you mean immobility passages, I'm Geocentric, I have no problem with them.

If you mean "pillars of the earth" there actually are things describable as pillars in tectonic geology.

"The text does seem to explicitly say the water is "above" the firmament in gen 1:7, so the firmament is able to hold the water up, indicating it is firm."

Can air hold water up in the clouds? While air is in that sense "firm" it isn't hard.

Are hydrogen and water molecules up well above the atmosphere?

Obviously yes.

Now, my main view of the firmament is, it is the aether that God is turning around Earth each day.

Another possibility is, it's the magnetic field around Earth.

The passage about flood gates of heaven can be understood this way:

In the pre-Flood world, the atmosphere had more oxygen and oxygen higher up, and more hydrogen and a thick hydrogen layer further down. The opening means, something which had separated them disappeared, lightnings ignited this and produced water, the closing, the exhaustion of both gasses reintroduced a space between them.
III
ʙᴀᴛᴀᴠɪᴄᴀ ♰
@Batavica: Slippery slope fallacy
Billy G: @Batavica i agree, its a slippery slope, but can anyone explain what is the fallacy?

Why should we take the forming of Adam from dust as it plainly states, and the ages as it plainly states, etc, but when it says plainly that there are windows in the firmament that open and close, we dont take that plainly?
ʙᴀᴛᴀᴠɪᴄᴀ ♰: @b @billyg898 because “literal until proven otherwise” is not held by any of the fathers, the correct reading of any verse is whatever the writer intended it to mean.

There was never a consensus that Genesis was literal, and the church holds to consensus of the fathers.
Billy G: @Batavica what? No consensus that Genesis is literal?

The church fathers are unanimous that it is literal. It was almost completely unanimously believed the firmament was a literal hard dome with water above it.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Batavica I would concur that there is a definite patristic consensus that Genesis is litteral.

Any patristic support for allegory in Genesis is in addition to the literal sense, not instead of it.

Adam literally slept and Eve was created from his side. Christ "slept" on the Cross and Church was born from His side (that's the allegory part applicable to Genesis 2).
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @billyg898 "It was almost completely unanimously believed the firmament was a literal hard dome with water above it."

Say solid instead of hard.

Non-solid bodies have certain types of solidity as well, as a study of aerodynamics will tell you. If you don't believe that, I hope you never take an airplane, you wouldn't see that air has sufficient solidity to keep the plane up.

Why did Noah Curse Canaan?

I saw a bad theory:

Why Did Noah Curse Canaan Instead of Ham? | The Real Sin in the Tent
Unforsaken | 2 Jan. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ct5J7IqhIk

[I'm not making it clickable, feel free to copy-paste if you must torment yourself, but here is my answer:]

Idiocy.

The solution is far less dramatic (within Noah's close family).

1) Canaan was the first to test the wine, got drunk, and
2) Noah asked him how much he could safely drink
3) but Canaan gave him too much.

Woe to him that giveth drink to his friend, and presenteth his gall, and maketh him drunk, that he may behold his nakedness
[Habacuc (Habakkuk) 2:15]

Woe is a synonym for "cursed be" and "drunk" and "nakedness" are direct matches to Genesis 9.

Now, this supposes that Canaan was already old enough to taste wine (as he was already old enough to be a servant). This means, there were other people alive than just the 8 on the Ark plus the grandchildren of Noah. Noah's embarassment could have social consequences and have led to Nimrod's rise to power.

Unforsaken
@GodsUnforsaken: That theory simply is not in the text. Genesis does not say Canaan tested the wine, advised Noah, or got him drunk, and it does not place Canaan in the tent at all. It explicitly says Noah drank, became drunk, and Ham saw his father’s nakedness. Quoting Habakkuk does not rewrite Genesis, and importing later verses to invent a new character role is not exegesis, it is speculation. The narrative is clear, the actors are named, and the attempt to shift the event onto Canaan contradicts the plain reading of the passage.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
@hglundahl: @GodsUnforsaken "Genesis does not say Canaan tested the wine, advised Noah, or got him drunk"

No, but the parallels between Genesis 9 and Habacuc 2:15 are striking enough to justify reading this or some very similar thing between the lines.

Unlike my theory, yours is drawing from nowhere at all in the Holy Scriptures.

Friday, January 16, 2026

Other gods? Well, not real gods, but sometimes real people or things

@StandingForTruthMinistries
Atheists Say, “You Reject All Other gods!” – Here’s Why That Argument Fails.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/BaABR-sjwOA

Fun quip.

But your guest believes the other women exist, right?

Here is where it gets interesting. I think St. Paul mentioned Hercules in Romans 1: "the likeness of the image of a corruptible man"

Now, Hercules was corruptible. But he was also a man.

Thursday, January 15, 2026

"Clearly Hit"

New blog on the kid: Renee Nicole Good · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Both Videos (Except the Guy's Own) · A Veteran Analysing · "Clearly Hit" · Metatron weighed in · Two Sides Are Escalating · Third Bullet Killed Her, It Seems

NEW Footage in Renee Good ICE Shooting Changes Everything
TriggerSmart | 15 Jan. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=897HM4BU4Xk

Here is the view of a lawyer from the Rodney King case:

These 5 FACTORS Could FLIP the CASE in Minnesota ICE Shooting
Talking Feds with Harry Litman | 14 Jan. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-QKRj8iaSM

Wednesday, January 14, 2026

Did Sean Hiller Give a Reason Why Wojtyla Was Not Pope?

Can You Still Call Yourself Catholic If You Reject Church Teaching
Sean Hiller | 14 Jan. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmMKbEFYC3Q

Did Karol Wojtyla in 1992, both Galileo speech and CCC with its §283 reject Church teaching?

Icy Freez
@TheHockey991: How so?
My answer: was apparently removed. It referred to Genesis 5 and 11 and to Trent Session IV.

My point being that Genesis 5 and 11 need to be understood in the sense that the Church "hath held and now holdeth" ... not just one it recently changed to.

It could also have just been hidden bc it linked to the Bible chapters.
Paul Mualdeave
@paulmualdeave5063: Who would this be?

Please explain to me the Acts to Constantinople IV canon 21. It applies to your question.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
@hglundahl: @paulmualdeave5063 It kind of doesn't:

If, then, any ruler or secular authority tries to expel the aforesaid pope of the apostolic see, or any of the other patriarchs, let him be anathema.

It speaks of violent removal.

It doesn't speak of concluding in conscience and telling other people that such and such a person is not Pope.

Furthermore, if a universal synod is held and any question or controversy arises about the holy church of Rome, it should make inquiries with proper reverence and respect about the question raised and should find a profitable solution; it must on no account pronounce sentence rashly against the supreme pontiffs of old Rome.

This presupposes we actually have one.

You are aware that the Synod of Sutri could conceivably fall under this ban, and that Caerularius pretended Constantinople had for forty years omitted the Popes of Rome from the diptychs?

That's because after Sutri, a man became Pope who wouldn't have been, unless the secular ruler had (with soldiers) removed the previous claimant.

No, I don't think Constantinople IV, canon 21 can be used against either Sedevacantism or Conclavism.

Note also "false" in the following passage:

Whoever shows such great arrogance and audacity, after the manner of Photius and Dioscorus, and makes false accusations in writing or speech against the see of Peter, the chief of the apostles, let him receive a punishment equal to theirs.

Photius had falsely pretended the Pope was overstepping the territorial limits of his jurisdiction in Bulgaria.

Overall, it is possible that canon 21 is a disciplinary canon, and can be changed. Therefore doesn't decide a doctrinal question.

All the parties on Constantinople IV, Patriarch Nicholas (the one who had been deposed), Photius (who had replaced him), the Popes, the bishops assembled, were Young Earth Creationists, who held that Adam had been created directly by God, with no nearly human precursors, and also with no delay after Adam to Christ of more than some thousands of years (4 to 5 and a half, depending on text choice and other interpretative choices).

Now, the Caesaro-Papist boogey-man, so to speak, before Constantinople IV, was a secular power stepping in and violently replacing an ecclesial dignitary with an usurper.

Before Trent, we have a somewhat different scenario. Cranmer wasn't an usurper. But he did go against what his predecessors had taught.

So, Trent spoke out against not obeying the Church, on the explicit condition that it sticks to its prior teachings. A Pope may decide between two competing theories, a Pope may make binding what was before just recommended, but he cannot dissolve the teaching of previous centuries back to Christ. And before.

Saint Ratzinger? Nope.

Talks Underway to Make Pope Benedict XVI a Saint?
Cross Examined with Michael Lofton and Knowledge & Wisdom | 14 janv. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMehPnUQSLA

He was involved in "The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church" because the PBC depends on the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith.

He was involved in CCC, with its §283.

No, I don't think so.

Tuesday, January 13, 2026

Prayer to the Saints in the Time of Jesus

Is This PROOF of Prayer to Saints in Jesus' Time?
Sips with Serra | 12 Jan. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7HtBmQwGLM

One could say:
if it was a) believed by Jews at the time of Jesus and b) nowhere condemned in the NT nor from Apostolic Tradition, it means it's OK, because the precursor of the Catholic Church was the Jewish Church.

I have made this argument about Purgatory. Or minimally, prayers for the dead.

Calvin understood the principle, that's why he pretends that Jews started praying for the dead in the time of Rabbi Akiba, and whether II Maccabees is canon or not is beside the point, simply by being history, it disproves Calvin.

7:06 I'm noting, Calvin uses the pretext of mockery in commenting on verse 47, but Calvin doesn't comment on verse 49.

Here is part of Calvin's comment on verse 47:

For Satan has no method more effectual for ruining the salvation of the godly, than by dissuading them from calling on God. For this reason, he employs his agents to drive off from us, as far as he can, the desire to pray. Thus he impelled the wicked enemies of Christ basely to turn his prayer into derision, intending by this stratagem to strip him of his chief armor. And certainly it is a very grievous temptation, when prayer appears to be so far from yielding any advantage to us, that God exposes his name to reproaches, instead of lending a gracious ear to our prayers. This ironical language, therefore — or rather this barking of dogs — amounts to saying that Christ has no access to God, because, by imploring Elijah, he seeks relief in another quarter.

Pretty obviously, seeing verse 49 is incompatible with the interpretation, that's arguably why Calvin didn't comment on it.

Nova Gazer

@Nova_Gazer

Just a careful (possibly not needed) clarification. Elijah was not bodily assumed into heaven in the sense that the Blessed Mother was. No one entered heaven (the Beatific Vision) until after Jesus' Crucifixion. According to my (scanty) research, Church Fathers and theologians liked to use the word "translated" into heaven or more properly the paradise which would likely be the same paradise Abraham and the Old Testament Saints were in before Jesus rescued them.

I

Kinghood of Mousekind

@kinghoodofmousekind2906

The "Bosom", right? It is interesting how in Italian and other Romance languages we say "Paradiso" for "Heaven", with "il seno di Abramo" for the Bosom of Abraham.

I answered

twice, A and B

A

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

Not really.

Henoch and Elias are translated into a lower Heaven than the Empyrean one, and that bodily, unlike the souls who were translated souls only into the Bosom of Abraham.

Jesus and Mary are in the Empyrean Heaven, above the fix stars.

Henoch and Elias are probably on one of the planets that God has made inhabitable for them.

TomasTomi

@TomasTomi30

@hglundahl what? What planets?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TomasTomi30 Which one would be third from Earth?

Posito primo raptu, ponitur consequenter secundus raptus. Et duo facit: primo ponitur raptus, secundo raptus excellentia, ibi audivit arcana, et cetera. Sed notandum, quod Glossa dicit istum raptum esse alium a primo. Et si bene consideretur, bis legitur aliquid de apostolo, ad quod possunt isti duo raptus referri. Nam Act. IX, 9 legitur de eo quod stetit tribus diebus non videns et nihil manducans, neque bibens, et ad hoc potest referri primus raptus, ut scilicet tunc fuerit raptus usque ad tertium caelum. Sed Act. XXII, 17 legitur quod factus est in templo in stupore mentis, et ad hoc refertur iste secundus raptus. Sed hoc non videtur verisimile, quia quando in stupore mentis factus fuit, missus iam fuerat in carcerem apostolus; sed hanc epistolam scripsit apostolus diu ante, unde prius scripta fuit haec epistola, quam apostolus fuisset in stupore. Et ideo dicendum est, quod differt iste raptus a primo, quantum ad id in quod raptus est. Nam in primo raptus est in tertium caelum; in secundo vero in Paradisum Dei. Si vero aliquis tertium caelum acciperet corporaliter, secundum primam acceptionem caelorum superius positam, vel si fuerit visio imaginaria, posset similiter dicere Paradisum corporalem, ut diceretur quod fuerit raptus in Paradisum terrestrem. Sed hoc est contra intentionem Augustini, secundum quem dicimus, quod fuit raptus in tertium caelum, id est visionem intelligibilium, secundum quod in se ipsis et in propriis naturis videntur, ut supra dictum est. Unde secundum hoc oportet non aliud intelligere per caelum, et aliud per Paradisum, sed unum et idem per utrumque, scilicet gloriam sanctorum, sed secundum aliud et aliud. Caelum enim dicit altitudinem quamdam cum claritate, Paradisus vero quamdam iucundam suavitatem. In sanctis autem beatis et Angelis Deum videntibus sunt excellenter haec duo, quia est in eis excellentissima claritas, qua Deum vident, et summa suavitas, qua Deo fruuntur.

St. Thomas considers that St. Paul just might have been raptured to the Terrestrial Paradise in II Cor 12, but he cautions that St. Augustine thinks differently.

I don't think St. Thomas on II Cor is available in English translation.

TomasTomi

@hglundahl This speaks nothing to me, I will rather (ask and) listen to my bishop and priests he appointed in our local church which is in communion with the succesor of st. Peter. As is the tradition since year 33 A.D. God bless.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TomasTomi30 You are obviously free to do so, but tell him, I'm pretty familiar with St. Thomas. The one from "Sicily." Aquino outside Naples.

I never claimed to be your bishop, I only claim to be a knowledgeable Catholic layman.

TomasTomi

@hglundahl No you did not, but on my question you presented me only a latin text, you spoke of planets and did not defended your claims. I am sorry but you seem to me like an internet troll not a knowledgeable catholic. I do not say you are troll, but this way of argumentation is no good. Have a good day

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TomasTomi30 "but on my question you presented me only a latin text,"

With a resumé of some highlights and a regret that I didn't have an English translation.

"you spoke of planets and did not defended your claims."

My best defense would arguably be, somewhere St. Thomas (or someone he cited) mentions earthly paradise being lifted up from Earth, not destroyed, and also not lifted up into Empyrean Heaven where God is in His throne room, but into one of the lower planets.

To those familiar with Medieval and Late Antiquity cosmology, that means a planetary heaven.

"you seem to me like an internet troll not a knowledgeable catholic."

The two are not exclusive. If the word troll had been used like that, pretty certainly Gilbert Keith Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc would have been called ink-and-print trolls, and probably (though I haven't read her) Flannery O'Connor as well.

"The truth will make you odd" she has been quoted as saying.

The two others were decorated by Pope Pius XI.

"this way of argumentation"

I didn't catch you were making an objection, so I didn't try to provide an argumentation. I was only quickly trying to respond to what I took as a question. My bad.

@TomasTomi30 I have now added, into the post with comments and dialogue, a translation of the passage:

[link to this post]

B

Hans-Georg Lundahl

To clarify:

the Bosom of Abraham was in a sense Paradise,
but is different from Earthly Paradise, from which Adam and Eve were expelled, and which was arguably translated upward, to one of the planets, at the latest in the Deluge.

Kinghood of Mousekind

@hglundahl good clarification!

II

Brutus Kelpamine

@BrutusKelpamine

Wrong ! The only person who went to heaven before Jesus was Enoch..

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@BrutusKelpamine Have you read this?

And as they went on, walking and talking together, behold a fiery chariot, and fiery horses parted them both asunder: and Elias went up by a whirlwind into heaven.
[4 Kings (2 Kings) 2:11]

Translation of the Thomas passage:

Posito primo raptu, ponitur consequenter secundus raptus.		Given the first rapture, the second rapture is consequently posited.

Et duo facit: primo ponitur raptus, secundo raptus excellentia, ibi audivit arcana, et cetera.		And he had two of them: first is stated "raptus", second, the excellence of the rapture, "there he heard secrets" and so on.

Sed notandum, quod Glossa dicit istum raptum esse alium a primo.		But note, the Gloss says that this rapture was other than the first one.

Et si bene consideretur, bis legitur aliquid de apostolo, ad quod possunt isti duo raptus referri.		And if we consider well, twice we read sth of the Apostle to which the two raptures could refer.

Nam Act. IX, 9 legitur de eo quod stetit tribus diebus non videns et nihil manducans, neque bibens, et ad hoc potest referri primus raptus, ut scilicet tunc fuerit raptus usque ad tertium caelum.		For in Acts 9:9 is read of him that he stood three days without seing and eating nor drinking nothing, and to this the first rapture can be referred, namely this was when he was raptured into the Third Heaven.

Sed Act. XXII, 17 legitur quod factus est in templo in stupore mentis, et ad hoc refertur iste secundus raptus.		But in Acts 22:17 is read that in the Temple he incurred a stupor of the mind, and to this that second rapture is referred.

Sed hoc non videtur verisimile, quia quando in stupore mentis factus fuit, missus iam fuerat in carcerem apostolus; sed hanc epistolam scripsit apostolus diu ante, unde prius scripta fuit haec epistola, quam apostolus fuisset in stupore.		But this does not seem likely, since when he was in a stupor of the mind, the Apostle had already been imprisoned; but this Epistle the Apostle wrote long before, so, this Epistle was written before the Apostle was in a stupor of mind.

Et ideo dicendum est, quod differt iste raptus a primo, quantum ad id in quod raptus est.		And hence we say, this rapture differs from the first, as to that into the rapture was.

Nam in primo raptus est in tertium caelum; in secundo vero in Paradisum Dei.		For in the first, the rapture is into the Third Heaven; but in the second into the Paradise of God.

Si vero aliquis tertium caelum acciperet corporaliter, secundum primam acceptionem caelorum superius positam, vel si fuerit visio imaginaria, posset similiter dicere Paradisum corporalem, ut diceretur quod fuerit raptus in Paradisum terrestrem.		But if someone accepts the Third Heaven in a corporeal manner, according to the first meaning of heavens posed above, or if the vision was imaginary, he could likewise say a bodily Paradise, so as to say that the rapture was into the Terrestrial Paradise.

Sed hoc est contra intentionem Augustini, secundum quem dicimus, quod fuit raptus in tertium caelum, id est visionem intelligibilium, secundum quod in se ipsis et in propriis naturis videntur, ut supra dictum est.		But this is against the understanding of St. Augustine, according to which we say, that the rapture was into the Third Heaven, that is into a vision of intelligiblesn according to how they are seen in themselves and in their own nature, as said above.

Unde secundum hoc oportet non aliud intelligere per caelum, et aliud per Paradisum, sed unum et idem per utrumque, scilicet gloriam sanctorum, sed secundum aliud et aliud.		Hence, according to this, one should not understand one thing by the Heaven and another by the Paradise, but one and the same by both, that is the glory of the saints, but according to different aspects.

Caelum enim dicit altitudinem quamdam cum claritate, Paradisus vero quamdam iucundam suavitatem.		For Heaven meansof a certain height with light, but Paradise a certain blissful sweetness.

In sanctis autem beatis et Angelis Deum videntibus sunt excellenter haec duo, quia est in eis excellentissima claritas, qua Deum vident, et summa suavitas, qua Deo fruuntur.		But in the blessed saints and Angels who see God, these two are foremost, since in them is a highest light, in which they see God, and a highest sweetness, in which they delight in God.

Saturday, January 10, 2026

A Veteran Analysing

Did the ICE agent was it really 16:16 smart to be like directly in front of 16:18 the vehicle if you thought there was a 16:20 chance it was going to flee? Probably 16:22 not, right?

...

Is it a smart idea to 16:36 flee federal agents in your SUV? Also 16:39 not a good idea, right?

Analyzing THAT Minneapolis ICE Video
Combat Veteran News | 8 Jan. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rJrmINvVDc

[A highlight on Jonathan Ross:

While Ross’ name has been widely reported, the DHS has, so far, refused to “expose the name of this officer,” DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement. But the agency has confirmed that Ross was seriously injured in June while trying to arrest an immigrant who had refused to get out of his car.

In both cases, Ross was confronting a driver at the wheel of a vehicle.

In the June incident, Ross broke the window of a car when the driver refused to exit the vehicle and then found himself being dragged at least 50 yards when the driver hit the gas.

The ICE officer who killed a Minnesota woman is a war veteran who spent over a decade working for DHS
Jan. 10, 2026, 3:43 AM GMT+1 / Updated Jan. 10, 2026, 5:12 PM GMT+1 | By Daniella Silva, Rebecca Cohen and Corky Siemaszko
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ice-officer-jonathan-ross-veteran-spent-decade-dhs-rcna253254

OK. Was it really smart to crush a car window and stick his arm in?]

Both Videos (Except the Guy's Own)

New blog on the kid: Renee Nicole Good · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Both Videos (Except the Guy's Own) · A Veteran Analysing · "Clearly Hit" · Metatron weighed in · Two Sides Are Escalating · Third Bullet Killed Her, It Seems

What Does the Law Say About the ICE Shooting in Minnesota?
Washington Gun Law | 9 janv. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y04ndAPynMk

7:06 If we see the event from both angles, what the second video doesn't show is, while he was in front and was "kicked" by the vehicle, which the first video doesn't show, [what the first video does show is] she was turning the other way, he came in from the left (and he actually chose to go in there in front of the vehicle) and she turned to the right.

7:31 The shot was fired when the ICE officer was already safe, because the vehicle had already rolled away from him.

torpedo 1
@torpedo1306: That is very short sighted of you, that officer would've had no idea which direction that woman was going to go. The officer was more than justified to protect himself from that woman's poor decision making.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
@hglundahl: @torpedo1306 Whether he was subjectively justified or not, my point is, he was not objectively so.

@torpedo1306 However, I think he could feel she was rolling away.

10:04 From the other angle, second video, it may look as if accelerating in his direction, but given the first video, first, it shows he was stepping in front of the car, from the left, second, it shows the car was turning to the right, away from him.

The first video doesn't do justice to the fact he was touched, the second doesn't do justice to the fact she was avoiding to touch him more than (from her pov) necessary to get away.

11:25 Courtroom ... like where ICE officers have typically not been allowing deportees to go until they were already deported?

Under the pretext (perhaps not theirs) that due process applies only to US Citizens, because others are not under American jurisdiction (well, if so, why is ICE applying American any kind of jurisdiction?).

15 persons have died in ICE custody, according to their statistics, since the policy change. Here is one of them, in their own words on the "immigration history", the Haitian Ms BLAISE, Marie Ange:

On February 12, 2025, the United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
encountered Ms. BLAISE at Henry E. Rohlsen International Airport, located in
Saint Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, while attempting to board a flight to Charlotte,
North Carolina. CBP transferred Ms. BLAISE to Juan F. Luis Hospital and
Medical Center, in Saint Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, for elevated blood pressure
(BP).
• On February 13, 2025, Ms. BLAISE was charged with removability by CBP.
• On February 14, 2025, ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) Miami
assumed Ms. BLAISE’s custody and detained her at San Juan Staging Facility,
located in San Juan, Puerto Rico, and later transferred her to Miami Staging Facility,
in Miami, FL.
• On February 21, 2025, Ms. BLAISE was transfered to Richwood
Correctional Center (RCC) in Oakdale, LA.
• On April 5, 2025, ICE transferred Ms. BLAISE to Broward Transitional Center
(BTC), located in Pompano Beach, Florida (FL).

Adding: Date of Death: April 25, 2025

No criminal history.

Criminal History
N/A

She was detained for 73 days, no process, and moved around more than once, which would not have facilitated getting one.

I think it is fair to say, ICE has done quite a few bad things. And these 15 deaths do not take into account what may have happened that time when instead of repatriation, people were flown to a country in Africa.

Young Turks give a close-up with slow motion, from a video by Colin Rugg "who hasn't posted" (meaning his X was emptied?), near five minutes in:

NEW Video Of ICE Shooting Released
The Young Turks | 9.I.2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMuQN_PaVw4

Friday, January 9, 2026

Christmas Story in Bethlehem

Bethlehem’s Muslim Residents Discover the Christmas Story for the First Time #christiannews
CBN News | 23 Dec. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/NbTNaBT4H4o

Lofton Struggles to Understand the Essence of AI

ChatGPT Says the Mark of the Beast Is Coming Soon (NOT Clickbait)
Reason & Theology | 13 Aug. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eklCZZOhIoo

13:32 Have you ever asked how much mathematics an abacus* understands?

An abacus can do mathematics, or better, you can do mathematics on it, but it doesn't understand mathematics.

ChatGPT can understand neither language nor logic.

Interesting test case.

Trent Horn claimed (I think twice even) that Cardinal Baronius (a very holy man, disciple of St. Philip Neri, also pretty crucial in Apologetics contra Lutherans on the terrain of history) had said "the Bible tells us how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go" ....

The immediate search on google for the phrase was in Galileo quoting it to Duchess Christina. However, Galileo didn't specify either in what context or what Church man he was quoting.

On Quora I posed the question "is there any early source that it was Cardinal Baronius who said etc."

Now, I have got so far no answers. But, there is a Quora bot, pretty similar to ChatGPT. It kept circling back to the Galileo letter which I already knew didn't mentioned Baronius by name. It wouldn't have done so if it understood the terms of the question. However, what such bots are programmed to do is copy text and especially copy probable continuations of any phrase already given (including questions, obviously).

So, ChatGPT is giving you the answers people are giving on the internet.

15:24 The answer pretty obviously means, from someone's side, "given the hypothesis of Christianity, x is likely" ...

And when I say "someone" I don't mean ChatGPT but a programmer.

16:45 The machine is neither confused nor lying.

It's simply not conscious at all.

That you presume to do theology apparently without knowing that is however either confused or facetious in your case, since you are conscious.

21:26 Popularity leads to frequency of an answer being written online.

Frequency of an answer leads to higher likelihood of ChatGPT sharing it.

Or do you believe it's 23:16 simply a sign that AI isn't yet fully 23:18 consistent and reliable and is open to 23:21 manipulation?

23:18 Did you say "isn't yet"?

Will never be, more like it.

* For the illustration, I modified the illustration on wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abacus#/media/File:Abacus_(PSF).png

By Pearson Scott Foresman - This image has been extracted from another file, Public Domain, Link

Are You In A Cult For Being Christian or Close? For Believing Actual Christian Tenets?

One tenet is, you need to go to Church on Sunday (if you can). See this video about the situation in Duisburg:

'It's All Part of God's Plan' - How a German Church is Growing Despite Persecution and Assault
CBN News | 8 Jan. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNjHhx31DEM

Since only 2:30 about 5% of Germans attend church, a 2:33 successful church here can raise 2:35 suspicions that it's a cult using 2:38 psychological pressure, forcing people 2:40 to attend.

[This quote is also an excellent descriptor of Sweden. If you say you are Catholic, so far no problem. But if you say "abortion is murder and should be banned and punished," Swedes will take you for a Cultist. If you say "God is real, He is proven by His Creation, Evolution doesn't work, Heliocentrism is counterintuitive and unproven," again, Swedes will take you for a Cultist.]

[The following is for anyone, Germany or Sweden, who pretends it is absurd or due to sectarian undue pressure to consider the Modern Liturgy as having a Masonic origin:]

Was The Modern Catholic Liturgy Created By A Freemason?
Purely Catholic | 5 Jan. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t08k5RtbPII

Thursday, January 8, 2026

Focussed Attention, Rosary, Hrushiv

The Rosary Prayer Technique That Terrified Intelligence Agencies
Totus Catholica | 8 Jan. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgpaD6U2Twk

[This Kenyan doesn't do his case to the full]

2:52 Jesus never said any word about "repetition" in Matthew 6:7.

Battalogein or battologein literally translates as "stutter-speak" and while the Vulgate translates "wordiness" (nolite multum loqui), other old translations (Coptic and Syriac) translate "don't stutter" (I've asked this of people who know these languages).

What does stuttering, many words, and "like the heathen" have to do with each other?

Well, get into trouble with school rules, imagine you're not best pals with the principal, and you will, before him, stutter and add explanation on explanation. You would only repeat yourself if you weren't very inventive, but you would add lots of explanations. And that is how the heathens approached their gods. It doesn't refer to Hindus or Muslims. It refers to Greco-Roman heathen, and we have real examples, like the very same year, Velleius Paterculus finished his II book of Roman History with, precisely, a prayer. It is not repetitive in words. But it adds trial on trial, hoping not all will be errors. Because principals and pagan gods (i e demons) sometimes take fun in deliberately misunderstanding someone, and well, the point is, God is not like that.

3:35 That man [Wojtyla] was not Pope.

The Rosary has 15 mysteries, not 20.

[See also]

Our Lady's Shocking Prophecy: "Ukraine Will Convert Russia"
Jerome Chong | 8 Jan. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGKQWZiIy0o

Pages

Saturday, January 31, 2026

Thursday, January 29, 2026

Wednesday, January 28, 2026

Tuesday, January 27, 2026

Sunday, January 25, 2026

Friday, January 23, 2026

Thursday, January 22, 2026

Wednesday, January 21, 2026

Tuesday, January 20, 2026

Sunday, January 18, 2026

Friday, January 16, 2026

Thursday, January 15, 2026

Wednesday, January 14, 2026

Tuesday, January 13, 2026

Saturday, January 10, 2026

Friday, January 9, 2026

Thursday, January 8, 2026

About Me

Fighting Totalitarian Takeovers