Monday, April 14, 2014

Showdown at Bundy Ranch Nevada, U.S.A. Monday 14th April,2014. Monday in Holy Week. St. Justin, M (St. Tiberius & Comp. Mm)

Showdown at Bundy Ranch , Nevada, U.S.A.



Background and Setting the Scene

The Bundy family settled in the late 1800's and have ranched in the area since.     The Federal Government allowed the Nevadan ranchers to graze their cattle on federal tracts of land adjacent to their private property for generations.     The Federal Government later created the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to administer and "protect" the vast swath of federal land - including land the Bundy's depended upon for their survival, and still do.


Bundy Ranch

The BLM began restricting usage of the federal land to ostensibly "protect" various species.   The BLM decided to restrict the Bundy's use of the land they historically grazed, and told the Bundy family that an "endangered" tortoise existed on the land and therefore usage for the cattle would have to be reduced, which would have drastically reduced the Bund's resources for keeping the ranch viable.   A 20 year battle ensued.


Cliven Bundy Tells all about MSM Lies

According to Cliven Bundy and other ranchers, there used to be some 53 ranchers making a living in the area, some  years ago, and Cliven Bundy and his family are the solo surviving ranchers to this day, refusing to budge from the use of his historical right to graze the land, the rest having been forced off their land by the Federal controlled BLM .

Corrupt Government and Land Grab exposed

The BLM's claim that they were saving the "endangered" tortoises was exposed when the truth came out that they were rapidly euthanizing them in large numbers last year, and it all started to come to a head in the last week when the BLM began stealing several hundred of the  Bundy's cattle, and brought in several hundred heavily militarized men for that purpose and  to "save" the "endangered" tortoises.

"Endangered" Tortoise taught us Liars are Losers

The Confrontation Begins and Tensions Rise


Dogs and Tasers as Bundy supporters confront Feds

Enough is enough, and when Bundy supporters had had enough of the corrupt actions of the Government and its federal agency, the BLM,  to take away their land and their rights, on the 11th April, 2014, they confronted the heavily militarized men and their dogs in a tense and often violent encounter, demanding they immediately leave and return the stolen cattle, which were still being rounded up.   


Bundy's Son Tasered by Feds

Several of the unarmed supporters were tasered, with one woman being assaulted and pushed to the ground suffering injuries.

A tense situation as ranch supporters confront dogs and taser-armed Feds

The Review-Journal reported that Bundy's son, Ammon Bundy, was shot with a stun gun by law enforcement officers and that the rancher's sister, Margaret Houston was pushed to the ground.

Feds retreat for the Day


Eventually, after a heated and at times violent exchange, the Federal agents backed off and disappeared down the road driven off by a determined vocal and angry crowd of Bundy supporters.

Feds had enough and back off in the face of vociferous demonstrators

It soon came out that the Federals agents had destroyed the infrastructure vital for the survival of wild life in the area like windmills and water pipes in their attempt to close down the Bundy's ranch.

The Siege and Showdown

The Final Showdown as Ranch Supporters Line up

The following day, Saturday, 12th April, 2014, dawned and by that time many militia groups from various states had arrived with more to follow, to defend the Bundys.   However this time many were armed, and prepared to defend themselves if they were fired on first.

"Let's Roll" - Cowboys Lead the Advance!

In a spectacular show of bravery, Bundy ranch supporters, both men and women slowly marched towards the heavily armed federal force, after lining up in battle formation, behind a line of between 40 to 60 armed cowboys, and cowgirls, all reminiscent of a western movie scene.


Infowars Crew Uncover Dramatic Damning Evidence

Nevada Senator Harry Reid caught in Land Grab deal with Chinese backed Communist Government Firm


In the meantime the crew at back in Austin Texas, had discovered bombshell evidence that Senator Harry Reid, was heavily involved in a land grab deal with a Chinese Communist energy firm, to use the land as a solar farm.

The Back-down and Retreat of Feds in the Face of a United and determined Resistance

Fed Agent tries to Lay down Terms of Settlement

As the cavalry approached the metal barrier, they were met by a solitary bespeckled bearded spokesman for the opposing federal force, who informed Bundy's son, that only Bundy and his son would be allowed in.

Bundy's Son Lays down the Law - "No, It's the people or not..."

After a heated exchange and demand that everyone be allowed through, the gate sign was removed, a huge roar erupted from the gathered mass of supporters, gates now open, the ranchers crossed the line, in their bid to take back the cattle.


Sign Down and Gates about to be Opened [FOX Cameraman?]

In the face of such an array of determination and courage, the heavily armed Feds buckled, and quickly backed off down the road, their backs to the crowd. 

Embarrassing Defeat and Backdown by Feds as they Plod Backwards!

[ Whether this was just a tactical withdrawal by the Feds, or not, it doesn't really matter, because in the final equation, "this is a battle between Good and Evil, the final battle, in which one must choose to be on one side or the other....there is no middle ground.   Only one side will be Victorious." - paraphrasing the words of  Our Lady to Sister Lucia, the surviving seer of Fatima apparitions in 1917, during an interview with Fr, Fuentes, 1957 ]

Freedom and the Victory Parade

  Not long after, to the roar of approval of the gathered crowd of some 1000 supporters, the cattle appeared from under the bridge escorted by the band of jubilant cowboys, freed at last from the rustlers, and heading home..

First Cattle appear








The Grand Victorious Parade - a huge roar of approval  breaks out from the large waiting crowd of around 1000  Bundy Ranch supporters for the cowboys, as they emerge from under the bridge 


It's Home on the Range - at last!















Aftermath of the Victory and Mainstream Media Sounds of Silence

The national  corporate media was forced to cover this reluctantly, after the victory had already been accomplished, and then putting their own distorted spin to it, after it had already generated a firestorm of interest, world-wide as a result of grass roots media like, Drudge and other independent news outlets.


The Victory signals the Beginning of the End in the Battle against World Tyranny (NWO)

If this operation was a test on behalf of the Feds concerning where Americans  draw their line in the sand, then the outcome spells disaster for out of control big Government, which has just been handed a huge defeat in the battle to restore constitutional freedom and property rights in the face of out of control tyranny





Breaking News:Update:

Tuesday, 15th April, 2014 NZST

FAA issue "NO FLY" ZONE over Bundy Ranch - posted 12th, April, 2014 NZST

FAA have just issued a "no Fly" zone, effective 11th April, 2014 - 11th May, 2014, directly over Bunkerville, in which the Bundy Ranch is located.  






According to one pilot, this is unheard of, as one would expect a "no fly" zone to be in operation for a very limited period of time....not one month! NOTE: LIMITED TO BLM SUPPORT ONLY!!!




"Are You Heading To Bunkerville"  2014 Country and Western Song [link below]

Monday, March 24, 2014

Was Vatican II Infallible? Tuesday 25th March, 2014. Annunciation of the BVM

Was Vatican II Infallible?  - Bro. Peter Dimond  




"It is widely recognised by those who claim to be conservative or traditional Catholics that Vatican II taught errors and false doctrines.   However, many of these people hold that Vatican II's  false doctrines do not pose problems for the legitimacy of John XXIII, Paul VI etc., for according to them, the teaching of Vatican II was supposedly never made binding by the Vatican II "popes."


Second Vatican Council 1962-1965


In this video we will address this issue and refute widespread misconceptions that exist on this matter. 

Our article and book dealt with this topic in detail.   Those materials contain numerous revealing facts, however, there are a number of interesting points that we need to consider, especially with regards to John XXIII's opening speech at Vatican II

Cardinals at Vatican II - Cardinal Siri Centre Left?

On October 11th, 1962 John XXIII gave the speech that opened the Second Vatican Council.   The speech is a crucial component of how many so-called traditionalists who accept the Vatican II "popes" as true popes, but have problems with the post-Vatican II Church and the teachings of Vatican II, explain their position.


What happened to the Catholic Church after Vatican II - Book


In this video we will closely examine John XXIII's speech.  False information about what John XXIII said has been disseminated for years in so-called traditionalists newspapers, publications and magazines, as a result countless souls have failed to see the true nature of the current crisis in the post-Vatican II period.

The question is: did John XXIII's opening speech state that Vatican II would not be a doctrinal, dogmatic, magisterial or infallible Council, but only a pastoral one?


Heretic and Freemason John XXIII's opening speech


Does his speech allow the so-called traditionalists to reject Vatican II as erroneous or heretical, and yet accept the new men who implemented it, that John XXIII, Paul VI etc., as true popes?


Let's examine the evidence, later on we will consider the manner in which Paul VI confirmed Vatican II

John XXIII appears to give "blessing" with the upside down cross

Before we consider the speech, keep in mind that John XXIII was an antipope.   Our material proves that he was a manifest heretic and a Freemason.

Since John XXIII was not a Catholic, he was ineligible to become pope.

There's also evidence that he wasn't even canonically elected in the 1958 conclave but rather obtained the election by fraud after someone else had already been elected.   That's in addition to his ineligibility for the office.


Antipope Paul VI  Freemason wearing the Jewish ephod

When one considers the evidence that the Vatican II sect lacks the characteristics of the Catholic Church and represents a revolution against authentic Catholicism, a fact  which is only becoming more clear everyday under Francis, it makes sense that the line of Vatican II antipopes began with a fraudulent election in 1958.

Antipope Paul VI

Since the Vatican II claimants to the papacy were not true popes but antipopes, any attempt they made to bind Vatican II and the other false teachings, do not, let me repeat, do not impact or invalidate Catholic teaching on infallibility or Christ's promises to the Church for their actions were those of invalid usurpers who never sat in the chair of St. Peter.

Their false reigns were simply the fulfilment of the prophesied end times apostasy and deception.  However, for those who do recognise John XXIII, Paul VI etc., as true popes, as some false traditionalists still do, the facts we will now cover will definitely impact their position.

A day at the Godless United Nations - antipope Paul VI


These facts show that their position on Vatican II is incompatible with Catholic teaching on papal infallibility.

Kosher Francis - latest in the line of Vatican II antipopes

Let's now consider some key sections of John XXIII's opening speech at Vatican II in Latin and in English.

The Latin text of the speech is available here on the Vatican's website.    In consulting a key portion of the Latin text, and comparing it to a typical online English translation, I noticed that while the general point I'm going to be making can be proven from all English versions of the speech, the typical online translation was insufficiently faithful to the Latin original in important areas.


Therefore I asked Timothy Johnson [an expert in Latin and Ancient Greek] to provide a more accurate translation of key portions of the speech and he did so.    The following translation he provided is the most literal translation available of these sections.   Let's consider some of the crucial paragraphs and refute the false traditionalist myths about the speech.

Let's begin in paragraph #2.

 John XXIII says:

"The most recent and lowly successor of the same Prince of the Apostles who is addressing you, in convoking this most imposing Assembly, has proposed this for himself, that the Ecclesiastical Magisterium, never failing and persevering even to the end of the times, be once again affirmed; which selfsame Magisterium, taking into account of the errors, necessities and opportunities of our age, is, by means of this very Council, being presented to all men, as many as be in the world, in extraordinary form at the present time."


John XXIII states that in convoking Vatican II, he proposed for himself that the Ecclesiastical Magisterium, which is never failing, is affirmed.   He thus identifies Vatican II as an act of the Magisterium.   In fact, he identifies Vatican II as an act of the unfailing and therefore infallible Magisterium.   So much for the myth that John XXIII stated that Vatican II would not be infallible.    The truth is the opposite.   He states that it will enact the unfailing Magisterium.    The unfailing magisterium is infallible because if it could teach error or be deceived it would not be unfailing or indefectible.    It's interesting that the words John XXIII uses here are almost identical to the words Vatican I used to describe papal infallibility.   To express the infallibility of popes when speaking from the Chair of St. Peter, Vatican I stated:

             Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 4, Chap. 4, 1870 A.D. ..."So, this charism of truth and a never failing faith was divinely conferred upon Peter and his successors in this Chair ..."


Vatican I describes the infallibility of the Chair of St. Peter as a gift or charism of truth and a never failing faith.   The words it used for "never failing" are "nunquam deficientis."   That's the very same statement that John XXIII makes to describe the alleged "magisterial" authority of Vatican II.    John XXIII says "numquam deficiens."   The only difference between the two statements is that John XXIII's deficiens is the present active participle of deficio in the nominative form, whereas Vatican I's deficientis is the present active participle of the same verb in the genitive form.  



 Deficientis agrees with fidei. (Also, numquam is an alternative spelling of Nunquam.)  So, Vatican I and John XXIII's speech to open the Second Vatican Council use the same language.   They both refer to the unfailing Magisterium of popes in the Chair of St. Peter.  John XXIII says that Vatican II will exercise and represent that unfailing(and therefore infallible) Magisterium.


John XXIII also says that the Magisterium by means of this very Council, or through this very Council, is being presented to the world extraordinario modo, that is, in extraordinary form at the present time.


 In this passage extraordinario modo is an ablative of manner. It describes the manner in which the magisterium is being exhibited or presented to the whole world by means of this Council (Vatican II).  Thus, according to to John XXIII's opening speech, Vatican II would be an act of the infallible extraordinary Magisterium.  As we can see, the facts about what John XXIII actually said in the speech are just the opposite of what false traditionalists have been telling people for years.

One should keep in mind that while not everything a pope writes, approves or promulgates is magisterial, if something on faith or morals is indeed authoritatively taught by the Magisterium to the entire world, it is by that very fact infallible.  The Magisterium cannot commit itself to that which is false.


          Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri:  "Upon this magisterial office Christ conferred infallibility,  God Himself has made the Church a sharer in the divine magisterium and, by a special privilege, granted her immunity from error."


Pope Leo XIII also teaches in Caritatis Studium: "... a living perpetual magisterium was necessary in the Church from the beginning, which could by no means commit itself to erroneous teaching ... And since the faithful must learn from the 'magisterium' of the Church whatever pertains to the salvation of their souls, it follows that they must also learn from it the true meaning of Scripture."


 Since Vatican II purported to be magisterial - and, in fact, an act of the unfailing Magisterium - either it is infallible in all of its teaching on faith, morals and the understanding of Scripture, or the men who organized and confirmed it were not true popes but antipopes.   The truth is clearly the latter.


Continuing with John XXIII's opening speech, he speaks of Vatican II in the context of ecumenical councils.   He then says: "Testimonies of this Extraordinary Magisterium of the Church  - that is, of its universal Synods - come constantly before Our eyes."


Since John XXIII identifies Vatican II as one of those universal Synods, he therefore once again identifies Vatican II as the testimony of the extraordinary Magisterium of the Church.   The extraordinary Magisterium of the Church is infallible.



 In paragraph #5 of his opening speech, John XXIII discusses the principal or chief duty of the Council.   Does he say that Vatican II will merely be a pastoral council that won't deal with doctrine, as the false traditionalists have told so many?  No, not at all.



 He says this: The principal duty of the Council: defending and promoting doctrine

 According to John XXIII, the main purpose of the Council was to deal with doctrine,   He then says: What especially interests the Ecumenical Council is this: that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be more effectively guarded and presented."   Are people beginning to see how false traditionalists have misled the world about this speech and what it contains? 



The Council will concern Catholic doctrine, according to John XXIII.

In #6, he says:

       "These things having been established, sufficiently has been manifested, Venerable Brothers, the role that has been entrusted to the Ecumenical Council in regard to what pertains to doctrine."


"Namely, that the twenty-first Ecumenical Council - wishes to hand down Catholic doctrine (in an) integral, undiminished and undistorted (manner).


As we can see, Vatican II was intended to be a doctrinal council.


The facts we've covered thus far are clear.  However, let's now address the part of the speech that false traditionalists frequently misuse and misquote.  The truth is that almost none of them have any idea what the speech (or the following part of the speech) actually said.  They simply circulate and repeat myths and legends on the matter.   As we will see, the following section of John XXIII's speech does not support their position but contradicts it.   This section of the speech is also found in paragraph #6.   It's important to quote a number of sentences from this paragraph.


 John XXIII says:

          "Nor does our work focus on the following as though it were a primary end: namely a discussion should take place about certain special articles of Church teaching or that there should be a more extensive review of those points which the fathers and theologians, both ancient and more recent, have handed down (to us), and which, we rightly think, are not unknown to you but are firmly embedded in your minds.   For there was no need that an Ecumenical Council be proclaimed for disputations solely of this kind.   What is, however, needed at the present time is that Christian doctrine in its entirety, without any part removed therefrom, should here and now in our times be received by all men with a new zeal, with serene and tranquil minds - (a doctrine) handed down by that precise manner of conceiving and drawing up words which especially shines forth from the Acts of the Council of Trent and Vatican I.


 What is needed - as all sincere supporters of matters Christian, Catholic and apostolic eagerly crave - is that this same doctrine be more widely and deeply known and that minds be more fully imbued and formed by it.  What is needed is that this certain and immutable doctrine, to which faithful obedience is owed, be traced out and expanded with that reasonableness which our times demand.   For the Deposit of faith itself or the truths contained by our venerable doctrine are one thing, but the manner in which they are enunciated (albeit with the same sense and the same meaning) is another.   It is precisely to this latter manner that the majority (of our attention) will have to be given; and. if need arise, it will have to be patiently exerted therein.   In other words, there will need to be introduced those methods of explaining things which are


more in keeping with a Magisterium whose native character is primarily pastoral."


As a careful reading of this paragraph shows, John XXIII does not say that Vatican II would not be doctrinal or infallible.  He actually says the opposite.  He says that Vatican II - whose primary task is to deal with doctrine, as he already told us - will concern itself with the manner in which Church doctrine is expounded.   The manner or way in which Church doctrine is expounded is inseparable from doctrine itself. (Vatican I declared that we must believe Church doctrine exactly as it has been declared or expounded by the Church.)   The following line in the paragraph captures the essence of his point.  "What is needed is that this certain and immutable doctrine, to which faithful obedience is owed, be traced out and expounded with that reasonableness which our times demand."



 According to John XXIII, Vatican II will expound and trace out Church doctrine, which the faithful must obey; but it will do so "with that reasonableness which our times demand."   In other words, it will present doctrine in a way that heretics such as Antipope John XXIII deemed more friendly, modern and pastoral.  Of course that does not mean that the Council will not deal with doctrine.   It means it will deal with doctrine.   Something can be both doctrinal and pastoral.  The two are not mutually exclusive.   On the contrary, that which is doctrinal accompanies that which is pastoral.   A pope's pastoral office, for example, involves the power to teach faith and morals.  Vatican I even stated that the dogmatic definition of papal infallibility was made precisely to clarify that the Son of God connected an infallible teaching power on faith and morals "with the supreme pastoral office."