Those who want to believe in the political equivalent of the “tooth fairy” or the illusion of “secular salvation,” a theme that I have been hammering for over thirty-two years now even before I came to read the great social encyclicals of our true popes, will find absolutely nothing of any interest in this brief commentary.
For those who understand the farcical nature of the contest of false opposites within false opposites that is taking place within both of the organized crime families of naturalism at this time, permit me to offer a few brief comments about the results of last night’s Iowa Caucuses.
First, to quote the late William C. Koneazny as he took a puff on his cigar while sitting on the veranda of the Canaan Valley Sporting Club on a Saturday morning in late-July of 1986, “Politics is a sideshow.” Even though I was not quite ready to believe what Bill said, I filed his comment away for future reference. He was right. Politics is a sideshow.
Second, the sideshow that is the farce of naturalism in the year of 2016 features a variety of characters straight from central casting who, despite their stylistic differences and varying areas of emphasis, believe in the lie of “religious liberty” and that it is not necessary for a nation to recognize the true Church that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to teach and sanctify men until His Second Coming on the Last Day.
Third, none of the cast of characters running to be the presidential nominee of the organized crime family of the naturalist “right” understands anything about First and Last Things.
Fourth, the winner of the Republican Iowa Causes on Monday, February 1, 2015, the Feast Saint Ignatius of Antioch, Rafael Edward Cruz, is a completely amoral Protestant whose father, Rafael Bienvenido Cruz, is a baptized Catholic, born on March 22, 1939, left the Catholic Faith in 1975 to become a Baptist, although it is unclear that “Ted” Cruz had been baptized into the true Faith after he was born on December 22, 1970, as his father was not practicing the Holy Faith at that time.
Despite the unquestionable brilliance of Rafael Edward Cruz’s intellect and his deep knowledge of Constitutional Law, having argued before the Supreme Court of the United States of America on nine different occasions when he was the Solicitor General of the State of Texas between 2003 and 2008, the fact remains that the man who fashions himself as an “outsider” despite having spent most of his adult life working in political campaigns and in three different government positions, two of which were within the administration of President George Walker Bush (Cruz joined the Bush presidential campaign in 1999 as legal counsel and helped to prepare the submissions in the various court cases that were filed after the election impasse of November 7, 2000, which included the decisive case of Bush v. Gore, December 12, 2000), is a typical amoral American politician. In plain English, Rafael Edward Cruz believs that the ends justify the means. Cruz is not an “outsider.” (See Antichrist's Interchangeable Spare Parts, part two: False Opposites Within False Opposites.)
This is why the Cruz campaign mailed out an official-looking notice to Iowa voters to shame them into turning out to vote on Monday, February 1, 2000, the Feast of Saint Ignatius of Antioch, to improve their voting “scores,” which were compared to those of their neighbors. As the Secretary of the State of Iowa, Paul Pate, a Republican, noted, there are no such “scores” issued by the State of Iowa:
A decade ago ago, a trio of political scientists asked voters a powerful question: Why weren't they voting as much as their neighbors? Alan Gerber, Donald Green, and Christopher Larimer -- two professors from Yale and one from the University of Northern Iowa -- wanted to find out whether peer pressure and social norms could drive up voter turnout, so they mailed more than 180,000 Michigan households a letter telling them that they were part of a study, in which other people would find out if they stayed away from the ballot box.
We're sending this mailing to you and your neighbors to publicize who does and does not vote," read one mailing, accompanied by a chart that noted whether or not their neighbors had cast a ballot.
The letter worked. Political consultants, like Democrat Hal Malchow, found that similar letters in real elections could boost turnout by up to 2.5 percent. In his best-selling book "The Victory Lab," reporter Sasha Issenberg pointed to the "social pressure" experiment as a daring, clever way to bring out a political base. In 2012, MoveOn used pressure-style mailers to turn out progressive votes for President Obama.
Yet today, a similar letter from Sen. Ted Cruz's (R-Tex.) to Iowa Republicans is becoming a mini-scandal. On Saturday morning, Republican strategist and writer Sarah Rumpf found a tweet (now deleted) from Iowa voter Tom Hinkelday, displaying a Cruz mailer meant to look like a "VOTER VIOLATION."
"CAUCUS ON MONDAY TO IMPROVE YOUR SCORE," read the mailer, patterned after a report card, "and please encourage your neighbors to caucus as well. A follow-up notice may be issued following Monday’s caucuses."
Cruz’s campaign quickly confirmed the origins of the mailer, even as Cruz endorser and radio host Steve Deace pronounced it fake. And Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate, a Republican, condemned it.
"Accusing citizens of Iowa of a 'voting violation' based on Iowa Caucus participation, or lack thereof, is false representation of an official act," he said in a statement. "There is no such thing as an election violation related to frequency of voting. Any insinuation or statement to the contrary is wrong and I believe it is not in keeping in the spirit of the Iowa Caucuses."
The mailer even alienated the sort of Iowan who might appreciate it: Christopher Larimer. In a series of tweets, he asked that reporters make it clear he had nothing to do with the Cruz literature.
And in an email, Larimer told the Washington Post that Cruz had taken a good idea and bent it.
"As a researcher who has done randomized field experiments with get out the vote mailings," Larimer wrote in an email, "what I can say is that mailings that call attention to an individual's vote history as well as that of their neighbors' have been shown to be effective in terms of significantly increasing voter turnout. We draw on norm compliance theory which suggests that publicizing behavior regarding a social norm increases the likelihood of norm compliance."
That was if the ad was crafted in a smart way. "The Cruz mailing is more negative than anything we have done and has the potential to elicit a negative response or what psychologists call 'reactance' or 'boomerang effect,'" warned Larimer. "The mailing also states that a 'follow up notice' will be sent following the caucuses on Monday. This is not possible as caucus turnout is private and maintained by the parties."
Cruz, however, had no regrets.
"I will apologize to nobody for using every tool we can to encourage Iowa voters to come out and vote," Cruz told reporters in Sioux City, Iowa. He pointed to a statement from one of his supporters here, former Iowa secretary of state Matt Schultz, who said the mailers are "common practice" and are modeled after 2014 mailers put out by the Iowa Republican Party.
Asked about the mailer at an event in Ames, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said he was puzzled by its intent.
"I had some voters mention to me they were upset about it, obviously," he said. "They had people's names and they gave them an F rating for how they voted. I think a lot of voters are disturbed by it. Again, it's kind of an unusual way to end your campaign in the state." (Cruz mailer inspired by social engineering political scientists.)
Although an entire article could be written about the idiocy of social scientists attempting to change the behavior of the masses to conform to their own ideological notions as to what constitutes good citizenship, suffice it to say for the moment that Cruz felt fully justified to use a means of social intimidation to get people out to vote in those voting precincts his campaign operatives believed contained Cruz supporters.
Additionally, the Cruz campaign was responsible for spreading a false rumor that Dr. Benjamin Carson, the Seventh Day Adventist who had referred some of his female patients to abortionists in order for their preborn babies to be executed (but he’s “pro-life,” you understand), had returned to his home in Florida after dropping out of the race:
Republican presidential hopeful Ben Carson on Tuesday pointedly accused Ted Cruz’s campaign of spreading false rumors during the Iowa caucuses claiming the retired neurosurgeon was suspending his bid, in a coordinated effort to seal Cruz’s victory Monday night.
The stunning charge came as a Carson spokesman declared, “There has never been a more tainted victory in the Iowa caucuses.”
Early reports that Carson – who was directly competing with Cruz for social conservative and evangelical supporters – was leaving the campaign trail started to surface as caucusing began Monday evening.
Upon hearing reports that their candidate was leaving the trail to return to his home in Florida, Team Carson responded swiftly, saying the retired neurosurgeon was only going home for clean clothes but was then headed to New Hampshire for the Feb. 9 primary.
But Carson told Fox News Tuesday morning that Cruz supporters and representatives took that narrative a step further, and began telling caucus-goers at “many” precincts that he was dropping out.
Speaking on Fox News’ “Hannity,” Cruz apologized on Tuesday. He said their political team had forwarded an initial news report that said Carson was taking a break from the campaign trail, but did not forward an update to that same story.
“Unfortunately, they did not then forward the subsequent story, that was Ben’s campaign clarifying that he was continuing the campaign and was not canceling the campaign,” Cruz said. “And so I apologize to Ben for that. They should have forwarded that subsequent story. That was a mistake on our part.”
Carson's campaign issued a statement Tuesday evening saying he "accepted" Cruz's apology.
On Tuesday morning, Cruz spokesman Rick Tyler also told MSNBC that the campaign simply repeated what Carson had said: that after Iowa, he was returning to Florida for a couple of days, then going to Washington for the National Prayer Breakfast.
“That told us he was not going to New Hampshire,” Tyler said. “That was not a dirty trick.”
Carson, interviewed earlier on “Fox & Friends,” said that his supporters were told Monday that “voting for me was wasting their vote, and that they should reconsider.”
Carson ended up finishing a distant fourth in Iowa, with 9 percent, while Cruz claimed a big victory over Donald Trump. Cruz, a Texas senator, had 28 percent, and Trump had 24 percent. How much the drop-out rumors may have affected that count is unclear. But the interactive caucus process does offer an opportunity for supporters of one candidate to be persuaded to change sides before casting their ballot.
The usually mild-mannered Carson accused the other side of using the process to execute “dirty tricks.”
“It’s the exact thing the American people are tired of,” he said. “Why would we want to continue with this kind of shenanigans?”
He said his suspicions were also confirmed by tweets, “other correspondence,” and a first-hand experience by his wife at a precinct.
Carson said his wife Candy arrived at the precinct to learn that a Cruz supporter was “disseminating” the misinformation and was asked to set straight the record.
“She did, and we won that precinct,” he said. (Carson Accuses Cruz Camp of Spreading False rumors on Campaign Suspension.)
Please understand, good readers, that I no naif.
As student and professor of American politics, I know full well of the long history of dirty tricks and negative campaigns, dating back to the contest between President John Adams, a Federalist, and Vice President Thomas Jefferson (who had been elected to the vice presidency when he tied Adams at seventy-three electoral votes each in 1796, resulting in the United States House of Representatives electing—with each state having but a single vote—Adams; this prompted the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, which serves as a tacit recognition of the formation of political parties, whose existence is nowhere mentioned formally in the Constitution’s text) in 1800. A scholarly account of this election is to be found in the appendix below.
Let it be stipulated that American electoral politics has been fraught with tricks, negativity and outright fraud from the very seminal beginnings of political parties, which grew out of the disputes between the pro-central government Anglophile, Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton, and the pro-states’ rights Francophile, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, during President George Washington’s first term as president from April 30, 1789, to March 4, 1797.
Thus it is that Rafael Edward Cruz’s stunts in the final days before his very well-planned, organized and executed victory over Donald Trump and United States Senator Marco Antonio Rubio (R-Florida) are rather tame when compared to some of the more notorious examples of dishonest campaigning that has occurred in the history of the United States of America.
Still and all, however, United States Senator Rafael Edward Cruz lays on the “son of a Baptist minister” shtick quite heavily when he wants to do so, going so far in Iowa as issue a plea to “awaken the Body of Christ” while praying to “Father God”:
While campaigning in Iowa last Saturday, Ted Cruz left his supporters at Darrell's Place in Hamlin, Iowa with a little religious advice.
"Just one minute a day. That you simply say father God please, continue this awakening. Continue the spirit of revival. Awaken the body of Christ, that we might pull back from the abyss," Cruz preached.
Ted Cruz is certainly feeling the need to build a stronger relationship with Christians in Iowa as they will play a major roll in Monday's republican primary. The relationship between evangelicals and the republican winner from Iowa almost always correlates. (Ted Cruz Appeals to "Father God" to Awaken "The Body of Christ".)
Just a slight aside, Senator Cruz (and Rafael Bienvenido Cruz), you are not a member of the Mystical Body of Christ. You belong to a Protestant sect, and you must covert to the true Catholic Faith and adhere to the entirety of the teachings contained in the Sacred Deposit Faith that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ entrusted to His Holy Catholic Church for Its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication. Yes, Senator Cruz, that means accepting the fact that contraception and the direct, intentional killing of any innocent being at any time are violations of the precepts of the Divine Positive Law. One can never bring the United States of America back from the abyss by boasting about having limited his family’s size to two children rather than having had seventeen children.
More to the point of this brief commentary, though, is the fact that Rafael Edward Cruz, as a Protestant, believes that he can shade the truth and use whatever means are available to him to “win” so that he can help “save” the country because he believes that he is “saved” and that there is little that he can do or say to lose his “salvation” as long as he maintains what he thinks is a “personal relationship” with the Divine Saviour and confesses sorrow in his heart for his souls, believing that God forgives one his sins with mediating action of an alter Christus acting in persona Christi in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance.
The progenitor of the Protestant Revolution, the Augustinian monk named Father Martin Luther, famously taught that there is a supposed distinction between what a prince believes “privately” and how he is to act as a ruler. I will let Father Fahey explained how Luther’s heresy of “justification by ‘faith’ alone’ led to the breakdown of moral constraints among Luther’s so-called “evangelicals”:
The rending of the Mystical Body by the so-called Reformation movement has resulted in the pendulum swinging from the extreme error of Judaeo-Protestant Capitalism to the opposite extreme error of the Judaeo-Masonic-Communism of Karl Marx.
The uprise of individualism rapidly led to unbridled self-seeking. Law-makers who were arbiters of morality, as heads of the Churches, did not hesitate to favour their own enterprising spirit. The nobles and rich merchants in England, for example, who got possession of the monastery lands, which had maintained the poor, voted the poor laws in order to make the poor a charge on the nation at large. The enclosure of common lands in England and the development of the industrial system are a proof of what private judgment can do when transplanted into the realm of production and distribution. The Luther separation of Church from the Ruler and the Citizen shows the decay in the true idea of membership of our Lord's Mystical Body.
"Assuredly," said Luther, "a price can be a Christian, but it is not as a Christian that he ought to govern. As a ruler, he is not called a Christian, but a price. The man is Christian, but his function does not concern his religion."
This teaching had its economic repercussion in the current that led to the doctrine laid down in Daniel Defoe's The Complete Tradesman, according to which a man must keep his religious and his business life apart and not allow one to interfere with the other.
"There is some difference," wrote Defoe, "between an honest man and an honest tradesman. . . . There are some latitudes, like poetical licences in other cases, which a tradesman must be and is allowed, and which by the custom and usage of a trade he may give himself a liberty in, which cannot be allowed in other cases to any men, no, nor to the tradesman himself out of the business." (Father Denis Fahey, The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World.)
In other words, the ends justify the means. Who cares about justice even on a natural level, no less the accounting one must give to Christ the King at the moment of his Particular Judgment? We are “saved,” right?
Well, this is what Rafael Edward Cruz believes, and it is really what Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes as well, noting that he does believe that those who believe in the integrity of the Sacred Deposit of Faith as taught from Pentecost Sunday to the time of the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958, will not be saved. Ah, that is a subject to be touched upon, if only tangentially, in the article that is still inching its way along to completion.
Try as his political opponents might to get him to stop his deceptive practices, Senator “Ted” Cruz will continue on, convinced as he of the righteousness of his cause as he ignores whatever reminders might be offered that he does not play the “son of a Baptist” minister shtick when trolling for dollars among his friends in the banking or “gay hospitality” industries. (Cruz’s wife, Heidi Nelson Cruz, took a leave for her position at the Houston, Texas, offices of Goldman-Sachs, a company that just happens to support Planned Barrenhood, to campaign for him—see Seventy-seven companies still support Planend Barrenhood).
As to Marco Antonio Rubio, suffice it to say that this truly shallow man, a real victim of the conciliar revolution and all of its confusion and apostasy who attends a Baptist ceremony on Saturday evenings and the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service on Sundays, may very well wind up as the “establishment” candidate after the New Hampshire primary election on Tuesday, February 9, 2016. (See httFive Faith Facts About Marco Antonio Rubio: Once Catholic, Always Catholic.)
Rubio’s probable rise as the “establishment” candidate, which I do not think will be arrested by John Ellis "Catholic for Common Core" Bush's bringing his ninety year old mother, former First Lady Barbara Pierce Bush, out to campaign for him in New Hampshire tomorrow and Friday, is no cause for celebration just because he, Rubio, is a Catholic. This poor young man knows nothing about true history and theology, and the little that he does know is just plain wrong. Rubio is as much a Zionist as “Ted” Cruz, whose father believes that the country should be run according to Old Testament strictures, part of the elder Cruz’s “dominionism” that his son also believes but is careful to advertise too widely as to do so would reveal that it is quite possible the he, Senator “Ted” Cruz, believes that he has a “mission” to save” America..
No, my friends, as I have noted so many times in the past, we must not permit ourselves to be deluded by the illusion of secular salvation, a delusion that extends also to Donald J. Trump, whose increasingly bold use of profanity and vulgarity shows the depth to which a country must sink absent the Social Reign of Christ King as It must be exercised by His Catholic Church.
None of those running for president at this time, including the two leftists of the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist “left,” believe that there is salvation only in and through the Catholic Church, that the purpose of life is to know, to love and serve God as He has revealed Himself through His true Church so as to be ready to die in a state of Sanctifying Grace at all times and thus to enjoy the glory of Beatific Vision of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost for all eternity in Heaven. Such people must seek their Heaven on earth. Many seek it principally by means of the pursuit of what is considered to be financial wealth and/or political power, an exercise that consumes most of their waking (and even sleeping) moments. Some have a sense of natural morality. Others have none. Many can rationalize away whatever natural sense of morality they might have in order to achieve a particular goal. Such is the dark, murky world that those whose immortal souls have not been liberated from Original Sin and thus regenerated in the very inner life of the Most Blessed Trinity in the Baptismal font.
Materialism, whether of the capitalist or collectivist variety, must triumph in a world gone mad as a result of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King that was wrought by the Protestant Revolution and institutionalized by inter-related, multifaceted forces of Judeo-Masonic naturalism. Dr. George O'Brien made this point in the early part of the Twentieth Century:
The thesis we have endeavoured to present in this essay is, that the two great dominating schools of modern economic thought have a common origin. The capitalist school, which, basing its position on the unfettered right of the individual to do what he will with his own, demands the restriction of government interference in economic and social affairs within the narrowest possible limits, and the socialist school, which, basing its position on the complete subordination of the individual to society, demands the socialization of all the means of production, if not all of wealth, face each other today as the only two solutions of the social question; they are bitterly hostile towards each other, and mutually intolerant and each is at the same weakened and provoked by the other. In one respect, and in one respect only, are they identical--they can both be shown to be the result of the Protestant Reformation.
We have seen the direct connection which exists between these modern schools of economic thought and their common ancestor. Capitalism found its roots in the intensely individualistic spirit of Protestantism, in the spread of anti-authoritative ideas from the realm of religion into the realm of political and social thought, and, above all, in the distinctive Calvinist doctrine of a successful and prosperous career being the outward and visible sign by which the regenerated might be known. Socialism, on the other hand, derived encouragement from the violations of established and prescriptive rights of which the Reformation afforded so many examples, from the growth of heretical sects tainted with Communism, and from the overthrow of the orthodox doctrine on original sin, which opened the way to the idea of the perfectibility of man through institutions. But, apart from these direct influences, there were others, indirect, but equally important. Both these great schools of economic thought are characterized by exaggerations and excesses; the one lays too great stress on the importance of the individual, and other on the importance of the community; they are both departures, in opposite directions, from the correct mean of reconciliation and of individual liberty with social solidarity. These excesses and exaggerations are the result of the free play of private judgment unguided by authority, and could not have occurred if Europe had continued to recognize an infallible central authority in ethical affairs.
The science of economics is the science of men's relations with one another in the domain of acquiring and disposing of wealth, and is, therefore, like political science in another sphere, a branch of the science of ethics. In the Middle Ages, man's ethical conduct, like his religious conduct, was under the supervision and guidance of a single authority, which claimed at the same time the right to define and to enforce its teaching. The machinery for enforcing the observance of medieval ethical teaching was of a singularly effective kind; pressure was brought to bear upon the conscience of the individual through the medium of compulsory periodical consultations with a trained moral adviser, who was empowered to enforce obedience to his advice by the most potent spiritual sanctions. In this way, the whole conduct of man in relation to his neighbours was placed under the immediate guidance of the universally received ethical preceptor, and a common standard of action was ensured throughout the Christian world in the all the affairs of life. All economic transactions in particular were subject to the jealous scrutiny of the individual's spiritual director; and such matters as sales, loans, and so on, were considered reprehensible and punishable if not conducted in accordance with the Christian standards of commutative justice.
The whole of this elaborate system for the preservation of justice in the affairs of everyday life was shattered by the Reformation. The right of private judgment, which had first been asserted in matters of faith, rapidly spread into moral matters, and the attack on the dogmatic infallibility of the Church left Europe without an authority to which it could appeal on moral questions. The new Protestant churches were utterly unable to supply this want. The principle of private judgment on which they rested deprived them of any right to be listened to whenever they attempted to dictate moral precepts to their members, and henceforth the moral behaviour of the individual became a matter to be regulated by the promptings of his own conscience, or by such philosophical systems of ethics as he happened to approve. The secular state endeavoured to ensure that dishonesty amounting to actual theft or fraud should be kept in check, but this was a poor and ineffective substitute for the powerful weapon of the confessional. Authority having once broken down, it was but a single step from Protestantism to rationalism; and the way was opened to the development of all sorts of erroneous systems of morality. (Dr. George O'Brien, An Essay on the Economic Efforts of the Reformation, IHS Press, Norfolk, Virginia, 2003.)
Dr. O'Brien went on to state that true pope after true pope has stated concerning the necessity of men and their nations subordinating themselves to the Catholic Church as they pursue the common temporal good in light of man's Last End:
There is one institution and one institution alone which is capable of supplying and enforcing the social ethic that is needed to revivify the world. It is an institution at once intra-national and international; an institution that can claim to pronounce infallibly on moral matters, and to enforce the observance of the its moral decrees by direct sanctions on the individual conscience of man; an institution which, while respecting and supporting the civil governments of nations, can claim to exist independently of them, and can insist that they shall not intrude upon the moral life or fetter the moral liberty of their citizens. Europe possessed such an institution in the Middle Ages; its dethronement was the unique achievement of the Reformation; and the injury inflicted by that dethronement has never since been repaired. (George O'Brien, An Essay on the Economic Effects of the Reformation, first published in 1923, republished by IHS press in 2003, p. 132.)
The injury caused by the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King is on full display every day in this country, especially now during the farce tha is the current presidential election cycle. Indeed, this injury is on display every day in practically every segment of our national life, which must be, to paraphrase Pope Leo XIII from Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900, stained with crime. The avarice, pride and scheming nature of "modern" man in his world of materialism and nihilism are all there for those who have the eyes of the Holy Faith to see.
Saint Louis de Montfort explained the difference between true wisdom and the false "wisdom" of the sort of men (and woman) who aspire to be president in order to serve as the errand boy (or girl) for the Federal Reserve Board, the international banking community, the State of Israel, and the population-controllers of the United Nations and other institutions of global governance:
There are several kinds of Wisdom. First there is true and false wisdom. True wisdom is fondness of truth, without guile of dissimulation. False wisdom is fondness of falsehood, disguised under the appearance of truth. This false wisdom is the wisdom of the world, which, according to the Holy Spirit, is threefold "Earthly, sensual and devilish wisdom" (Jas. 3: 15). True wisdom is natural and supernatural. Natural wisdom is knowledge, in an eminent degree, of natural things in their principles; supernatural wisdom is knowledge of supernatural and divine things in their origin.
But we must be aware of being mistaken in our choice, for there are several kinds of wisdom. There is the Wisdom of God--the only true Wisdom, that deserves to be loved as a great treasure. There is also the wisdom of the corrupt world, which must be condemned and detested as evil and pernicious. Moreover, there is the wisdom of the philosophers, which we must despise wen it is not true philosophy and because it is often dangerous to salvation.
So far, following the advice of St. Paul, we have spoken of the Wisdom of God to chosen souls, but lest they should be deceived by the false luster of worldly wisdom, let us expose its deceit and malice. The wisdom of the world is that of which it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise" (1 Cor. 1: 19) according to the world. "The wisdom of the flesh is an enemy to God.... This is not the wisdom descending from above but earthly, sensual, devilish" (Rom. 8: 7, Jas. 3: 15).
This worldly wisdom consists in the exact compliance with the maxims and fashions of the world; in a continuous trend toward greatness and esteem. It is a secret and unceasing pursuit of pleasures and personal interests, not in a gross and open manner, so as to cause scandal, but in a secret, deceitful and scheming fashion. Otherwise, it would not be what the world calls wisdom, but rank licentiousness.
Those who process according to the wisdom of the world, are those who know how to manage well their affairs and to arrange things to their temporal advantage, without appearing to do so;
--who know the art of deceiving and how to cleverly cheat without it being noticed; who say or do one thing and have another in mind;
--who are thoroughly acquainted with the way and the flattery of the world;
--who know how to please everybody, in order to reach their goal, not troubling much about the honor and interests of God;
--who make a secret, but deadly, fusion of truth with untruth; of the Gospel with the world; of virtue with vice; of Jesus Christ with Satan;
--who wish to pass for honest people, but not as religious men; who despise and corrupt or readily condemn every religious practice which does not conform to their own.
In short, the worldly-wise are those, who being guided only by their human senses and reason, seek only to appear as Christian and honest folk, without troubling much to please God, or to do penance for the sins which they have committed against His divine Majesty. The worlding bases his conduct upon his honor, upon what people say, upon convention, upon good cheer, upon personal interest, upon refined manners, upon witty jokes. These are the seven innocent incentives, so he thinks, upon which he can rely, so that hey may lead an easy life. He has virtues of his own, for which is canonized by the world. These are manliness, finesse, diplomacy, tact, gallantry, politeness and sprightliness. He considers as serious sins such traits as lack of feeling, silliness, dullness and sanctimoniousness.
The Ten Commandments of the Worldly Man:
1. Thou shalt be well acquainted with the world.
2. Thou shalt appear to be an honest man.
3. Thou shalt be successful in business.
4. Thou shalt kept what is thine.
5. Thou shalt get on in the world.
6. Thou shalt make friends.
7. Thou shalt be a society man.
8. Thou shalt make merry.
9. Thou shalt not be a killjoy.
10. Thou shalt avoid singularity, dullness and an air of piety.
Never was the world so corrupt as it is now, because it was never so astute, so wise in its own conceit and so cunning. It is so skillful in deceiving the soul seeking perfection, that it makes use of truth to foster untruth, of virtue to authorize vice and it even distorts the meaning of Christ's own truths, to give authority to its own maxims. "The number of those who are fools, according to God, is infinite" (Eccles. 1: 15)
The earthly wisdom, spoken of by St. James, is an excessive striving for worldly goods. The worldly-wise make a secret profession of this type of wisdom when they allow themselves to become attached to their earthly possessions; when they strive to become rich; when they go to law and bring useless actions against others, in order to acquire or to keep temporal goods; when their every thought, word and deed is mainly directed toward obtaining or retaining something temporal. As to working out their eternal salvation and making use of the means to do so--such as reception of the Sacraments and prayer--they accomplish these duties only carelessly, in a very offhanded manner, once in a while and for the sake of appearances.
Sensual wisdom is a lustful desire for pleasures, The worldly-wise make a profession of it, when they seek only the satisfaction of the senses; when they are inordinately fond of entertainment; when they sun whatever mortifies and inconveniences the body, such as fasting and other austerities; when they continually think of eating, drinking, playing, laughing, amusing themselves and having an agreeable time; when they eagerly seek after soft beds, merry games, sumptuous feasts and fashionable society.
Then, after having unscrupulously indulged in all these pleasures--perhaps without displeasing the world or injuring their health--they look for the "least scrupulous" confessor (such is the name they give to those easy going confessors who shirk their duty) that they may receive from him, at little cost, the peaceful sanction of their soft and effeminate life, and a plenary indulgence for all their sins. I say, at little cost, for these, sensually wise, want, as penance, the recitation of only a few prayers, or the giving of an alms, because they dislike what afflicts the body.
Devilish wisdom consists in an unlawful striving for human esteem and honors. This is the wisdom which the worldly-wise profess when they aim, although not openly, at greatness, honors, dignities and high positions; when they wish to be seen, esteemed, praised and applauded by men; when in their studies, their works, their endeavors their words and their actions, they seek only the good opinion and praise of men, so that they may be looked upon as pious people, as men of learning, as great leaders, as clever lawyers, as people of boundless and distinguished merit, or deserving of high consideration; while they cannot bear an insult, or a rebuke; or they cover up their faults and make a show of their fine qualities.
With Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Wisdom, we must detest and condemn these three kinds of false wisdom if we wish to acquire the true one, which does not seek its own interest, which is not found on this earth, nor in the heart of those who lead a comfortable life, but which abhors all that which is great and high in the estimation of men.
To come to the perfect possession of Divine Wisdom, we must accept and follow His teaching. We must begin renouncing ourselves and keeping the great commandments of loving God and our neighbor. We must renounce the flesh, the world and its temporal goods. Above all we must renounce our self-will. To do this, we must humbly pray, we must do penance and suffer persecution. For all this we need the help of Divine Wisdom, Who invites us to go to Him.
With His help we need not fear, provided we be clean of heart. To succeed we must persevere and not look back; we must walk in the light and act according to the teachings of Divine Wisdom; we must be vigilant and avoid the maxims of the false prophets; we must not fear what may be done to our body and reputation, but only be solicitous about the kingdom of God, which we can only enter by the narrow gate. Therefore, we must keep in mind the Eight Beatitudes and we must be thankful to God for having taught us these heavenly truths. (St. Louis de Montfort's True Devotion: Consecration to Mary, Complete Five-Week Preparation, compiled by Father Helmuts Libietus, Angelus Press, 1998, pp. 31-36, taken from Saint Louis de Montfort's book, The Love of Eternal Wisdom.)
As should be abundantly clear by now, the false opposite of the naturalist “right” is not going to restore even a rudimentary adherence to the rule of law under the terms of the Constitution of the United States of America, no less to the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law. And rthe putative “pope” in the Casa Santa Marta actually celebrates the rot of popular culture as he promotes a “theology of encounter” with his fellow minions of the devil, giving added vigor to the anti-Catholicism of the likes of Cruz father and son team and added confusion to the likes of Marco Rubio.
We do not, however, despair.
We are Catholics.
We trust in the motherly care of Our Lady, Who promised us in the Cova da Iria near Fatima, Portugal, that her Fatima Message will triumph in the end, which is why we must truly persevere in our prayers for the restoration of a true pope on the Throne of Saint Peter so that he can fulfill Our Lady's own request, made to Sister Lucia dos Santos in 1925, for the collegial consecration of Russia to her Immaculate Heart.
Oh, is there someone out there who does not believe that we are suffering from the errors of Russia in this time of apostasy and betrayal, this time when the Throne of Saint Peter is in chains?
We just need to keep close to her, especially through her Most Holy Rosary as the consecrated slaves of her Divine Son through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, as we seek to make reparation for our sins and those of the whole world.
Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!
Viva La Virgen de Guadalupe!
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!
Our Lady of Fartima and of the Holy Rosary, pray for us.
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.
Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.
Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.
Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us
Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.
Sant Blaise, pray for us.
From the Miller Center on the Presidency
Most importantly, Jefferson—although vice president—did little to inhibit, and in fact encouraged, the growing Republican opposition to the Adams administration. When Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts, designed to curb Republican opposition to his foreign policy, Jefferson authored the Kentucky Resolution of 1798. Jefferson's statement presented a compact theory of the Constitution, challenging these federal laws enacted under Adams as unconstitutional. James Madison joined Jefferson by writing a similar resolution adopted by Virginia. Both resolutions established the states' rights position that was employed in the nineteenth century to oppose high tariffs, the Second Bank of the United States, and the abolition of slavery. By the end of Adams's term of office, a raging debate, which was presented in brutal and uncivil political cartoons and newspaper articles, swept over the land. It was in this atmosphere of undeclared political war that Jefferson sought and won the presidency in the 1800 election.
The Campaign and Election of 1800
Jefferson approached the 1800 presidential election well organized for victory and determined to win. One factor that elevated Jefferson's chances of becoming President was the general mood of the country. During the Adams presidency, public discontent had risen due to the Alien and Sedition Acts, a direct tax in 1798, Federalist military preparations, and the use of federal troops to crush a minor tax rebellion led by John Fries in Pennsylvania. Consequently, Jefferson enjoyed quite a lot of popular support for his opposition to Adams's policies.
The Federalist candidate, the incumbent John Adams, led a split party. Many of his party's members opposed his candidacy because of his refusal to declare war on France—when a naval war did occur, Adams used diplomacy to end it when many Federalists would have preferred the war to continue. Jefferson understood that to win he would have to carry New York, thus his running mate, Aaron Burr of New York, was brought onto the ticket. When the New York legislature turned out its Federalist majority in 1799, prospects looked good for Jefferson.
Given the intense rivalry and conflict involved, it is not surprising that the 1800 election reached a level of personal animosity seldom equaled in American politics. The Federalists attacked the fifty-seven-year-old Jefferson as a godless Jacobin who would unleash the forces of bloody terror upon the land. With Jefferson as President, so warned one newspaper, "Murder, robbery, rape, adultery, and incest will be openly taught and practiced, the air will be rent with the cries of the distressed, the soil will be soaked with blood, and the nation black with crimes." Others attacked Jefferson's deist beliefs as the views of an infidel who "writes aghast the truths of God's words; who makes not even a profession of Christianity; who is without Sabbaths; without the sanctuary, and without so much as a decent external respect for the faith and worship of Christians."
The luckless Adams was ridiculed from two directions: by the Hamiltonians within his own party and by the Jeffersonian-Republicans from the outside. For example, a private letter in which Hamilton depicted Adams as having "great and intrinsic defects in his character" was obtained by Aaron Burr and leaked to the national press. It fueled the Republican attack on Adams as a hypocritical fool and tyrant. His opponents also spread the story that Adams had planned to create an American dynasty by the marriage of one of his sons to a daughter of King George III. According to this unsubstantiated story, only the intervention of George Washington, dressed in his Revolutionary military uniform, and the threat by Washington to use his sword against his former vice president had stopped Adams's scheme.
When the electoral votes came in, Jefferson and Burr had won 73 votes each. Adams and his running mate, Charles C. Pinckney, the brother of Thomas Pinckney who ran in 1796, won 65 and 64 votes respectively. No one had expected these results, although the possibility was perfectly plausible—if all Republican electors cast their votes in unison for the two Republican candidates, which they did in this case, the result would be a tie. In those days, the U.S. Constitution contained no means for electors to differentiate between their choices for President and vice president, yet in 1804, the nation ratified the Twelfth Amendment, which required electors to vote separately for President and vice president.
With no clear majority, the vote was thrown into the Federalist-controlled U.S. Congress. After much intrigue and arguing, and thirty-five ballots, Alexander Hamilton, who despised Burr as an unprincipled scoundrel, convinced a few Federalists who had supported Burr in the balloting to turn in blank ballots rather than vote for either Republican candidate. This move on Hamilton's part gave the victory to Jefferson. Hamilton's support for Jefferson, his old enemy, enraged Burr. Several years later, Burr killed Hamilton with a shot to the chest during a duel over mutual insults.
The Campaign and Election of 1804
In his first inaugural address in March 1801, Jefferson pleaded for national unity, insisting that differences of opinion were not differences of principle. Then he said, with much hope, "We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists." His landslide 1804 reelection suggested that his words were more prophetic than wishful. Largely due to a relatively peaceful first term on both the domestic and foreign scenes, along with prosperity, lower taxes, and a reduction in the national debt, it appeared to most astute observers on the eve of the election that Jefferson was unbeatable.
In February 1804, more than 100 Republican congressmen met in Washington and nominated Jefferson and George Clinton of New York by acclamation. It was the first official nominating caucus in the nation's history. The Federalists, demoralized and too disorganized to hold a caucus, agreed informally to back Charles C. Pinckney, the vice-presidential candidate in 1800, and Rufus King, the Federalist senator from New York.
Jefferson called the Federalists a prigarchy, a play on the words "prig" and "aristocracy," because of their unwillingness to open the party to populist elements. The Federalists denounced Jefferson's immensely popular Louisiana Purchase (see Foreign Affairs section) as unconstitutional. They also desperately exposed the President's alleged relations with his slave, Sally Hemings, as a national scandal. Jefferson kept a public silence on his relationship with Hemings. (Thomas Jefferson: Campaigns and Elections—Miller Center.)