When Lies Trump Truth – Part One

There is a long-standing and most strange peculiarity regarding the human mind that I struggle to understand. It is the ability of the mind to avoid facts placed right before the eyes because the heart is set on a certain course of action. We see this with the Pharisees, who, when Jesus performed a miracle of raising the now four-day dead Lazurus, rather than repenting and kneeling before Christ in belief, went to their place and plotted to kill Him. I struggle to understand how this happens.

This train of thought reached a kind of perfection in the person of Emile Zola, the late nineteenth-century French novelist. Even the Encyclopaedia Britannica, which is not untouched by the same crude materialism, describes Zola’s belief that science had cleared up all the mysteries of the universe as credulous. This brand of “scientism,” in the context of a highly clerical nineteenth-century French Church, made Zola a bitter enemy of Catholicism. At the height of his fame in the early 1890s, he set out to write a number of scurrilous anti-clerical novels. But unwittingly this most “truthful” of writers managed to turn himself into a parable—or anti-parable, if you will—about the lengths certain minds will go to deny the existence of God.

There was no point of Catholic devotion more ridiculous to him that the belief that the Virgin Mary had appeared in the little French town of Lourdes in 1858 and that miraculous cures had occurred there since then. An indefatigable researcher, Zola went down to Lourdes in August 1892, to gather material for a scathing indictment. But the unexpected happened: he witnessed a miracle. And his reaction—psychologists today might call it “cognitive dissonance”—was one of those instances that in a flash reveal an intellectual epoch.

Zola attached himself to an 18-year-old girl named Marie Lemarchand who was afflicted with three seemingly incurable diseases: an advanced stage of lupus, pulmonary tuberculosis, and leg ulcerations the size of an adult’s hand. Zola describes the girl’s face on the way to Lourdes as being eaten away by the lupus: “The whole was a frightful distorted mass of matter and oozing blood.” The girl went into the baths and emerged completely cured. One of the doctors present wrote, “On her return from the baths I at once followed her to the hospital. I recognized her well although her face was entirely changed.” The doctors who examined her could also find nothing wrong with her lungs, both of which had been infected with tuberculosis, causing the patient to cough and spit blood. Sixteen years later, she was still in perfect health and the cure was designated as official.

Zola was there when she came out of the baths. He had said, “I only want to see a cut finger dipped in water and come out healed.” The President of the Medical Bureau, Dr. Boissarie, was standing beside him. “Ah, Monsieur Zola, behold the case of your dreams!” “I don’t want to look at her,” replied Zola. “To me she is still ugly.” And he walked away. [1]

Zola subsequently witnessed a second cure at Lourdes and denied that one as well. I would hope that had I been there, I would have run to the grotto, fallen on my knees, and begged God for His mercy on me, an obdurate sinner. But I don’t know. This unbelief is a curse the human race bears en toto.

Which brings me to the point of my writing today. I have recently “unfriended” two personal acquaintances on Facebook. I simply cannot bear to watch these two men, both brilliant, to make utter fools out of themselves because they suffer from what has come to be termed “Trump Derangement Syndrome.” To watch them deny the volumes of information and circumstantial evidence which points to a massive fraud in the 2020 election is more than I can bear.

First there is the circumstantial evidence – the absolute hatred of President Trump, highlighted by four years of false accusations of Russian meddling. Just this shows that those who hate Trump would do anything possible to get him out of the White House. If you are going to lie about Russian collusion in a false attempt to get rid of the president, what are a few hundred thousand votes here or there and a stolen election?

Constitutional scholar, Mark Levin, writes in regards to the rigged Pennsylvania election:

A letter from Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe given to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday was a true bombshell, alleging that U.S. intelligence was weaponized in an effort to defeat Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election.

According to the letter, the CIA discovered in mid-2016 that Russia believed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton personally approved a scheme to deflect attention from her email server scandal by ginning up a narrative that the Trump campaign was collaborating with Russia to win the U.S. presidential race,

This allegation sounds plausible, since it coincides with an effort — funded by the Democratic National Committee in July 2016 — by former British spy Christopher Steele to assemble a salacious and false anti-Trump dossier that was used by the FBI to justify spying on a member of the Trump campaign.

Apparently my friends were not listening to the constitutional scholar, Mark Levin, when he pointed out:

You hear this phrase, systemic fraud, ‘there’s no evidence of systemic fraud,’ you see reporters interviewing “officials” of various state governments saying, “there’s no fraud whatsoever.” Let me ask you a question, fourteen months ago in the state of Pennsylvania, if you had voted by mail-in ballot, it would have been discarded. If that mail-in ballot had been counted, it would have been fraud.

14 months ago in the state of Pennsylvania, if you sent in a ballot without a signature, the ballot would be discarded. If it was counted, that would be criminal fraud.

14 months ago in the state of Pennsylvania, if you sent in a ballot with a signature that didn’t match the signature that they had on file, that would be discarded, if it was counted, that would be criminal fraud.

14 months ago in the state of Pennsylvania, if you sent in a ballot beyond election day, it wouldn’t be counted, if it was, that would be fraud.

If you sent in a ballot without a postal date stamped on it, it wouldn’t be counted, and if it was, that would be fraud.

Or, if you sent in a ballot where they couldn’t tell what the date was, if there was a smudge on the ink, it wouldn’t be counted, and if it was counted, that would be fraud.

All of those ballots today, count. They were all counted in Pennsylvania, because of unconstitutional and illegal changes that were made by officials, quote, unquote, “officially,” by individuals in Pennsylvania.

So, what did the Democrats do? They said, well you know what, we have a good idea, a few months before the election, they said, yes, no signatures required, you don’t need signature comparisons, you don’t need a postal date, and if the postal date is smudged, you are to count it anyway, oh and yes, even though election day ends on Tuesday at 8pm ET, we are going to extend it to 5pm ET on Friday.

They had no legal or constitutional basis for doing any of that.

So they violated Article II Section 1 Clause 2 of the United States Constitution which leaves the power to the state legislature to make the election laws.” [2]

There are the numerous affidavits in which eyewitnesses have testified to seeing ballots altered, being kept from observing the count, and the videos from poll workers who saw these irregularities. [3]

Republican poll workers were constantly harrassed and kept from doing their duty in observing what was taking place. Curtains and barriers were put up to keep people from seeing what was going on in the counting rooms.  Apparently my two gentlemen friends are not interested in these and other stories. .

There is the circumstantial evidence which gives testimonies a credibility.  Things such as numerical imposibilites, based on hard data source information, point to fraudulent activity.  Such hard data would be:  “Recieving 75% or more votes for one candidate in a precinct is abnormal.” Data analysts, working strictly with numbers, state that in Georgia there was fraud in the election. [4] “There was fraud in the Georgia election. We can prove it with data.  And because we can prove it with data, the voting will of the people of Georgia was not reflected in what was certified by the Secretary of State.”

[1]https://www.crisismagazine.com/1989/belief-and-unbelief-i-emile-zola-at-lourdes

[2] https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/12/07/levin_why_pennsylvania_mail-in-ballot_changes_are_unconstitutional.html

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=3RV57sFsojA&feature=emb_rel_end

What the deniers are saying is that every person in these videos is lying through their teeth.  Just as Zola turned away from the miracle which he demanded, so they refuse to look at the facts and listen to the people who were actually there. The agenda is “Get Rid of Trump,” and because of this, their hearts are as cold and their intellect as blind as the Pharisees who plotted to kill Lazarus.

When Lies Trump Truth – Part Two

2 comments

  1. Very well said – There happen to be two well-known proponents of universal reconciliation (which I too embrace) that I deeply respect – but who reject any defense of President Trump. I suspect it may be the same you mentioned… It’s frankly baffling!

    Thank you for bravely speaking the Truth!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s