Nov 27, 2020

The Crisis is Over—I’m Returning to Normal

 It's been three weeks since the 2020 election and many people feel like they've been riding on an emotional roller-coaster. It has been an honor to stand beside patriots who stood fast, firm in their convictions, and refused to surrender their hope for the future of our nation.

The path for President Trump to obtain enough votes in the electoral college to win re-election has now been revealed. The effort hinges on the public exposure of election fraud in hearings that began last Wednesday in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, and continue next week in Arizona on Monday and Michigan on Tuesday.

Jenna Ellis and Rudy Giuliani have made clear their strategy for getting Donald Trump re-elected. They intend to present evidence of widespread election fraud that calls into question the validity of the popular vote in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Arizona. Although the public spotlight is currently focused on lawsuits that may prove in court claims about election fraud, it's worth remembering that Presidents are not elected by the courts. In December, state legislatures will choose electors who will vote in the electoral college on December 14th. The vote of the electoral college will determine the next President.

Although a state's electors typically vote in accordance with the popular vote of that state, the public hearings on election fraud are intended to present compelling evidence to state legislators as to why they should choose electors who will ignore the popular vote of their state and instead vote for Donald Trump.

Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Arizona all have Republican-controlled state legislatures. Giuliani and Ellis are presenting evidence that the popular vote is fraudulent, which will remove the expectation that legislators must honor it when choosing electors. Having discredited the popular vote, Trump's attorneys will remind Republican legislators that they have the power to choose electors as they see fit. Giuliani and Ellis will dare legislators to choose Biden over Trump and justify that decision to their constituents.

That, in a nutshell, is Donald Trump's path to re-election. It will be difficult for state legislators not to choose electors for Trump once evidence of election fraud has been provided to them and to the public. Indeed, the Republican legislators who will choose electors have already signaled their intent to support Trump by agreeing to hold these hearings in the first place. The outcome of the electoral college vote is merely a formality.

It's true, the media will vehemently protest such a move and claim that electors are chosen by voters on election day and that legislators cannot overrule them. But Article II of the Constitution is clear—state legislators are not required to honor the popular vote when choosing electors, even in states where laws have been passed to that effect. Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that point in Bush v. Gore as noted by Lawfare.

In exercising their power to decide how electors are to be chosen, legislatures could not be constrained by either state law or the state’s constitution. If a state’s constitution, for example, said that the people shall choose the electors in an election, that rule did not in fact constrain the state legislature. Instead, “after granting the franchise” to the people, as a majority of the Supreme Court in Bush put it, a legislature could “take back the power to appoint electors” “at any time.” Or put differently, when the legislature acted pursuant to the power granted to it by Article II, it stands above any limits imposed by state law.

I believe Donald Trump will be re-elected. His legal team has developed a brilliant strategy and Republican legislators are on board with the plan. There is little that can be done to stop Trump from being re-elected.  While many people will choose to fret over the outcome of the election, I choose to see it as the inevitable outcome of a superior strategy. It's time to move on.

It has been an honor to provide information and commentary on the election and its tumultuous aftermath. I can say today with confidence that the election crisis we've experienced—whether real or only perceived— has come to an end. And with it, my daily news updates will also come to an end.

Providing daily news updates was an experiment. I didn't know if I could maintain the discipline and workflow over the long haul, but the last two months have allowed me to test my ability and interest in daily broadcasting. As it turns out, the time and effort required to produce a daily news show are not a sustainable model, at least not for me.

You may have noticed that since I began producing daily news shows, I haven't published any articles. I've made no progress on the many books I have in the works. Producing a daily news broadcast (at least the way I do it) takes between 4 and 8 hours a day, depending on the news that's breaking on any given day. Broadcasting every day leaves no time for writing. I could continue doing daily news broadcasts indefinitely, but I would likely ever write another book, and I would only publish an occasional article.
I'm a writer at heart. Although many people appreciate my broadcasts, it's not where my mojo is.

I've decided to return to the workflow I've had for the last three years. My daily news broadcasts will end. I'll focus most of my time on writing articles and books. I'll publish broadcasts when Q is posting or when significant news is breaking, and I feel I have a message that may help friends understand the current situation.

Thank you for your continued prayer and support and your understanding regarding this decision.


p.s. If you're looking for a daily news source, I would recommend the X22 Report. Dave's approach to delivering the news and his perspective on current events is similar to mine. He's been providing daily broadcasts for years. His videos are available on Rumble and on his website

Oct 30, 2020

Oct 23, 2020

Praying Medic News - October 23, 2020

My news update for October 23, 2020. 

Oct 8, 2020

Praying Medic News - October 7, 2020

My news and Q update for October 7, 2020  


Oct 6, 2020

Praying Medic News - October 6, 2020

My news and Q update for October 6, 2020


Oct 1, 2020

Praying Medic News – October 1, 2020

My Q and news update for October 1, 2020. 


Sep 29, 2020

Praying Medic News – September 29, 2020

My news and Q update for September 29, 2020 


Sep 28, 2020

Praying Medic News – September 28, 2020

My news and Q update for September 28, 2020. 
Related: News Update September 25, 2020  

Sep 25, 2020

Praying Medic News - September 25, 2020

My news update for September 25th.  


Sep 24, 2020

Praying Medic News - September 24, 2020

My news and Q update for September 24th.  


Sep 23, 2020

Praying Medic News - September 23, 2020

My news and Q update for September 23rd, 2020.  



Sep 22, 2020

Praying Medic News - September 22nd, 2020

My Q and news update for September 22nd, 2020.  


Digital Soldiers And Social Media Camouflage

 If you follow certain commentators on social media, you may have noticed recent changes in the way they present information. Some of us are making these changes because of a request from Qanon.

On Septemeber 17th, Q asked us to “Deploy camouflage.” Specifically, we were asked to stop making direct references to ‘Q’ or ‘Qanon.’

The request was based on two observations: First, Q acknowledged that social media platforms are increasing their censorship of messages that mention Q directly. Q asked us to present our information in a way that lessens our exposure to censorship and decreases the likelihood of our accounts being suspended.

Second, Q pointed out that they should not the main point of our discussions. Reporters don’t tell you about their sources. They give you the information provided by their sources. The information is the key, not the source. The 17th letter of the alphabet is merely a source of information. As such, we can, and ought to make the information the main thing, not Q.

To honor this request, many of us are changing the style we use to present our information. Some commentators (myself included) are omitting direct references to Q, on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. This is what Q referred to when he mentioned camouflage.

Because the threat of being de-platformed on social media is serious (and dead soldiers launch no memes), many of us are changing the locations where we post our messages.

I’m no longer creating Q threads on Twitter and I won’t post videos that make direct references to Q on my YouTube channel. Instead, I’m hosting nightly live broadcasts (at 7 pm eastern) on Clouthub. These broadcasts cover the day’s news and I provide commentary on Q posts for that day.

I haven’t abandoned the major social media platforms. I’m still active on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube, but the information I provide there will change. It must be camouflaged. I’m still working through the mechanics of how to present the information in a way that doesn’t risk having my account suspended.

These changes will cause inconveniences. Some people are angry at the fact that some of the videos on this website are not viewable on their favorite browser or mobile device. YouTube videos are viewable on virtually any device or browser, but It’s not worth having my YouTube account suspended to have the convenience of displaying videos here that mention Q directly.

Going forward, videos on this website that mention Q directly will be hosted elsewhere and may not be viewable on some devices and browsers. (If there were a better option, I would have chosen it, but the hostile environment we’re operating in requires these changes to be made.)

I’ll do my best to continue providing the kind of information you need in a format you can use. Some of my broadcasts will be hosted on a different platform and some will be presented in a different style. Despite these changes, I want you to know that my source has not changed.

Sep 21, 2020

September 21, 2020 News Update

My news update for Monday, September 21st, 2020.  


Qanon September 21, 2020 – Running Red

Q asks us to track events related to the Supreme Court this week. 


Sep 15, 2020

Qanon September 15, 2020 – Hold the Line Riders

Will Julian Assange reveal the truth about Seth Rich? 


Sep 14, 2020

Qanon September 14, 2020 – The Future of Our Republic Is at Stake

Q takes a closer look at the insurgency tactics of Antifa. 


Sep 12, 2020

Qanon September 12, 2020 – Now Think Fires

Q connects the dots to reveal who is behind the fires that are burning in the western U.S. 


Sep 11, 2020

Qanon September 11, 2020 – Plan Accordingly [November]

Q explains the deep state's plan to remove President Trump from office in November. 


Sep 8, 2020

Qanon September 8, 2020 – History Repeats Itself

Q examines the similarities between modern-day Antifa and its predecessor from the 1930s. 


Sep 6, 2020

Qanon, Social Media, and the Valley of Decision

The decision by the media a few weeks ago to put Qanon in the spotlight has caused a change in the way people address Q on social media. Fearing for their reputations, most elected officials have decided to denounce Q publicly. Some who aspire to be elected to public office have embraced Q, knowing it may earn them the support of patriots, but also knowing the media will attack them for it. The media's false narrative that Q is a violent movement has been used by Facebook to justify the removal of thousands of users, pages, and groups. For some, the cost of discussing Q on social media has come at a high price. His posts about Q on Twitter cost Texas Assistant Attorney General, Nick Moutos, his job. Many of my friends on Twitter have large followings. Conservative influencers tend to have a lot of followers who support Q. Some realize that if they attack Q, they risk alienating their followers. Knowing this, many have chosen not to weigh in on Q publicly. Others have admitted they don't follow Q, but they've refrained from attacking the movement. They understand that we're on the same side. They know that being friendly to the Q community will increase their visibility. There is little to gain and much to lose by expressing hostility toward Q. 

That fact became evident when The Epoch Times published a hit piece on Q last month and posted a link to it on their Twitter account. It wasn't long before their tweet had collected dozens of negative comments, some from subscribers who said they were canceling their subscriptions. Someone at The Epoch Times was paying attention that morning, saw the push back, and deleted the tweet. That was not the case with John Solomon, who published a similar article and tweet later that day. The above tweet was not published directly to Twitter but from the social media app Hootsuite. Whoever was in charge of Solomon's account that day seems to have sent the tweet without checking to see how it was being received on Twitter. The rest of the day, his account was bombarded with negative comments from Q followers who would normally be supportive of him but had suddenly turned against him. 

While this event was worthy of an article, the reporter Solomon hired to write it chose to regurgitate the same talking points the mainstream media had been printing for two years. The article read like every other MSM hit piece, and anons were having none of it. These interactions illustrate a conundrum for conservatives on social media. Since the press put Q in the spotlight, anyone with a large following faces the difficult task of deciding how (or whether) to publicly express their view of Qanon. 

I don't claim to speak for the movement, but I can provide a few insights that are shared by some Q followers. We have a common bond of unity that transcends race, gender, religion, economic status, and nationality. Unlike cults and activist groups, we do not endorse group-think. We value freedom of thought. Black Lives Matter wants everyone to embrace their ideology; Q followers want everyone to think for themselves. 

We do not expect conservatives to support our view of Q. All we ask if you don't share our view is that you leave us alone. Personally, if you happen to provide unique insights on social media that are helpful to my followers, I'll share them. But if you join the mainstream media and attack us, you can expect us to respond with memes and negative comments on your social media posts. If you regularly attack Q, you'll be praised by the media, but you'll be unfollowed by anons. (This isn't a threat. It's an assessment of a current social media phenomenon.) 

If you're still on the fence about Q, check out the latest pics of General Flynn. It seems the former Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency doesn't know he's following a violent, baseless, delusional conspiracy theory.

Sep 3, 2020

Qanon September 3, 2020 – How is Blackmail Used?

Q lists some of the political figures who have been involved in child sex abuse. 


Aug 26, 2020

Qanon August 26, 2020 – The Great Deceivers

Q asks us to consider whether the Democratic National Convention used symbolism in their art.


Aug 25, 2020

Qanon Strategic and Tactical Update – August 25, 2020

The media's public war against Qanon has escalated. In the last two weeks, members of the press have asked President Trump and people close to him to denounce Qanon. The list of people includes White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, Vice-President Mike Pence, House Minority leader Kevin McCarthy, Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany, Melania Trump's spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham, and acting head of Homeland Security Chad Wolf. 

The tactic being used by the media is to demand that Qanon be denounced. If the individual doesn't comply, they're confronted with the unproven claim that the FBI labeled Qanon a terror threat. (The validity of that claim is examined in this article.)


The decision to interrogate people close to the President about Qanon appears to be a coordinated strategy employed by multiple news networks. This tactic reveals the goals of the corporate media complex, and it allows us to identify our own goals. 

For some time, I've held out hope that one person in the media might offer their platform to a Q supporter. Naive though this hope may have been, I thought an anon might have a chance to discuss Q on a nationally televised broadcast. I believe that possibility is now off the table. If the last week's events prove anything, they demonstrate the corporate media's determination to shame all public figures who refuse to disavow Q publicly. Anyone who hesitates will be accused of lending support to violent extremists. This means that anyone with a national audience who may have considered giving Q fair treatment will be forced to remain silent or publicly disavow Q. 

Politicians don't take risks unless they have a high probability of benefit. Anyone occupying an elected office won't risk alienating Q skeptics in an election year, and they won't risk being publicly shamed by the media. Elected officials can be expected to universally disavow Q, even those who secretly read Q's posts. The move to disavow Q is gaining momentum, as evidenced by a resolution in the House to repudiate Qanon. Anyone with aspirations of being elected to public office has nothing to lose and much to gain by supporting Qanon. Since Q is primarily about exposing corruption, would-be politicians can add to their base support by associating themselves with a grassroots anti-corruption movement. 

The goal for the media is eliminating any support we might receive from public figures. That tactic seems to be strategically timed with the removal of Q accounts from social media platforms. The purpose is to demoralize us in the hope that we'll abandon our attempts to spread the truth. Awareness of government corruption has left anons more or less indifferent to the opinions of elected leaders who don't support Q. 

The bottom line is that we aren't going to receive help from anyone with a reputation that could be damaged by their association with the movement. It's all on us. If the world is going to know the truth about corruption, we're the ones who will make it happen. 

The movement will grow, despite efforts by the press and politicians to shut it down. The media are desperate. That's why they took the risk of putting Qanon in the public spotlight. That move caused unprecedented internet searches by normies looking for information about Q. Too many people are already red-pilled to the truth and more are waking up every day. The movement has grown to the point where it can't be stopped, even if the largest accounts on social media were to be suspended or their owners turned against Q. 

Since the media's current tactic is to portray us as violent, it's more important now than ever to demonstrate the true character of the movement—love for others, tolerance of opposing views, and open-minded research and discussion of current events. The false claim that we are violent has been used to justify deplatforming us. Although de-platforming is likely to worsen, we need to continue our research and engage in discussions on whatever social media platforms will have us. That's all for this update. Thank you for your time. Please keep Q and President Trump in prayer. 
  ~ PM

Aug 21, 2020

Qanon August 21, 2020 – Why is Everything Q Being Censored?

Why is everything related to 'Q' being censored, banned, and attacked? 


Aug 19, 2020

Qanon August 19, 2020 – Placeholder Tracking Indictments & POTUS Answers the Question

This update examines the placeholder that tracks indictments and President Trump answers a question from the press about Qanon. 


Aug 10, 2020

Qanon and the Press – The Anatomy of a Smear Campaign

Several articles a day are now being published by the mainstream media attacking Qanon. We'll examine the tactics used by the press in developing these articles and the motives behind them. 
Citizen Journalists 
Our story begins with an observation made by General Flynn in November of 2016 when he noted that journalists had abdicated their responsibilities. Rather than fairly and objectively reporting the news, they became political activists. Average citizens saw this as an opportunity and began publishing their own news on social media.


Historically, the flow of information has been controlled through centralized news networks because expensive equipment was needed to air broadcasts and print newspapers. Today, anyone can be a print journalist by setting up their own website. Some citizen journalists have established influential platforms on Facebook and Twitter. A mobile phone can function as a broadcast studio, and thousands of ordinary people now create their own news shows. 

Leveling the Playing Field 
Having exclusive access to sources of information, career journalists have enjoyed an advantage over the public. But Qanon has changed that dynamic. Q is a source of information similar to those used by journalists. His messages help ordinary people understand current events. Unlike the media, Q does not provide an information narrative but raw information. Some messages require interpretation or research. Readers can interpret these posts however they choose. Some bits of information must be synthesized together with others. Then they must be contextualized. The view of current events developed by those who follow Q differs from the view put forth by the mainstream media. 

The Threat 
The media understand the threat citizen journalists pose to their control of information. Ordinary people now occupy the roles they once filled. To counter this threat, they developed a plan to discredit the source of information used by some citizen journalists. The plan centered around a smear campaign against Q. The tactics used in this campaign will be examined in the article. We'll begin by looking at a quote from Bloomberg's latest article about Qanon.
Memes emanating from the conspiracy group—which are tenuously united in the discredited belief that there’s a plot to oust Trump from the presidency—have made their way into the social media accounts of everyone from Michael Flynn (who was briefly national security adviser) to White House social media adviser Dan Scavino. Sometimes these memes can be as innocent as an image featuring Trump with a QAnon slogan (as was the case for Scavino), but at other times they take on more sinister overtones such as the oath to QAnon—“Where we go one, we go all”—which Flynn posted on July 4.
The Subtle Smear 
Bloomberg attempted to smear the reputation of General Flynn, who has been supportive of the Q movement. Flynn follows many anons on Twitter and interacts with them through private messages. His family took the same oath taken by thousands of Q followers, as shown in this video posted on Twitter on July 4th. False Insinuations 
Bloomberg falsely reported that the oath taken by some Q followers was taken to Qanon when it was taken to the United States. Flynn's oath (the same one taken by anyone who joins the military) was called "sinister" by Bloomberg. These remarks reveal an agenda. Bloomberg wants to convince the public that Q followers have nefarious motives for their actions. 
Discredited Beliefs? 
The media know that Q intends to expose corruption. That exposure includes piecing together evidence in the public domain regarding the Obama administration's attempt to prevent Donald Trump from being elected and then trying to remove him from office. Those attempts included the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane investigation, the Mueller investigation, and impeachment. In the above quote, Bloomberg referred to this plot as a "discredited belief," despite the fact that several U.S. Attorneys are currently investigating this crime and one—John Durham—is expected to release the findings of his investigation imminently. The goal here is to convince the public that every idea proposed by Q followers is a baseless conspiracy. 
Anything But the Q Posts 
Articles by the media rarely discuss Q's posts because that would cause people to read them. Instead, they've developed a cluster of topics they know the public will find either ridiculous or repulsive. The Bloomberg article asserted that Q followers are obsessed with conspiracies, like the idea that Tom Hanks has a sex slave.
Everyone else in the family remembers the stir that corner caused when they claimed that Tom Hanks had a sex slave.
In any cross-section of the population, you're likely to find a few people who believe Tom Hanks has a sex slave. In the truther community, that belief is more common. However, Q has never mentioned Tom Hanks in any of his posts. To discredit Q, the media falsely claim that his operation involves subjects he has never mentioned. 
Wrong Predictions? 
Like thousands of articles before it, the Bloomberg article lampooned a post by Q, without providing the post itself or the context necessary to understand it. The article referenced Q's first post on October 28th, 2017, which predicted Hillary Clinton's arrest. 

This post has confused many people and It's been used to support the claim that Q is a phony. If you assume that Q intends to predict future events correctly, you would conclude that he got this one wrong, but that is not Q's intent. To understand the purpose of this post, and others like it, you must follow a string of related messages posted that same week and put them together. Three days later, on October 31, 2017, Q predicted the indictment of Huma Abedin and Podesta on November 3, 2017. (It's unclear if the intended reference was to Tony or John Podesta.)


Before we assume this was just another failed prediction, let's read on. The following day, November 1st, Q said proofs would begin on November 3rd.

Saudi Arabia 
We know from publicly available records that the Saudi royal family donated between 10 million and 25 million dollars to the Clinton Foundation. It's natural to wonder if they expected political favors in return for their generosity. Some have suggested that the Clintons were little more than the political assets of the Saudis. Imagine you're a member of the Saudi royal family, and you learn that an anonymous person claiming to be an intelligence insider is predicting the imminent arrest and indictment of your most valuable assets. (At the time, Huma Abedin was Hillary Clinton's personal assistant. John Podesta was her 2016 campaign manager.) 

Would you take action to try to prevent their arrest? 

Imagine your surprise on the morning of November 4th, when you and your family members are arrested, instead of Hillary. On November 4th, 2017, the day of the arrest of members of the Saudi royal family, anons realized that in addition to hints about Hillary Clinton, Podesta, and Abedin, Q had also been dropping hints about events in Saudi Arabia. Q explained that the arrest of corrupt political figures would begin in Saudi Arabia and move to the U.S and other countries. The threat that American political figures would be arrested was a diversion intended to keep attention on them, while an operation was being planned to arrest their Saudi handlers.


Does Q Predict Future Events? 
Many people misunderstand the intent of Q's operation. They assume that Q intends to predict future events correctly, but that is not true. Although Q does provide information about current events, he does not overtly predict news events in advance. He drops clues about future news events that cannot be understood at the time they're posted. After a big news event happens, we're asked to go back over his posts and find the messages that alluded to the event. The predictive nature of Q's posts can only be appreciated when viewing them in hindsight. 


Unclear Messages 
Many people complain about Q's murky, ambiguous communication style. Why doesn't he just clearly state what he means? Due to national security laws, certain information cannot be released directly to the public, but it can be alluded to in an oblique way. If the correct interpretation is made, in time, we may realize that we received advanced information about a classified operation. That was the case with the decode of this RED_CASTLE GREEN_CASTLE post from March of 2018.

  Anons theorized that although he was negotiating with Congress at the time, President Trump actually planned to build the southern border wall using the Army Corps of Engineers and funding from the Defense Department. That hunch turned out to be true when nine months later, President Trump announced for the first time publicly this was how he intended to build the wall. Q's messages must be correctly decoded and the right meaning inferred, but it is only later that we receive confirmation of our theory. 

Fake Predictions? 
This leads to the observation that Q could post a random message and later claim it foretold a specific new story. In theory, Q could do that. Since the intended meaning of a cryptic post is unknown, he could, at the right time, assign any meaning he wanted. It's an interesting theory, but let's look at how it plays out in reality. 

Watch Out for Proofs 
On December 2nd, 2019, Q posted a message with a couple of lines of cryptic text along with a photo of a watch showing the time of 1:29. On December 2nd, no one but Q understood the meaning of this post.


Exactly one week later, on December 9th, the Department of Justice posted a link to the long-awaited Inspector General's report on FISA abuse. The report was posted on the  DOJ Inspector General's Twitter page at 1:29 pm eastern. The same day, Attorney General William Barr released a statement in response to the Inspector General's report. Barr's response was posted on the DOJ Twitter account at 1:29 eastern. That same day, U.S. Attorney John Durham released his response to the Inspector General's report. His reply was posted on the Connecticut U.S. Attorney's Twitter page at 1:29 eastern. Did Q's watch photo showing the time of 1:29 foretell these events exactly one week in advance (to the minute) or was it just a coincidence? That is for each person to decide. When we observe events that appear to be a coincidence, at some point, it might be worth considering whether they are truly coincidental or whether they are coordinated. The media portray Q's messages as a collection of false predictions and incoherent ramblings. Are they ignorant of how Q's posts appear to foreshadow news stories? If they are aware, why do they ignore this in their reporting? 

Silence and Violence 
The media intend to silence Q and his followers. Several tactics have been employed to achieve that objective. Early on, the press claimed that because Q chose to post on 4chan, he must be aligned with white supremacists who also post there. That's like saying that if you post on videos on YouTube, you must be sympathetic to transsexuals who also post there. The websites 4chan, 8chan, and 8kun have hundreds of message boards. Each board is dedicated to the discussion of a different topic. As is true of Twitter, Facebook, or any other platform, white supremacists are a small cross-section of the user base.

The accusation that Q is connected to white supremacy isn't true. Q has never posted a message espousing racist ideology. If he had, you can be sure the press would have a screenshot of it, and it would be prominently displayed in their articles. Although the claim that Q is connected to white supremacy isn't true, it was a necessary tactic. The media hope to tie Q to some form of violent extremism. Because there are no ties between Q and violence, the media have decided to manufacture them. Read a few articles about Qanon, and you'll notice how reporters go out of their way to make some connection—no matter how contrived it might be—between Qanon and acts of violence. In their latest article, Bloomberg insinuated, without evidence, that a mass murderer in Germany espoused "'Qanon-like beliefs."
In February, in Hanau, Germany, a lone gunman espousing QAnon-like beliefs massacred nine people in bars frequented by immigrants before killing his mother and himself.
The media have no evidence that Q followers are violent. Such evidence doesn't exist. But they've found another way to establish the violence connection. In 2019, Yahoo News published an article claiming that the FBI issued a bulletin warning about the threat of violent extremism related to "fringe conspiracy theories" like Qanon. The article centers around a bulletin supposedly published by the FBI's Phoenix Field Office.

The FBI Bulletin Examined 
I decided to investigate the origins of the alleged FBI bulletin. I contacted Jana Winter, the author of the article, and Michael Isikoff, who was credited with developing the lede for the story. (This is the same Michael Isikoff who publicized the infamous Steele dossier that was used to obtain a FISA warrant to surveil Carter Page.) The document embedded in the article is hosted on a private Scribd account. I asked Isikoff and Winter to provide a link to a government website where the bulletin can be found, or other information could validate it. Neither Winter nor Isikoff responded to my request. One would hope they didn't just find the document on Scribd and assume it was legitimate. 

If they obtained it from a government source, why not provide information about how it was obtained? 

I contacted the FBI's Phoenix field office. The agent who responded said he could not verify the existence of the bulletin. He suggested I file a FOIA request and referred me to the Bureau's National Press Office. I searched the FOIA database with no results and filed a new FOIA request with the title of the document as the search query. The FOIA request returned no results. I contacted the National Press Office, and they could not confirm the existence of the bulletin. They provided links to congressional testimonies of FBI & DOJ officials who addressed this matter and a link to an FBI article describing the categories they use to define violent extremism. The FBI currently has only four categories of domestic violent extremism:
The FBI classifies domestic terrorism threats into four main categories: racially motivated violent extremism, anti-government/anti-authority extremism, animal rights/environmental extremism, and abortion extremism.
One of the links provided by the Press Office pointed to a hearing where FBI Director Christopher Wray testified about violent extremism. Wray said the FBI doesn't "investigate ideology, no matter how repugnant."


I did a forensic examination of the alleged FBI bulletin and found a number of artifacts that call into question its validity. (The entire thread that examines these issues can be found by clicking on any of the tweets below and then following the linked tweets in the thread.) A few observations will be provided here to illustrate my main concerns. 

I compared a known FBI bulletin on "Black Identity Violent Extremism," which can be found on the FBI's website. (Black Identity Violent Extremism is no longer a recognized category. It was replaced with the broader "Racially Motivated Violent Extremism.") Several scanning irregularities were found on that bulletin. The exact same scanning errors appear in the document featured in the Yahoo News article. Note the boxes that obscure the first few letters of each line of text. The last page of the Black Identity Extremism bulletin has a customer satisfaction survey. The numbers for sections 1-3 line up vertically, but the numbers for sections 4-6 are left of the vertical line.
    The Yahoo News bulletin on conspiracy extremism has the same alignment problem with its customer satisfaction survey. Below are parts of the customer satisfaction survey of both forms. The bulletin on black identity extremism (top) has a scanning error that makes the checkboxes overlap the first few words of text on each line. The Yahoo News bulletin (bottom) has the same scanner artifact. The bulletin on black identity extremism (top) has a watermark showing the fiscal year 2017 (FY17). The Yahoo News bulletin (bottom) shows the fiscal year 2019.

Despite being issued by different field offices in different years, the same revision date appears at the bottom of both forms on the customer satisfaction survey. On the last page of the black identity violent extremism bulletin (top), there is a product serial number that provides a unique tracking number. The product serial number was redacted from the bulletin that appeared in the Yahoo News article (bottom), making it virtually impossible to track. That step would be necessary if you hoped to pass off a forged document as real.  
It's difficult to confidently state this bulletin is legitimate, given the FBI's position that they do not investigate ideologies, their official categories of violent extremism, and Yahoo's refusal to provide corroborating evidence in light of suspicious findings. Nevertheless, once the bulletin was published, the mainstream articles that followed it confidently claimed the FBI had declared Qanon a domestic terror threat. 

Paging Michael Isikoff 
This operation is not unlike the way the FBI obtained a FISA warrant to surveil Carter Page. The information required for surveillance was not readily available, so it was manufactured by Christopher Steele. In its raw form, Steele's information was not admissible as evidence in court, so it was promoted by Michael Isikoff and Yahoo. Once it was featured in a recognized news outlet, it was considered to be validated and became admissible as evidence. The surveillance of Carter Page became the pretext to smear the Trump presidential campaign and later, the pretext for the Mueller investigation. Isikoff and Yahoo appear to have contrived the FBI bulletin for the same purpose—to give it credibility and use it to smear their enemy. 

The Streisand Effect 
In 2003, a photographer published a photo of Barbara Streisand's home in Malibu, California. Streisand sued the photographer and tried to have the photo removed from the internet. Her efforts only created greater public interest in seeing her home. Thanks to efforts by the media, the movement is growing faster than ever. An internal audit by Facebook uncovered thousands of groups and pages with millions of members. What did they expect would happen after publishing more than 2,000 articles slamming a tiny, irrelevant, fringe, kooky, dangerous internet conspiracy? The growth of the movement was the thrust of Bloomberg's latest article. When they weren't comparing Q to ISIS, they whined about how the movement is becoming normalized.
The conspiracy isn’t going to go away soon and, as the Republican Party begins to count on QAnoners for votes, its paranoid style is almost on the verge of political normalization. In one important aspect, though, QAnon is like Islamic State: Adherents often start from a feeling of alienation and then acquire an unquestioning faith in the righteousness of a cause that gives vent to their frustrations.
The Endgame 
After convincing the public that Q is a violent movement, the next step was convincing tech companies. Social media and internet providers were pressured to de-platform anyone giving a voice to Qanon. (After all, they wouldn't want to support terrorists, would they?) Since December of 2017, Q had been posting on 8chan. Insinuations that 8chan supported violence led to tech providers cutting off their services. That move silenced Q during the three months it took 8chan's owner to set up another website, 8kun. When Twitter announced it was suspending Q followers' accounts, they justified the move by claiming, without evidence, that they engage in "offline harm" (violence). Once society believes a group is violent, they can be attacked financially. If banks and payment gateways can be pressured to close the accounts of Q followers, it wouldn't just be the icing on the cake for the media; it would be mission accomplished. I believe that in time, we'll learn this was their real objective all along. 
Resources: If you'd like more information about Qanon, check out my book Calm Before the Storm. It's available on Barnes & Noble and Amazon.


My Twitter thread on Yahoo's FBI bulletin.

Aug 8, 2020

Biblical Views of the Future

In his article, I’ll describe the most prominent views of the future that have been proposed by Bible scholars. That statement itself may come as a surprise to some. Many people are aware of only one possible view of the future. For the first few years that I was a Christian, I was aware of only one view. I initially adopted this view because it was the basis for the Left Behind books, which led to my conversion to Christianity. As time went on, I continued believing this view to be correct, not because I found it unambiguously stated in the Bible, but because the dozens of pastors I followed told me it was true.

In 2008, I began meeting Christians who held different views of the future. My friends implored me to read books explaining these views, but I resisted. I was content to believe that we were living in the last days before the return of Jesus. I was elated at the fact that, at any moment, the rapture would happen, and the church would be removed from this dark and depraved world. But in 2008, everything changed. At least for me.

In 2008, I had a dream (if one could call it that) where I met God, and He asked me to pray for my patients. I happened to be a cessationist at the time. I didn’t believe in miracles. That soon changed, along with some of my other beliefs. Since then, I’ve had a thousand dreams, many of which have portrayed future events. Very few of these dreams showed a world slipping into darkness and judgment. Most of them offered a hopeful glimpse of the future.

One factor that gives rise to different views of the future among believers is the passages of scripture we choose to emphasize and the ones we choose to ignore. A second factor is our mode of interpretation. There are different ways in which the Bible can be read and understood. One is the literal approach, where most passages are taken to be literally true. Another is the figurative approach, where the text of scripture is interpreted symbolically. Some systems of theology impose a symbolic interpretation on most of scripture, even passages where the subject seems to be spoken of literally.

Another difference comes from the way in which we assign significance to historical events. Some believe that most or all of the passages describing the destruction of the earth and God’s wrath on mankind have already taken place. Others see these events as future. There are also differences in how we interpret the fulfillment of prophetic passages from the Old Testament, how we interpret Christ’s prophecies about the end of the age, the timing and nature of His return to the earth, and the role and timing of Christians in reigning on the earth. Another point of debate concerns God’s future plans for the physical nation of Israel and His purposes for the Gentile church.

There are many seemingly contradictory statements in the Bible about God’s plans for the future. These apparent contradictions can be an obstacle to those who wish to view the scriptures in unambiguous terms. It isn’t necessary to take an “either-or” position. The “both-and” view is a suitable alternative. The Old Testament portrayed the Messiah as both a suffering servant and a conquering King. While Jews were unable to resolve these apparent contradictions, Christians found the divine paradox to be a beautiful illustration of God’s multifaceted nature. We should not be afraid to evaluate the individual merits of apparently contradictory views.

Now let’s look at some of the main views of the future. We’ll begin with descriptions of three general views; futurism, historicism, and idealism, and then look at specific views within each of these categories.

Futurism teaches that most prophetic passages of the Bible have yet to been fulfilled. This view generally teaches that a period of tribulation will mark the end of the age, a literal Antichrist figure will appear, and that God has separate plans for the Gentile church and the nation of Israel.

Historicism teaches that most of the Bible’s prophetic passages have already been fulfilled, including most of the book of Revelation. This view does not hold to a period of tribulation, a specific person as the Antichrist, or the belief that God’s plan for Israel is different from His plan for the church.

Idealism teaches that the events described in prophecy are neither past, present, nor future, but are intended to symbolize spiritual principles. In this view, prophetic passages illustrate the battle between the forces of good and evil. This view is associated with amillennialism—the belief that there is not a literal 1,000-year reign of Christ on earth. Amillennialism teaches that Christians are currently reigning with Christ in a symbolic way.

Covenant Theology
Covenant theology proposes that there have been two main covenants since the creation of man. The first covenant was the covenant of law. Mankind’s representative, Adam, failed to live up to the covenant’s terms and was condemned. The newer covenant of grace was not between God and man but between members of the Godhead. The Son agreed to live in a way that fulfilled the first covenant. He became man’s representative in the new covenant and those who trust in Him for their righteousness are brought into the covenant of grace.

Dominion (Kingdom) theology
Dominion (or Kingdom) theology teaches that the church has been commissioned to establish God’s kingdom rule in the earth during the present age. Dominionism takes the command God gave to Adam to rule over the earth as a literal mandate that was never revoked. This view sees believers as kings, priests, and ambassadors of God, sent to destroy the kingdom of darkness and advance the kingdom of God in preparation for the return of Jesus, who will ultimately rule with them.

In this view, history is divided into periods or “dispensations,” where God tests man’s obedience in different ways. The dispensational periods are usually described as those of innocence, conscience, civil government, promise, Mosaic law, grace, tribulation, and millennium.

The pre-millennial view teaches that most prophetic passages of scripture have yet to be fulfilled. In this view, God has separate plans for the church and the nation of Israel. Pre-millennialism teaches that a 7-year period of tribulation is approaching where an Antichrist figure will be revealed, and the earth will fall into greater darkness before the visible return of Christ to the earth. His return will be followed by His literal thousand-year reign with the resurrected saints. Slight differences exist between several pre-millennial views. These differences are related to the timing of the removal of the church from the earth (the rapture) in relation to the 7 years of tribulation. These views are described as pre-tribulation, mid-tribulation, and post-tribulation (some theologians include a pre-wrath distinction).

Pre-tribulation adherents believe that the removal of the church from the earth (the rapture) will be followed by seven years of tribulation. During this time, the Antichrist will arise, and a final battle will occur. Jesus will return to earth and reign for a thousand years, followed by last judgment and the creation of a new heaven and earth.

The mid-tribulation view is similar to the pre-tribulation view, except that it divides the tribulation into two three and one-half year periods—the second half being the Great Tribulation. In the middle of the seven years, the church is taken into heaven to escape the Great Tribulation.

The post-tribulation view says that the church will be kept by God’s grace through the entire 7-year period of tribulation. Believers will be given their glorified bodies in order to meet Christ as he comes to earth to defeat the Antichrist at the battle of Armageddon and establish his millennial reign.

The preterist view holds that most of the events of the book of Revelation were fulfilled in the first century A.D. In this view, prophetic passages in both the Old and New Testaments are thought to speak of the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Preterism underpins postmillennialism, which proposes that we are currently living in a non-literal thousand-year period of time that began in the first century. The two main schools of preterist thought are called full preterism and partial preterism.

Full Preterism
Full preterists believe that the second coming of Christ occurred after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., fulfilling the prediction of Jesus: “This generation will not pass away until all these things take place.” (Matthew 24:34) That promise included His second coming.

Partial Preterism
Partial preterism holds that most biblical prophecies, such as the destruction of Jerusalem, the rise of the Antichrist, and the Great Tribulation were fulfilled either in 70 A.D. or during the persecution of Christians under the Roman Empire. However, the Second coming of Christ and the resurrection of the dead have not yet occurred in the partial preterist view.

There are many biblical views of the future, including ones not mentioned here. Some are extensively detailed. Some leave many subjects open for debate. I’m less convinced today that my original view was correct. As I’ve evaluated other theories, it’s apparent that all the major views have gaping holes in them that cannot easily be reconciled. These problems are why eschatology is not a settled issue.

Twenty years ago, I lived in constant anxiety over the teaching that the world was progressively becoming darker. This idea is not objectively apparent. It’s something I was taught, and in fact, it’s not true at present. During the 20th century, a succession of world wars and the rise of dictators who fit the description of the Antichrist caused people to believe that pre-millennialism was the correct view of the future. The rise of the new world order caused more people to adopt this view.

When you analyze deaths from war and other signs of societal decay, you find a surprising fact. Since the end of World War II, been living in a time of relative peace. While it’s true that there have been almost constant smaller wars since World War II, the death toll from these wars is minuscule in comparison. Since he was elected, President Trump appears to be taking an axe to the new world order. If he manages to dismantle this corrupt power structure and if he can end the wars overseas, it ought to cause Christians to go back to their Bibles and rethink their view of the future.

It’s remarkable how passionate we can be about our religious beliefs—even the point of speaking harsh words toward those who hold different views. It’s common these days to accuse someone who doesn’t share our view of “denying the truth of the bible,” but such accusations aren’t necessary, and many times they’re untrue. All the views presented in this article are biblical. The differences between them are not a matter of “right” or “wrong,” “biblical” or “unbiblical.” Perhaps you’ve found a view that you identify with. Maybe you see validity in several views. I’d encourage you to consider the strengths and weaknesses in all of them and weigh each one carefully.