Multiple Shooters?

Folks,

Eyewitness reports, police radio traffic, and expert analyses of video and audio from the Las Vegas shooting suggest there may have been at least two shooters and that a belt fed weapon was used (along with other cartridge fed automatic weapons).

Watch the below video and audio footage and commentary from a taxi cab driver from Mandalay Bay on the night of the shooting which seems to indicate at least two shooters (from the 24:00 min mark):

Here’s a five minute compilation of eyewitness testimony about multiple shooters:

Listen to former SEAL team leader Craig Sawyer’s analysis that multiple shooters were involved in the attack (6:13 minute mark):

Here’s another eyewitness report claiming multiple shooters:

An Aussie claims there were multiple shooters:

It seems the police thought there were at least two active shooters as well:

Finally, be sure to watch this analysis of video and audio footage from the Mandalay Bay shooting, as it suggests a belt fed weapon was used and that at least two active shooters were laying down simultaneous fire:

Interestingly, the police have acknowledge that Mr. Paddock probably had an accomplice and that he may have been “radicalized”.

Best,

Joe

Advertisements

A Lay Catholics Attempt to Understand the Main Controversy Surrounding Amoris Latitia

Folks,

Most faithful Catholics know about Pope Francis’s apostolic exhortation Amoris Latitia and the controversy surrounding it, especially as it pertains to the pastoral care of divorced and civilly remarried Catholics receiving the Eucharist.  The latest round in the controversy comes in the form of a letter – a filial correction – written by lay Catholic scholars which alleges that Pope Francis, by his actions and omissions, is propagating heretical interpretations of Amoris Latitia.  It is important to note that the authors of the letter acknowledge that Amoris Latitia can be given an orthodox interpretation and application.  Hence, they are not arguing – as some others have – that Amoris Latitia itself teaches heresy.  Rather, they are arguing against the propagation of heresies rooted in misinterpretations and misapplications of Amoris Latitia.

After reading the relevant sections of Amoris Latitia, the filial correction, and commentary from all sides of the debate, I offer my simple, inexpert summary of what the main issue appears to be.  That is to say, in what follows I present a simple and clear lay outlining of what appears to be the primary problem that should be understandable to faithful Catholics.  My purpose is to try my best to understand and clarify the main point of contention created by Amoris Latitia and the many interpretations swirling around it.  I make no pretensions at elucidating every problem surrounding Amoris Latitia, let alone solving any of them.

We start with a Catholic marriage.  The husband and wife separate and obtain a civil divorce.  At least one of the spouses (spouse A) civilly remarries and engages in sexual activity with his or her new spouse.  In Church language they live as husband and wife.  Objectively speaking, the new civil marriage is adulterous and mortally sinful. With the preceding in mind, there appear to be three possible paths to the Eucharist for spouse A (and similarly situated spouses):

Path 1: Spouse A simply presents himself to receive the Eucharist

Path 2: Spouse A goes to confession, makes a bad confession, and presents himself to receive the Eucharist

Path 3: Spouse A goes to confession, makes a good confession, and presents himself to receive the Eucharist

As I understand it, some faithful Catholics, like the authors of the filial correction, are essentially arguing (or fear) that Amoris Latitia is being misinterpreted and misapplied to normalize paths 1 and/or 2 – reception of the Eucharist by civilly remarried Catholics in the absence of a good confession – and that this is totally unacceptable, even heterodox, and that it threatens to undermine all of Catholic moral teaching and discipline and lead souls to eternal perdition.  Rather, these faithful Catholics seem to be arguing that only path 3 can be harmonized with Catholic teaching and practice.  Moreover, they would probably also argue that path 3 should be further modified to guard against scandal and protect and reinforce Catholic teaching on the dignity of the Eucharist and indissolubility of marriage:

Path 3a: Spouse A goes to confession, makes a good confession, and presents himself to receive the Eucharist in a discreet manner

My guess is other modified versions of path 3 are possible that would be acceptable to faithful Catholics who are concerned about questionable stuff that is being said and done in the name of Amoris Latitia.

In closing, the above represents a lay but educated Catholics effort to understand and clarify what the primary problem is with Amoris Latitia, it’s various interpretations, and the recently publicized letter of filial correction.  It goes without saying that I am am hardly an expert in these matters and may have entirely missed the mark.  Having said that, the experts should be aware of the messages getting through to the faithful –  the faithful flock who need to be fed, cared for and guided by their shepherds.

These are strange and confusing times for faithful Catholics and the Church’s leaders and Her supreme teacher, with one voice, need to authoritatively explain Church teaching and discipline on the sacraments of marriage and the Eucharist in a clear, concise and confident manner.  Souls are at stake.

Best,

Joe

 

Michael Voris Throws Down the Gauntlet

Folks,

Faithful Catholic Michael Voris of ChurchMilitant has publicly challenged celebrity priest Fr. James Martin to a public debate on Church teaching and homosexuality,

For some background on the events leading up to the debate challenge, see the below Vortex episodes.

My guess is Fr. Martin will wimp out.  But if the debate does take place, I truly hope Mr. Voris displays that giant crucifix necklace with his sleeves rolled up and teaches Catholic truth as only he can.

Best,

Joe

We’re Ruled by Perverts and Weirdos

Folks,

In the latest news which has gone uncovered by the idiots in the main stream media (MSM), Sally Quinn – former Washington Post writer, A-list socialite, and wife of “legendary” Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee – has essentially admitted to being a witch who casts hexes and spells on unsuspecting people.  Indeed, she believes – crackpot that she is – that six of her hexes hit the mark, resulting in the untimely deaths of three people.

In related ignored news, Bill and Hillary Clinton have an admitted fascination with voodoo, attempt to speak with dead spirits, and hang out with pedophiles like billionaire Jeffrey Epstein and former Congressman Anthony Wiener.  Not to be totally outdone, the Podesta brothers also stay in touch with convicted pedophiles, are connoisseurs of  perverted “art”, and get invited to bizarre spirit cooking dinners.

In other recent and under-reported news, Senator Robert Menendez is alleged to have had sex with underage prostitutes, the Mayor of Seattle is alleged to be a serial sex abuser, and Bill and Hillary Clinton appear to be connected with suspected child-trafficker Laura Silsby.

And so as to not be accused of picking on Democrats, the Republican establishment, too, are a bunch of freaks who worship giant wooden owls, are members of occult secret societies, and are sexual perverts.

With the above in mind, sometimes the truth has a way of breaking free into the very MSM that runs cover for the freaks that presume to rule us,

 

Best,

Joe

 

Fascinating interview with a former ‘Antifa’ commie revolutionary

Folks,

The interview below by Stephen Molyneux with a former ‘Antifa’ member is well worth listening to.  For those unwilling or unable to listen to the entire interview during the course of the interview three vitally important points are made:

  1. Antifa is a group of neo-Marxist commie revolutionaries
  2. Antifa members think they’re rebelling against the establishment but are actually the useful idiot shock troops of the establishment
  3. Antifa members, like the 60s revolutionaries before them, often find their way into becoming college professors where they indoctrinate unsuspecting students into neo-Marxism and communism

With the above in mind, here’s the entire interview:

Best,

Joe

 

Evangelicals to the Rescue – The Nashville Statement

Folks,

It’s obvious that the main battle today is over fundamental issues of vice and virtue surrounding human life, sex, and the family.  It’s not over immigration, care for the poor, visiting prisoners, or “welcoming” public and unrepentant sinners into the Church.  Yet the bishops are obsessed with the latter and at best ignore the former.  One puzzles over their manifest unwillingness to meet, hammer out, and promulgate a document that clearly, concisely, and confidently spells out God’s plan for man, woman, and marriage, and the duty of all to honestly and humbly seek after and submit to it.

Happily, when the starters refuse to play ball, one can count on the back-ups steeping up to the plate.  With that said, I give you the Nashville Statement on the truth about God’s plan for sexuality and marriage:

https://cbmw.org/nashville-statement

It’s sad to say, but the Nashville statement can be interpreted as God willed Evangelical courage in the face of Catholic timidity.  More poignantly, it can be read as a God willed Evangelical rebuke of Catholic faithlessness and foolishness.  Then again, members of the clergy, by what they say and don’t say, are doing a pretty good job of putting their foolishness and faithlessness on display for all the world to see:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/08/30/seven-simple-ways-to-respond-to-the-nashville-statement-on-sexuality/?utm_term=.582bc41022c6

Best,

Joe

 

Choose life or choose death

Folks,

Imagine a man and woman in a state of nature.  That is to say, imagine an adult male and female pair in a situation devoid of technology and culture.  In brief, imagine them together on a deserted island.  A moments reflection will yield four certitudes in the healthy intellect:

  1. By virtue of his reproductive system, the male is ordered toward insemination of the female; by virtue of her reproductive system, the female is ordered toward pregnancy and child birth.
  2. By virtue of her breasts, the female is ordered toward the time consuming nurture of child; by virtue of his physical strength and relative free time, the male is ordered toward the provision and protection of mother and child.
  3. By virtue of their complementary powers and perfections and the objective needs of children, the male and female pair are ordered toward the cooperative and life long raising, education and support of their male and female offspring, according to the above described pattern of nature.
  4. By virtue of their wills, the original male and female pair can choose to embrace or reject natural order.  Full rejection spells death.  Full embrace promises life, the emergence of culture, and a measure of temporal happiness.

That’s a minimal sketch of natural male and female order.  Much more could be said, but we shall rest content and briefly take up an additional question.  In particular, the question we raise: is nature’s order by design or by accident, is it cosmos or chaos?  Put simply, does it come from God?

For the purpose of this blog post, we take it as proven by philosophy and confirmed by empirical science that the order, harmony, and purposefulness of nature – and, in particular, the purposeful complexity of the male and female complementary designs – can only come from the ultimate cause commonly referred to as God.

Now, we consider some implications and associated choices.

Those who accept and rejoice in truth – who accept natural order as an expression of divine love that is “very good” – will choose obedience to nature’s design and ultimately temporal and heavenly life.  On the other hand, those who reject and hate truth – who dismiss natural order as an accident that is “very bad” – will choose disobedience to nature’s design and ultimately temporal and hellish death.

In the language of Saint Pope John Paul II, obedience and the culture of life versus disobedience and the culture of death – that’s the choice we face.

Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse explores much of this in the videos provided below.

Best,

Joe