Praying Medic's Blog, page 29

Moving the Goalposts—The Nature of Speculative Commentary

spec·u·la·tion
/ˌspekyəˈlāSH(ə)n/
noun
1. The forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.

On this website, I share insights I receive from God that readers may find helpful or encouraging. This information usually comes in the form of dreams. In addition to prophetic revelation, I provide speculative commentary about current events. Rather than being from God, these are my own thoughts on what the future may hold. My analysis of current events is based on my understanding of history and human nature. Obviously, it is influenced by my personal worldview, and in particular, my view of the future.

Revelation from God tends to be declarative in nature. We receive revelation from Him and declare what we’ve seen or heard.  Commentary on current events tends to be speculative in nature—I take an educated guess at what I think may happen. There is no objective certainty to any of this. And that causes problems for those who wish to debate objective facts.

One could argue that it is an objective fact that Joe Biden won the 2020 Presidential election. He is, after all, occupying the White House. But there is evidence that suggests the election was fraudulent. That’s why Arizona is examining its election results. In time, it may be proven that Trump actually had more votes. Is it an objective fact or speculation that Biden won the election? One could argue that Biden’s presidency cannot be interfered with and that Trump must simply wait until 2024 to run again. This observation is not a statement of fact. Any statement about what will happen in the future is speculative commentary.

Speculative commentary is, by its nature, destined to be wrong. There is no degree of certainty to it. It’s an attempt to paint a picture of possible timelines and events and then change the picture as more information becomes available. It’s an assessment of a situation at a point in time. As time changes, so does the assessment. If it is to be of any use, speculative commentary must change as new information comes to light.

Anyone who has served in combat knows a battle plan remains intact only until first engagement with an enemy. Once an enemy is encountered and an offensive or defensive action is taken, a new assessment must be made of the enemy’s capabilities. Any changes in the assessment will lead to changes in the battle plan. The same is true for speculative commentary.

I don’t speak for Q, but it seems his operation involves speculative commentary. Rather than being omniscient or from the future (as some have claimed), Q provides an assessment based on currently available information. Q’s assessment would, of course, change as more information becomes available. For example, in 2018, it seemed FBI Director Chris Wray could be trusted, and that sentiment was conveyed to anons. But as more information became available, Q changed his assessment and warned anons Wray was a deep state sleeper planted in the Trump administration. Those who can’t grasp the changing nature of speculative commentary never understood what happened regarding the assessment of Wray and probably never will.

The fact that assessments change can be weaponized by a commentator’s enemies. When things don’t go as predicted, enemies seize the opportunity and point out a failed prognostication. When new information becomes available, and a new assessment is put forth, the commentator is accused of moving the goalposts. These criticisms ignore the necessity of change in speculative commentary.

Errors are inevitable, and it is the commentator’s duty to admit when they’re wrong. I anticipated the November election going differently. I hoped Mike Pence would take a different action on January 6th when the electoral college vote was counted. I miscalculated both of these events (and others). I was wrong, but I’ve learned from my mistakes, and I will continue sharing my thoughts as long as someone finds them valuable.

 

The post Moving the Goalposts—The Nature of Speculative Commentary appeared first on Praying Medic.

DOJ Actions Reveal Their Playbook – What Happens Next?

The 12th in a series of articles that examine where America is headed following the 2020 election.

This week, the DOJ decided not to prosecute the police officer who killed Ashli Babbit at the January 6th Capitol protest. They’ve also refused to release the name of the officer who shot Babbit. Yesterday, Samuel Montoya, a journalist who captured Babbit’s murder on video, was arrested on charges including interfering with government business and disorderly and disruptive conduct. Today, a founding member of the Oath Keepers, Jon Ryan Schaffer, pled guilty to multiple charges related to the protest and has agreed to cooperate with investigators. Much can be learned about the deep state’s playbook by examining these and other actions.

Let’s begin by looking at the big picture.

Barack Obama has been used by globalist billionaire George Soros to weaken America in the hope of bringing it under the control of a one-world superstate. Late in 2015, the Obama intelligence community launched a campaign against high-profile patriots and President Trump. Their opening move was the now-debunked claim of colluding with Russia during the 2016 election. They followed that with a smear campaign against General Flynn with the goal of removing him as Trump’s National Security Adviser.

The intelligence community used a legitimate phone call between Flynn and a Russian ambassador as a pretext for claims of collusion with Russia, knowing the details of the call would not be made public due to national security concerns. With support from a corrupt media complex, the DOJ opened an investigation of the Trump campaign then prosecuted and harassed patriots in Trump’s orbit. The larger goal was to make an example of anyone who dared to challenge the establishment. But there were other goals. Focusing on allegations that Flynn and Trump conspired with Russia allowed them to distract the public’s attention away from crimes committed by Obama and the Clintons.

Fast forward four years.

The DOJ and FBI claim that patriots came together in Washington DC on January 6th to overthrow the government. They continue to spread unfounded allegations that conservative patriotic groups like the Oath Keepers and Three Percenters are a threat to national security. Yesterday, Devin Nunes responded to allegations to that effect:

“The Democrats see political benefits in characterizing wide swathes of American citizens, particularly Republicans and conservatives, as politically suspect, potentially violent, and deserving of government surveillance. However, I will remind those assembled here today that our Intelligence Community exists solely to counteract foreign threats… History shows that major abuses occur when our intelligence capabilities are turned inward to spy on our own citizens—from the FBI spying on Martin Luther King Jr. in the 1950s and ‘60s to its surveillance of Republican party members in 2016. This is a red line that simply cannot be crossed—in fact, this committee was created in large part to ensure that line would not be crossed.”

Nunes expressed concern that the Biden Administration has directed the DNI to lead a report on domestic violent extremism. Attempts by the IC to blur the line between domestic and foreign threats will “provoke severe repercussions from every Republican on this committee, every Republican in Congress, and the American people.” Nunes said he hopes the IC will focus on other things besides “investigating conservatives and spying on Republican presidential campaigns.”

Politicians and their allies in the deep state know that investigating patriots over their participation at the capitol on January 6th will only further inflame the situation and potentially lead to more violence. The wise move would be to let it go and admit there was no insurrection. But won’t do that. They can’t afford to.

With the help of the media, politicians and the intel community have sold the fake insurrection story to the public. They’re committed to a narrative that paints them as victims and Trump supporters as criminals. They can’t just admit it never happened. If they did, then Trump and his supporters would no longer the bad guys. And if they aren’t the bad guys, who is?

Without the media and politicians pushing the insurrection narrative, election fraud would take the spotlight. And if election fraud were to take center stage, the rigged process that puts politicians in office would be exposed. They have no intention of letting that happen. Thus, the fake insurrection narrative will continue and I would expect it to be pushed harder as the election audit in Arizona approaches.

The Obama/Biden intel community set a trap on January 6th. They planted agitators in the crowd they knew would gather at the Capitol and had members of the media present to manufacture the narrative that Trump supporters tried to overthrow the government. This claiming paints conservatives as criminals and diverts public attention away from November’s stolen election. As they did with General Flynn, the “Just Us” Department will now try to make examples of patriots.

Continued targeting of groups like the Oath Keepers and Three Percenters seems like a recipe for disaster. Do officials at the DOJ think they can harass other law enforcement officers and members of the military without suffering reprisal? This seems to be what Nunes implied when he said continued harassment would “provoke severe repercussions from every Republican on this committee, every Republican in Congress, and the American people.”

The deep state’s playbook has been revealed, and with an assault on the rights of patriots in full swing, it looks like we’re in for a long, hot summer.

The post DOJ Actions Reveal Their Playbook – What Happens Next? appeared first on Praying Medic.

Medic Monday – April 12 2021

Greg and I discuss the actions average citizens can take to fight oppression and corruption.

Interview with Attorney Matt DePerno

Greenbeard on Dlive

If you have difficulty viewing this broadcast, it is also available on Podbean.

The post Medic Monday – April 12 2021 appeared first on Praying Medic.

Supernatural Saturday – Face to Face Appearances

God speaks to us in many ways, including face-to-face appearances.

Having trouble viewing the video? This broadcast is also available on Podbean.



The post Supernatural Saturday – Face to Face Appearances appeared first on Praying Medic.

Medic Monday – April 5, 2021

In this episode of Medic Monday, Greg Harvey and I discuss the craft of writing and how the deep state is pushing normies to the precipice.

If you have difficulty viewing this broadcast, it is also available on ">Podbean.

The post Medic Monday – April 5, 2021 appeared first on Praying Medic.

When Will the Military Intervene?

It is my opinion that at some point, the military will take steps to alter the course our country is currently on. I believe the military’s intervention will impact many institutions of society, including the executive branch. I base that view on several factors, including a series of dreams God gave me around the time of Joe Biden’s inauguration. (That discussion begins here and continues in the posts that follow over the next few weeks.)

People who have commented on this idea say that it seems impossible now since Biden is putting sympathetic people in positions of power in the Pentagon. I don’t have firsthand knowledge of the dynamics at work inside the Defense Department. While it may seem the DoD is being neutered, there will always be a contingent of patriots who could effect a plan of correction. Six days after Biden’s inauguration, Michael Flynn’s brother, Charles Flynn, was promoted to the command of the U.S. Army in the Pacific.

Regardless of which civilians are “in control” at the Pentagon, the warfighters in uniform could decide to remove Biden from office, and there is nothing the Secretary of Defense (or his undersecretaries) could do but resign in protest.

In my dreams, I saw a sudden, unexpected turn of events taken by the military.
When might this happen?
I can’t give a date, but I will speculate about the timeframe based on currently available information. I would emphasize, this is only speculation and not a prediction. 

The situation in Myanmar provides a template, which we can use to plot the course for the removal of a president by the military due to election fraud.

If the U.S. Military were to remove Joe Biden from office, they would need abundant evidence of election fraud on a scale that would cause any rational person to question the outcome of the November 2020 election. Before the military would make their move, I would anticipate the exposure of election fraud to the public.

While it is true that evidence of election fraud was presented in a number of hearings by Rudy Giuliani and Jenna Ellis, the evidence the military would want is the kind likely to be discovered by a forensic audit ordered by a state legislative body. Such an audit is about to commence in Maricopa County, Arizona, where more than 2 million ballots and Dominion Voting Systems hardware and software will be examined. The audit is expected to take 60 days. If evidence of significant election fraud is found in Maricopa County, we can pose a series of questions:

Would Arizona decertify its November election results based on the finding of fraud?
Would Arizona announce Donald Trump the winner?
Or would the Grand Canyon state opt for a new election?
What changes might be made to the state’s election process based on the findings of fraud?
If Dominion Voting Systems is proven to be a culprit in fraud, what do other states do that use Dominion Voting Systems?
Do other states order audits?
Do they decertify their November election results?
Do they make changes to their election laws?

If the 2020 election were proven fraudulent by forensic audit and acknowledged by state legislative bodies, Joe Biden would be an illegitimate president, and something would have to be done to correct the problem. States could independently hold new elections, but any move to overturn the 2020 results would end up in court. Ultimately, these cases would come before the Supreme Court. There is no reason to believe the Supreme Court would get involved in an election case. The DOJ has likewise expressed no interest in election-related issues. That would leave the military to enforce the rule of law.

As to the question of when the military might intervene: I would anticipate their move after evidence of election fraud is discovered and made public. That will take at least 60 days. If they wait for other states to perform audits, I would add another few months to the timeframe. The military may wait until the courts have had a chance to excuse themselves from the matter. That might prolong the timeframe, but not much. SCOTUS has been quick to notify parties when they refuse to hear an election case.

I would anticipate the military’s move sometime after these events have occurred if the redline they intend to use is the exposure of election fraud. If they use a different redline, that would provide a different timeframe. If, for example, Joe Biden were removed from office by another mechanism like the 25th amendment, that could serve as a redline that might cause them to take action. In this case, their goal would not be the removal of Biden, but the prevention of Kamala Harris from being inaugurated. 

The post When Will the Military Intervene? appeared first on Praying Medic.

Durham Is Not a Shiny Object – X22 Spotlight

In this interview with the X22 Report, we discuss the mistakes of the deep state that will lead to their ruin.

The post Durham Is Not a Shiny Object – X22 Spotlight appeared first on Praying Medic.

Medic Monday – March 31, 2021

In this week’s episode of Medic Monday, Greg and I discuss current events, my latest writing project, and how to change someone’s mind.

The post Medic Monday – March 31, 2021 appeared first on Praying Medic.

Q: Into the Storm — A Review of HBO’s Documentary

I had no intention of watching HBO’s series on Q (Q: Into the Storm) but after reading a few observations from anons—some positive, some negative—I decided to watch the first two episodes. What follows is a review from someone who has followed Q from the beginning. I’ve read every post by Q more than once. I’ve read every linked document, watched every video Q has posted, and regularly visit the boards where the posts appear.

The film’s producer, Cullen Hoback, chose an interesting musical score for the series. The intro music and other songs that are featured give the film an eerie circus-of-the-bizarre feeling. I assume the choice of music was not random. Everything about the film from the lighting to the music portrays Q and his followers as members of a creepy movement with which no sane person would associate.

On the subject of sound, my list of complaints is long, but I’ll be brief. Hoback chose poor methods for recording his interviews. In many places, the voices of the interviewer or interviewee are inaudible. That problem is magnified by overlaying creepy music just when the film’s audio is lowest. The overall effect is confusion.

Documentaries don’t use actors or sets, but real people in their natural environments. Still, a good producer will use makeup, lighting, and camera angle to enhance the appearance of those who are interviewed. Hoback took a different approach. In most scenes, the subjects interviewed had no makeup, sat in dim lighting, and the camera angle made them appear frightening. This seems to have been intentional, adding to the surreal effect.

To his credit, Hoback enlisted people who’ve played key roles in the movement. I found his discussions with 8chan board owners FastJack and Paul Furber particularly helpful. I learned things about them I did not know.

Hoback spent an enormous amount of time digging into non-Q issues like GamerGate that cropped up on 4chan and 8chan prior to any appearance from Q. This allowed him to suggest that popular movements on 4chan and 8chan are propagated by cruel, amoral people. By extension, this includes Q. The intent here was to suggest that Q is just another sick online movement being run by malevolent actors. If you don’t frequent the boards, you wouldn’t know any different.

Jim Watkins, the owner of 8chan and 8kun, is prominently featured in the second episode, as is his son Ron (aka Codemonkey), who has served as the site administrator. Jim and Ron make the case that their website offers freedom of speech. To counter, Hoback rolls clips of nudity and other controversial images hoping to offend viewers who are accustomed to the filtered content of sites like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.

Frederick Brennan, the former owner of 8chan is brought in almost as an antihero. He acknowledges that he too, once thought freedom of speech was worth fighting for but explains how he came to his senses and realized liberty can be taken too far. Brennan insists the world’s problems stem from the public’s refusal to accept the mainstream media’s narratives. In Brennan’s view, sites like 8chan threaten public safety because they allow virtually anyone to express ideas outside the norm.

Hoback says the intent of the film is to reveal once and for all what Q is about—what do the cryptic messages mean, and what is their purpose?

Ever since Q began posting, opponents have portrayed him (or her) as a moral zealot obsessed with the idea that Hillary Clinton eats babies. This trope is found in the first couple paragraphs of nearly every mainstream article about Q. Hoback found a group of Q decoders willing to confirm this claim. I respect their passion for victims of child trafficking, but Q has never once claimed that Hillary Clinton eats babies. Most Q posts discuss FISA abuse, government corruption, corporate fraud, or media dishonesty.

Although Hoback does show a number of Q posts, none is explained other than a couple of proofs. There are no decodes. Q’s messages aren’t put into context and their meanings are not explored. Like every mainstream article, film, or investigative report, the goal is not to explain Q’s messages—it is to portray Q in the most negative light possible. Since opponents can’t talk to Q in person, they smear him by creating absurd caricatures of his followers and claim, “This is Qanon.” Hoback doesn’t deviate from the script. He does his best to portray those who endorse Q as oddballs and outcasts.

Jim Watkins is characterized as a malevolent entrepreneur who may secretly be feeding the bodies of his website’s users to a herd of pigs. Hoback suggests maybe he’s Q, though Watkins denies he is part of the Q team. (I know Jim personally and find him to be warm and sincere). Ron Watkins is portrayed as a socially awkward brainiac. He may be the only person who actually fits the film’s characterization. Craig James is shown as a devout Christian who lurks on porn-filled websites. In one scene, he discusses this matter with his wife but she says she trusts him. I’m sure Craig didn’t realize this, but Hoback included this scene to paint him as a religious hypocrite. (I know Craig and the characterization does not fit him).

Look no further than the opening scene if you want to learn Hoback’s agenda. The film claims that the January 6th incident at the Washington Capitol is “the storm” Q had promised for years. The message? Q followers are not just creepy and weird, but violent. Join the movement, and you may get a knock on your door from the FBI at 3 am. No one I know thought the Capitol incident was “the Storm.” The media have called it a Q-inspired insurrection, but video footage from that day shows members of leftist groups being led into the Capitol by security guards and a CNN reporter who appeared to be in on the caper.

Most of the people I know who follow Q are normal people with normal jobs—most are well educated. They work as nurses, physicians, attorneys, engineers, accountants, college professors, IT technicians, news broadcasters, and entrepreneurs. Many are former military. Some work for the federal government. But including them might negate the film’s purpose.

Hoback doesn’t just fail to explain Q, he fails to tell a coherent story. The interviews are brought together in a disjointed fashion. Little explanation is given as to why a particular person is relevant to the film. If you haven’t followed Q from the beginning and don’t know the roles of the interviewees, you’re likely to become lost in a celluloid menagerie.

You’ll never understand Q by listening to the media or filmmakers who despise his message. Q can’t be characterized by pointing a camera at his followers. The only way to understand Q is to read the posts and do the research. You must connect the dots yourself.

Despite the film’s failings, it will, no doubt, draw more attention to the movement. Every attempt to discredit Q to date has only created more followers. The Streisand effect always pays its dividends.

Although Amazon has blacklisted my Q books, they are available here.

The post Q: Into the Storm — A Review of HBO’s Documentary appeared first on Praying Medic.

Medic Monday – March 22, 2021

In this episode of Medic Monday, Greg Harvey and I discuss the news, my current projects, and whether Q will return.

The post Medic Monday – March 22, 2021 appeared first on Praying Medic.