JustSay1n @kewpified

"Irish Guys Finally SNAPS On African Migrants" He's not wrong. @elonmusk @realDonaldTrump @JDVance @marcorubio @Asmongold @Nux_Taku @MattWalshBlog @WallStreetApes @ACTBrigitte @Timcast @decoyposts @Tectone @GenFlynn Irish Guys Finally SNAPS On African Migrants 🤬 youtube.com/shorts/k2r4oeT… via @YouTube

"They tried to sweep it under the rug. Lucky for us Asmon never sweeps anything." 🤣 @Asmongold @Nux_Taku @JakeMunro Amongold FINISHED ON kEIR sTARMER youtu.be/Zif5NnsS6sE?si… via @YouTube

READ HIS MANIFESTO: The Montreal murderer was a Jew-hating Communist censor The murderer in Montreal has been named: Seth Hatfield, from Alberta. He murdered a policeman in a shooting spree in a Jewish neighbourhood in Montreal. Soon afterwards, government journalists at the CBC and elsewhere started describing a manifesto that he had left behind. But none of them published the actual document — they just quoted the odd phrase from it, and called him an “incel”. That’s a term for someone who was “involuntarily celibate”, or someone who didn’t do well with women. The usual suspects were doing the media circuit claiming that Hatfield was a “right wing” extremist. But if that was true, why was the manifesto being shown only to selected, government-friendly journalists? Why were the rest of us blocked from seeing it for ourselves? Well, that just changed. Rebel News has acquired a copy of the full, 104-page manifesto. You can read it for yourself right here: rebelnews.com/manifesto_reve… It’s true that the murderer had extreme ideas about women. But that was only a small part of his world view. In most of the rest of his rambling remarks, he was indistinguishable from left-wing politicians like Bernie Sanders, Avi Lewis, or half the Liberal cabinet. He praised Communism. He called for the abolition of private property. He railed against the Jews, and Zionism. And — like Mark Carney himself — he demanded the censorship of the Internet. Read the manifesto of a crazed, left-wing extremist. And never forget: the mainstream media lies to you about everything important.

In my view, what’s happening in the Church today lines up powerfully with the “Catholic Spring” idea raised in the 2012 Newman, Podesta email exchange. That conversation wasn’t about theology; it was about shifting influence inside the Church through lay‑driven pressure on issues like governance and authority. Podesta even acknowledged that the infrastructure for such a movement already existed; it just needed leadership. Then, in 2013, everything changed. Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation created an unprecedented situation: a reigning pope and a retired pope living side by side in the Vatican. When Pope Francis was elected that March, his immediate emphasis on synodality, structural reform, and a new governing style marked a dramatic shift. Many observers have noted how closely these developments echo the themes raised in the “Catholic Spring” discussion. From where I stand as a Catholic watching this unfold, the continuity seems unmistakable. I could be wrong, that it's connected, but it does seem to be of the same idea of what was suggested at the time.

@BishopBarron It looks like the Seamless Garment has received alterations.

In a recent interview, Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, former grand chancellor of the John Paul II Institute on Marriage and Family Life, confirmed the worst suspicions that many of us had. He admitted that the changes he made at the Institute during the Pope Francis years were designed to initiate a "very profound" reform of the idea of the natural law. Instead of absolute moral norms grounded in a keen understanding of the basic goods, he and his colleagues were proposing a moral theory rooted in historical discernment of subjective and cultural experience--not an "armchair theology" but one operating "within history and within people's lives." This, of course, is the language of trendy postmodernism, and it is dangerous indeed. Allow me to illustrate the principle with one example. Is slavery wrong? Intrinsically wrong? Wrong no matter what public opinion polls say about it, no matter what the current consensus on it might be? I imagine any decent person would say yes. But that yes is predicated upon precisely what the tradition calls the natural law and the basic goods. There are some values so fundamental that acts repugnant to them are by their very nature wicked. If you want a highly articulate presentation of this idea, go to St. John Paul II's Veritatis Splendor. If we say that this is just "armchair theologizing" and that morality is a function of ever-shifting cultural and experiential data, then why couldn't slavery be justified? One of the very smartest persons that ever lived, the philosopher Aristotle, thought it was; extremely bright and morally upright persons in our country, well into the 19th century, thought it was permissible. Who is to say whether the consensus might shift back again? Who is to say that "lived experience" might come to justify it? What any truly coherent moral program requires is the very thing that Archbishop Paglia and his colleagues were endeavoring to eliminate, namely, absolute moral norms. Ridding ourselves of these in the name of freedom or pastoral sensitivity actually renders moral discourse dysfunctional, just as relativizing the basic principle of logic would render any rational conversation impossible. The Archbishop's interview, frankly, reminded me of the discussions I had at the Synod on Synodality with some of my German colleagues. Under the rubric of the development of doctrine, they were eager to relativize or radically change the principles undergirding classical morality. If this was and is truly the game, we have ventured onto perilous seas. Link to the article below.

Many of us in the pews feel as though activist voices, both inside and outside the Church, are trying to redirect Catholic teaching to match modern political agendas. Agendas that many in the west are openly rejecting. But beneath that concern is a profound spiritual grief. It feels as though the treasures of our tradition are being dismantled not only by outside pressures, but by people we trust, our own shepherds, the very ones who should be protecting the flock. Watching this unfold leaves the faithful feeling powerless and deeply demoralized. Your reminder that the Church must stand on objective truth, not shifting cultural experience, speaks directly into that pain. Thank you for giving voice to what so many of us are struggling to articulate.

@chiproytx How can we make this happen? These acts need to become law asap. @ACTBrigitte @WallStreetApes

The lesson from the UK Islamic rape gang reporting is clear: decline is fueled by failed leadership. Pass the SAVE America Act. Pass the PAUSE Act. Pass the MAMDANI Act. End birthright citizenship. Reform H-1B programs. Secure the border, codify HR2, and enforce the law.

More recorded evidence of two-tier policing this weekend in "Modern Britain". Watch how aggressive police are against this group of young white girls.

Canon law teaches that a church cannot be relegated to profane use, or sold, unless grave reasons exist and unless the good of souls is not harmed. But the good of souls is harmed when communities are displaced, when sacred spaces are lost, and when the faithful are not given the opportunity to preserve what their ancestors built. Also, the faithful need to form nonprofits and buy it first. Rome will not save our churches. Only we can.

Catholics need to begin nonprofits or trusts. Then nonprofit, consisting of a group of lay people, buys the building. This is actually how many SSPX chapels in the U.S. were established. (perhaps crowdfunding could be used to do this as well) 1) A group of lay Catholics forms: a nonprofit corporation, a historical preservation society, a community foundation, or a private trust. 2) Purchase the building as a neutral buyer. The diocese cannot legally discriminate against a buyer based on religious affiliation once the building is deconsecrated and listed for sale. 3) Once purchased, the lay group can operate it independently with priests serving it. We must take action to preserve our history. I think we could also write to Rome about getting missionary priest assigned to these churches while we run billboard campaigns encouraging vocations. We can no longer just watch this happen. We must be creative and be missionaries within our own diocese. Evangelize and engage the community using apologetics. The very tools Christ gave us to make more Catholics.

@BBCBreaking He resigned and should leave before he does more harm.

Key difference between the UK & America: they trust the state to protect them, and we know the state is the thing you must be protected from. Look at Canada’s healthcare (M.A.I.D.) veterans offered death instead of treatment, the disabled approved because they’re expensive, and depressed minors are next. They don’t give murderers the death penalty, but they’ll offer it to the homeless, disabled, & depressed. That’s the government killing citizens not for crimes, but for costing too much. At the end of the day, Americans choose liberty, and that’s why socialized medicine will always be a hard pass.

@patrickbetdavid I wonder what country you love then because it wasn't the UK.

Please also address the BBC issue. To get a broadcaster that actually serves the whole country, then two things could help: Replace the funding model: End the compulsory licence fee and force the BBC to earn public trust instead of billing people for loyalty they no longer feel. When funding depends on performance, the culture changes fast. Rewrite the Royal Charter: Impartiality rules need teeth, oversight needs real authority, and leadership needs consequences when the BBC drifts into advocacy. Neutrality shouldn’t be optional; it should be the price of public funding. That’s it. Fix the money. Fix the Charter. Fix the problem.

American patriot @Asmongold read our entire Rape Gang Inquiry report to his millions of subscribers over seven hours. He has already done more than the entire British media establishment. An incredible effort. youtube.com/watch?v=Q6xOU_…

Starmer resigns - he has been a truly disgraceful Prime Minister. I do not believe him to be a good man or a patriot. He has deliberately and rapidly accelerated the destruction of our Britain, of our home. History will not remember him kindly, nor should it. I sat in Parliament, looking him in the eye, listening to him attempting to justify his decision to block a national inquiry into the mass rape of young British girls. I will never forgive him. For that, and so much else. What comes next, I do not know. Whatever that is, Restore Britain will be ready to offer the British people a democratic route out - a better way, the only way. But Starmer is gone. And that is a good thing. Enjoy it.

@laralogan Where's all the money coming from and how did so many muslims get into texas?

@RonDeSantis I fully agree with you on this.