Of Carts and Horses

By Charlie Johnston

My favorite professor in college was Clarence VerSteeg. He was an expert on the American Revolution and our class was a sort of mini-seminar. It was limited to 15 students and met once a week for four straight hours each week. Professor VerSteeg made two big impressions on me. First, no one ever knew what his political persuasion was. It didn’t matter. You could posit any theory you liked, but you had better be able to back it up under intense questioning, from both classmates and the professor. If you showed solid reasoning, a firm foundation of facts, and adequate depth, you did well. If not, you flunked – and no pandering was possible. Second, he did not give a minimum number of pages for assignments; he gave a maximum number. He would tell us that we needed to learn to write with concision – and that we would only need such and such number of pages to adequately explore a particular aspect of a subject. If you really needed more, you could ask permission – with the warning that every word had better tell. He grimaced at the thought of turning out students who wrote 90 percent fluff and stuff.

For our final paper, he allowed us ten pages. I had to go see him and seek permission for 12. After the usual warning, he grimly allowed it. To my delight, I got an A+ on that paper, the only one he gave for that class.

My thesis was that the American Revolution was not a revolution at all, but a counter-revolution. A revolution seeks to overthrow the existing order. The American colonists had largely been self-governing, save for the taxes they sent to England for well over a century. When England realized what a cash cow they had in America and how much potential those colonies had, The King and much of Parliament started tightening the screws down. It was the British who sought to change the existing order without any form of consent from the governed. The American Revolutionaries fought to preserve the way they had long governed themselves, resisting the revolutionary efforts of the British to make them all serfs of England.

Sound familiar? Our modern American Revolutionaries truly do seek to overthrow the way we govern ourselves – and they have taken us right up to the brink with edicts from an army of unaccountable bureaucrats that have the force of law and from judges who imagine themselves to be philosopher kings rather than the humbler role the Constitution should confine them to. Legislators have largely taken on the ceremonial role of court jesters who are empowered to enrich themselves by feeding off the substance of the people they are supposed to serve. Donald Trump began a counter-revolution to restore things to their proper order, where the people hold the whip hand and all functionaries of the self-governing state are accountable to the people rather than vice-versa.

Viva la counter-revolucion!


I sometimes speak of “first things,” fundamental principles that cannot be broken down further into constituent parts – and can serve to guide us in all situations, whether familiar or unfamiliar. Being able to properly identify what are actually first things is critical, for if you get it wrong you will perpetually have your cart before your horse – and things don’t work.

The first time this concept seared through my mind with real force was in 1975 when the Helsinki Accords were signed. This repugnant document sought to apologize for Soviet brutality to its own citizens by acknowledging that America grants its citizens political rights while the Soviet Union granted its citizens economic rights. I was both astonished and furious that America would sign on to such a formulation. Besides the obvious fact that the average American citizen was at least an order of magnitude more prosperous than the average Soviet citizen (whose economic rights were “guaranteed”), this formulation got the whole concept of rights entirely wrong. Rights do not emanate from any government; they precede the very existence of any state. States can grant entitlements; only God can grant rights – and the test of the legitimacy of any government is whether it acknowledges and defends those rights. I wrote a letter to some paper saying that the proper American response to that formulation should have been, “You are mistaken, gentlemen. Our government grants us nothing. We are a free, sovereign people who grant some limited power to our government to facilitate social and economic commerce and mutual defense.” The whole episode shook me, for I took it as an article of faith that senior government officials knew better than I how things should work. I was to get ample evidence in subsequent years that that was not the case; that most high officials were not sufficiently informed, bright or honorable enough to be safely entrusted with a seat on their local county board.

When I was in media – and particularly radio, those spots near every election telling everyone to vote, no matter how little attention they had paid, irked me to no end. I hated them. When in print media I could ignore them. In broadcast, I had to play them.

So I did a commentary taking that banal recommendation apart. First, I noted that voting is not the essence of free democracy, but one of its consequences – a residue, as it were. The essence of free democracy is to protect the fundamental rights of all. Its function is to prevent two foxes and a chicken from voting for what is for supper and having the majority rule. The duty of the inhabitants of such a state is to keep themselves sufficiently engaged that they can make informed decisions (which are not always the same thing as smart decisions, but at least make the effort). If everyone, no matter how ignorant or uninformed goes in and randomly chooses names they don’t know, we might as well just choose officials by lot. I added that the majority can never licitly rule over the intrinsic rights of any person. I ended by saying that if listeners had made a reasonable effort to keep up with what various candidates had done and proposed, by all means please go vote regardless of how much or how little they agreed with me. But if they had not paid any attention at all, please do us all a favor and stay home.

In 2006, I was doing two Congressional campaigns – and spent a lot of time in Washington with the Republican delegation. At the Capitol Hill Club (the Republicans’ clubhouse, as it were), I was appalled at how many apparent conservatives constantly lamented that if we could just set aside the social issues for a few cycles, we could put all things right by concentrating on economics and policy wonk stuff. I constantly and vehemently argued to the contrary; that if we didn’t get the social issues right we could never get things right at all, including economically. Leftist social policy requires that we do things that do not come naturally, that we pretend that reality and human nature are malleable. It is an artificial construct – and to sustain it requires both big government and big cash to give incentive to perversities that people would never accept in a natural state. I was regarded as a shrewd strategist and tactician, so my colleagues indulged me. They largely thought I was a crank on this subject – but a crank useful in other ways. One high operative I was friends with once jokingly told me he could not decide whether I was the most ideological pragmatist he had ever met or the most pragmatic ideologue. We both laughed. But leaders on the right continued to put the cart before the horse and now we are faced with an existential battle to see if a free, self-governing nation can be recovered and survive.

Imagine how delighted I was to see Dr. Jeff Mirus, the founder of Christendom College and Trinity Communications, get right to the heart of what ails so many of our left-wing clerics. It is a form of materialism, focusing on using our human ingenuity to give the good things the Gospels promise while shunting Christ and His commands to the background. But that is not what Scripture and the Magisterium teaches. What it teaches is that we should seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto us. These good things the lefties say they want are the consequences of genuine devotion to God and His Kingdom. Making them the substance of our endeavor not only keeps them ever beyond our grasp, but perverts and mutilates any portion of them that we ever actually get. Modern elites occupy themselves in two ways: shooting all the horses then wondering why the carts never get anywhere.

No matter how humble our little cart and horse, if we get the sequence right, we will leave the ignorant “experts” who rule today in our dust – and perhaps inspire them to take a fresh look at their own thinking.


This story of how a social media company voided its contract with the Family Research Council just an hour before a major event was to be broadcast confirms my judgment that the thugs in high tech are determined to shut down all Christian and conservative rights of assembly and speech in the most damaging way they can leading up to election. May all these bums be sued into bankruptcy after this is over.


On Monday of this week, I did a video-taping with our own MP, which he has cut up into a three part series for our Youtube Channel. You get the exclusive look at Part I: An In-Depth look at the Corps of Renewal and Charity (CORAC), what its all about, why it is being launched now, and how you can help and participate. Each segment will first be introduced here and then uploaded to the CORAC Channel.

Donate to CORAC!

74 thoughts on “Of Carts and Horses

  1. You’re a dynamo, Charlie. SO grateful. Thanks, too, MP. Wonderful work! And another fine video. Love it! Fantastic piece by Jeff Mirus too. I took a chance, contributed a small donation and “sounded off” by letting Mirus know his thoughts are consonant with what we’re fixing to do in CORAC. I did invite all of good will to join us at A Sign of Hope and shared the first CORAC video. The staff is selective about which comments get posted so we’ll see.

    Liked by 8 people

    1. BECKITA . . . I agree with your assessment of Charlie as a dynamo. I realized that fully when I met him in the Sacramento area last year and listened to him speak easily and authoritatively on every subject which came his way.
      This post underscores the fact that he is a mental dynamo.

      Liked by 7 people

        1. Ditto Beckita . . . and one other item: I stumbled across a biography (of a sort) on you about two months ago and was interrupted while reading it. I was fascinated by it, and now I can’t find it. Can you direct me to it?

          Liked by 2 people

  2. I am amazed at how there can still be some undecided people and ones who change this late in the game. I guess if they have been watching only MSM they are not getting an honest picture. My husband and I are noticing how many “bombshells” are being thrown at the wall hoping something will stick. Also how there is no shame about blatant lies, or accusing the victims-United States of Dystopia.

    Liked by 11 people

  3. Charlie, your points about that what is foundational (i.e. starting our thought and action from love of God and seeking to honor what He has guided us to do, not instead starting on feigned issue of social justice or materiel goals as priority, or as Dr. Mirus explained by mistakenly substituting societal issues as first priority, is well covered in this sermon by Fr. Altman ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-7eoTN2vNM&authuser=0 ).

    Liked by 5 people

  4. … My thesis was that the American Revolution was not a revolution at all, but a counter-revolution. A revolution seeks to overthrow the existing order …

    The King and the Parliament blew it.

    At the time of the American Revolution the population of the 13 American Colonies is estimated as roughly 2.5 million people based on the first American census in 1790. The population of Great Britain is estimated at roughly 7 million. Do the math and it turns out that a bit more than 25% of the entire British population were American colonists. They thought of themselves as Englishmen and loyal subjects of the Crown.

    So what happened? What turned loyal, docile, happy subjects of the King into revolutionaries, or counter-revolutionaries as Charlie sees it?

    Well, the French and Indian War 1756-1763, time and distance between Philadelphia and London,
    taxes, Tea, no Representation, the British East India Company all played a part.

    The American colonial Englishmen had no representation in Parliament. No delegates. No vote. No franchise as we see it now in hindsight. Parliament was basically a lot of the King’s friends.

    Colonialists had a form of self-government:

    “The executive branch was led by a governor, and the legislative branch was divided into two houses, a governor’s council and a representative assembly. In royal colonies, the governor and the council were appointed by the British government. In proprietary colonies, these officials were appointed by proprietors, and they were elected in charter colonies. In every colony, the assembly was elected by property owners.

    In domestic matters, the colonies were largely self-governing; however, the British government did exercise veto power over colonial legislation. Diplomatic affairs were handled by the British government, as were trade policies and wars with foreign powers (wars with Native Americans were generally handled by colonial governments).

    The American Revolution was ultimately a dispute over Parliament’s right to enact domestic legislation for the American colonies. The British government’s position was that Parliament’s authority was unlimited, while the American position was that colonial legislatures were coequal with Parliament and outside of its jurisdiction.”

    So comes the French and Indian War (which George Washington started — long story) which was part of a global world war. The war between France and England in America was expensive. The King and the Parliament felt that the American Colonists should pick up the tab because after all the King was providing the troops to protect the American English Colonists from the French and Indians.

    So, almost everyone in the colonies drank Tea.

    So, the King and Parliament decided that a little tax on Tea would be a good thing. Not a huge thing. Not a tax on stamps and playing cards and such. Just a little teeny, tiny tax on all that tea those Americans chugged down every day. What could possibly go wrong?

    So they passed the Townshend Acts of 0f 1767. Not good.

    “The Tea Act, passed by Parliament on May 10, 1773, granted the British East India Company Tea a monopoly on tea sales in the American colonies. This was what ultimately compelled a group of Sons of Liberty members on the night of December 16, 1773 to disguise themselves as Mohawk Indians, board three ships moored in Boston Harbor, and destroy over 92,000 pounds of tea.

    The Tea Act was the final straw in a series of unpopular policies and taxes imposed by Britain on her American colonies. The policy ignited a “powder keg” of opposition and resentment among American colonists and was the catalyst of the Boston Tea Party.

    The passing of the Tea Act imposed no new taxes on the American colonies. The tax on tea had existed since the passing of the 1767 Townshend Revenue Act. Along with tea, the Townshend Revenue Act also taxed glass, lead, oil, paint, and paper. Due to boycotts and protests, the Townshend Revenue Act’s taxes were repealed on all commodities except tea in 1770. The tea tax was kept in order to maintain Parliament’s right to tax the colonies.

    The Tea Act was not intended to anger American colonists, instead it was meant to be a bailout policy to get the British East India Company out of debt. The British East India Company was suffering from massive amounts of debts incurred primarily from annual contractual payments due to the British government totaling £400,000 per year. Additionally, the British East India Company was suffering financially as a result of unstable political and economic issues in India, and European markets were weak due to debts from the French and Indian War among other things. Besides the tax on tea which had been in place since 1767, what fundamentally angered the American colonists about the Tea Act was the British East India Company’s government sanctioned monopoly on tea.”

    The British East India Company was the Amazon and Apple of the 18th century rolled into one company. Big oil? Big Tea. So who had investments in Big Tea? The King and the members of Parliament.

    “The view of tea in American culture began to shift when the British government introduced the Townshend Acts in 1767. Tea was taxed as part of these laws which made it less affordable for the American people. However, cheaper tea was still smuggled into America.

    Later in 1773 the Tea Act was put into place which allowed the East India Company to gain a monopoly on tea sales in America by being able to sell tea at prices that were cheaper than both the colonial tea importers and the smugglers.

    The East India Company, based in London, operated from 1600 to 1858, and was one of the richest and longest-lived trading companies in history. Its influence on British colonial policy indirectly influenced American history. At the time that the English colonies were becoming increasingly restive, the company was trying to strength its position in Canton, and as a result was purchasing greater and greater quantities of tea. The colonial response to the tea tax in 1767 resulted in a precipitous decline in consumption, from 900,000 pounds in 1769 to just 237,000 in 1772.

    With warehouses overflowing with unsold tea, the company negotiated with Parliament for the right to sell tea directly to the colonies, which was granted in the Regulating Act of 1773. Instead of gaining a new market for the East India Company, the act produced more opposition. After the Revolution, the East India Company had little direct contact with America. ”

    Prior to the Tea Act, the British East India Company Tea was required to exclusively sell its tea at auction in London. This required the British East India Company to pay a tax per pound of tea sold which added to the company’s financial burdens. The Tea Act aborted this restriction and granted the British East India Company license to export their tea to the American colonies. This opened up the British East India Company’s markets to the lucrative American colonies. Additionally, under the Tea Act, duties Britain charged on tea shipped to the American colonies would be waived or refunded upon sale.

    With the passing of the Tea Act, the seventeen million pounds of unsold surplus tea the British East India Company owned could be sold to markets in the American colonies. The tea was to be shipped to the American colonies and sold at a reduced rate. The Townshend Revenue Act tea tax remained in place despite proposals to have it waived.

    American colonists were outraged over the tea tax, which had existed since the 1767 Townshend Revenue Act and did not get repealed like the other taxes in 1770, and believed the Tea Act was a tactic to gain colonial support for the tax already enforced.

    The direct sale of tea by agents of the British East India Company to the American colonies undercut the business of colonial merchants (and smugglers). Prior to the Tea Act, colonial merchants purchased tea directly from British markets or smuggled from illegal markets. They then shipped it back to the colonies for resale. Outraged that American merchants were undercut, colonists initially in Philadelphia and New York refused the British East India Company tea to be offloaded and sent the ships back to England. In many colonial ports to protest the Tea Act, the shipment of British East India Company tea was unloaded and left untouched on the docks to rot. The Beaver, Dartmouth, and Eleanor arrived in Boston in late November to the middle of December 1773. The colonists, led by the Sons of Liberty, wanted the ships to return to England, and refused the unloading of the ships’ cargo of tea. ”

    The King and Parliament decided they couldn’t let a bunch of rabble rousers take control of Boston so they sent a whole lot of British soldiers to Occupy the town. Then they sent them up the road to Lexington and Concord to grab the guns and the powder. Then the shots were fired and the blood was spilled. Then within a few days 22,000 armed farmers surrounded all those British redcoats in Boston and we were off to the races.

    How did the KIng and Parliament blow it? Simply put they changed the business model for the Tea trade to cut out the American Englishmen Middle Men. To save their investments in the British East India Company.

    So, bad news for American tea importers and the smugglers who were among the elite in every city, town, port and fishing village up and down the Atlantic East Coast. The influencers of the day. Took it in the chops big time from the King and Parliament with whom they had no representation.

    What about the farmers, the fishermen and the lumber producers? Why did they move into a revolutionary fervor to match that of the tea importers and the smugglers?

    They sat in the taverns and the meeting rooms smoking their clay pipes and drinking their rum and discussing the political situation and came to a conclusion: If they can change the tea guys’ business model to cut them out and cut them down at their knees then they can do it to us.

    They were shocked by the tea situation. Moved them from complacency to activism to revolution. It wasn’t a question of taxes or freedom or democracy or even representation in a far away Parliament. It was a question of economic survival. They fought to protect the food on their table. And the roof over their heads.

    One might say political corruption, conspiracy and arrogance to bail out the biggest company of the day by the King and his friends in Parliament cost them a continent.

    Who were the revolutionaries in 1775? T

    Those who overthrew the system of self government and business and the established order that had served the empire for generations. That would be the King and his cronies. They were the revolutionaries. They paid a terrible price for their arrogance.

    Who were the counter-revolutionaries in 1775?

    Those who sought to restore the system that had worked for generations. Those who just wanted to be treated like all the other Englishmen living across the sea.

    The revolutionaries lost that battle. God bless America.

    Who are the revolutionaries and counter-revolutionaries in America today?

    A strong argument can be made that the Uniparty in Congress along with the Deep State with its embedded bureaucrat constituencies and revolving door Government/ Military/Industrial Complex grifters and grafters constitutes a revolutionary movement to undermine and destroy the Constitution and the Government of the people, by the people and for the people. That movement has inflicted tremendous damage to date since the end of WWII and now assumes that it is no longer accountable to the people.

    A strong argument can be made that Donald Trump and the movement that elected him to fight the corruption, drain the swamp and reverse this revolutionary damage to our society is the counter-revolution in America today.

    The question of the hour: who is going to win?

    Liked by 9 people

    1. “…the Uniparty in Congress along with the Deep State with its embedded bureaucrat constituencies and revolving door Government/ Military/Industrial Complex grifters and grafters [ ]… has inflicted tremendous damage to date since the end of WWII and now assumes that it is no longer accountable to the people.”

      StormTrackerEd: that was really interesting and informative, and your conclusion applies equally, mutatis mutandis, to us on this side of the pond embedded in the belly of the EU Babylon. In fact, our situation is worse because we seem to have no Trump, or even much of the makings of a groundswell movement that will overturn the centralised power-grab and return the imperial “Union” to the free trade area it was originally intended to be, with Member State sovereignty restored and respected. Much as your Fathers intended the US to be.

      Here in Ireland we are in the centenary of our War of Independence, which culminated in 1921 with the establishment of the Irish Free State, later the Republic. But in less than a century from 1921 the successors of those men and women who gained that independence had, effectively, thrown it all away, lured by the siren call of “modernity” and the “inevitable” march of progress. Ok, there was a good lot of fear that we, as a very small island off the edge of the continent would be economically lost, frozen out, excluded, unless we joined in with the behemoth but there was also much naked greed, along with a desire to keep up with the cool kids (who, by a strange coincidence, were all left-leaning) and not to be seen to be backward and “right-wing” (for which read Catholic-influenced).

      Good God, 100 years ago the British Empire, then at its zenith with Germany removed, represented the cool kids, the big market, blahdy blah…and yet we had no problem with fighting to get out of that! And yes, the new Ireland was less than an economic powerhouse, and poor in many respects, but it was free, independent and Christian – deeply so as regards the last.

      None of those three adjective applies now. The men… ooops, persons… without chests are in the ascendant. But hey, we’ve got gay “marriage” and abortion.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Jaykay my grandparents on both sides were Irish. My grandparents on my paternal side emigrated to Boston around the year 1907. On my maternal side they were Irish who came from Nova Scotia to Boston a generation before that.

        As Bill Clinton might put it: I feel your pain.

        It seems to me that George III and Parliament were quite stunned with their American subjects insistence on the idea of REPRESENTATION. Why? Because very few people in England had any REPRESENTATION in Parliament at all. A very low percentage of the population was “qualified” to vote for local members of Commons. Property owners. Wealthy people were qualified to vote.

        Ironically, they called it VIRTUAL REPRESENTATION:

        “Virtual representation means that even individuals who cannot or do not vote are represented in the legislature by similar voters who can and do vote. Actual representation demands that every person can vote for a representative.

        Virtual representation is when you’re being represented by decision makers, but you weren’t allowed to vote on who they would be, like when the king of England would assign governors to royal colonies. Actual representation is when you pick the decision makers that represent you, like electing the President.”

        The House of Lords consisted of the dimwitted sons of the aristocracy who themselves were the dimwitted sons of Lord So and So and so forth back to the misty beginnings of time and society. It was handed down from generation to generation.

        The House of Commons consisted of representatives elected/selected by qualified voters. Those who owned property. A cozy club.

        No average shmo on the street in England ever had a chance of being elected/selected by the property owners to represent their interests in the House of Commons.

        All those average shmos were provided with Virtual Representation by their qualified betters in society who had more money, a better education, and a place in society. That is to say that 99% of the population had no real or actual representation at all. Those Virtual Representatives were held to represent all the people wherever they may be, including the American colonies. Nice work if you can get it.

        The American subjects were asserting natural and God given rights that no other Englishman in the homeland possessed. No taxation without representation? The Parliament took umbrage with the notion of no representation. Of course they were represented! Virtually by virtuous superiors and their betters in society who got around more and who were wise and sophisticated in the ways of the world. No representation. What a ridiculous idea.

        You can see how the King and the Parliament got backed into a corner by the American Colonialists insistence on ACTUAL REPRESENTATION in the House of Commons. Like 25% of the seats should be occupied by colonialists to match the colonial share of the population. A notion which was like a dagger pointed at the heart of the corrupt monarchical cabal running England at the time. Never gonna happen.

        The idea of majority rule? Democracy? One man one vote? Universal suffrage? Give the women the vote!!!! Never crossed their minds. Never crossed any American Colonialist’s mind either. Never crossed anybody’s mind in the Western World in 1775.

        it seems to me that all the Western Nations which followed the Madisonian model of a representative republic are back to wrestling with the problem of Actual vs Virtual Representation.

        Here in The United States, for example, I feel like that in my Marxist Democrat controlled county of Arlington, Virginia I have no representation at any level at all. Not at the county level, not at the State level and not at the national level in terms of the Virginia Congressional delegation, No Actual Representation and No Virtual Representation. No representation at all.

        Donald Trump represents my thinking about the world and about the most important civic and social and civic issues. He is the only one. If Biden is elected in November I will have no representation of my interest and preferences and no voice similar to mine expressed at any level of government.

        Can you imagine the kind of Virtual Representation that we are going to be blessed with under a White House, Senate and House of Representatives controlled by stone cold Marxists and/or puppets like poor Joe Biden?

        I am not alone. This predicament is true for millions and millions of people in the country. We can see it is true in England and Ireland and the rest of the Western World as well. This may be the fatal flaw of Western Civilization.

        If you want to see how the elites in England felt about these upstart Englishmen in America in 1775 read this response of John Wesley to his American Brethren in 1775. I guarantee it will make you smile. The guy was the Dinesh D’Souza of the times and he took on argued against every premise and assertion made by the crybaby whiner Englishmen across the sea in America. He was a great debater and I just wonder how he would do on FOX or CNN today. His attitude was: suck it up buttercups.

        A Calm Address To Our American Colonies – 1775 – John Wesley


        Liked by 2 people

  5. I’ve been very busy of late, so have not commented. I’m in Falls Church, VA this week and realized Fr. Paul Scalia is the pastor of a church nearby where I’m staying. It’s 4:20 am and I can’t sleep in anticipation of attending 6:30 am Mass at his parish!

    Liked by 9 people

    1. Kim, that’s so cool! We lived in Falls Church a quarter-century ago, and the parish where Fr. Scalia is stationed was right close to our house. We didn’t go there often (we went to the Latin Mass at Old St. Mary’s in DC most Sundays); but shortly after our eldest was born, the pastor at St. James gave me the “Churching of Women” blessing after a daily Mass. 🙂

      Liked by 3 people

      1. Mick– I was so excited to discover him there. We went to Communion kneeling at the rail, receiving on the tongue– such a blessing. I went to see him after Mass to tell him what an honor it was to be at his very reverent Mass and to tell him how much I admired his father- and him–told him I had read an article his Dad had written about how their family would drive long distances to get to a church that celebrated Mass in the manner that they sought. Was so delighted to receive his blessing, too!

        Liked by 4 people

        1. Kim, how great that you got to talk to him! I would love to meet him someday. But I would NOT love to go back to the DC area, so I guess I’m outta luck. 🙂


          1. No kidding, Mick! I would NEVER have come here if it hadn’t been for the fact that I hadn’t seen my son and his family for over a year!

            Liked by 1 person

  6. The situation with Family Research Council makes me wonder if Christians should flock to services, such as cell phone service and internet service, that stand for morality, lest we all find ourselves in a similar situation.

    Liked by 3 people

  7. Here is a nice reminder of why we’re all doing this. From Fr. Heilman’s Rosary Novena for Our Nation. It’s the new version of Lee Greenwood and soldiers singing, “God Bless the USA”.
    God bless and keep you all.

    Liked by 3 people

  8. Charlie and MP your video was WONDERFUL!!!! I really enjoyed it and look forward to other ones! I’m glad y’all decided to use Charlie and Charlie’s own voice because he just knows how to convey a perfect message!!!

    I liked the story about being at the bottom of the stairs and trying to get to the top!

    Next right step, baby!!!😀

    It’s going to be interesting to see where all this leads! What a great sign of hope for us all today!!!

    Ave Maria Stella Maris!!!

    Liked by 3 people

  9. Excellent CORAC video Charlie….and MP. Clarity and Truth.

    I think the Next Right Step at this juncture is sharing with family and friends the importance of voting for LIFE, because it means Eternal Life for their souls.

    In a couple of weeks, we will be back out in front of Planned Parenthood for 40 Days for Life. I will be holding a sign that says “Pro Eternal Life”.

    Liked by 10 people

  10. Some good news. That lady Andrea who was pregnant and gave birth but was hospitalized with severe COVID and who I sought prayers for has been discharged and is now home with her husband and 2 month old baby. She had been in an induced coma until last week and is doing fine. Thanks for the prayers and let us give thanks to God for this bit of good news.

    Liked by 11 people

    1. Boy, CrewDog, the article on the Vatican coup rips the heart right out throws it on the ground and stomps on it. Awful
      Similar tactics to get abortion ok’ed in the black community-going after the faith leaders.
      Lord, please help us.

      Liked by 3 people

  11. Amen, about ads telling everyone to vote!! I yell at the TV each time, that they shouldn’t vote if they’re not intelligent enough to know! Yes, “know nothings” stay home! There are more of them now than at any time in my life; God help us.
    Another fantastic analysis, Charlie. As said above, yes, you’re a dynamo, awesome!
    God bless!

    Liked by 6 people

  12. This may be Fr. Altman’s final broadcast homily
    Yesterday Bishop William Callahan of the diocese of La Crosse issued a statement admonishing Fr. James Altman for his now viral video, “You Can’t Be a Faithful Catholic and a Democrat.” You can read the bishop’s statement and our response in this post on our website.

    This morning, Fr. Altman broadcast what may very well be his last live Mass and homily from his parish in La Crosse. We urge you to watch the homily and share it with your friends and family.
    Please voice your support for Fr. Altman by contacting Bishop Callahan and respectfully asking him to allow Fr. Altman to continue to broadcasting his Masses and homilies of hope.

    Bishop William Callahan
    Diocese of La Crosse
    3710 East Avenue South
    P.O. Box 4004
    La Crosse, WI 54602-4004
    Telephone: 608.788.7700
    Fax: 608.788.8413

    Please keep both Fr. Altman and Bishop Callahan in your prayers.

    Liked by 5 people

    1. Of course Father Altman was silenced. The leftist hierarchy of the Catholic Church considers climate change and open borders to be their highest concerns. Put aside the 60 million plus innocents have been killed and are still being killed in the most gruesome ways! There is a clear commandment, Thou shall not kill! But let’s forget this increasingly barbarous and heinous sin because the D party supports our current Pope’s most vocal concerns. Bishop Callahan will not allow Father Altman to give mass on television again. I would be super surprised if our Pope has not already weighed in and blocked this priest from further televised masses .There may be more to come because Father Altman even mentioned the dubious matter of climate change, the money being given by the Church to socialist causes, etc. He pointed out so much hypocrisy that he may be sent to Antarctica to say mass.

      Liked by 3 people

        1. Good Jesuit, bad Jesuit. The Society of Jesus has some holy and brilliant men. But this order must be whittled down and the radical factions scrubbed away.

          Well, one thing we can generally say about Jesuits is they’re not lukewarm.

          Liked by 2 people

        2. It will not happen. If the Pope can bless Pachmama inside the Vatican, Martin will be allowed to bless / pray at the D convention.

          Liked by 1 person

        3. I am wondering the same thing, Beckita. And who might do the same with regard to the other Jesuit who was HIRED by the Democrat Party to do ads for CATHOLICS FOR BIDEN – HARRIS? If he was *hired,” does this mean he is also getting money from the Dems?

          Liked by 2 people

  13. I have read here somewhere about the 10 minutes statement of Father Altman (though I cannot seem to find the thread right now). I have also listened. Now Bishop Strickland of Texas has made a statement of great support…..I believe that the Catholic Church should have said (at the first time abortion was part of a platform of a political party) that one cannot be Catholic and support infanticide as a positive and then place it on your party platform as a woman’s right. And anyone who takes that public position will be excommunicated from the Catholic Church. ….. Of course, they did not…. Maybe if the Church did that at the time, some of those politicians would have formed a new party without the pro-abortion platform if they truly cherished their God instead of their powerful positions and ambition. Now this nation sees that abortionists are ripping baby parts from fully viable babies right before (and perhaps even after) they are born. It seems to me that this is not only a crime against God, but it is a crime against humanity. Even if one does not believe in God, how could this not be seen as evil, just as the Nazi death camps were seen as evil? As shown in the documentary, The Keepers, the Church has hidden and protected evil works by many priests instead of fighting evil head on. As Catholics are we not supposed to expose and fight against evil if we are in a position to do so? ….. Even if priests do not mention a political party, I think they must remind a parish that God’s commandments declare that man and woman must not kill. There are two people involved when a woman is pregnant. Each has rights to live. It is clearly God’s law…..Christ said that he is the Way, the Truth and the Life. I do not think that one can keep avoiding the truth and then say that they are on the side of the angels. I think that at this time in history, pointing out a very important truth, a truth proclaimed by God in his commandments, is much more important than standing in silence and supporting a Church hierarchy that has shown itself to be corrupt….I admire anyone who speaks out and proclaims God’s commandments, especially when it is not popular nor convenient. ….. We are called to imitate Christ as best we can. Recall that he threw out the money changers in the temple. In this way, he divided himself from the Romans politicians and Jewish Sanhedrin who, as I understand it, we making a lot money with high exchange rates. They were taking lots of money from malnourished Jewish families who simply wanted to participate in their Holy Days in order to further their own comfortable positions…..I think that is what the hierarchy in the church has been doing. Clearly this is not the Way of Christ. At a time when there are so many egregious lies everywhere and in every institution, I think proclaiming truth is much more important than obedience, especially when the moral core of the Church often no longer exists among the hierarchy.
    I think Jesus smiles at Father Altman. I certainly do smile at him because this is not a political ploy; this is God’s commandment. With modern technology, we are clearly able to see a baby in the womb. No woman or man has the right to take the life of a child. There are many issues. This one issue is very, very clear. May God bless you and keep you, Father Altman and Bishop Strickland. I love you for your courage and commitment to save innocents and, also, to save souls who are notably errant. Godspeed.

    Liked by 10 people

  14. Evil should not be tolerated in any walk of life, and it has all too easily seeped into and infiltrated them all. We need God’s intervention and He is answering our cries. I pray, pray, pray for the Church and humanity, one and all. ❤

    Liked by 3 people

        1. If I’m correctly following what you’re saying, Linda, when I clicked on the donating to CORAC link, I was taken to a page in English. I’m confused as to how you reached a page written with French. Too, the donation link was first released about an hour ago when Charlie’s latest piece was posted.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. Hmmm… well maybe it was st Joan of Arc or St Teresa! In any event, there was a squirrel 🐿 (good sign) but def a different language 😂😂😂


              1. It was sort of cool being a Frenchie who je ne parle pas français! 😩 my dearest mom tried to teach me as it was her native tongue and all she could do was laugh at my translations!!! Ha!😂😂😂

                Liked by 1 person

  15. I know you’re busy Charlie, but what say you of the possible involvement/joining forces of CORAC with the Johnathan Cahn/Graham trumpeting Sept 26 “the Return” event of repentance and prayer that CrewDog posted about earlier—seems the prime picnic sort of event that you envisioned for Christians gathering together; St Paul’s words echo, “Behold, now is a very acceptable time; behold, now is the day of salvation.” (II Cor. 5.20-6.2) and also a little lesson from ants; when flood waters rage, they all link up and stay afloat; apart, they likely drown….

    Liked by 2 people

Comments are closed.