The Presidential prophecy- An update on Charlie Johnston

A triumphant Trump inaugurated amidst some bold predictions
Update Jan 1, 2018: Concerning Mr. Johnston's alleged prophecies and private revelations, from early on this writer often commented that time and events (or lack of events) will clearly reveal whether Charlie's prophecies are authentic, or not.  In other words, time will tell. 

Well, as of today (January 1, 2018) time has clearly revealed that Mr. Johnston's numerous prophecies have ALL been shown to be completely false, most notably his predictions concerning the Presidential election, the great worldwide "Storm" which he foretold would bring global economic collapse and civil strife, toppling governments throughout the globe, war with political Islam resulting with the mass conversion of most Muslims, then a war with China, and generalized  global chaos resulting in 26 million dead, all culminating with the miraculous "Rescue" apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary to all of humanity, all of which was prophesied by Charlie to occur by the end of 2017. 

In conclusion, since Charlie's prophecies have now all been shown to be completely false, he joins the list of recent failed visionaries whose stories have been highlighted on this site, such as "Locutions to the World" and "Maria Divine Mercy", and together they provide a strong cautionary warning for all of us in regards to purported visionaries and mystics of past and present, urging us to be very cautious and prudent in our discernment concerning such persons,  reaffirming the statement and warning of St Paul of the Cross, the founder of the Passionists and great mystic himself, who once stated that 9 out of 10 purported visionaries are false.  Perhaps this estimation from St Paul of the Cross is a bit high, but then again perhaps not.  -Glenn Dallaire
-------------------------------
UPDATE, January 20, 2017: 
With the successful inauguration of President Donald Trump comes the unfulfilled conclusion to both parts of the alleged angelic “Presidential prophecy” of Charlie Johnston, namely that Obama will not finish his term and the next leader will not come from the political system (ie.-not elected), as detailed in the article below. It was a bold two-part prophecy that has now ended in a double fail.

When one claims to be a prophet of God, one’s life and most especially one’s prophecies are automatically held for scrutiny before the court of public opinion. In this court of public opinion, the preponderance of the evidence is what often initially sways one’s opinion, yet there eventually comes to pass certain very important matters for discernment, such as key prophecies, which depending on their eventual turnout, will considerably authenticate, or invalidate, the purported mission and message of such persons.  And when one compares the alleged angelic ‘Presidential prophecy’ against today’s successful inauguration, the conclusions to be drawn are self-evident.  

With the above being said, one would strongly suspect that today’s inauguration, which by all appearances completely invalidates the first formal public prophecy of Charlie Johnston, will likely be one of these aforementioned key matters for discernment that will have a decisive impact in judging his purported prophetic mission and message for a good many people.  For if a prophet is judged by his prophecies as the saying goes, then today’s failure of the purported angelic ‘Presidential prophecy’,  as detailed in the article below,  will for many persons surely bring with it an unfavorable judgment in what concerns the prophetic mission of Charlie Johnston. 

For in his blog post "The Election...and Other Potential Triggers" Charlie writes:
"...If, next January, Barack Obama peacefully hands over the reins of power to Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, I will declare myself unreliable and go away. But it will not happen that way, for God has appointed that this be a sign to you to fortify you to trust Him and choose the ordinary way to follow Him through the most frightening year for the globe in history."

And again, concerning today’s inauguration, for his part Charlie has also declared in his post entitled “Election day” on November 7th that:
 “…If, on January 20, Obama peacefully transfers power to either Trump or Clinton, I will declare myself unreliable and retire into silence.”  

With this pledge, one finds that today’s inauguration will bring with it not only the end of Obama’s term, but also the end of Charlie Johnston’s public blogging, speaking engagements, and future predictions, at least for a time, though the loss of credibility from today’s events will likely be permanent. 

And I say "for a time" simply because of Charlie's recent comments on his blog concerning the possibility of today's failure of his "Presidential prophecy", wherein he recently speaks about the possibility of being "recalled" by God into a silent, private period for some sort of remedial prophetic discernment re-training "for a time".

Nevertheless, for those who in good faith spread amongst their family, friends and coworkers Charlie's prediction concerning "Obama not finishing his term/next leader not coming from the political process", and who are now left feeling much like "the boy who cried wolf", one can only presume that any possible future prophetic predictions from Charlie will be given little or no credence, if not outright opposition by many who have followed his work and message, as is perhaps justifiably merited by today's developments. In the end, it is up to Archbishop Aquila of Denver to make any formal judgments concerning Charlie Johnston's private revelations.

As for this writer, I can say that while I have always been reluctant to highlight purported LIVING mystics and visionaries, I am even more so now after these recent events.

May God bless the United States of America, and all of humanity.
-Glenn Dallaire, January 20, 2017


Charlie Johnston during a recent FOCUS TV interview
The final days for the possible fulfillment of a purported Angelic prophecy 

By: Glenn Dallaire

Jan. 7, 2017 -Vigil of the Epiphany
Many readers of this website are familiar with the original article that I wrote back in January 2015 entitled  "Charlie Johnston -An alleged prophet with a critically important message for humanity".  In it I discussed at length Charlie's purported prophetic mission and message, along with a short biography of his life. And for the past two years it has been one of the most popular articles on this website.

Additionally, when the Archdiocese of Denver came out with a Statement in March 2016 concerning Mr. Johnston I published an article here discussing it.

The Presidential prophecy
In the past week, the comments beneath that original article have exploded (there are now currently a total of 770 comments), as has my email inbox, with most everyone commenting specifically on the angelic prophecy allegedly given to Charlie, which I have named "The Presidential prophecy":

"What I was told in the Spring of 2008 was that Barack Obama would win that year's election, that he would not finish his full term, and that the next stable national leader would not come from the political system."

The obvious reason for all of the recent attention to this specific alleged angelic prophecy is the upcoming scheduled Presidential Inauguration scheduled for this January 20th--just 2 weeks away from this writing. For his part, just yesterday Charlie published an article entitled "A Decisive Conundrum" which addresses this matter, in part.

This particular prophecy is the first of a series of alleged angelic prophesies concerning the world that are to occur mostly this year (2017). And since we are delving into this subject of alleged "Angelic" messages given to Charlie, it should be pointed out that the Angel whom has purportedly visited Charlie from childhood is the Archangel Gabriel, as was specifically revealed to Charlie during one of the "visitations". The other predictions that Charlie insists upon are highlighted in his article entitled "Go Forth". In it Charlie reveals eight worldwide events that are said to occur::

"I only have eight public prophecies that I insist on. Only the visible, miraculous Rescue by Our Lady, the Immaculate Conception in late 2017, is time sensitive. Five things must happen between now and the Rescue, but can happen at any time during that period. They are:

– The continued toppling of governments throughout the world, including that of the U.S. The toppling of a government does not mean the nation shall fall.

– The confrontation with and fall of political Islam.

– The mass conversion of most Muslims

– The confrontation between the Judeo-Christian world and the current government of China.

– The alliance between Russia and the U.S. to lead the Judeo-Christian world to endure the confrontation with China.

-Then, after the 5 things above comes the miraculous "Rescue" through the Immaculate Heart of Mary sometime in late 2017.

Then there are two prophecies that happen shortly after the Rescue. They are the unification of the faithful into one flock under one shepherd and the building and location of the Shrine of thanksgiving for the Rescue on Mount Meeker in Colorado.

Together these predicted events constitute for humanity what Charlie calls "The Storm"--a series of events which he states is already well underway. As of today (January 7, 2017), the most obvious observation concerning the prophesies above is that time is really running out for them to all happen before the miraculous Rescue in late 2017. Thus, from an intellectually reasoned perspective, it is probably readily apparent to many that such predictions are already a failure, given the time-frames involved for such things to occur in "real" time. But then, who really knows just yet? For God is not limited by our human constraints and He is always full of surprises.

It should be noted that the "Presidential prophecy" is NOT part of the eight public prophesies that Charlie insists upon. I don't know what bearing that may have, if any, in the upcoming days and weeks.

"God has appointed that this be a sign to you"
In his article "The Election...and Other Potential Triggers" Charlie writes:
"If, next January, Barack Obama peacefully hands over the reins of power to Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, I will declare myself unreliable and go away. But it will not happen that way, for God has appointed that this be a sign to you to fortify you to trust Him and choose the ordinary way to follow Him through the most frightening year for the globe in history."

Of course for now the big question at this point is whether or not the purported angelic prophecy concerning Obama not finishing his term/next leader not coming from the election process will come to pass as foretold in the remaining two weeks before the scheduled Presidential inauguration on January 20th. And the obvious implication in the opinion of many people is that this prophecy is key in determining whether Charlie is truly an authentic prophet, or not. For as the saying goes "A prophet is judged by his prophecies", or as Scripture tells us:

"And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word that the Lord has not spoken?’— when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not fear him." (Deuteronomy 18:21-22).

For his part, Charlie has stated numerous times that if this particular prophecy concerning Obama not finishing his term were to fail, with the presidency successfully transitioned to Donald Trump, that he will post one last post on his blog, then go away:
Charlie Johnston during a presentation in July 2016
charliej373 says:
"If there is a peaceful transition of power from Obama to Trump, I will go away. If there is not, be not afraid, God has a plan."

or again:
 charliej373 says:
December 17, 2016 at 2:54 pm
"Now, as I have said, if the inauguration goes on without incident, I will go away. "

or again:
charliej373 says:
"Certainly, if we have a normal inauguration a month from now, I will retire from the field, for that prophecy will have been objectively wrong. I take full responsibility for that. But it won’t change what you are called to do.

Noting that I do and will take responsibility, your standard would require you to dismiss St. Joan of Arc as a false prophet for the times she erred on saying how the battle would go – and many of the Old Testament prophets who were often off on their timing, sometimes by years. I do not say this to try to justify any error on my part. I strongly urge you to examine yourself and consider what God calls you to. But yep, a month from now if we have a normal inauguration, you can give me a big old thumbs down."

charliej373 says:
January 8, 2017 at 9:21 pm
"If the inauguration comes off, I will leave the public scene, because that is what it means to honorably take full responsibility. "

And so, even though this "Presidential prophecy" is not one of the eight public prophecies that Charlie insists upon, according to several statements he has made he does believe that if it fails to come to pass as foretold, this would be significant enough to merit and declare himself "unreliable" and "leaving the scene". Time will soon tell how things turn out. For his part, Charlie has "laid it on the line", so to speak. We need only wait, watch and pray. Events, or the lack thereof, will reveal the truth concerning Charlie's purported private revelations.

Given all of the recent interest in this particular prophecy as of late, along with the popularity of the original article here on this website concerning Charlie Johnston, I thought I would publish this new article so that those interested can comment on this matter freely and directly here. As always, all comments are published immediately on this website, without moderation. I only ask that commentators be charitable and considerate in their comments.

***UPDATE: FEBRUARY 16, 2017: Archdiocese of Denver: "Statement on false claim regarding Charlie Johnston’s messages"

3,140 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   1601 – 1800 of 3140   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

Hello Laurence D,

You seem to suggest that Charlie is wrong since his prophecies concern "unprecedented things" that could only be true if it was the end of the world. But the Blessed Mother's said at Fatima that "in the end my Immaculate Heart will triumph and an era of peace will be granted to humanity" - certainly that would be unprecedented.

Laurence D said...

Anon (10:07 AM), on the contrary, I agree that there can be unprecedented things, and your example from Fatima is a good one. There are some here who almost seem to take it as a matter of Faith that the things of the End, when everything temporal gets wrapped up, are the only things that believers are given reason to look forward to.

Anonymous said...

I just listened to the latest Podcast Part 3 that was posted last night. It was painful to listen to. Just seemed goofy. I still can't figure out whether this guy is deliberately pulling our leg or if he genuinely believes what he says.

Fred Keyes said...

L.D., I was wrong of course, as Jack notes, there IS one body that is more reliable than any bishops' conference. A Council of bishops speaks infallibly when they make a pronouncement together with the pope. You're post of Pope Benedict's assessments of Bishop's Councils is correct, but it has the weight of agreement by many bishops on practical issues. Doctrine is one thing; praxis is another.

I'm humbled by the fact that I'm no theologian, trained the way bishops and priests are trained. Neither of course is Charlie, as much as he tends to pontificate about the things he teaches.

Jackisback said...

Though an approved prophecy, Fatima, need not be believed as a point of faith. The fact that Fatima messages may seem to predict unprecedented things to occur in our temporal world is not evidence in this argument, one way or the other. This argument is about whether Charlie's alleged private revelations are in concert with the book of Revelation and the interpretations of that book by the early Church fathers. Laurence D. seems to yeah, I say nay.

No offense meant to believers in Fatima, but the point remains, Fatima is not part of the "deposit of faith." The challenge is to produce the evidence that the book of Revelation or the interpretations of it by the early Church fathers point to a temporal miracle performed by the blessed virgin Mary that provides a so-called "era of peace and unity" - that unity being one where all protestants come back to communion with Rome during the time of this temporal existence - and even "most" Muslims convert, etc., etc.

Us skeptics make a basic counter argument; some of us have the sneaking suspicion that Charlie is co-opting Fatima's messages and incorporating them into his own, while simply giving more specificity to them, along with a date certain. But it seems to us at least, that the very notion is one that is new - an addition to - if not an edition of, the book of Revelation.

Laurence D said...

Jackisback (6:27), besides the book of Revelation, if Charlie's remaining alleged visions are not discordant with anything from any Scripture or from Tradition, then they should not be questioned purely on that account. Anyone is still free to be skeptical about them from their being beyond usual human credibility. If any of his predictions, including a major pre-2018 worldwide "rescue" of some sort pan out, that would mean that that prediction and event would have proved themselves both credible and concordant with Scripture and Tradition (since Divine Revelation is not at odds with historical truth).

Anonymous said...

"If any of his predictions" pans out... wouldn't they all have to pan out for the statement from Laurence D to be correct?

L Spinelli said...

Anon above, yes, what happened to the five fundamentals? Those events that must happen before the Rescue? We're now a little over three months away from December 1.

I don't know if anyone listened to the entire silly podcast (I personally could only stomach five minutes, skipping around, and Charlie's mug in the background didn't help), but I don't recall any mention of them.

My theory now is we're long past January 20, but this guy is still in shock and denial and won't accept that something that wasn't from God was guiding him for over 50 years. It's easier for him to go on insisting that he's some kind of guide (Sherp Doggy Dogg) or whatever he thinks he was appointed to be.

Anonymous said...

I skipped over much of his talk, for me there wasn't anything of substance.
At the 44:25 minute mark he stated that almost none of the messages are for the public, they are personal and have to do with him defending the faith and the faithful.
Next, he said the only message he was told to tell us was the Rescue will come in late 2017, Our Lady will come and we will see her and know that God is, and that Jesus Christ is Lord, Mary is his mother and Mary wants us back.
He's attaching himself to the 100th anniversary of Fatima. With all the shananigans surrounding Charlie, we are to believe that God appoints Charlie to be his ambassador for the final Fatima appearance of Our Lady ?

L Spinelli said...

If none of them were meant for the public? I hate to say the obvious, but...

Then why did he go public with that blog, the speaking tours and now this podcast???

The general public could have been spared a LOT of anxiety from 2014 to now!

Laurence D said...

Any event that actually takes place will, by happening, thereby be in accord with (will not be at odds with) Divine Revelation. Some here have been trying to paint unprecedented storms and rescues as unlikely on the basis that Scripture or Tradition don't seem to know about such things (short of the very End). Jack, what kind of logical fallacy is that?

Anonymous said...

Laurence D,

If any of his predictions, including a major pre-2018 worldwide "rescue" of some sort pan out, that would mean that that prediction and event would have proved themselves both credible and concordant with Scripture and Tradition (since Divine Revelation is not at odds with historical truth).

ANY of his predictions? Not ALL his predictions? Charlie himself made them a non-negotiable list, things told to him that MUST happen.

Fred Keyes said...

L.D., you say, "If any of his predictions, including a major pre-2018 worldwide "rescue" of some sort pan out, that would mean that that prediction and event would have proved themselves both credible and concordant with Scripture and Tradition."

If *any* pan out? If, say, one prediction pans out and the others he "told us true" don't, it would mean only that he made a lucky guess...or worse. But by the measure of what is or is not a true prophet, he would have failed miserably.

Here's a list of bible quotations that I think those of us who follow private revelations should always keep in mind. A prayerful reading of these verses should give pause both to would be prophets and their followers alike:

Deuteronomy 13:2-6; Ezekiel 13:9; Jeremiah 23:16; Luke 6:26; Matthew 7:15-20;
Acts 20:28-30; 2Peter 2; 1John 4:1-6

The last one from John that tells what a true prophet should be willing to declare is important. Charlie has been asked how and whether he had tested his angel. He did not respond saying that his spiritual directors had asked him not to discuss it. Given the need to assure his followers of his authenticity it seemed odd that he wouldn't make the simple declaration that St. John says is a sign of a true prophet. Also, anyone criticizing the testing of spirits that we do here should know they are going against what St. Paul recommends. The testing should be fair to be sure, but test we must.

Laurence D said...

Anon (5:00) and Fred (5:48), I do agree with you that only if all his predictions panned out should we not scorn him (unless as Deut. 13 says, he was urging us to follow other gods than the Lord). So as it is, he does deserve some scorn. But as far as I know, he passes the test in 1 John 4, since he will acknowledge Jesus Christ having come in the flesh (won't he?).
What I was getting at is something different. I was saying that one or two predictions being off doesn't automatically make his others scornworthy -- until they fail. And I was concerned that his remaining predictions (and he) were being scorned ahead of time on the basis, for instance, of their being (supposedly) unprecedented or of their seeming to not fit with what we think we know Scripture or Tradition tell us is able to happen. If something happens anyway, we would need to review our understanding of Divine Revelation.

Anonymous said...

Laurence D,

If something happens anyway, we would need to review our understanding of Divine Revelation.

Not necessarily! The devil surely is capable of performing great wonders, so as to deceive the elect if that were possible... You appear to assume if one of Charlie's predictions actually happens, that it is not a coincidence or a demonic or a man-made act. Why assume it is from God if there is an outbreak of civil violence against Jihadists in Europe, for example? Charlie might claim such a thing as vindicating him. I would not.

Charlie is very slippery on definitions. He said, for example, he would not return to public life unless something drastic like a coup took place. In his first podcast earlier this month -- an initiative designed to introduce himself to newbies, by the by -- Charlie said a former CIA director discussed a coup on TV. He cited the coup discussion on some panel show as being enough to spur him to action!

Jackisback said...

Laurence 4:35 PM,
Before answering re: logical fallacy, let's clear up something. I agree that "Divine Revelation is not at odds with historical truth" and that this does not mean that Divine Revelation should be expected to account for all future events. My position: Charlie's claim of being told about a visible, miraculous Marian "rescue," being commanded to tell us about it and its timeline, and about which we "must choose or perish," is a novelty, a "new Divine Revelation" with salvific effect if we choose "correctly" or damnation if we choose "incorrectly."
The Catechism tells us in Article One, Section III, No. 65 - 67:
65 "In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son." Christ, the Son of God made man, is the Father's one, perfect and unsurpassable Word. In him he has said everything; there will be no other word than this one. St. John of the Cross, among others, commented strikingly on Hebrews 1:1-2: In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word - and he has no more to say...because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behavior but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty.
66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ." Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.
67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church. Christian faith cannot accept "revelations" that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such "revelations".
Charlie would argue he's only making existing Revelation more fully explicit and/or trying to help us live "more fully by it." It is here where I disagree. It is my view that his description of what he was told fits into the critique of St. John of the Cross, revealing Charlie as a person "desiring some vision or revelation...guilty not only of foolish behavior but also of offending [Him], by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty." To me, the alleged "rescue in late 2017" with the "choose or perish" threat is clearly a novelty. Where do you stand, Laurence?
The answer to your question concerning the logical fallacy you asked about is the "composition/division" fallacy - assuming that because the Book of Revelation contains a description of future events (though true) then that must necessarily mean that all future events must be limited to those described there. It also smacks of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy - an inappropriate appeal to purity (e.g., if it's not described in Revelation, it can't possibly happen).

Laurence D said...

Jackisback (8:54 PM), I don't see Charlie as desiring the visions or novel things. By his own account he doubted their reality and then hoped to be spared the mission of conveying their urgency (https://charliej373.wordpress.com/my-purpose/). If we all do get a choose-or-perish experience (like the angels did early on), well, I hope we all choose God. And it is not necessary to believe that such an experience is coming for one to be prepared to meet it and avoid perishing. That's where your reminder of Divine Revelation being sufficient is a comfort. At the same time, the Holy Spirit is the main Comforter and guides us through the sacraments, prayer, and sometimes, for some people, through mystical gifts and callings supplied to members of the Church. Private revelations are among these, and as you cited, it is their role to help whomever to "live more fully by" Christ's definitive Revelation. Some will live it more it fully without Charlie, and some with him.

Anonymous said...

Laurence D.,

Private revelations are among these, and as you cited, it is their role to help whomever to "live more fully by" Christ's definitive Revelation. Some will live it more it fully without Charlie, and some with him.

You give little heed to the considered judgment and public warnings on Charlie from his archbishop. You also claim to be interested in exploring logical fallacies, yet you ignore Jack's exhaustive evidence of Charlie's inconsistencies and flawed arguments. How can someone live more fully in Christ by following a discredited, inaccurate and, let me add, highly uncharitable, "prophet"?

Laurence D said...

Anon (7:17 AM), you raise good questions. I won't have time till later today to try to address some of them.

Anonymous said...

Laurence D. I can probably take most of what you say and apply to it Gerald Celente.
Mr. Celente is a Catholic, acknowledges Christ, it fact has even called public figures out for not behaving as Christ wanted which has cost him the public spotlight on Oprah, NBC, CBS, etc.; he has made many predictions, the vast majority of which have come to pass, he's usually at odds with most of Charlie's prophesies and is way more correct than Charlie. In fact he predicts way more than Charlie and is almost always right. To my knowledge Gerald has not said that he is divinely inspired although he has has stated it's common sense and reason - which abilities come from God. In fact most of his predictions line up with and support biblical teachings, revelations, etc. Gerald is like the guys casting out demons in Jesus's name, where his apostles asked Jesus if they should stop them and Jesus said - no.
So it may be that Gerald is receiving prophesy from God and not realizing it and being the straight shooter that he is, is to humble to admit that he's a prophet unlike Charlie.
In my opinion, Gerald is the real deal.
Charlie is now down to 1 prediction according to Charles in his last statement in podcast 3 around the 44:25 mark - the Rescue and appearance of Our Lady 2017, the rest he says is private. Without, bringing up his past, Charlie is playing it safe right now.Gerald puts it all out and accepts responsibility for wrong predictions, however small they are.
By the way I also said that Mary would be the only one to save us in 2017 and I know other people have expected great thing around the 100 years of Fatima - is that maybe why Charlie booted me off his site so he could claim the glory for himself for predicting Mary's rescue in 2017? Charlie needs the attention and the attention focused on him predicting events, he's more interested in telling people about his pipeline to God - remember, Charlie said on numerous occasions - "this is MY site, you have no right to comment on MY site." Charlie wants exclusivity.

Fred Keyes said...

Oh, lordy, Anon at 12:00PM. Please—one so-called prophet at a time. Or should I call Celente a "profit?"

Celente has been wrong plenty of times, enough that he shouldn't be relied upon for anything.

Anonymous said...

This is a major issue with Charlie.
Charlie tells everyone in his own words that the only message that is for public consumption is the "Rescue" and the appearance of Our Lady. Everything else is not for consumption or the public.
However, he says that Pope Francis is the Pope of the "storm", but doesn't think he is the Pope of the "Rescue". Why even bother to tell everyone, it's his opinion, yet a lot of his minions buy into it and are not corrected. They get caught up in his words when he actually told everyone there are no other prophesies except the "rescue".
A lot of his followers are gullible enough to believe what he says as gospel when in fact it is only "banter" from Charlie. It's bad enough they are not corrected, but it is worse when they don't pay attention to Charlie's own words and believe what they want to believe.
This is just one example.

Anonymous said...

What has Celente been wrong about?

Fred Keyes said...

L.D. I don't scorn Charlie. That's sinful. Perhaps you're taking criticism as scorn? Just one fail on his "I'm telling you true" predictions though, and anything else he says is 100% unreliable. Any prediction of his that does happen to take place would be sheer coincidence.

Maybe he's done it someplace else but in one exchange on his blog that I followed, Charlie refused to say whether he acknowledged Jesus as come in the flesh, citing as I said, his spiritual directors' instructions. I can't imagine why that would be a hard thing to say without hesitation.

Fred Keyes said...

Anon @ 4:07:

See this entry at Wikipedia:

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

Fred Keyes said...

I couldn't help but notice the phrase the Wiki article ascribed to Celente: "pessimism porn."

I submit that one way to evade such a charge (initially at least) is to wrap predictions in a mantle of religious fervor and political rectitude.

Laurence D said...

Anon (7:17 AM), you say, "You give little heed to the considered judgment and public warnings on Charlie from his archbishop." There are of course two warnings. The first was officially though not directly from his archbishop and it strongly advised the faithful "to exercise prudence and caution in regards to Mr. Charlie Johnston’s alleged divine visions and messages." I remain cautious about them. My comments on this blog are to encourage prudence and not cultishness; and until his bishop condemns his stuff, I hope to hold anyone here back from outright disdain of the man or his messages.
The second communication from the Denver Archdiocese repeats the cautions of the first, but beyond that adds nothing intelligible. It was not issued like the first one as a statement formally representing the archbishop, but as a press release from an office of his on the occasion of a (misunderstood) reference on Charlie's website. It ends by saying, "The events of 2016/17 have shown that Mr. Johnston’s alleged visions were not accurate and the Archdiocese urges the faithful not to condone or support further attempts to reinterpret them as valid." This is the unintelligible part. I couldn't make sense of it when I commented back on June 11 (10:12 PM), and I still can't. In any case it doesn't have the clarity that an archbishop should bring (and still can bring) to the matter. It certainly does not carry the sense of "case closed."
Regarding "Jack's exhaustive evidence of Charlie's inconsistencies and flawed arguments," I might try to address that myriad if you were to pick out the one or two most damning ones. But as my wife and I start our 50th year of marriage, I have to say that we have enabled each other to "live more fully in Christ," all while discovering more and more flaws and inconsistencies in the other. Even living with the other's uncharitableness has conformed us more to Christ than His teachings alone.

Fred Keyes said...

L.D. I see your problem.

Normally you would be correct. If my stock broker tells me that stock A and stock B are sure fire winners, and stock A takes a dive, it does not mean that stock B will take a dive. Maybe stock B succeeds far beyond the loss on Stock A, and of course I would consider my broker to be great.

But prophecy does not work that way. For a prophecy to be worthy of belief, there is no room for error of any kind. God does not deceive; He does not say Stock A and Stock B are winners and I (God) am telling you true. God is never half right.

See the difference? The Diocese of Denver is warning people to recognize the fact that a prediction was in error and it must not be reinterpreted (as many did at TNRS) in a way that somehow makes the prediction true.

Further, the implication of that is that come what may, Charlie is an unreliable--his predictions are as good as mine. In other words even if anything else Charlie predicted comes true, it won't be because he was given any kind of reliable message from God. So say some sort of spectacular "rescue" does take place in December. It would be like this guy Celente's predictions; i.e., he's predicted a bunch of things and some have been true. Still not a prophet; he's more like the stock broker who picked some winners and some losers.

Fred Keyes said...

Should read: "Charlie is an unreliable prophet."

Jackisback said...

Fred Keyes at 4:26 PM,

You said:
--begin quoted text--
Just one fail on his "I'm telling you true" predictions though, and anything else he says is 100% unreliable. Any prediction of his that does happen to take place would be sheer coincidence.
--end quoted text--

In technical terms, based solely upon what you have written here, you are guilty of the logical fallacy of "composition/division." But now I see you have ackowledged that, and attempted to account for it in your post at 6:07 PM.

I discussed before that this particular line of thinking, though prima facie fallacious, is understandable (and perhaps justifiable?) from a "preponderance of the evidence" standard of inquiry. It's now clear that application of this latter standard was part of your intended meaning. I do hold to the notion that when a would-be prophet has been shown to be speaking presumptuously about one bold prophecy, and it is connected to another, it is eminently reasonable to be extremely cautious in considering belief in the next one. But it is still possible, in technical terms, that the second alleged will come true, and technically fallacious to consider it to be impossible to come true. You do have a point when you assert that the "Rescue" coming true could be coincidence. No one will even know.

Remember, Charlie's defense for why his followers should still believe in his "Rescue" locution is that God simply allowed Charlie be deceived by "the satan" or an agent of "the satan." That is his way of squirming out of the notion that God may have, via his angel Gabriel, lied to him (Charlie knows he cannot hold to that position).

A case can be made (and I'm certain I've made it in the past) that since Charlie linked the "I have told you true" statement with his claim that the Presidential locution coming true would be a "sign" from God that Charlie had "told us true" about the "Rescue," the likelihood of the "Rescue" actually occurring ought to be discerned to be reduced to such a small probability as to cause any who persist in belief in a "Rescue in late 2017," on the basis that Charlie "told us true," to be considered an incorrigible optimist (and I say this will all the charity I can muster). It is not clear if this was your intended meaning.

Lastly, there is the very understandable recoil at believing in the "Rescue in late 2017" after the double fail of the Presidential locution, if one had been a believer-in-Charlie's-word initially, that is based upon the hazard of being fooled twice by the same would-be prophet. The old cliche applies, "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." That of course, was never the case for you; I am just making the point that even previous believers in Charlie have a legitimate stance in disbelieving the "Rescue" locution, as a point of learned wisdom.

As others have noted, Charlie, having now, on his podcasts, apparently eliminated the previously "necessary" "five fundamentals" from consideration, is again engaging, in my view, in "goal post moving" - also known as the "special pleading" fallacy. And here we thought that he was "all in?"

It will be interesting to see, as we get closer to Christmas, whether another special pleading emanates from the mouth or pen of Charlie. We shall see, sometime in the next four months and two days.

If Charlie engages in special pleading so as to avoid accountability for the "Rescue" not occuring, I will not condemn him. He will have, however, done his own reputation a great disservice, because the special pleading maneuver is a hallmark of so many false prophets.

Jackisback said...

Laurence,

I think you and I finally understand one another, and there is now clarity in our disagreement. And we managed to get to this spot without engaging in ad hominem attack.

May God bless you in your particular path of discernment, which is more generous to Charlie than mine.

Fred Keyes said...

As always, well said, Jack.

Anonymous said...

Fred Keyes: You have to do a lot better than that to put Gerald Celente down linking to Wikipedia.
I don't know if you read the Wiki entry but there really isn't too much negative there except a quote from fake main stream news - ABC and a few of his misses, though not really misses, timing may be off. As for using the term "pessimism porn" - what better way to demean someone when you really don't have much evidence and you want to knock them down is to use the communist playbook and call people names.

Jackisback said...

Regarding this dispute about the 2nd statement of the Denver Diocese, we would be well served to consider that the Bishop of Denver agrees with the text - qui tacet consentire is the maxim - his Excellency's silence can be inferred as consent/agreement; it cannot be inferred as disagreement.

As to what the statement was actually referring to, I see no reason why I shouldn't interpret it to be referring, with respect to "events in 2016," to the fact that there was an election in 2016 and a successful vote of the states' electors thereafter at each state's meeting in December in which the states' "certificates of vote" were prepared. As well, "events in 2017" I interpret to mean the successful tallying of the "certificates of vote" on January 6th in the joint session of Congress and then the inauguration on January 20th, where Obama held his office until it terminated in accordance with the Constitution, at noon, the official end of his second term.

Remember, the election failing to occur was still one possible way for one part of Charlie's Presidential locution to come true and the same goes for a failure of the electoral college certification in December. The same holds true for the possibility, however extremely remote, for a calamity that would prevent Trump, Pence, et al from taking the oath of office on inauguration day, leading to someone taking office who hadn't been elected (which Charlie referred to as a "regent").

If that's the case, then it's also possible, even likely, that the Diocese's spokesperson is only referring to the Presidential locutions when it admonishes the faithful not to reinterpret "them" (his "predictions") as valid.

What of it? Inferring such a narrow scope to the warning from the Diocesan spokesperson has not stopped Charlie from reinterpreting what he claimed was a locution into a misinterpretation on his part. In other words, Charlie has reinterpreted the locution that Obama would not finish his term as something he interpreted wrongly, not something he was told; ergo his claim is now that he was apparently "told" something else entirely (implying directly that that"something else" was true - valid) but his personal filter (or bias?) got in the way.

That violated the very reasonable request of the Diocesan spokesperson - not an astute move for someone pledging obedience to his local Ordinary. This is true even though Charlie still allows for the alternate theory that he could have been deceived by "the satan" and neither God, nor Jesus, nor the Blessed Virgin Mary, nor the angel Gabriel felt the compunction to warn/correct him about that - this despite many prior rebukes from one or more of them when Charlie would preach something to the public out of turn. Recall those claimed prior rebukes were on such trivial matters as Charlie's retirement date.

Fred Keyes said...

Anon @ 9:51 8/22: You seem to be a true believer in Celente's forecasts; I didn't mean to get your hackles up, but there it is. I hope you're being very careful with any financial decisions you're making based on Celente's pronouncements. I had never heard his name before you wrote about it here and I read a lot of current events. If he was so good at his forecasts, wouldn't he have a household name by now?

Bemused said...

Jack regarding your comment:

This is true even though Charlie still allows for the alternate theory that he could have been deceived by "the satan" and neither God, nor Jesus, nor the Blessed Virgin Mary, nor the angel Gabriel felt the compunction to warn/correct him about that - this despite many prior rebukes from one or more of them when Charlie would preach something to the public out of turn. Recall those claimed prior rebukes were on such trivial matters as Charlie's retirement date.

Boy, have you hit the nail on the head!!!

Anonymous said...

Celente was very popular - he appeared on Oprah, and a host of main stream media as a trends forecaster. However, he mentioned something about a stock market crash and other market problems and his "pessimism porn" was considered not acceptable on TV.
Celente is found on most alternative media and Russia Today (RT).
The main stream media does not want pessimism, but positivism, that's why people like Peter Schiff are no longer on the main stream. If you notice Ron Paul gets little air time as well.
If you want feel-good news you listen to main stream news, if you want real news you follow alternative news.
It's like this site, if you want the truth about Charlie you go here, if you want Charlie feel-good stuff you go to his site.

Mary H said...

‘Living Poverty?’
Charlie Johnston Made Money from His Messages for Years


On January 20, the day of Donald Trump’s inauguration, failed prophet Charlie Johnston logged online to respond to his followers. One despondent man, Karl, had written:

“You predicted a global collapse and chaos, all of this obviously before today with Trump not taking power. All of this involved serious steps, if you really believe in the prediction, and even with a deadline. I followed your advice so many times posted here, with absolutely no reserve. I waited, I waited, I waited.

Now I’m ruined and lost thousands of dollars.

Are you happy now Mr. Charlie Johnston? Can you see what happens when you insist telling everyone for year “Holy cow, everything is going to be upended, after the fall comes the fall, Obama not finishing his term, chaos before the 20th?


And now? Who will give my money and stuff back?”
Charlie quickly shot back:

Karl, if you lost money because you put it towards preparation when I told you to trust God and not focus on preparations other than prudent things you could easily afford, that is not my fault. Who will give me all the money I have forfeited by living poverty since 2010 in order to be faithful to what I was called to do? I will give no apologies to people who have taken steps I urged them not to …

Charlie’s followers, past and present, bought into the poverty notion. He wrote about his ‘voluntary poverty’ in his popular web posts; yet at the same time, Johnston didn’t hide the fact that a supporter allowed him to share a comfortable Denver area split-level home, while another of Charlie’s followers reportedly gave the self-proclaimed visionary use of a truck. (The homeowner/supporter is introduced on stage during a video of a Johnston presentation in Denver.)

Charlie toured the country making public appearances, admittedly traveling inexpensively ($300 stipend), but being wined and dined and often housed well at his destinations. He also was invited to conferences, including at least one pricey one, a $2,500 per-head affair with David Daleiden, an activist filmmaker whose undercover videos of Planned Parenthood workers made him the focus of court battles.

In addition to accepting goods and services from followers, in 2015 Charlie Johnston wrote he made hundreds of dollars a month in "walking around money” from the sale of prayer cards and other items based on his alleged heavenly visions. Quotes from his Next Right Step blog show he found a way to turn messages allegedly given to him by the Archangel Gabriel, Our Lord, and Our Lady into ready cash.

According to a Zenit report published in 2012, the Vatican’s norms for discerning presumed apparitions or revelations red-flag those who “search for profit or gain strictly connected to the fact”—that is, those who attempt to benefit materially from what is claimed to be a singular grace from Heaven. (Guidelines can be read in full on the Vatican’s website.)

Charlie likened himself to a “sherpa,” a spiritual and political guide. Early in his “sherpa” career, Charlie forged a business relationship with Lisa Fixler of Full of Grace Supply House, which continues to carry NRS brand merchandise on its website. Charlie was involved in the production, distribution, promotion, and/or sale of a range of merchandise such as DVDs of his presentations, buttons, auto stickers, monstrances, and “squirrel” T-shirts and ball caps for his followers. (The “squirrel” imagery concerns an inside-joke for Charlie and his followers.)

CONT.

Mary H said...

Charlie discussed his financial interest in at least three blog entries in 2015. Note that his estimate of “a few hundred dollars” was posted in May of 2015, prior to an explosion of interest in his dire messages and visions.

charliej373 says:
May 19, 2015 at 10:41 am


Yes, Linda, but God has a plan in all this.
As far as the prayer books, eventually I will do that. But the Full of Grace Supply House has worked with me on these things…the prayer cards have been a good seller, which is good, because we give a ton away. But profits from those go into a pool to print up the stickers, buttons and prayer booklets…and a little walking around cash for me (surprisingly, a few hundred dollars a month). The initial printing of the prayer books will require a substantial upfront cost of several thousand dollars. So I decided I will wait until the initial cost is covered before making it available on Amazon or in a PDF format. The owner of the Supply House has treated these things as a ministry – it is not a profit center, except as building funds for producing more things and financing the free distribution. Because of prudent shepherding of those resources, I will be able to give prayer cards, buttons and stickers out at all the cities I visit to all who want them. So it will be available free, but not until original costs have been recaptured.


And here:

charliej373 says:
September 3, 2015 at 1:43 pm


Mark works full-time at his ministry and has a large family to support. My kids are grown, my needs are small, and I manage with little bits from the Full of Grace Supply House and a few friends – as well as the $300 fee at every place I go to pay cover transportation and incidentals. That is the way I want to keep it. There are already people out there accusing me of trying to get rich. Everyone who actually is in contact with me knows better. It’s actually kind of funny: even my worst enemies in politics never called me stupid. If what I am doing now is a get-rich scheme, it is a singularly incompetent one that regularly turns away offers of donations and does not allow collections. My need are small, so I will let it stay at what little is needed for me to do my work.


As word of his predictions spread later that year and the next, one wonders how much more Charlie made from the sales of these and such objects.

There is one more thing about the Full of Grace Supply House and Charlie's relationship, from Charlie’s blog entry, “Up From Chaos.” He clearly is taking a businesslike approach in the running of his growing “ministry:”

Meantime, I also am integrating my son, also Charlie Johnston, and my godson and nephew, Denton Brand, into the website as editors along with my sister, Kim Hocutt. I am writing out some guidelines for them. I am in the final edits of the “Go Forth” Prayer Booklets. I will meet with Lisa Fixler, owner of the Full of Grace Supply House Thursday afternoon to go over layout and printing. The long-promised buttons and stickers should be in later this week or early next. They will be available through Full of Grace – and I will take a bunch of them to distribute as I hit the road next month. And finally, I am actually working logistics this week for the first trip to the Southeast – and getting a helper on board to expedite arrangements for these visits. I will have a piece up tomorrow – sort of a checklist – on things that need to be incorporated into a visit, what a host needs to do to prepare and get others involved.

Charlie merchandise is still available online, from websites including FocusTV, Totally Yours Pilgrimages, Joshua’s Stone, and Full of Grace. Charlie also sells his books on Amazon, as Kindle editions under the name Charles Johnston. On his Amazon page he discusses his 2011-2012 pilgrimage and writes about his prophecy of a great shrine to be built on Mt. Meeker, Colorado. This, once again, directly links his alleged visions and mission to sales.

CONT.

Mary H said...

While Charlie and his team do not profit from every individual item sold—some vendors say they sell at cost (St. Clare Audio declares on its website no one makes anything from its recordings)—the fact is he is engaged in commerce overall. For example, Charlie repeatedly recommends St. Clare Seeds (related to the audio) as a resource.

And, don’t forget, Charlie admitted he relied on profits from sales of his popular prayer cards for living expenses. Indeed, a post from Charlie on the “Prayer of Miraculous Trust” seems designed to make vulnerable and pious people eager to order lots of prayer cards before catastrophic times arrive, to protect themselves and their loved ones:

“Right around the turn of the millennium, the archangel, Gabriel, gave me a prayer and told me the time would come when we would need miracles – and many miracles would be wrought through the faithful use of the prayer.

Right now, many things are collapsing before our very eyes.

When the normal means of healing are easily available, you should always take advantage of them. When God has provided abundant means of normal medicine, it is a presumption to demand only His supernatural medicine. Ideally, it is best to take advantage of both. But soon (and it is happening far more rapidly than I expected) availability of normal services will be spotty – and if you have something chronic or are elderly, much will not be available at all as surviving doctors start working under an implicit triage mentality because of the shortages of supplies and equipment. God will not leave you bereft.

Along with this posting I have linked to a religious supply house that has printed up thousands of prayer cards containing this prayer and instructions on how to use it. It is the Full of Grace Supply House which is also linked at the right hand of this page.
The woman who owns it gave me most of them to give away. I always carry a supply with me. I asked her to carry them in her inventory, so that as many as possible might have access to them.

Now, if you treat these as some magic object, I have utterly failed my duty to you. There is no magic in the card, nor magic in the prayer. Rather, the instructions for the prayer teach you how to align your will with that of God. Having said that, there have been many startling results from the proper use of this prayer. Let me explain…


Charlie couldn’t claim to be ignorant of the problems of getting tangled up in commerce. In 2015, he had been called out for advertising on his blog that there was land for sale to be used as “refuges” in his proclaimed coming “Storm.”

In an exchange in the comments section of a Jan. 19, 2017 post, “Time to Choose,” Charlie responds to an assertion that he had arranged for people to buy property as refuges via his blog, enabling transactions to take place. “To the contrary…I was not,” Charlie replied. After “Doug,” one of Charlie’s team members jumped in to defend Charlie, Charlie admitted:

charliej373 says:
January 20, 2017 at 6:05 pm


Very early on, someone had some property available and asked if I would mention it. I did, feeling a bit uncomfortable…then decided that sort of thing was contrary to the purpose here and so dropped that line. I did mention something once very early on at a reader’s request.

CONT.

Mary H said...

So. Acting as a real estate broker by carrying ads is the sort of thing “contrary to the purpose here,” so much so that Charlie Johnston, uncomfortable throughout, found it necessary to stop doing and, when challenged online, to disavow it.

Charlie’s 2017 statement above is in sharp contrast to a breezy attitude toward money-making displayed in a quote from 2014:

The “Full of Grace” Supply House which you will find in the links to the right, has a “Miraculous Trust” Prayer Card featuring the image of Our Lady of Tepeyac and her proper title. I gave the design and prayer to the owner, Lisa Fixler, who printed up thousands at her own expense—and gave me a ton of them to give away. She was reticent to carry them on her website as she wanted no commercialization at all. But I told her I wanted the prayer to get as wide a circulation as possible—band neither she nor I could afford to mail them to everyone, particularly if the demand grew. I was delighted when Lisa told me earlier this week that she was nearly out and asked if I had some I could give her. So if you ordered some and it was delayed, not to worry…she will have more by the weekend. God love her, Lisa worried a lot about commercialization. I laughed and told her that once they looked at the prices, anyone thinking it was a moneymaking scheme could only conclude she was very incompetent at coming up with moneymaking schemes.

Charlie has yet to disavow his long lasting for-profit relationships with Catholic vendors on line, and the revenue stream of hundreds of dollars a month he used to buy himself whatever he wanted. He has not yet said monetizing his messages makes him uncomfortable and presents a conflict of interest.

Vatican norms do not make distinctions regarding the amount of money an alleged messenger makes, nor do they address the relative value of material gains. For example, while a few hundred dollars a month may not have much meaning to a wealthy man, it might be a huge sum to a man who has been unemployed for many years, as Charlie has.

There is clear evidence Charlie Johnston benefited in different material ways from his self-proclaimed mission to guide others through a predicted catastrophic “Storm” and into “The Rescue.” The archdiocese of Denver has issued two strong warnings against following Johnston’s messages, but it has not addressed his involvement in his promotion and sale of products.

While his following has dwindled in the wake of a major failed prophecy, Charlie has not retired as he pledged he would just after the inauguration. Instead, he has re-emerged with four posts beginning May 23. In addition, on August 7, he launched a new outreach, with the first in a series of podcasts, reportedly designed to create new followers.

Though Charlie is unlikely to gain new members—indeed, as time goes by his numbers most likely will dwindle—it is disturbing that his merchandising and outreach continues.

Will the archdiocese of Denver take any action over this blatant example of Charlie’s self-interested continuation of a failed “ministry”?

Bemused said...

Mary, where did that article you posted appear?

Mary H said...

Bemused,

It hasn't yet. It is a final draft; the electronic copy has hyperlinks, which are missing from what I posted. All the information can be verified. The author wanted to get the information out sooner rather than later.

Anonymous said...

That is a very serious article, Mary H!

Patti Maguire Armstrong said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Strong words, Mrs. Armstrong? Are you prepared to back them up? Hey, aren't you the same woman who published one or two articles on Charlie some time ago? Are you "Mary H?"

Mary H said...

Hi Anon @ 11am,

I'm Mary H. I posted the article. The author is a mother and freelance writer from New England, and does not have her own website or work for a mainstream Catholic publication.

Patti Maguire Armstrong said...

I am not Mary H. but I support everything she said. I actually just removed my comments to rethink getting involved in such a quagmire of emotions and debate. I will, however, re-state that one of the biggest red flags is that Charlie publicly admitted to mortal sin as a serial dater in a "friends with benefits" manner all while his angel said nothing to him about it. He said his angel just told him to always be kind to people. I don't believe an angel from God would turn a blind eye to mortal sin. The Church is also clear that profiting in any way from alleged messages are a red flag.

I wish people would spend more time promoting the Church-approved Fatima rather than invest time and emotions on someone whose prophecies have failed in a big way. Remember, Charlie predicted a total global collapse amid his prophecy of Obama not finishing office

Anonymous said...

Mrs. Armstrong, I am the one who responded to you earlier today.

Thank you for your explanation. I believe your story.

Don't you think though that Charlie and Fatima are connected through the Rescue?

Patti Maguire Armstrong said...

Anonymous, There are many, red flags when it comes to Charlie. Using the Immaculate Heart of Mary to say there will be a "rescue" does not connect him to that Church approved apparition. False apparitions often try to hitch-hike onto Church approved apparitions. If even 1 % of what he says is off base, it's not from God. See this article in the National Catholic Register: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/how-to-tell-true-apparitions-from-false

You are approaching this all wrong. Seeing Charlie's prediction of a rescue as having similarities with the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary has nothing to do with whether he is authentic or not. Mohammad copied Bible stories to put in his Koran. Did that make him a true prophet because there are similarities?

If you want to make comparisons, then compare the behavior of the Fatima visionaries with that of Charlie. Mortal sin, getting angry and nasty when people question him, making wild predictions that never happened, making money on his supposed messages, not to mention Kevin O'Brien documenting with screen shots that his walk across America never happened as he claimed—those put him in a different realm than Fatima.

Stick with Fatima. Pray the rosary, make the First Saturdays, pray the chaplet of mercy. Read books on Fatima and St. Faustina's diary. Charlie offers nothing new under the Son or sun, but is saturated in false prophecies. Look at the Vimeo interview of when he was in Alabama. His many, many wild predictions have not transpired. Why would you follow him? What can he offer you that is not offered throughout he sureness of the Church's approved apparitions? Do you really think God and Charlie's angel told him all these things? It's not a matter of him misinterpreting one thing, but a host of detailed stories were given to us as to what would happen. And then after his massive fail, God called him aside for further instructions? Could it be someone not from God that is communicating with him?

Charlie admits to getting the presidential prophecy wrong. What about all the other extreme predictions? Why did he write 2 very long blog posts a few years ago about how to act in the event the government started rounding up Christians and putting them in camps? Later he said the time had passed and the government missed their opportunity to pull that off. Is that rational? Has any true visionary EVER done anything like that? At a talk out East last summer, I heard Charlie say that God is so offended by the offenses to his mother that he is no longer going to listen to any prayers unless they come through her. I listed to that and thought: So now he—and not the Church—is telling us that God no longer hears prayers address directly to him? Says who? Charlie?

Even claiming the Archbishop Aquila gave him permission to keep on doing what he is doing is a big spin. He was only investigated to see whether he would get permission to speak in Catholic Churches in the archdiocese of Denver. The answer was NO. There was not a permission granted for Charlie to continue--that was not something the archbishop ever took authority over. Charlie was not "given" permission or given anything other than the answer "no" regarding speaking in churches. The archbishop did address Charlie's continued speaking: He warned people NOT to pay attention.

One reason a full investigation was not done at the diocese was that Charlie had given himself an expiration date. IF the inauguration took place, even Charlie by his own admission, said it would show he was a false prophet. So why are people still following him now?

Anonymous said...

Looking at the post on Charlie making money!

Fun fact... The Our Lady of Tepeyac monstrances carried by Full of Grace and created by a Charlie superfan, sells for $500 (big) and $175 (small). The monstrance was set out on a table on stage during Charlie's last event in Denver, which is linked at his website. The first speaker at Charlie's presentation was Lisa Fixler, his business partner (?), who introduced the artist who created the monstrance, who apparently is one of Charlie's organizers. I think they said Charlie merchandise was being sold in the back.

https://vimeo.com/185036531?utm_source=email&utm_medium=vimeo-cliptranscode-201504&utm_campaign=29220

Anonymous said...

Well, put that way, Mrs. Armstrong, I think you have a point.

Anonymous said...

It's not worth the time to get into debates, but just to note:

1. Mary H., Charlie does not run the Full of Grace business; it's someone else's store. Since when is it a sin to run an honest business? Prayer cards cost money; the printer has to be paid. Charlie's not getting rich on that. Do you have any documentation that shows he has direct financial interest in that store?

2. Patti Maguire, about the celibacy thing, Charlie said the following comment in 2014. He never said sin is a good thing but if he fell sometimes and repented, he's a sinner like all of us are, in some way or another. I'm not going to throw stones at him for any falls.

Why are you even spending time on tearing him down? You can't control what he does anyway; it's a free country. If his bishop is content with the situation, what do you care? Why waste so much time and energy on Charlie Johnston? You just can't let him go, can you? Why let him bother you so much?

Charlie said: "Oh dear Becky…we all have pasts – and the past is just a bucket of ashes. I know we spend our whole lives prone to certain temptations. Ehhh. I was talking with one of my priests…noted that I have been celibate for 10 years now. Sometimes it was close – and it has been a bit ragged around the edges at times. The first few years, I worried a lot about stumbling. I told my priest I pray that I never stumble – that I remain celibate unless the unlikely event of a new marriage comes. But I told him I no longer feared stumbling. Not that I couldn’t…I might – and certainly, if I got too proud God would probably let me just to bring me down a peg or two. But if I stumbled, I would just get right back up and start anew. You can’t worry about the bad things you might do. Just turn your face resolutely to God – knowing full well that you will stumble in some ways."
https://charliej373.wordpress.com/2014/08/26/the-shrine/

Patti Maguire Armstrong said...

Just to clarify, I am not knocking anyone for their past sins. We are all sinners. I am questioning the likelihood of an angel regularly giving messages from heaven to someone but not expressing the least concern about mortal sin to the person he communicates regularly with. I will end my debate here. My concern is for the Church and that people not fall for false visionaries. There are many reasons why it harms the Church when this happens. The fact that you have taken my post as me attacking someone for past sins, shows that you are not understanding my point at all. I trust all those who follow Charlie to sincerely love God and their faith. I will not engage further on this topic. God bless you.

Mary H said...

Anon August 24 9:02,

A closer reading of the article will show the questions already answered. The point is Charlie profited directly and knowingly from his inaccurate visions and messages, and continues to profit. "Rich" is a relative term; Charlie's "walking around" money undoubtedly made his life more pleasant. The church lists material gain as a negative criteria (a big honking red flag) for the obvious reasons. Charlie showed he was well aware of the ethical issues in his reply to questions raised about his involvement in real estate transactions, and his minimizing, almost dismissive reply to Lisa Fixler's expressed qualms.

When the Rescue fails to materialize and we wake up in an America of 2018 that is decidedly not Mayberry, Charlie will suffer another public humiliation, which should effectively destroy the false hopes of remaining followers. So, why bother to examine his behavior now? Documenting this case may help the church deal more effectively with the next self-proclaimed seer peddling catastrophe and prayer cards.

Anonymous said...

Mary H., there's plenty of material gain in Medjugorje and the Church is about to approve that apparition.

L Spinelli said...

Whoa, hold on there, Anonymous. The only part of Medjugorje that's a "maybe" is the FIRST SEVEN APPARITIONS. Not anything else, including the last 35 years AND the enormous profits made off of Medjugorje.

Anonymous said...

Medjugore has not been approved - Pope Francis is not in approval, he had said so a few months ago.
Besides, we can do a whole new thread just on Medjugore - that would be a dandy.

Anonymous said...

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-francis-i-am-suspicious-of-ongoing-medjugorje-apparitions-68961/

Pope Francis speaks, May 13, 2017:

“The first apparitions, which were to children, the report more or less says that these need to continue being studied,” he said, but as for “presumed current apparitions, the report has its doubts.”

“I personally am more suspicious, I prefer the Madonna as Mother, our Mother, and not a woman who’s the head of an office, who every day sends a message at a certain hour. This is not the Mother of Jesus. And these presumed apparitions don’t have a lot of value.”

This doesn't sound like the Church is about to approve anything.

Fred Keyes said...

Charlie's believers often like to say that anyone who criticizes Charlie's claims and authenticity are "tearing him down" or words to that effect. That kind of comeback is a huge red flag to me. The person writing words like that is clearly upset that their beliefs in the Charlie's story are being contradicted and the language they use shows their close-mindedness and unwillingness to consider that they may be wrong. Rather than comeback with carefully reasoned arguments an emotional slam is one of the first things they say, usually followed by rigid banalities.

Stick around, Patti Maguire Armstrong. You make a good member of our 'Roman tortoise.'

Fred Keyes said...

When talking about making money in conjunction with spiritual movements, there are a couple of New Testament passages to keep in mind. One of course is Jesus's reaction to the money changers in the temple--traders who took advantage of observant Jews who wereobeying the requirements of Mosaic law.

In addition look at St. Paul. He insists that he preaches the gospel free of charge, and rather than profit from his flock he worked at making tents to support himself.

Anonymous said...

I know the people over at TRNS are reading this forum - they downplay it and say its full of hate or something similar, but they never answer any specific questions - after listening to Charlie in #3, I am even more puzzled. Here's why.

In this podcast Charlie said at starting at about the 44:25 mark that the ONLY message for public consumption was the rescue - 2017 and Mary's appearance. The other messages are only for him vis a vis faith, etc. and are personal. Now remember Charlie said this, he's not misquoted , go listen for yourself. I'll take that at face value.
If this is the case then TNRS ( Take The Next Right Step ), the whole premise of his site and message - this phrase is NOT a message from God for public consumption and is therefore not a public message so that means Charlie has made it up or assumed something. Now remember that Charlie said it's not a public message so it really has no value. Also, he has scolded people previously for following his word when it wasn't done in an "official" capacity.
Another item is the Our Lady of Tepeyac, now Charlie states that Our Lady told him that she prefers to be called by that name. Now, if he states in #3 that his only message for public consumption is the rescue, that means that the name - Our Lady of Tepeyac is not a message for public consumption, so why is he promoting it as such - remember, he stated everything else is not for public consumption.
Charlie is not hiding anything. He is telling everyone straight to their face that the ONLY message is the rescue and the appearance of Our Lady, everything else is private and inferred. Charlie even warns people that everything else he says is outside the realm of that message and is not to be taken as definitive. He even tells you to be aware.
If you think I'm wrong go listen for yourself at the 44:25 mark and also go back in the archives where he actually warns people and even chastises them for taking his word as gospel.
So, it really isn't Charlie who is deceiving people, he tells them straight out to be aware, yet they persist in taking everything as the truth - these people need to wake up, even Charlie has warned you.

Patti Maguire Armstrong said...

Thanks, Fred, for the invitation to stick around. I simply am not going to continue ta back and forth with anonymous. These debates become so time consuming (I have to work and take care of my family) and followers tend to be blind and obstinate, I don't want to get caught up in draining and fruitless discussions. In reality, I was on my phone when I first replied and then had second thoughts about putting may actual name and picture out there by going through google.

My desire to point out pitfalls to unsuspecting Catholics and to build up the Church got me to jump in on the Charlie debate. I know from past experience writing about other false visions, that through cover of the cloak of Catholicism, a lot of deception can take place. I also know personally from following false visionaries in the past, that it begins with the desire to be closer to God and ends with the pride of thinking you have insider information and getting off track.

Fred Keyes said...

Anon @ 11:52——Why has Charlie publicized thousands of words about these things if they were supposed to be meant for himself as an individual? It makes no sense. Does Charlie then believe he possesses secret knowledge? Gnosticism was exposed as heresy way back in the early centuries of Christianity. That kind of "insider information" (to use Patti's phrase) is a sure sign of a wolf in the sheepfold.

Joseph J. said...


Concerning Charlie's recent statement that the supposed "rescue" was/is the only message specifically for the public, this obviously does not coincide at all with what he wrote in his article entitled "Go Forth", in which Charlie reveals eight worldwide events that are said to occur. He states:
--------------------------------
"I only have eight public prophecies that I insist on. Only the visible, miraculous Rescue by Our Lady, the Immaculate Conception in late 2017, is time sensitive. Five things must happen between now and the Rescue, but can happen at any time during that period. They are:

– The continued toppling of governments throughout the world, including that of the U.S. The toppling of a government does not mean the nation shall fall.

– The confrontation with and fall of political Islam.

– The mass conversion of most Muslims

– The confrontation between the Judeo-Christian world and the current government of China.

– The alliance between Russia and the U.S. to lead the Judeo-Christian world to endure the confrontation with China.

-Then, after the 5 things above comes the miraculous "Rescue" through the Immaculate Heart of Mary sometime in late 2017.
Then there are two prophecies that happen shortly after the Rescue. They are the unification of the faithful into one flock under one shepherd and the building and location of the Shrine of thanksgiving for the Rescue on Mount Meeker in Colorado.
-----------------------

Thus, the "I only have eight public prophecies that I insist on" as he wrote in "Go Forth" directly refutes his latest position. Apparently he does not "insist" on any of these nowadays, except the so called "rescue".

Anonymous said...

The problem at this point for Charlie is that he now insists the "rescue" and the "appearance of Our lady" are the ONLY public prophecies so the statement "I only have eight public prophecies that I insist on" contradicts his latest speak in #3 at the 44:25 mark. Someone has to address that issue, but it probably won't be dealt with as Charlie's diehard followers, although diminished, are "All IN" and it's hard to convince people otherwise. Look at the #3 thread near the bottom and Becks says that we are full of hate that's why we smear Charlie - some will wake up but there will always be a core group of followers even if everything fails.

Anonymous said...

Charlie's followers have never addressed the pointed questions or concerns on this forum, they always cause trouble and then disappear.

L Spinelli said...

That lady "Mack" has been hanging around Charlie's site for years. She says we need prayers. She needs them too. As they all do. They refuse to take their blinders off and admit that this Charlie thing is one big con.

Anonymous said...

Just a disappointed follower in waiting. What will any of them do come January? And will Beckita apologize for leading people on? Does being "All In" mean never having to say you're sorry.

And what will all of those Charlie followers do with those prayer cards and Squirrel t-shirts after the Rescue, anyway?

Anonymous said...

CHARLIE EXPLAINS ALL THOSE FAILED PROPHECIES:

charliej373 says:
August 27, 2017 at 2:33 pm


Hi Pati, a thoughtful question. I do not just NOW say that about the messages; I have said that since I started this website. There was only one thing I was directed to tell people publicly – and that was the Rescue. Some things I was directed not to speak of, but most of the rest was left to my discretion – and I spoke knowing that I was fully responsible for it and that it always involves interpretation. When heavenly beings use normal language, they are playful with it. Their use of language seamlessly incorporates plain speech, figurative speech, symbolic images, double meanings and layers of meaning. I regret those times I have spoken presumptuously – but not as much as you might think. I had to speak to encourage people to see God behind temporal events that were going crazy. I knew from the start I would make some blunders – but to not speak at all for fear of error would be the biggest blunder of all…a coward’s way.

In all the years I confined these things to spiritual direction, I was often wrong. But I was very rarely wrong on substance, merely on timing…and occasionally in giving a literal interpretation to what was symbolic. You are right that I chose to tell you these things you mentioned – and I believe (with good evidence now, as you will see below) every one of those. I have come to think that the Rescue may well be the beginning of much of that rather than the culmination. What I was told specifically about the Rescue was that Our Lord would send Our Lady to the whole world – and that all would know of her (I interpret it as see her) and would know that God IS – and that Jesus IS God. Now, I naively assumed that if everyone saw her, everyone would be converted – for self interest, if nothing else – for who can contend with God? But I have pretty consistently underestimated the malice that takes hold in a heart overcome by vanity. Watching the rising shrieking madness that has only intensified since the Inauguration, I have come to think that there are MANY, MANY people, even knowing that God IS and that Jesus Christ is Lord will be bitter enders and, like the satan, refuse to acknowledge and serve their Creator, even knowing it will lead to their destruction. So I think we will have a lot of work ahead of us – but will do that work knowing that God IS and that He prevails.

Anonymous said...

MORE CHARLIE RATIONALIZATION:

...I have always seen my job as somewhat akin to that of a good baseball coach – to inculcate the habits of mind and behavior that will lead to effective performance, while warning people of little traps that can easily take hold. Many of my readers have thought of my job as being to give an inning by inning narrative before the game begins i.e. “the first batter will hit a line-drive to the third baseman, the second will hit a deep fly ball into the right-field corner, the third will hit a home run into the bleachers, and the fourth will hit a ground ball to short.” Some take comfort in this idea because it would tell them when to be alert. Yet, if it were possible to do this, it would make them less competent to deal with what did come, for they would be much more lax in drilling in the habits of mind and behavior that make them competent to deal with whatever comes, thinking they only need be alert at specific times. We must be watchful always. So, I may well be wrong again should I tell you a flyball is going to be hit to center, only to see it hit to right field. But on the big sweep, I have told you true. I rather think that those people who point out that about 80% of the federal bureaucracy are still Obama holdovers and that the Senate has slow-walked low level appointees at a scandalous rate no president has ever had to deal with before are on the right track…but that is NOT what I said. I said Obama would not complete his full term…that is how I interpreted it…and I interpreted it wrong. Period. This probably won’t comfort you, but when I speak I am likely to make several more blunders before it is all through. Even so, I will Sherpa on.

Take a look at the items you mentioned:

1) The toppling of governments throughout the world. Most of the Middle Eastern Governments have toppled since 2011. Western Europe is tottering under the weight of an immigration crisis the likes of which Americans can’t imagine. France, England, Belgium and Germany have large regions so consumed with sharia law that the police will not go there. You can see startling dysfunctions rising and threatening governments in most of the world.

2) The confrontation with Islam. Political Islam is, right now, making war on the western world. That most of the west refuses to confront it does not change the equation – and people will not forever support governments that sacrifice them to slaughter rather than confront those doing the slaughtering. When we take Islam seriously, it will repent or fall – and the longer we don’t, the more violently will western governments fall.

3) The mass conversion of most Muslims. Paradoxically, despite the rise of ISIS and frantic efforts to prevent it, Muslims are already converting to Christianity in huge numbers these last five years. Fr. Mitch Pacwa of EWTN, who spends a lot of time in the Middle East, says the most under-reported story of our times is that the trickle of Christian converts from Islam in the Middle East has steadily grown to about a million a year these last few years. It has certainly become such a steady stream that most serious Christian publications have noted it. (For a sample story, see here.) The trickle that has already become a strong stream will become an absolute flood in God’s good time...

Anonymous said...

CHARLIE 'SPLAINING:

4) What I said about China remains…even as we can see it intensify before our own eyes.

5) When I first spoke about the alliance between Russia and the US some 20 years ago, it was striking and improbable. Now, the mere serious student of prevailing geopolitical trends can see that it is almost inevitable from a purely temporal standpoint.

Any who treat whatever I say as Holy Writ are going to be deeply disillusioned. Those who treat what I say as useful and prescient insight to fortify them along their way in troubled times will be completely gratified. The central reality is that God is not done with us. He wants us to participate with Him in calling all His children back to Him – to know that His plans are for our prospering, not for our destruction. I am entirely dedicated to spreading that central reality.

Anonymous said...

I saw Charlie's very detailed response as well. To his credit, he didn't dodge the question and while the jury is still out on Charlie (I say this only b/c his Bishop has taken a 'wait-n-see' attitude rather than ordering him to shut down his blog) I appreciated that response.

L Spinelli said...

This is more of a raspberry at the critics (i. e. us) than a true rebuttal. He reinterpreted EVERYTHING. All the absolutes and "I told you true" were pushed aside so he can stay Sherpa.

There are not enough eye rolls for this.

All the more reason to completely discount anything he says.

Anonymous said...

Charlie said:

"When heavenly beings use normal language, they are playful with it. Their use of language seamlessly incorporates plain speech, figurative speech, symbolic images, double meanings and layers of meaning.

I never spoke to a heavenly being so forgive my naivete, but why would angels communicate in such a fuzzy and ambiguous manner? It's as if Charlie is suggesting that communicating with angels is akin to reading tea leaves.

Anonymous said...

I don't think Denver is taking a 'wait and see' approach. Seems to me that the matter is clear-cut.

Denver would never approve Charlie's stuff, not after January's blow-up!

Anyone notice that guy Kevin Symonds seems to have written something on Charlie? It is password protected though. Anyone got the scoop on this? I want to know what he said!

Anonymous said...

It would have been more interesting if Charlie would have responded to Robert in Podcast #4, instead Becks links him to some links on the site and says she won't clear his comments anymore if he acts like that. Instead he addresses the soft ball question from Patricia in another thread.

Anyway it sounds like Charlie is disavowing everything he ever said except the stuff that he said that appears to be coming to fruition.

If that is the case then the whole site based on the TNRS mantra is also dubious because if only the "rescue" is of God, then TNRS is of Charlie - a marketing tool. Since there is no divine authority what authority does it have?

Our Lady of Tepeyac is another. He said Our Lady said she preferred to be called by that name. Is that now false? By his own admission only the "rescue" is of heaven, therefore Our Lady saying she prefers that name is also false. Why doesn't he address this - because he got someone to spent all this time sculpting and is now allegedly selling Tepeyac statues, he would have to change the name on all of them. What other "Tepeyac" stuff is he selling? What about his TNRS stuff?

Anonymous said...

At this point I haven't bothered to listen to #4, it's a waste of time.

As someone said on another forum regarding comments here about Charlie saying they "felt diabolical disorientation after visiting Charlie/Beckita's site."

"Of course, it's never good to blame the devil when sheer human stupidity can explain things..."

Someone asked me the other day about Charlie and I told them my very negative experiences on his blog and the lack of his answering the tough questions or even not so tough questions for that matter. I told them I thought he was "not believable". However, I told them they should make up their own mind, in the end they were thankful for my opinion and did not realize how Charlie really is. If you want to tell people about Charlie - say it locally to the faithful, you'd be surprised how it spreads. I even stopped a chapter of Charlie from being set up here by relaying my negative experiences to the "right" people and I'm sure the word spread to other major populations as these people were connected to other faith communities in other major centres.

Anonymous said...

Thanks, Anon@10:57,

If you read Charlie's latest post it says he's coming back in a big way, maybe even making tours again. Now his reason is "Charlottesville," which proved he was right about civil disorder, etc.

Anon@10:18,

The Tepeyac monstrance may not be usable. I read online that monstrances should not be included as part of a statue of a saint, that they should be stand-alone with the Eucharist as the major focus, preferably with rays. That means the Tepeyac monstrance being sold for $500 as part of the Next Right Step collection online cannot be used as a monstrance in a Catholic church! Charlie sure as heck promoted that for sale in his Denver video with product placement.

Anonymous said...

BECKITA TRIES TO SMOOTH OVER THOSE PESKY DETAILS:

Beckita says:
August 27, 2017 at 10:53 pm


Hi Phil. What I understand Charlie to affirm is that he flat out erred in making the Inaugural prophecy. Charlie is acknowledging: “I rather think that those people who point out that about 80% of the federal bureaucracy are still Obama holdovers and that the Senate has slow-walked low level appointees at a scandalous rate no president has ever had to deal with before are on the right track…” But notice the words: “..the right track…” To me, this is not definitively saying, “That’s it.”

Who can truly fathom what it is to receive all manner of mystical input over a lifetime, become – by God’s design – a prophet with whom God works in a truly unique way, experience constant correction throughout your training and then continue to give it all your best shot without God correcting it. There *must* be a purpose(s), no one can clearly see, for why God allowed the error. He could just as easily have nudged St. Gabriel to provide the correction as Gabriel had done, perhaps, hundreds of times before. But.He.Didn’t. Here’s where I choose to bow low, low, low. Oh I’d love to see, maybe in Heaven, all that God accomplished in these circumstances. But whether or not we get that curiosity satisfied, God allowed what He allowed and we know God is nothing but LOVE and GOODNESS...

L Spinelli said...

Beckita, we know that God is love and goodness. We didn't need you to tell us that.

God is love and goodness and he and his angels don't lie.

L Spinelli said...

Anon @ 7:22

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01357e.htm

The ostensorium (ostensory, monstrance) is a glass-framed shrine in which the Blessed Sacrament is publicly exposed. It may be of gold, silver, brass, or copper gilt (Cong. Sac. Rit., 31 August, 1867). The most appropriate form is that of the sun emitting its rays to all sides (Instructio Clement., 5). The base should be wide, and at a short distance above it there should be a knob for greater ease in handling. The ostensorium must be surmounted by a cross. (Cong. Sac. Rit., 11 September, 1847). It should not be embellished with small statues of saints, as these and the relics of saints are forbidden to be placed on the altar during solemn Benediction. At the sides of the receptacle in which the lunula is placed it is appropriate to have two statues representing adoring angels. In the middle of the Ostensorium here should be a receptacle of such a size that a large Host may be easily put into it; care must be taken that the Host does not touch the sides of this receptacle. On the front and back of this receptacle there should be a crystal, the one on the back opening like a door, when closed, the latter must fit tightly. The circumference of this receptacle must either be of gold or, if of other material, it should be gilt and so smooth and polished that any particle that may fall from the Host will be easily detected and removed. The lunula must be inserted and recovered without difficulty, hence the need for keeping it in an upright position should be construed with this end in view. The ostensorium need not necessarily be blessed, but it is better that it should be. The form "Benedictio tabernaculi" (Rit. Rom., tit. viii, xxiii) or the form "Benedictio ostensorii" (Rit. Rom., in Appendice) may be used. When carried to and from the altar it ought to be covered with a white veil.

Anonymous said...

Robert says:
August 26, 2017 at 2:33 pm


Beckita,
It is Charlie whom I would like to hear from with his reply to my question and hopefully on the podcast. I am wondering how he is going to explain that what he stated was going to happen but has not happened and Mother Mary is about to appear in a few weeks. Should be a very interesting dance by Charlie.
Am I disappointed in Charlie? Well I am disappointed in all the people who claim Jesus speaks to them and who tell stories of the coming end times.
And today there are a lot of them trying to get heard.
But when the time of the events they clearly state will happen pass by, and nothing happens they do have a pie in there face.
And we the people then know the truth.
Having read what Charlie has stated and looked at the videos and observing there is now no more time left for Charlies stories to come to reality before Mother Mary comes to rescue the world in a few weeks; I have to decide that Charlie has a greatly overly active imagination.
What he stated was either true or it wasn’t. The time has now passed and revealed it was not true.
And do not say GOD changed the stories time frame.


Beckita says:
August 26, 2017 at 10:27 pm


Robert, you *have* heard from Charlie via posts and podcasts on these questions. Discussion galore, concerning the inaugural prophecy error, has ensued on the surrounding issues over these last seven months. *All* your concerns have been answered in the pieces I took the time to link you to. We already know the truth. No dancing. No pies. No coming in and ordering what can and cannot be said by others here, Robert. If this is your style of asking and demanding, I won’t be clearing your comments.


Patrick of SD says:
August 27, 2017 at 8:28 am


Thank you, Beckita. 😔 You are so patient and kind. 🙂

Fred Keyes said...

Refuting Charlie and Beckita has become a game of Whack-a-mole. It doesn't matter what anyone says to refute them, they will always have an answer to explain it.

The Archdiocese may or may not condemn the Charley Johnston's false claims any time soon. The Church is always very patient in these circumstances, wanting to provide every opportunity for its sons and daughters to repent of wayward spiritual adventurism. The Archdiocese has already warned the faithful about Charlie's predictions in a manner clear enough to protect all but the TNRS's most stubborn followers. Never mind that the author of the Letter to the Hebrews did the same nearly 2000 years ago.

"Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teaching. It is good to have our hearts strengthened by grace and not by foods, which do not benefit those who live by them." (Heb 13:9)

Jackisback said...

I have yet to listen to Charlie's podcasts, but I will do so at some point. However, this latest move to disavow all other "prophecies" (at least with respect to their timing) except for the alleged "Rescue" (and remember the "Rescue" is not a prophecy, but a locution) is just one of the expected "goal post moving" moments that most of us here have expected of Charlie since the first time we became aware of Charlie's existence.

I challenged Charlie early on (on Glenn's first thread, back when Charlie was still openly debating with people on that thread) to avoid "goal post moving" - as that is a classic sign of false "visionaries" who often predict cataclysms. When the expiration date arrives, an excuse is made, and then often a revised date for the claimed event is given. I still expect this a likely thing to occur with respect to the "Rescue" sometime before the new year.

With respect to the "five fundamentals," Charlie's attempts to either tell us that one or more of them have already occurred, are in a state of significant process, or will occur after the "Rescue" contain too many logical fallacies to count.

The equivocating nature of the latest "explanations" - i.e. special pleading fallacies - with respect to the nature and timing of the so-called "five fundamentals" seem to be a fairly obvious response to Steve BC's request of Charlie:

"Is it possible that you could help clear some of these already existing ideas away? Don’t tell us what is coming. Instead, tell us what we have heard may be coming that is no longer coming or can no longer be understood in the old way.

Help us open up to the bigger picture by tossing overboard some of the previously defined things that no longer apply. Unclog us!"

Charlie waited a bit from July 30, 2017 (when Steve BC made his request) in order to forumulate an answer, and he now slips that answer into a response to "Pati," in which he stoops to the level of parsing the plain language meaning of "I was told" into an oblivion of unintelligible nonsense (a parsing the likes of which we have come to expect Charlie to decry when he observes it being done by his political foes).

Folks, I am able, with specificity, to point out the bizarre nature of Charlie's response, but at this point, it seems plain to that doing so is equivalent to my explaining to someone who has seen the entire run of the comedy series "The Honeymooners" multiple times, that the scene where Ed Norton (while playing pool with Ralph Kramden) makes the opening break of the rack of balls and declares several seconds later, "That's the way I played it," when one particular ball happens to drop into the corner pocket, that poor Ed is displaying obvious confirmation bias about something random, that he couldn't have actually known about in advance. Such an explaination would be more than a little superfluous.

I think it is time to look upon these last desperate attempts by Charlie to reclaim some relevancy (and by his doing so, doubling/tripling/quadrupling down on his prior errors) with all the charity and with the most honest sense of pity that we can muster.

This is now nearly to the point of being too sad to watch.

Anonymous said...

As much as Charlie was talking about Houston a lot, you'd think with all the higher up connections they would have told him that Houston would be experiencing a once in 1,000 year event! Instead, he was talking about squirrels and other irrelevant topics and missed the biggie right under his nose - what a complete joke he has become.

Jackisback: I skimmed over most of his pods, except #4 which I didn't listen too after in #3 he said his only prediction is the "rescue", so basicly anything else he says is of no value, it's not of God and therefore who cares - in fact Charlie even says everything else he says is not a prediction and don't take it as the gospel truth, it's only his opinion.

Jackisback said...

I just dared to ask a question of Charlie with respect to his response to "Pati," identifying myself as "Jackisback" so there would be no doubt as to who was asking. We'll see if he tries to answer or if his moderators partially redact it or delete it entirely. If they redact or delete it rather than post it all, I will share the contents of my question in a day or two. If he responds, I will attempt to capture the response and post it here.

Fred Keyes said...

What galls me about Charlie's predictions is that he would not have gotten the following he did if he hadn't made all of his startling predictions in the first place. It is painfully obvious that to the extent he has any following at all it is because he stirred up a following with some fantastically false predictions. Any honorable person would apologize and quietly close up a movement based on falsehoods. That he won't do that is a testament to the man's towering ego.

Bemused said...

Did anyone else catch this snippet from Charlie's reply to a Patricia (Pati):

I have come to think that the Rescue may well be the beginning of much of that rather than the culmination.

So does this mean that the events leading up to the rescue, e.g., the complete economic collapse, the rise of Menses, war with China, etc., may now occur after the rescue?

If so, what kind of rescue would that be? The whole thing is starting to get confusing.

Jackisback said...

Like I said, there are so many issues with the bizarre nature of Charlie's response to Pati that... (see my post from yesterday at 6:04 p.m.)

L Spinelli said...

As I said a while ago, he refuses to hold himself to the same standards that he used to critique Locutions to the World when it went down in flames.

That seer, although anonymous, didn't attempt any comeback (like starting a new site with new messages), which makes them a lot more credible than Charlie. They probably were genuinely deceived. Charlie? Who can even attempt to guess at this point - but I still believe this has signs of demonic influence.

Anonymous said...

...I think it is time to look upon these last desperate attempts by Charlie to reclaim some relevancy (and by his doing so, doubling/tripling/quadrupling down on his prior errors) with all the charity and with the most honest sense of pity that we can muster.

This is now nearly to the point of being too sad to watch.


Jack, I honestly can't muster any pity at this point. The whole Charlie thing has moved beyond pathos to bathos. I feel sorry for his son, who will eternally be linked to this craziness if anyone googles him or his father; crazy isn't a good look for a policeman. I doubt Charlie feels the pain others may feel just watching him try to manipulate. Charlie may think he's keeping his followers in line and poking his critics in the eye with his defiance. He may think he's really still in the game. Who knows?

L Spinelli said...

Never mind, I'm going to attempt a guess at why Charlie is acting the way he is.

A therapist suggested mania when he was a teen - and because he wanted to experience the highs, he refused medication.

He might have narcissistic personality disorder.

Combine that with a demon talking to/influencing him for 50+ years.

Out of all the stories of real and fake mystics than Glenn wrote, the one (IMO) that comes closest to resembling Charlie's story is Magdalena of the Cross. Look it up. Not a pleasant story. She fooled a lot of people for 40 years!

L Spinelli said...

Look what I found...with no "don't reinterpret that, Denver said not to!" blurb from Beckita like the last time they were caught posting stuff like this:

Hi Charlie, Beckita, and NRS family. God’s blessings on us all. I benefited from your post (as usual) and your comments too. I know that the presidental office transition interpretation you made was wrong in its specifics, but with each passing day it seems practically true. Effectively Obama’s administration is still running the country. Right before his term ended he converted about 1,000 medium to high level appointees to civil servant status so they could not be removed, as Obama himself had done (removed 1,000 on day one). He instructed them to stay and fight and administer as if he was still in White House. This and much more, with detailed specifics, are described in a book Dick Morris recently wrote. As far as i know this is unprecedented retention of presidential power by on ‘outgoing’ US president. So yes he left office, but he still yields massive control of that branch of government. God save us!

With love and affection,

Rich

Beckita says:
August 28, 2017 at 9:10 am

Great to hear from you, as always, Rich. Having read about what you describe, I am amazed at the forces – including Obama’s meddling, yet also, many more factions – which press against the progress of Trump’s nearly every move. Best part: God has a Plan and we’re co-creators with Him in it. God bless you and your family and all TNRSer and families with the love and affection you express as it is reciprocated to you.

Fred Keyes said...

Rich and Beckita's exchange illustrates how deeply political the whole TNRS movement is all about.

Jackisback said...

Anonymous (at August 29, 2017 at 6:26 PM)

I get where you are coming from. I have never had a dog in Charlie's hunt. So perhaps it is a bit easier for me to look upon him and all the TNRSers with charity/pity. I have no resentment (and never had any) toward them.

For those that have been hurt by any experience over at their blog (or elsewhere) whether directctly from ill-treatment by Charlie or his followers (and I'm don't know if you were ever treated badly) I simply think the Catholic thing to do is to forgive (defined as "to let go of resentment). That does not mean condone, and forgiveness need not be communicated directly to them for it to be meaningful. But I understand if you cannot come along with my sentiment.

Jackisback said...

Fred (at 9:56 AM)

You said:

--begin quoted text--
Rich and Beckita's exchange illustrates how deeply political the whole TNRS movement is all about.
--end quoted text--

Note also, Fred, the irony: from the TRNSers' perspective, the "five fundamentals" would have had a slightly greater chance of coming to fruition during this calendar year, and in their minds creating the "necessary" conditions for a "rescue," if the candidate they opposed, Hillary Clinton, had been elected. And yet they effectively (and admittedly) prayed for mitigation from the "stormy purification" that they claim her election would have brought about.

Anonymous said...

Jack, Can you share your progress in getting an answer from Charlie or Beckita?

Anonymous said...

I do not even see Jack's question posted.

Jackisback said...

I concur. I do not see it posted either. I had chexked the reply box to Charlie's response to Pati. Obviously, since I used my screen name "Jackisback" (same as here), they mayhave blocked my question on that basis alone. I'll post the question here when I get back to my office.

L Spinelli said...

That's not surprising at all!

I don't know if they log/track/block IP addresses, but Jack is probably on the block list. My home IP is.

L Spinelli said...

Three challenging questions was the limit for me, lol. They blocked me after I told Charlie "we don't need you", way back when he "proclaimed the Rescue".

Jackisback said...

For what it's worth, here was my question posed to Charlie almost 48 hours ago, which has not been allowed, so far, to appear on the TNRS blog's comment section:

--begin quoted text--

Charlie,

How do you know that you haven’t misinterpreted what you were “told” about the “Rescue,” given how badly you misinterpreted what you were “told” about Obama not finishing his term - if what you say is true, about how heavenly beings use language “playfully?” How do we know that what you have told us about the “Rescue” isn’t just the result of those supernatural beings (angels/saints or even God the Father, God the Son or God the Holy Spirit) communicating to you with “playful language” consisting not of precise, actual, plain words and sentences, but rather “figurative speech, symbolic images, double meanings and layers of meaning?”

If any of those peculiar “uses of normal language” were employed by them when communicating to you about the Rescue, then you might have the entire thing wrong via misinterpretation, yes? Even if we were to continue to believe in your locution about the “Rescue,” how can you know for certain about the actual date if the language used with respect to that date was “figurative” or “symbolic” or included “double meanings” or “layers of meaning?”

You say you were “told specifically” to tell us about the date of fulfillment, but what value does the phrase “told specifically” have when the “specific telling” moment that you experienced was in reality the “playful use” of language by your interlocutors? How would you know that the date or time frame given wasn’t symbolic? If it was symbolic, isn’t it possible the “storm,” of which you claim we are in the midst, will continue for hundreds or thousands of years?

Or, alternatively, are you claiming that when you were “specifically told” about the “Rescue” and its timing, that no playful use of language, no metaphors or symbolism, occurred whatsoever?

--end quoted text--

Anonymous said...

Jack, I'm sure if Charlie had answered, it wouldn't have been in playful language.

Anonymous said...

This whole Charlie thing is surreal. I've gone to his site and immediately thought he is puffed up, uses false humility, lashes out at people and then pontificates and lectures people. Even after his outrageous claims were all false, he admitted to basically erring on just the presidential prediction rather than the reality that his predictions were all a major fail. He predicted there would be no more Christmas a few years ago. The following Christmas he said, Oh, I can see how you all misunderstood that. I meant the spirit of Christmas...that's gone. He pulled the same excuse when there was an election—oh, you misunderstood what I meant. Except he said in his Alabama talk that we were going to skip over this election. The guy is a clown and people still keep following him.

Actually, Charlie is worse than a clown. How could his followers not consider that for him to get so many things wrong, then what sort of angel is he talking to? He gets more wrong than right yet people keep following him. What does that say about their neediness? Even after his big fail, he cannot resist returning to power. What is going to be his excuse when 2018 rolls around and there is no rescue? Is he going to grab onto some bit of good news and say: See, here we have a bit of a rescue, so I was basically right.

Charlie is a spin master and his followers can't think straight because they are so dizzy, following him faithfully.

Jackisback said...

Anonymous (at 12:02 a.m.)

You said:

-- begin quoted text--
What is going to be his excuse when 2018 rolls around and there is no rescue? Is he going to grab onto some bit of good news and say: See, here we have a bit of a rescue, so I was basically right.
--end quoted text--

I'd say your implication here is highly likely. That is why Charlie has now parsed the phrase "normal language" - so as to make whatever he reports to have a built-in ambiguity factor (the "ambiguity" logical fallacy) and to make it quite easy to engage in "moving the goal posts" (the "special pleading" logical fallacy). After all, the claim about the "Marian Rescue" being "visible" has now been rendered to potentially being something not very visible at all, at least in terms of our normal understanding - something that can be seen with the human eye.

We are literally getting to the point of expecting on January 1, 2018, when nothing has happened, for Charlie to declare victory, and to decry his critics with the proverbial "hey the 'Rescue' happened, but you lacked the faith to 'see' it
; who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"

As I say, something akin to this is highly likely, which is why Charlie and his followers need our charity, prayers and pity.

Anonymous said...

Beckita made this comment in her response to a poster:

Every authentic word of prophecy will be mitigated or fulfilled to the degree that God’s people respond to the effusion of His Purifying Grace.

The thing is you really can't debate that statement. What I mean is let's say I tell you an angel told me next week a comet will hit the earth in punishment for man's sins. If a comet does hit the earth, then I am a true seer. But if a comet doesn't hit the earth it simply means the punishment was mitigated (and I'm still a true seer because my prediction got people to pray which in turn got God to mitigate the punishment). So there's no way to have an intelligent debate. Especially now that we are dealing with Angels who talk in riddles that have multiple layers of meaning.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 10:03 (Sept.3):

Isn't that called 'stacking the deck' or 'creating a foregone conclusion'?

Hey, that Kevin Symonds guy wrote a new article about Charlie. Did anyone see it?

Anonymous said...

This is the Kevin Symonds article the previous poster referenced:

https://kevinsymonds.com/2017/08/27/johnston-2017-2/

Mary H said...

Kevin Symonds article is on his website, https://kevinsymonds.com/2017/08/27/johnston-2017-2/

Much in the manner of Jack and others, Symonds warns that Charlie is using words in a way to deflect or deceive his readers:

...As we saw earlier, we do have what has been said already by the Archdiocese. What does Johnston think about Denver’s February, 2017 statement? He indicated his mind on this matter in June, 2017:

….The Archbishop warned that people should exercise prudence and caution when considering my prophetic statements [KJS note: this remark refers to a another statement from March, 2016], but did not restrict me from speaking or writing publicly, except that I may not give a formal presentation on Church property in Denver. He added no new restrictions after I made my errant interpretation…. I, of course, am fully obedient to my Archbishop, and my relations with the Archdiocese remain cordial and friendly (contrary to what some sites perniciously suggest) (emphases mine).

Johnston states above that he is “fully obedient” to his Archbishop.[xi] When questioned by another commenter, Johnston wrote:

….[E]ven now I am not restricted from speaking or writing prophecy. That I break no new ground is a matter of prudent discretion on my part, not a directive from the Archdiocese. And I left open the possibility of it in an extraordinary situation. The Archdiocese specifically directed that people not seek to re-interpret my failed interpretation regarding the inauguration, a position I had taken firmly with all before the Archdiocese ever spoke on it. There is no general ban on reviewing or discussing other prophetic comments.

First, it is necessary to point out an error in Johnston’s above statement. Denver’s February 2017 statement did not tell people they were not to “re-interpret” a “failed interpretation” as Johnston says above. The Archdiocesan statement said not to re-interpret Johnston’s alleged visions. Why does Johnston say one thing when the Archdiocese said another? Secondly, it is true that Denver’s February, 2017 statement does not issue a positive law/order to Johnston (or others). Does such a lack, however, help his cause? That is questionable as there is an important reason for “prudent discretion.”

Whatever Johnston’s personal reasons are for his “prudent discretion,” his alleged prophecies and reputation as a prophet are now discredited by many people in the public forum. He has little to no credibility except in the eyes of some core followers. Thus, does the Archdiocese of Denver truly need to issue a law or command in the face of the evidence? Does the Archdiocese have to force the faithful with precept in this case? Shouldn’t this be a matter of common sense and not an opportunity for the proliferation of laws?[xii] ...

Anonymous said...

I just realized it's Friday, and that means they'll be another Charlie and Chaz podcast posted by the end of the day. Stay tuned...

Anonymous said...

I took less than a minute to skim through #5, as the title said "ramblings" - not worth the listen in my opinion.

L Spinelli said...

I was eating dinner, homemade M & C, when the post appeared about another podcast.

I skimmed through the last four, but skipped that one. I have a strong stomach. I didn't feel like wasting a great dinner on another pointless podcast.

Anonymous said...

L. Spinelli, I had the same reaction and response. I started listening and couldn't take it so I turned it off.

Almost a half century of angelic training and this is what it's come down to...incessant ramblings on an internet blog But I'm sure his online army was hanging on to every word hoping he would throw them some small prophetic bone to whet their appetites and keep them coming back for more. I can only hope that any Protestants who are considering conversion to the Catholic faith don't stumble across his blog and think that this is what Catholicism is all about.

L Spinelli said...

@Anon above, that time is gone. Charlie hit his peak last year. His credibility started going down after the election (referencing what he said about it in Alabama..."absolute and not subject to change" as per a post at the Mother of God forum) and bottomed out a month or two after the inauguration. He might have picked up some stragglers, but most of what's left is the long time die-hard faithful followers, or as I call them, core nutters. Yes, that's a play on that ridiculous squirrel meme of theirs.

Anonymous said...

With the crisis about to explode in N.Korea and followed by millions dead on the Korean peninsula, Charlie's prediction of war breaking out through North Korea and 26 million dead may be fulfilled after all. It's then possible that China comes to North Korea's assistance raising the possibility of war between the US and China (another prophecy fulfilled). Let's say that the US and China exchange a few nuclear bombs and the world will be plunged into an economic collapse (another prophecy fulfilled). Russia and the US could then unite against China (another prophecy fulfilled). This would be followed by the Rescue before the end of 2017. This scenario does not need years to play out but could happen in a matter of a few weeks. Yes this is unlikely but it is still possible.

L Spinelli said...

Why would you even want a scenario like that to play out? All that death and suffering? For what? To say Charlie was right?

Instead of wishing for his prophecies to do come true and praying prayers that may have originated from a demon, why didn't you do something constructive, like pick up your Rosary on August 15 and pray for peace in the United States and the world, i. e. the 54 Day Rosary?

Anonymous said...

Anon at 10:39 am you have too many "what if" scenarios, in reality it never works like that, you're trying to justify a Charlie prediction ( actually it's not a prediction, Charlie has stated that his only prediction is the rescue ) that he bases from listening to main stream news and if you listen to the main stream and Charlie you'll get burned.
There will not be a war with N Korea.
Gerald Celente has re-iterated what he said previously, he does not think we are going to war with N Korea.
Military Analyst Charles R Smith on Coast to Coast and other shows was questioned about the high level of rhetoric going on between Trump and Kim and his position and he said he sticks by his analysis, we are definitely not going to war with N Korea.
Trump's own cabinet members have stated that dialogue with N Korea is never dead.
Putin and Xi have said they will deal with N Korea.
Trump's own military advisers have stated that they will not win a war with N Korea.
In order for a war to happen in N Korea you have to have logistics, it's not in place and there are no signs that it is happening any time soon.
N Korea always pushes the envelope in order to get something, they have a history of it.

L Spinelli said...

There are other visionaries that mentioned North Korea in their messages, recent or otherwise:

Holy Love - Negative decision in 2009.

Horacio Villegas - Catholic, lives in Texas, first went public this past April but published books on his claims since 2005. It's doubtful that the local Catholic authorities even heard of this guy.

Words from Jesus (Jennifer) - No decision.

John Leary - Negative decision in 2000.

Maria Divine Mercy - Negative decision in 2014.

The devil just loves to sow confusion. Here's the proof. Six different seers, none of them approved, and all mentioned North Korea. All the more reason to stay far away from this stuff!

Anonymous said...

I have been following Our Lady of Damascus ( Soufenieh )for awhile.
A picture of Our Lady had been oozing oil and appearing to a humble housewife at her house in Damascus. She is Orthodox and her husband is Catholic.
Our Lady gave her a few messages and that was it, but the picture still oozed oil until 2001 when it stopped.
At Easter of this year it started oozing oil again for the 1st time since 2001. No one knows why.
His case has been studied by the various Catholic and Orthodox and have declared it authentic. Our Lady's message is "Church Unity". Father Fox has investigated as well and he promotes it.

The reason I bring this up is because Charlie would scrub anything I mentioned about Our Lady of Damascus - he would not allow any of it to be shown on his blog. Why? I believe Charlie believes it is a competitor to him and therefore he wanted to get rid of any sign. He did allow one poster to mention it a little while later but it was so poorly presented, I bet he felt he could let this go because it was not appealing to anyone. But, that was the only time he allowed it.

Why does Charlie not like Our Lady of Damascus?
At any rate, that's the point that I became suspicious of him because he allowed all sorts of other unapproved seers time on his site, but not this one?

Check out our Lady of Damascus ( Soufenieh ) and read the history and wonder why this is not well known considering the multiple approvals from Catholic and Orthodox hierarchy.

L Spinelli said...

ETA to my 11:31 AM post: I discovered more messages about North Korea from three additional unapproved seers:

Christina Gallagher, not approved, 2008.

William Kamm, the "Little Pebble". Received messages about North Korea this year and even wrote to President Trump! This guy is a cult leader and sex offender.

Luz de Maria, no decision yet.

I'm sure there are more visionaries to add to this list, but I made my point.

Anonymous said...

Personally I think that Charlie's "blunder" had nothing to do with the alleged prophecies, rather, too much geopolitics and the like. Naturally some of those who follow get caught up in it, lose focus, and are even enabled to their detriment.

Fred Keyes said...

12:29 AM, I agree 100%. In my opinion Charlie's interest in religion turns on how much it can assist him in spreading his political views. His tolerance of a guy like 'Crew Dog' is exhibit #1.

Anonymous said...

Didn't Lenin coin the term "useful idiot?" Charlie wants supporters. He wants to be a player in the political arena. He wants to be able to lead an insta-mob. Remember the Jericho march?

Anonymous said...

Given that Charlie is now claiming that his ONLY public prophecy is the "rescue", where does his claim that Our Lady of Guadeloupe wants to be called Tepeyac stand?
Now if he claims that Our Lady has told him that she wants to be called Tepeyac, that is NOT for public consumption since he said the "rescue" is the ONLY public prophecy, the rest are private.
So it can only be a private revelation for Charlie only. So, if that is the case it shouldn't have been made public because it's private revelation. Since he has now gone public with it, is that another canard because Charlie has said nothing else is public. Additionally, Charlie has warned everyone about believing everything he says and to accept his stuff more broadly and if that is the case then the name of Guadeloupe instead of Tepeyac still stands because Charlie said not to follow every word he says.
So, that brings up another problem - what does Charlie do with $1,000s if not 10s of thousands of dollars of merchandise with Tepeyac? Does he discard them, change the name, reduce the price, sell them as souvenirs of a bad business move, sell them as collectors items, give them to the Diocese or not say anything and still sell them under the Tepeyac banner?

Anonymous said...

To anonymous above, I suppose that when Charlie was told the Blessed Mother wants to be invoked under the title of Our Lady of Tepeyac it was yet another example of the angels using "figurative speech, symbolic images, double meanings and layers of meaning."

L Spinelli said...

https://thinkprogress.org/radical-faith-steve-bannon-politics-4d347f068648/

This is an interesting read about Steve Bannon and his very far right wing flavored brand of Catholicism. Some of his beliefs are identical to those of Charlie Johnston, IMO. Fred noted this a couple of months ago.

Anonymous said...

The latest blog: The Storm's Raging; Come Rest In Our Shelter.

2 points:

I think it is a bit disingenuous and insensitive to have this topic while these storms are going on. First of all, the "storm" Charlie talks about is a geopolitical storm not an actual weather storm, Becks is making it appear as if Charlie predicted these "storms" in a previous blog, but they're not the same storm. She's trying to take advantage of a bad weather storm situation and tie it to Charlie's "storms" to make it appear that Charlie predicted these "storms" which is entirely not the case. Next, she should not be using the weather "storms" as a pretext to Charlie's site because people are hurting in these weather storms, they don't care about Charlie's "storms", but basic survival, she's taking advantage of the misery of the storm and linking it to Charlie, instead, if she was really interested in helping people rather than Charlie she should be giving advise on what to do in this situation to protect themselves and their loved ones, numbers to call, shelters, etc. instead of promoting Charlie and his "storm poppycock ". If Charlie had such a pipeline to God, how is it that he failed to see hurricanes coming, don't you think God would have told him about these specific weather events instead he's sidetracked like all the others with N Korea and misses the obvious.

The other issue is the entire article and Charlie talking about the "storm", but proclaiming the "rescue', he quotes his Angel Gabriel a lot and goes on about the "storm". At this point the article is completely meaningless. Why? Charlie said what the rescue was - about 5 lines, Mary is our mother, God is, Jesus is Mary's son, we will be rescued, in late 2017. That's all Charlie has said is public, the rest of the article is therefore complete nonsense because it is Charlie's opinion and interpretation of an angel talking to him and we know how that turned out. These rehashing of articles are useless because even Charlie himself said don't take my word, trust God, not Charlie - so why is he and Becks still promoting his stuff which is now obsolete?
Wake up Charlites, you're being suckered, again and again and again.

Anonymous said...

To anonymous directly above, you state that:

First of all, the "storm" Charlie talks about is a geopolitical storm not an actual weather storm, Becks is making it appear as if Charlie predicted these "storms" in a previous blog, but they're not the same storm.

However, you need to understand that when the angels told Charlie about the storm they used "figurative speech, symbolic images, double meanings and layers of meaning" and could very well have been referring to a tropical storm.

Anonymous said...

There's an ex business executive who has been going around the world getting countries, states, cities, police departments, armies, etc. to consecrate themselves to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the Sacred Heart of Jesus. His name is John Rick Miller and he just passed away in early 2016. However, a number of places have been consecrated to date , one of them is the City of Miami, so it will be interesting to see how this hurricane approaches Miami.

At any rate he also promotes Our Lady of Guadeloupe as Our Lady of Guadeloupe not Tepeyac. He started this Mission "For The Love of God - Worldwide". In about 10 years he has personally changed hearts including the entire country of Columbia, among others, please go to the Net to get more details.

Now compare John Rick Miller and his legacy to Charlie. Mr. Miller was a business executive who retired to devote himself to starting the above Mission, he's humble, he doesn't brag about himself, it's as if he's embarrassed at times to be held in high regard, in 10 years he has gotten the Church in conjunction with governments to consecrate cities, states, countries, etc.; he views Our Lady of Guadeloupe as key for the conversion and spreading of the consecration to the world; he has stated the world is in a bad moral state and needs these consecrations and to pray the rosary daily as sin is great in the world so we need to do are little part in our little corner of the world.
Compare this to Charlie who has had more time and see what Charlie really has done. Charlie's claim to fame is basically making predictions, predictions of things to come - that's it, he has a website which is fairly informative in spite of Charlie's demeanor - so what has Charlie really done? Has he lead many people to the faith? He's probably ticked off more people than he's touched.

L Spinelli said...

Anon above, that's a terrific example of someone who was really doing Our Lord and Our Lady's work. He had no cult-like followers, no photo ops, no invites to $2500 conferences for free, and most importantly, no recognition - WHICH HE CLEARLY DIDN'T WANT.

God bless him and RIP. What a wonderful soul.

Anonymous said...

One of the big reasons why I have an issue with Charlie is his ego, if you notice who proclaims the "rescue", it's Charlie - "I, proclaim the rescue", "I", if you notice the true people don't take credit, they tell it like it was a story, they never say "I" know this and that. We call what Charlie has as "little man's syndrome" - he's trying to impress everyone since he's a small player, Charlie wants to be a big player and can not accept the fact his lot in life is to be a little guy.

Anonymous said...

There he is again trying to piggy-back off an event after the fact - Hurricane Harvey -
"Charlie will discuss how the unfolding of the terrible drama ( Harvey - Houston ) looked a lot like a pre-shadowing of Rescue".

It looks like Irma will not make a direct hit on Florida, the live weather tracker has it going in a straight line - east to west , it would have to make a 90 degree turn to hit Florida. However, it could loop back, so it's still heads up.

I don't know if anyone else noticed it , but when I listened to the blogs, I noticed that his voice is very nervous, I deal a lot with people so I picked that up right away.

L Spinelli said...

I lived through Superstorm Sandy.

While my town was spared the worst, we weren't too far from where the eye hit. I will never forget those winds (at least 90 mph) howling.

New Jersey is a place notorious for rudeness and brusqueness and plain old eff you. Yet all that vanished after Sandy hit.

People were taking "next right steps" and no one had heard of Charlie Johnston.

So what do we need him for again?

Anonymous said...

How is it that people helping each other in the hurricane is a "pre-shadowing of the rescue." Charlie said that we would be visibly rescued by the BVM in 2017...not by the National Guard.

Maybe the prophecy of a visible rescue by the BVM is another example of the angels using "figurative speech, symbolic images, double meanings and layers of meaning."

Anonymous said...

Why isn't Charlie in Florida, helping those people get through THE STORM? Is he sherpa-ing from behind? Why isn't he working with aid groups, or serving free meals with onsite groups working to help refugees? What is he doing besides talking and mooching off his cult members?

Fred Keyes said...

Charlie has been so thoroughly discredited at this point that it's hard to keep up trying to counter all the nonsense. It may be getting to the point where his followers dig in their heels just because there's no way they're going to give in to their critics.

I only pray that he and his followers gradually move away from the sensationalism and fear mongering that's been their vehicle of choice. The demons that beset us are real enough (and far, far more clever and subtle; see "Screwtape Letters") without descending into dystopic fiction.

Anonymous said...

I just listened to the latest Podcast that Charlie posted tonight (Saturday, 9/9/2017). Most of it he talks with his guest about the Texas hurricane.

However at minute 46:00 he starts talking about the Rescue by our Lady in 2017. It seems to me that his description of the Rescue tonight is different from how he previously.described it...more of a toned down Rescue. It would be interesting if anyone else listening to the 5 minute or so snippet starting at 46:00 gets the same impression as me.

Anonymous said...

Yes I picked that up too, I didn't listen that carefully to his podcast , but when I heard the word " rescue " I noticed that it sounded like a more casual " rescue ", something that you might even miss if you don't pay attention.

Anonymous said...

To anonymous directly above...yes, the 'revised' description of the Rescue is now something that is more subtle that not everyone worldwide may recognize or even realize took place.

I thought Charlie previously intimated that, except for a few very hardened souls, the Rescue would be something that was real, tangible, and concrete, that the entire would recognize as the direct intervention of the Blessed Mother.

L Spinelli said...

Once again, as the time frame for the prophecy comes close to the expiration date, Charlie changes it.

Oh, the Rescue is more subtle and not the visible to everyone prophecy I originally made.

Oh, the Presidential Prophecy was misinterpreted by me, even though I said it wasn't subject to change or interpretation by me or anyone.

(I didn't listen to the latest hot mess of a podcast.)That

I wonder what else is going to change once 1/1/18 gets here? (Heavy sarcasm)

Jackisback said...

L,

I wonder how Steve BC feels about this particular pre-emptive goal-post moving by Charlie. Remember, Steve BC recently acted as Charlie's personal "Rescue" apologist:

--begin quoted text--
As to the Rescue, he has reported to us exactly what he was told, in the exact same words as he heard his visitor speak about it. No explanation was given to expand on the original statement, and he has offered no interpretation of the statement he was told. This prophetic incident required no interpretation by Charlie at all. It has no internal connection with any of his interpreted prophecies, and he reported it to all of us because he was told to, not because he wanted to. Therefore, it will stand or fall on its merits, if and when we see it take place sometime late this year – or not. As far as I can tell, this particular prophetic statement given to him is not designed for anything other than to give us all the hope that whatever comes to us in the Fullness of the Storm has an end. Charlie has likened it to being in a shipwreck while knowing that the beach is “right over there.” If so, then it is a *profound* and profoundly beneficent gift from God to those who have ears to hear it. I recommend that you take it at face value, as baldly as it was stated. If you want to set it aside, feel free. However, it is pointless to try to understand it within prophetic history. It is what it is, or it is not...
--end quoted text--

The second half of the second sentence above "...and he has offered no interpretation of the statement he was told" is no longer true. The next sentence's reference to "prophecy" is a misnomer - as Steve BC described it as a locution - a verbatim message from angels, etc. that Charlie simply passed on. If so, why has Charlie now interpreted that which required no interpretation?

The next sentence contains a concept that is also interesting: "...he reported it to all of us because he was told to, not because he wanted to." Now that Charlie has reported that the "Rescue" might be a lot more subtle than he originally "proclaimed," the questions that I would be thinking about, if I were Steve BC, are:

1) Did Charlie's "visitors" recently command him to tell us about a more subtle "Rescue" (should we call it "Rescue lite?")?

2) If so, why would "they" do that?

3) Did Charlie tell us about "Rescue lite" because he was told to, not because he wanted to?

4) While there are lots of precedents for dire prophecies being lessened by prayer, what precedents are there for salvific prophecies, claimed to emanate from God, to be lessened in their fulfillment?

5) If I, Steve BC, don't see any visibly significant positive changes in the world around me on January 1, 2018, and Charlie then claims that the "Rescue" has occurred - that the "Triumph of the Immaculate Heart" has occurred - am I going to believe Charlie, or my own "lying eyes?"

6) If I, Steve BC, observe only a few minor improvements in the world around me on January 1, 2018, how will I know if it was truly the "Rescue" that occurred, as opposed to a "false dawn."

7) How will I Know that the "Rescue" locution has stood on its merits or fallen on its merits?

8) How will I believe that the so-called "storm" has truly ended?

9) Ultimately, if I choose to still believe Charlie at that point, will my belief hinge solely on the notion that "Charlie has said it, ergo it must be true?"

Fred Keyes said...

It is amazing, is it not, how easily some ideas evolve away from their original meaning? And yet we are warned profusely in the only prophecies that count without equivocation (i.e. Sacred Scripture) to be careful about other spiritual pronouncements. Mature Christians know how to understand them. I couldn't help thinking about this as I read today's Reading from St. Paul to the Colossians:

"See to it that no one captivate you with an empty, seductive philosophy
according to the tradition of men,
according to the elemental powers of the world
and not according to Christ." (Col 2:8)

Wind (as in a storm) is an elemental power, no? Probably not what's meant here; it just gave me pause.

Anonymous said...

Beckita keeps plugging along. Because St. Gabriel!

"I just peeked at Mark Mallett’s Piece on the Seals of Revelation. Mark does great work in analyzing the times based on the many writings he quotes. I do respect and enjoy reading him. At the same time, he is interpreting and offering analysis based on his personal opinion concerning the writings and messages of others.. He presents his view of what is occurring. And he does it well with great love and the intent to serve.

The difference I see in comparing Mark’s interpretation with St. Gabriel’s Good News to us about the Rescue is that the news of the Recuse is a direct message to God’s people through his message bearer, St. Gabriel, and delivered to us via Charlie. Here’s what else I keep in mind: St. Gabriel is an archangel who emerges, by God’s Will, when there is something pivotal occurring in salvation history. This alone gets my attention – big time. And, in the end, Our Mother’s Immaculate Heart will triumph.


Anonymous said...

Oh that Becks she sure knows how to always get Charlie in trouble.

So, the question is how do we know that St. Gabriel is the message bearer?
Remember, Charlie said the only stuff for public consumption is the 'rescue', the rest is private. So, if that is the case the appearance of St Gabriel to him is NOT for public consumption, so that means that Charlie can not disclose who the messenger is because it is not for public consumption because his angel said only the "rescue" was meant for the public, and remember what Charlie himself said don't believe me - don't trust in my word, trust in God.

So essentially his whole ministry or whatever has now been taken down because how do you verify who is talking to him when it is not for the public? As anon said what Charlie said it's hard to interpret because angels use "figurative speech, symbolic images, double meanings and layers of meaning." So when the Angel Gabriel says they're the Angel Gabriel is the angel using "figurative speech, symbolic images, double meanings and layers of meaning." Could the Angel Gabriel be another angel, another entity, another non-entity? Who knows at this point - judging from the meagre comments on Pod 6 just 28 in 3 days it appears more and more are coming to the same conclusion - this doesn't make any sense at all.

L Spinelli said...

After the failure of the Presidential Prophecy, which supposedly came from the Archangel Gabriel after all, you would think this woman would give it up and close down the website. But then again, she said that she thinks Vassula Ryden and Gianna Talone Sullivan are both genuine, just shot down because of Church politics. That only goes to show what her mindset about these "phenomenons": willful ignorance, aggressively maintained in the face of evidence to the contrary.

L Spinelli said...

Anon @ 3:50, Charlie himself said in January that the Presidential Prophecy "was not from God" - his exact words about the prophecy that he originally attributed to Gabriel.

The question became, if that one wasn't from Gabriel, how can we be sure where any of the others came from? All we have to go by is Charlie's word, and he's proven not to be trustworthy (his screening comments, exaggerations (the pilgrimage) and mocking a former follower, among other things). There's a very good chance that most or even all of these prophecies came from a demon. You would think the hard core followers would have caught on to that in January!

Anonymous said...

Sometimes it takes a while for people to figure things out, remember we're dealing with a cult-like following so they believe anything he says, plus a lot of these people are very chummy with each other so it's not that easy to betray a friend even they're wrong. If they were a real friend they would tell Charlie, you've had your fun and your 5 minutes of glory, but it's time to pack it in.

Anonymous said...

I found this article from an Evangelical Christian and I think it addresses the issue rather well, I'll just copy the main points as the rest is not needed:

Prophet Steve Fletcher is Wrong Again…but will his followers notice or care?

I’ve written several articles on the alleged prophet, Steve Fletcher. You can read them here if you’re interested: Link to past articles. One thing Steve has going for him is his ability to pull the wool over the eyes of those who avidly devour anything he writes. It doesn’t matter that he is never correct about any of his predictions. When he’s wrong – all the time – he simply continues on with new “prophecies” that he claims are given to him directly by the Lord.

There are two things that are most troubling to me about people like Steve Fletcher. First, though he is a confirmed false prophet, he continues without so much as a hiccup after each failed prophecy. Second, all the people who follow him (and he has quite the following on social networks!), seem nonplussed by his constant and consistent errors. This tells me that the average church-goer today is woefully inept at discerning truth from error. Could it be they’re more interested in those things which appear far more ethereal?

Third, it bothers me that this guy and too many others like him are out there stating that “God told me” or “God said” when in point of fact, God has said nothing of the kind to them! It makes God appear to either be non-existent or a liar, to the average, unsaved person.

If you go to Steve Fletcher’s page or Scott Clark’s, you will see tons of accolades related to their predictions. This is in spite of the fact that they are abject failures. People provide excuse after excuse for these “prophets” and continue to “learn” from them.

The sad truth is that these men are either guided by their own minds, by demonic entities, or both. When God speaks through a genuine prophet – as He has done so many times in the past – the words spoken always come true! It is that simple and that plain, but too many refuse to see it because they prefer to lean into the ethereal, regardless of the source.

For the full article go here: https://studygrowknowblog.com/2017/09/14/prophet-steve-fletcher-is-wrong-again/

Anonymous said...

Here's an example of the 'wisdom' it inspires in some.
(begin quoted text)
Yeah … Right Mr. Lefty PC Cardinal Shepherd!!! Just advertise to the Bad Guys that your sheep are … well … helpless sheep in one of the most violent Democrat Party controlled cities of the USA. That will keep the sheep coming and putting their filthy lucre in the collection plate….. Right!!??
Just how many Church/School/Theatre Shootings do we have to witness before these SnowFlakes figure out that: Only a Good Guy with a gun can stop a Bad Guy with a gun! & When seconds count the Cops are only minutes away ;-(
“Cupich bans guns in all Chicago Archdiocese parishes and schools” (link)
(end quoted text)
Uh... name call and insult a Cardinal, rant about politics... then that gem about... "Only a Good Guy with a gun can stop a Bad Guy with a gun!".
I'd really like to know what Gospel passage inspired that ridiculous quote, but won't bother raising the issue over there. They either wouldn't post it or would find even more creative ways to enable "Crew Dog."

Anonymous said...

To anonymous above, yeah those rants by Crewdog really make the Catholic faith attractive to those considering converting.

L Spinelli said...

Ever notice than none of CrewDog's rants have anything to do with the topic of the post???

That doesn't matter to TNRS, though. He's very far right wing, like Charlie and most of his supporters, so they approve of anything he says or does, no matter how screwed up it is.

Anonymous said...

CJ and followers are fundamentalist end-times cult. Everything is personal and political. CJ said if anyone came at him he'd 'kick 'em in the groin.' He dissed a priest who was part of a commission investigating him and accused him of leaking info. He doxxed a former follower 'Joe.' He threatened other bloggers with libel lawsuits. CJ's cultists came here and threatened Glenn with libel, well where did they get that idea? When archdiocese of Denver said CJ's visions were false 'Dan Lynch' threatened the spokeswoman with a lawsuit! CJ's cultists don't obey what the Catholic church says when it goes against them. CJ is an angry guy and cult members like Crewdog are angry too.

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous above, you seem to be holding Charlie to a different standard.

Didn't Bernadette of Lourdes threaten sue her Bishop for libel? And didn't Sister Lucia threaten to kick the Mayor, and the anti-clerical authorities at Fatima who detained her and her cousins, in the groin?

I don't know why you would deem such behave unbecoming of a seer.

Anonymous said...

Anon 09/16, 9:36 am,

Not a wise or prudent argument to jump in with more labeling, tossing diverse people into the same bucket, etc. Neither of your opening sentences are true, but I can understand the emoting. There are in fact diverse people commenting at TNRS, some of whom rarely, if ever, partake of the political talk, alleged mystical experiences, personal chit-chat, etc. Some just praying for one other, offering/discussing Scripture, sound Church teaching, etc. The ones who do... well, they all don't partake at the same level. Some emoting to different degrees, a couple ranting with the occasional ALL CAPS as if text yelling gives their words any more weight or credibility. You could say that it would be better for Charlie to rein that in, but I would suggest that he has already said quite a bit to rein it in... some people have to finish the learning curve the hard way.

I'm not much interested in the loud ones –– wherever they are. More interested in the thoughtful ones who spend more time praying and pondering... failing often, but getting back up each time to try again with good will and real earnest. Those are the ones (and I'm talking about people everywhere, in all circumstances of life) who are ultimately the real deal... the ones who build bridges, unite, participate in the work... live real Catholicism/Christianity.

Anon 9/16, 11:01 a.m.,

That's not much of an argument either. I can forgive a peasant child who lived a tough life for impetuously threatening to kick someone in the groin. Not sure about the St. Bernadette claim from a factual standpoint, so I'll check that out. How about a guy who allegedly has had decades to prepare, with Heavenly visitors and dialog? I don't say one way or other if that is in fact the case, but don't get too quick to defend when this sort of thing is questioned. Humans are apt to have unbecoming behavior, but a seer should pull out all the stops to be above reproach, lest they give their detractors more reason to call them out. Add to that the failed prophecies and the Church's prudent warning. Also, keep in mind that Charlie used to entertain vigorous debate on his blog, but it seems apparent that any opposition gets short shrift over there lately.

Everyone, be honest with yourselves first, and most of all. In my opinion, that will get us that much quicker to the work at hand... off the mere fire of our own flawed thoughts, and on to The Fire Who Burns True and Does Not Ere. You'll forgive me for the use of caps there. I wasn't yelling it.

Anonymous said...

I think that the commenter who said Sr Lucia threatened to kick the Bishop in the groin was being facetious.

Anonymous said...

I have NEVER UNDERSTOOD how Sr. Lucia could have visions of the Angel of Portugal and Our Lady and STILL say she would kick people in the groin.

It's like those stories of Padre Pio keeping a Louisville Slugger in the confessional and beating the devil out of unrepentant sinners...

L Spinelli said...

"There will be more than a few false dawns, and people will deceive themselves during these periods that the crisis is past," claims Johnston. "Then: sudden terror, more starkly terrifying than all that has gone on before. Despair will reign throughout the world. Then, the world will be miraculously, utterly, and visibly delivered from the terror by the Intercession of Our Lady the Immaculate Conception. Christianity will be reunified, Satan will be shackled, and the world shall enter a glorious period of peace and harmony under the rule and protection of the one, triune God." We are on the threshold, he claims, of new miracles. He sees this as occurring in a few years. There will be a time of great healing. But before that will be "trauma."

Charlie Johnston to Spirit Daily, April 9, 2013

http://www.spiritdaily.org/locutions1.htm

Anonymous said...

Charlie put up a new post tonight (Sunday). And he had this to say above the Rescue:

Finally, get out of your mind childishly sentimental notions of Rescue. Remember that when Moses rescued the Israelites, shortly after they began their long pilgrimage, they stood at the shores of the Red Sea with the Egyptian Army in hot pursuit. Remember that when Jesus came and spent three and a half years explaining to His disciples that He had come to rescue all of mankind, that Rescue took the form of a brutal crucifixion. Jesus only let His disciples wander in confusion and panic for three days, not 40 years, before showing them the rest of the story and His transcendent power. The point is, Christian Rescue is not for the faint of heart nor the sunshine soldier. It will not be as you – or I expect – but it is certain. It is not a reward for your goodness, but the time to prove your steadfast fidelity.

It looks like the Rescue that will take place in the next 100 days is different from what we all expected.

Jackisback said...

"Rescue" defined down to its antithesis? That takes the "Special Pleading" [goal post moving] logical fallacy to a level never before attempted by Charlie. And this from one who formerly decried society at large for twisting "bad" into "good" and "good" into "bad."

Anonymous said...

How the heck does the "rescue" evolve from 4 or 5 definitive lines spoken to him by an entity for public consumption to this, is the entity now describing the "rescue" and is it for public consumption?

Anonymous said...

Charlie says he's going away for most of November and early December to the west and south-west - isn't he going to miss the "rescue"? He did the same thing in late 2016, he told us the world was in chaos and the like and he disappeared for weeks during what was supposed to be one of the most pivotal times in history!

As the article said above it doesn't matter whether Charlie is right or wrong people will always follow him and make excuses for his poor predictions.

Anonymous said...

Guess this means no Aunt Bea, sweet tea, and apple pie by December, huh? Charlie's Mayberry has morphed into a rural meth-riddled hellhole to be endured for an indefinite period. What's strange is his childishly sentimental readers are buying it, even Joe Crozier!

L Spinelli said...

"It will not be as you - or I expect - but it is certain."

Wait, he told us what to expect way back in 2013!

I was searching for something else and found that post from Spirit Daily yesterday.

The two posts completely contradict each other. Absolutely not a shocker by now, folks.

When is this madness going to end? July 5, 2018? Or is Charlie going to make excuses into 2019?

(I was going to ask why this guy still hasn't been clamped down on, but I stopped myself...more than a few of these other Catholic personality-based cults keep going (Holy Love, Bayside), even when their Bishops told them to pack it in! So I think, and I mentioned this already, that Denver has better things to take care of and will likely never rule on or order another investigation on this guy. They're waiting for it to die out, IMO.)

L Spinelli said...

This line said it all:

"I have no desire to consign them (his children and grandchildren) to the misery of such an ugly new world because I was too lazy or timid to man my post and, instead, betrayed God and them.)

Hey, Charlie, two things. Are you still in denial that Wormwood was very possibly the one guiding you for 50+ years? Do you also realize that the fate of the world doesn't depend on anything you do?

Boy, this thing really messed with Charlie's mind. He was sent to proclaim the Rescue and develop an entirely new form of government. We all noticed that none of this of centered around God, rather seemed much more like a vehicle for his ego. Yeah. That's why I long believed there's sulfur around this whole "mission".

Anonymous said...

What happened to the mass conversions through "Our Lady of Tepeyec?" As in the conversions of pagans after Our Lady appeared in Mexico?


Teddy says:
September 18, 2017 at 8:21 am


The “childishly sentimental notions of Rescue”, to remind you with charity in mind, was promoted by you initially. After all what could be more “childishly sentimental” than…”After the rescue it will be like Mayberry”…”or “1950’s without the racism”…So just check yourself before you rebuke us. We deserve it most of the time, for sure, but…well…you get the drift. Sigh, just want to get this damn thing over with. its a mess out there.

charliej373 says:
September 18, 2017 at 4:14 pm


Teddy, on this I proclaim, “mea culpa, mea culpa.” I am sometimes naieve. It was unimaginable to me that all could see objectively that Jesus is, in fact, God of all the universe and still remain in rebellion. Watching the extended insane rants and hissy fits since the Inauguration, which have only grown worse, made me reconsider…and contemplate authentic past rescues. I am sad to consider that, even with Our Lady revealing the fullness of the truth of Christ’s Divinity and Dominion, many will, like the satan, bitterly persist in rebellion even though they know it means their own destruction. We will get Mayberry – but only through the cross first.

Jackisback said...

Anon at 5:28 PM,

Great catch in the comments section.

The goal-post moving just gets more and more elaborate.

Originally, "Rescue" was supposed to be a positive event, one which was in response to, and an end of, the "storm's" most dire outcomes that were supposed to precede it.

Now, however, "Rescue" is going to be a "cross" moment, with "Mayberry" deferred indefinitely?

It is fairly clear what is more likely to actually occur: The world around us will stay more or less as "stormy" as we have always known it to be in our lifetimes, with its cyclical ups and downs, all the way through the end of this calendar year and into next year and beyond, without any of us being able to observe anything occuring that might account for Charlie's original description of his alleged "Rescue" locution, and this is likely to remain the case until each of us passes from this temporal world. Not that this will stop Charlie from insisting that a "Rescue" really did occur sometime before January 1, 2018 (with us being described as too thick or jaded to notice) and I'm sure his followers will believe that too.

I've decided to compile as much as I can about Charlie's prior descriptions of the "Rescue" locution, so that all can see how irreconcilable they are with his current "cross" description. It is one thing to see one item that "Teddy" cites (and that Charlie artfully dodges and dances around); it will be quite another to see all the prio "Rescue" descriptions in one place.

This will take me some time (and I still haven't finished compiling all the historical Charlie quotes about the Presidential prophecy).

Anonymous said...

Beckita explains/spins Charlie's latest post. A reader asked if there will ever be a period of peace:

Beckita says:
September 19, 2017 at 11:19 am


JMJ Girl, I would imagine there are many who do not feel hope as their storms within the Storm surge on. As a reminder to us all…

Our Lady of Fatima promised us a period of peace aka the Era of Peace aka Pope St. John Paul II’s oft prophesied New Springtime aka the floodgates of graces that will be opened by the Lady of All Nations when the Fifth Marian Dogma is proclaimed aka the “Coming of the Kingdom” for which we pray in the Our Father: “…Thy Kingdom come, Thy Will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven…” and which is a cornerstone promise from Jesus to Luisa in the spirituality of Living in the Divine Will. All of these converge with Our Lady of Akita’s prophesies and great promise: “Pray very much the prayers of the Rosary. I alone am able still to save you from the calamities which approach. Those who place their confidence in me will be saved.”, with the prophecies and promises given in Garabandal, including the promise of a Great Miracle: “…that it will be visable to all those who are in the village and surrounding mountains; that the sick who are present will be cured and the incredulous will believe. It will be the greatest miracle that Jesus will have performed for the world. There won’t be the slightest doubt that it comes from God and that it is for the good of mankind. A sign of the Miracle—un señal del milagro—which it will be possible to film or televise, will remain forever—para siempre—at the pines.” Our Lady of Fatima promised: In the end, my Immaculate Heart will Triumph.

All of these precious visits and words from Heaven are converging and they are intertwined with “calls” to each one who will listen and heed. The calls include making reparation – via prayer and penance – for our own sins and those of others, especially praying the Rosary, focusing on the Eucharist – with Mass, adoration and spiritual communions, leading good lives – that is TNRS, infusing God’s Holy Words into our lives. All of this is to say, each one of us must choose to respond. We can choose to hope, even when we don’t feel it. In each next right step taken, we ARE the hope of God to those around us and in that prayer of doing – serving others who suffer along side us, albeit for different reasons – we, too, are infused with God’s hope. Fr. Robert Spitzer has a power-packed book filled with strategies and prayers which teach us how to reach for hope and consolation. He makes a solid case for the onus being on each of us to not simply wait for God to console us, but to seek Him and He *will* bring us consolation. This involves how we think and pray and the book can be found here.

Praying for you, JMJ Girl, and for all who pass this way. Christus vincit, regnat, imperat: ab omni malo plemem suam defendat. (Christ conquers, He reigns, He commands; may He defend His people from all evil.)

Bemused said...

Here's an interesting rationalization of Charlie's failed prophecies by a commenter (Phillip Frank) on the TNRS blog:

Charlie has made the point that when Jesus came, no one recognized him, not even the devil. Everyone was just too sophisticated to be duped by His coming and not notice it, so it was obvious, He wasn’t it! I think this is why Pope Francis is telling his prelates not to be rigid- that God is a God of surprises. So Charlie got surprised, so what, and we didn’t? That has been part of his message all along too, wasn’t it? God is consistently inconsistent in regards to our expectations…always surprising and new…I think is what is said of Him.

I guess the thinking is that the God of surprises decided to give us a false prophecy in order to be consistently inconsistent.

Fred Keyes said...

Fr. Rene Luarentin, the famous Mariologist, died on Sept. 10.

From his obit in the Washington Post:

"The church, Father Laurentin wrote in one essay, used four criteria to grant recognition to a supernatural occurrence: whether the message of the apparition is in accordance with Christian teachings; the seer is 'sincere, credible, coherent and disinterested'; acts of healing or physical signs of a supernatural presence occur; and long-term religious conversions follow from the incident."

How does Charlie measure up?

Anonymous said...

Man who predicted world will end on Sept. 23 says nevermind


The end is still nigh — just not as nigh as it was earlier this week, a Doomsday writer says.

David Meade, who claimed the world is ending Saturday when a mysterious planet collides with Earth, is now backtracking on the calamitous claim.

Meade said the world won’t end on September 23 after all, but instead, Saturday will only mark the beginning of a series of catastrophic events to occur over several weeks.

“The world is not ending, but the world as we know it is ending,” he told the Washington Post. “A major part of the world will not be the same the beginning of October.”

Meade said his prediction is based on verses and numerical codes found in the Bible, specifically in the apocalyptic Book of Revelation. He said recent events, such as the solar eclipse and Hurricanes Irma and Harvey, are omens of the approaching apocalypse.

The significant number is 33, according to Meade.

“Jesus lived for 33 years. The name Elohim, which is the name of God for the Jews, was mentioned 33 times [in the Bible],” he said. “It’s a very biblically significant, numerologically significant number. I’m talking astronomy. I’m talking the Bible…and merging the two.”

September 23 is also 33 days since the August 21 solar eclipse.

Meade has also built his theory on the so-called Planet X, which is also known as Nibiru, which he believes will pass Earth on September 23. This will cause volcanic eruptions, tsunamis and earthquakes, he claims.

NASA has repeatedly said Planet X does not exist.

Meade’s prediction has been dismissed by people of faith including the Roman Catholic and Protestant branches of Christianity.

Ed Stetzer, a professor and executive director of Wheaton College’s Billy Graham Center for Evangelism, slammed Meade’s theory on Friday, calling it “fake news” and asked Christians to be critical.

“It’s simply fake news that a lot of Christians believe the world will end on September 23,” Stetzer wrote in Christianity Today. “Yet, it is still a reminder that we need to think critically about all the news.”

https://nypost.com/2017/09/22/man-wh...ays-nevermind/

Bemused said...

Perhaps when David Meade made his prediction about the end of the world tomorrow he was using figurative speech, symbolic images, double meanings and layers of meaning.

Joseph J. said...


Thank you Bemused! You just gave me a good hearty laugh!

Fred Keyes said...

I've wondered how it was that Charlie snagged a lot of people on his message early on. I know for me and at least one good friend that I know--a faithful and thoughtful Catholic--Charlie's down home, "aw shucks" personality was refreshing. He seemed to be an ordinary guy, perhaps the kind who would be picked out for special favors. We are schooled on the idea that God frequently chooses the lowly "to shame the wise" as St. Paul puts it. The whole Mayberry and squirrel stuff also worked in his favor.

And truth be known, in weak moments we are easily tempted by 'disaster porn'—the desire for some sweeping solution of biblical proportions that will rid the world of the evils we see. If only...

It's a technique that works....for a while. His net is full of holes as we now know, but there's enough of it left to snag a "remnant," another idea derived from scripture that is part of the rationale that probably keeps his faithful ensnared.

Anonymous said...

Well said Fred and yes you are 100% correct and boy were we fooled. At least we had the sense to get away, the remnant will always be there no matter what, it will dwindle but it will be there no matter what.

Anonymous said...

Will Charlie will manage to thread the needle and explain how Pope Francis is the "Pope of the Storm" and how he's also the "Pope Who Caused the Storm?" Charlie's alt-right followers haven't been on board with the pope's social justice agenda. Now that there's a filial correction going, what will Charlie say?

Jackisback said...

Anon at 3:01 PM,
Interesting question, especially if things in Rome deteriorate (most recent bombshell: the Pope's Motu Proprio "Summa Familiae Cura," which expressly changes the mission of the original "Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and the Family" - renaming it as "The Pontifical John Paul II Theological Institute for Marriage and Family Sciences.")

This was a "messaging moment" of the Pope, choosing to announce - on September 8, 2017 - that this now newly named institute was being created, just two days after the death of Cardinal Caffara (one of the Dubia Cardinals) who founded the original institute at JPII's request after the 1980 Synod on the family (associated with JPII's "Familiaris Consortio"). The new leftward mission will be spearheaded by Cardinal Paglia - the one who commissioned the so-called "homoerotic wall mural" in 2007 (this is the mural in which the artist gave a shout out to Paglia by depicting the Cardinal as embracing one of the many barely clothed gay men in the painting - the Cardinal's face and loosely covered upper torso are clearly visible, in profile, giving Paglia "street cred" as a gay-friendly Cardinal). ["Not that there is anything wrong with that."]

This news follows the Nov '16 sacking of the entire membership of the Pontifical Academy of Life ("PAL," which was also a JPII creation). Even "lifetime appointed" members were sacked en masse. Paglia is now chief of the PAL. At that time, PAL membership policy was reformed: deleting a required signed declaration to uphold Church teachings on life, and, deleting the requirement to be Catholic. In June, it was discovered that the Pope had appointed Nigel Biggar to the PAL (a non-Catholic who is on record claiming that abortion should be legal for the first 18 weeks). This has got to stick in Charlie's craw.

In the wake of this messaging, forces that are more Charlie-friendly are gathering in Rome for a conference to defend Humanae Vitae (50th anniversary was July 29th). While the purpose may be soley commemorative, it is not unreasonable to infer that the participants are also motivated by the Pope's authorizing of a private "commission" to re-examine Humanae Vitae (and potentially do for Catholic users-of-contraception what Amoris Laetitia did for the divorced-and-civilly-remarried). Imagine Charlie's reaction if such a commission gave a figurative blessing to the use of abortifacients.

Yet, Charlie is stuck. He knows he can only say praiseworthy things about Pope Francis, lest he be perceived as going against "legitimate Church authority" or against the current Magisterium. If he were to instead openly begin siding with the likes of Professor Josef Seifert, his attempts to cast himself as a prophet of God would be obliterated (ab initio). So no matter how far to the left Francis takes the Church, Charlie will have to smile and nod in assent, and pretend the Pope is not the author of schism.

If the Francis moves to the left on issues of life, consider the irony: Charlie has long opined that his so called "worldwide civil war" would be fought along cultural lines, especially with respect to issues related to the sanctity of life (abortion). How could Charlie deal with waking up one day to find himself and the Pope on opposite sides of that civil war? I think Charlie would react with denial, holding to a delusion that Francis doesn't really mean what he says/writes (in the same way many conservative Bishops defend Amoris Laetitia with the claim that it does not permit Absolution or Holy Communion for the divorced-and-civilly-remarried - which is technically correct - except it is in denial of the Pope's letter approving that very practice in Buenos Aires).

Fred Keyes said...

Reports today are beginning to flesh out the kind of strategic spending the Russians did to influence the elections. From a story in today's Washington Post:

"Is it a goal of the Kremlin to encourage discord in American society? The answer to that is yes,” said former U.S. ambassador to Russia Michael A. McFaul, director of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University. “More generally, Putin has an idea that our society is imperfect, that our democracy is not better than his, so to see us in conflict on big social issues is in the Kremlin’s interests.”

I wonder then if Charlie was an easy dupe for the Russian disinformation that is now being exposed? Or worse, is he a willing and paid participant in spreading the kind of political hate and discontent that characterized and still characterizes his website? Could Charlie himself be "Crew Dog"——that purveyor of ultra-right, divisive rhetoric?

Anonymous said...

Jack,

I just saw this article on LifeSiteNews:

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/u.s.-bishop-adds-his-support-to-correction-of-pope-francis

It seems that Bishop Rene Henry Gracida is the first US Bishop to add his signature to the filial correction of Pope Francis. Bishop Garcia seems to have been a supporter of Charlie.

Anonymous said...

Fred I liked your comment @ 10:06 am but the one @ 7:48 pm is not so good.

You quoted the Washington Post which has been trying to derail Trump since way before his inauguration. The Washington Post is a very anti-conservative publication and engages in false stories, regardless this anti-Russian thing is being pushed by the media and has been for awhile now we see Zuckerberg getting in on the action. They have been trying to say the Russians hacked the election, when that had no proof, they tried saying they influenced in other ways.

Charlie is not pro-Russian, I know because he accused me of being a supporter of the Russians numerous times. I really don't think the Russians influenced or supported Charlie - that's a stretch. Charlie is too small of a player to be a stooge for the Russians, they have RT to push their agenda which is far more powerful than Charlie.

Anonymous said...

Fred,

About Charlie as Crew Dog...I don't think so. Charlie always brags he has important friends, he is a real name dropper, he used to say My Good Friend Fr. Pacwa for example. If he pretended to be somebody he'd pretend to be somebody important.

BTW did you know Beckita said she knew there was only one or two people who posted here, they posted under different names to keep the conversation going!!

Fred Keyes said...

Anon @ 12:03 am, we have to agree to disagree on the Washington Post. I know there's no such thing as a 100% editorially objective newspaper, but the Washington Post with respect to its news reporting--apart from its editorial opinions--is one of the best news organizations in the country. WaPo actually is balanced with respect to its editorialists; they have several excellent conservative writers on staff (Will, Krauthammer, and a couple more). They also have a religion section (Acts of Faith) that is predictably liberal but not infrequently prints writers who are faithfully Catholic, like Fr. James Martin.

WaPo hasn't tried to derail Trump, he's doing a good job of that all by himself. Granted they hammer him pretty hard, but has there ever been a worse president? Even Nixon is beginning to look good.

It's always good to know where any media source is coming from. Read all of them and understand their editorial slant; don't just stick to the sources you agree with. Conservatives are notorious for doing that. Also, always distinguish between reporting and opinion. No one is entitled to their own facts, especially a man like President Trump who believes in "alternative facts."

Here's a good chart that's pretty good in showing where media organizations stand on the liberal/conservative continuum: http://guides.lib.umich.edu/c.php?g=637508&p=4462444

Fred Keyes said...

By the way, I won't back down on whether Charlie is Crew Dog until I see the both of them at the same time with my own two eyes. Crew Dog is so far off the charts sometimes as to be unreal.

Anonymous said...

Fred: This is what you said: Reports today are beginning to flesh out the kind of strategic spending the Russians did to influence the elections. From a story in today's Washington Post:

This is what you quoted from the Washington Post:
"Is it a goal of the Kremlin to encourage discord in American society? The answer to that is yes,” said former U.S. ambassador to Russia Michael A. McFaul, director of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University. “More generally, Putin has an idea that our society is imperfect, that our democracy is not better than his, so to see us in conflict on big social issues is in the Kremlin’s interests.”

I must be missing something or you failed to give more information. How does this prove the strategic spending the Russians did to influence the election? You've quoted a "suit" who basically said yes the Russians and Putin want to encourage discord in the US. Even if the statement was true there is no proof of anything and it doesn't seem connected to Russian spending on the US election.
If you and/or the Washington Post said George Soros tried to influence the election by spending money on it that would be a far easier to prove - in fact why isn't Soros being investigated?

Fred Keyes said...

Anon: Because George Soros is an American citizen and it is his right to spend money to influence elections. Likewise the Kochs and Bill Gates, and any rich American Citizen you care to name who contributes money to a political party. However it is against the law for any foreign source to spend money to influence an American election. Further, it is against the law for an American citizen to cooperate with foreigners to influence American elections.

Now Charlie was in the tank for Trump and he pushed the idea of the U.S. joining with Russia to defeat the Chinese. From that point I'm speculating about how Charlie came to that rather odd position. Maybe he had a Russian angel...hmmm.

Fred Keyes said...

Anon, the quote you mention goes to motive. The Russians have a deep interest in unsettling American politics. They have succeeded spectacularly, don't you think?

Fred Keyes said...

Also Anon, the guy you dismiss as a "suit," Michael McFaul, has some impressive bona fides as an expert on Russia:

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

Now Jack will point out that this is an argument from authority and by itself it's fallacious, but there is wide agreement is there not, that Russia in fact deliberately attempted to influence the 2016 elections?

Anonymous said...

Fred: there is zero evidence. Anyone can go around and say the Russians influenced the elections - but I see no proof. In fact the first story that came out was that Russia hacked the ballet boxes in key states: but that story fell apart after it came to light that the ballet boxes were on a closed system with no attachment to the Net - once people realized that they were being lied to the story fell apart.
Fred: from your own quote: "Also, always distinguish between reporting and opinion." These are just opinions, there is no proof - show the proof.

Fred Keyes said...

So, Anon, you don't believe any of the reports from U.S. intelligence sources who all agree that Russian interference is undeniable? That's your prerogative of course. I haven't seen the proof myself either, but the reports are credible. Congress has endorsed the Mueller investigation--including conservatives. And Congress is investigating the issue itself.

So if you dispute all that, feel free. I'll wonder if you're a Russian troll, but you have to expect that when you decide nothing you hear from the American government can be trusted. Either that or you're so far in the tank for Donald Trump that nothing anyone can say is going to convince you that he's anything but the finest president we've ever had.

Now, if there is proof that Trump's campaign cooperated with the Russians, it hasn't been made public. There is circumstantial evidence of Trump campaign cooperation but no proof of collusion that anyone—Mueller in particular—has made public. That's coming, IMO.

Do svidaniya....

Anonymous said...

Fred: Do your homework, this article speaks for itself, I'll just post the 1st few paragraphs and then provide the link:
The CIA, Washington Post, And Russia: What You're Not Being Told
Dec 20, 2016 8:10 PM

Submitted by Carey Wedler via TheAntiMedia.org,

According to an unsubstantiated article by the Washington Post, anonymous CIA officials have confirmed that the Russian government hacked the United States election to favor Donald Trump. Though it’s entirely possible the Russian government attempted to influence the election, the Post has been widely criticized — for the second time in a month — for its failure to follow basic journalistic practices. Nevertheless, the narrative is sticking.

But the outlet’s behind-the-scenes relationship with the CIA is nothing new. In 2013, a conflict of interest arose shortly after Jeff Bezos, founder and CEO of Amazon, purchased the newspaper. As the Nation reported at the time:

“[Jeff Bezos] recently secured a $600 million contract from the CIA. That’s at least twice what Bezos paid for the Post this year. Bezos recently disclosed that the company’s Web-services business is building a ‘private cloud’ for the CIA to use for its data needs.”
As this occurred, a petition calling on the Washington Post to disclose its new ties to the CIA when reporting on the agency garnered 30,000 signatures. According to the RootsforAction petition:

“The Post often does reporting on CIA activities. The coverage should include full disclosure that the owner of the Washington Post is also the main owner of Amazon — and Amazon is now gaining huge profits directly from the CIA.”
Robert McChesney of the Institute for Public Accuracy pointed out the glaring conflict of interest:

“If some official enemy of the United States had a comparable situation—say the owner of the dominant newspaper in Caracas was getting $600 million in secretive contracts from the Maduro government—the Post itself would lead the howling chorus impaling that newspaper and that government for making a mockery of a free press. It is time for the Post to take a dose of its own medicine.”

n its most recent article on the CIA’s claims of a Russian hack, the Post made no mention of its ties to the CIA. But while this connection calls into serious question the validity of a newspaper that claims to be a purveyor of “great journalism,” the connections are not enough to prove nefarious collaboration.

Unfortunately, however, history reveals actual collusion between the CIA and news outlets, including the Washington Post.

In 1977, Carl Bernstein, a former Post journalist, wrote about the CIA’s efforts to infiltrate the news media, often with the assistance of top management at the papers. In total, Bernstein reported, over 400 journalists were involved:

“Journalists provided a full range of clandestine services—from simple intelligence gathering to serving as go?betweens with spies in Communist countries. Reporters shared their notebooks with the CIA. Editors shared their staffs. Some of the journalists were Pulitzer Prize winners, distinguished reporters who considered themselves ambassadors without?portfolio for their country…In many instances, CIA documents show, journalists were engaged to perform tasks for the CIA with the consent of the managements of America’s leading news organizations.”

For the complete article go here:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-20/cia-washington-post-and-russia-what-youre-not-being-told

Fred Keyes said...

Anon, so what? There's a conflict of interest (or is it parallel interests?) between Bezos and the Post and the CIA is in the middle of it? And that means there wasn't any Russian interference in our elections? Do you have any evidence of that? You are making quite a jump. Anti-Media hasn't come to the same conclusion you are apparently making.

You're implying that the interference by Russia story was all made up. But you have given no evidence that the CIA/WaPo connection made it all up.

Let's keep this on Charlie. Why do you think he predicted this cooperative arrangement between the U.S. and Russia? Why is that not utterly bizarre?

Fred Keyes said...

Anon, did you overlook this line in the article"

"Though it’s entirely possible the Russian government attempted to influence the election,..."

That's all I'm saying: Despite the conflicts you describe, there is still a possibility that the allegations are true. And what is being revealed by Facebook and the Mueller investigation is pointing to that conclusion.

Where there's smoke...

Anonymous said...

Fred I do not have to prove anything about the Russians influencing the election - you do, you're the one who said "Reports today are beginning to flesh out the kind of strategic spending the Russians did to influence the elections." I'm saying prove it. We're going down a rabbit hole without facts. Besides Robert Mueller is the wrong person for the job, he's too compromised with his attachments to the FBI, Comey, Bushes, 4 staff members who directly donated money to Hillary Clinton - it's a witch hunt.

Fred Keyes said...

You have a nice day, anon, my friend. I'll say a prayer for you.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Fred and I will say prayers for you. Paix.

Anonymous said...

Charlie said that 26 million people would die during the storm. As of today, there are only 92 days left in 2017. That means that approximately 300,000 people will die every day between now and the end of the year. Unless of course in the upcoming war with China we start a nuclear exchange in which case we can hit the 26 million dead in a matter of minutes.

Anonymous said...

I took note of the following exchange in the comments to this Sunday's Family podcast:

Lanie says:
October 1, 2017 at 2:39 pm
Can you also YouTube the talks. For some of us this would be easier.


To which Charlie's son replied:

fighttheplight says:
October 2, 2017 at 7:17 am
We could try that. I’d have to look into the monthly hosting fee. In the meantime, if I can help you retrieve the podcast let me know.


If we're only weeks, days or perhaps hours away from a complete economic collapse, with money being worthless, why would Charlie's son be concerned with the cost of a monthly hosting fee?

Fred Keyes said...

Anon @ 7:36, economic collapses, the threat of war—even nuclear war, and all the other disastrous things Charlie predicted are risks that we have been living with for a long time. If one or more of them happen Charlie and Co. will surely take credit for being right, or at least that they got the grand sweep right. And if nothing like it happens, well, they've already walked far enough away from the predictions to keep their base.

One thing I absolutely believe about Charlie J. is that he is a first-rate political operator. Have you ever noticed how successful politicians are able to explain every position they take or expertly walk away from positions they can no longer be identified with? Just so Charlie—he ducks and weaves like a crafty boxer. Palookas beware.

Anonymous said...

Anon above, Maybe Chaz is not all in, like Beckita, and is hedging his bets! I did not listen to the last podcast but I feel Charlie J. is using his children here because he wants to change the subject from his prophecies not working out and he does not want to answer any questions, like about what is going on in the Church with the Pope, as someone said above. I am sorry his daughter has addictions but her Dad's podcast is not a place to discuss them.

Fred Keyes said...

Anon. on 9/29/17 @ 10:29PM:

A quote moments ago on live TV:

"No question the Russians were trying to interfere in our election. That's not a question that's unresolved." —U.S. Senator James Langford (R-Okla.)

Senator Langford is on the committee investigating the Russian attempts to influence the election. Republicans, including the very conservative Langford, are in the majority on this committee. The open question is whether and to what extent Americans gave aid to the Russians in their efforts to sway voters. How much proof do you need that what the Russians did was substantive?

IMO, Charlie was either suckered into treating the Russians in a decidedly friendly way or was part of a conspiracy to make Trump look attractive.

«Oldest ‹Older   1601 – 1800 of 3140   Newer› Newest»

ShareThis