Sober Up, part whatever (eleven, actually)

Those who adhere to the false opposite of the naturalist “left” are firmly committed to the advance of various moral evils, and they really do believe that anyone who disagrees with them is mentally deranged and/or violence-prone “extremists” who have no right to speak or to publish their thoughts without being deemed as purveyors of “hate” and “division.” In other words, leftists believe in their own infallibility while seeking to disparage the motives, if not the humanity, of those who dare to call into question their immoral, godless beliefs and the immoral and ruthlessly amoral means they use to enforce their “orthodoxy” to advance what they believe is a “better world.”

A Long History of Unconstitutional Repression of Dissent and Opposition

Lest the very few readers who remain on this site think that this kind of contempt by one set of “naturalists” for those who disagree with them is anything “new” or that the deep state effort to overturn the results of the November 8, 2016, presidential election, permit me to reprise of a few historical facts that will demonstrate there is really nothing “new” under the naturalist sun. Intimidation of political opponents has been a staple of American government and politics from its inception.

The anti-Catholic bigot and notorious blasphemer named John Adams attempted to silence opposition voices by having Congress enact the Alien and Sedition Acts, which were passed on July 14, 1798, and made it a crime to publish "false, scandalous, and malicious" writing against the government of the United States of America and its officials.

The sixteenth President of the United States of America, Abraham Lincoln, did not exactly "cotton" to political opposition during the War Between the States from 1861 to 1865, as he intimidated judges, shut down newspapers, suspended the writ of habeas corpus without an Act of Congress, held opponents in prison without trial and put civilians on trial in military courts at a time when civilian courts were open. And this is just a partial listing of what led John Wilkes Booth to cry out, "Sic temper tyrannis!" as he jumped onto the stage of the Ford Theater in Washington, District of Columbia, on Good Friday, April 14, 1865, from the balcony where he had just shot Lincoln in the head, a wound that would take Lincoln's life early the next morning, Holy Saturday, April 15, 1865.

Suppression of opposition to American involvement in World War I under the administration of President Thomas Woodrow Wilson was so extensive that Senator Hiram Johnson of California, who had run as former President Theodore Roosevelt's Vice Presidential running-mate on the Progressive (Bull Moose) Party ticket in 1912 when Wilson was running for his first term as President against Roosevelt and then President William Howard Taft, who had defeated Roosevelt, to say on the floor of the United States Senate: "It is now a crime for anyone to say anything or print anything against the government of the United States. The punishment for doing so is to go to jail" (quoted in Dr Paul Johnson's Modern Times). (See also my Fascists for Freedom.)

Just as an aside, President Thomas Woodrow Wilson wanted to use the unconstitutional Federal Reserve System, created in an act passed by the Congress of the United States of America and signed into law by Wilson on December 23, 1913, as the means to centralize the banking and monetary systems under the authority of the government of the United States of America in order to restrict the legitimate freedom of Americans to control their own private property and to make private industry dependent upon the "direction" provided it by governmental regulators and overseers. It was for this reason as well that Wilson saw to it that Congress enacted legislation, following the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, to create our current system of confiscatory taxation on our incomes. And it was Wilson, of course, who believed that the Masonic revolutionaries in Mexico, aping the "example" established by the French Revolutionaries, could "build" or "engineer" the "better" society in Our Lady's country by the killing of thousands upon thousands of Catholics:

Wilson replied [in 1915, to Father Francis Clement Kelley, who was a representative of James Cardinal Gibbons, the Archbishop of Baltimore, for whom Wilson had such contempt that he addressed him as Mister Gibbons]: 'I have no doubt but that the terrible things you mention have happened during the Mexican revolution. But terrible things happened also during the French revolution, perhaps more terrible things than have happened in Mexico. Nevertheless, out of that French revolution came the liberal ideas that have dominated in so many countries, including our own. I hope that out of the bloodletting in Mexico some such good yet may come.'

"Having thus instructed his caller in the benefits which must perforce accrue to mankind out of the systematic robbery, murder, torture and rape of people holding a proscribed religious conviction, the professor of politics [Wilson] suggested that Father Kelley visit Secretary of State Williams Jennings Bryan, who expressed his deepest sympathy. Obviously, the Wilson administration was committed to supporting the revolutionaries. All efforts of Catholic to succor their coreligionists across the border were to prove fruitless, as they were to prove once again in 1924, when the fiercest persecution of all was begun by Plutarco Calles. In this systematic pogrom, all public worship came to an end in Mexico an priests were methodically hunted down and executed like outlaws. It was of this travail which Graham Greene wrote in The Power and the Glory. Generally, however, the world press ignored the Calles persecution in a “conspiracy of silence” which the American hierarchy and Pope after Pope were powerless to break. (Robert Leckie American and Catholic, Doubleday, 1970, pp. 274.)

In other words, Thomas Woodrow Wilson really believed that it was "necessary" for the Freemsaonic/Communist Mexican government that enjoyed his favor to kill Catholics, whose "backward" beliefs were impediments to the institutionalization of "liberal values" that required him to suppress all opposition to his policies right here in the United States of America.

It was a scant twelve years after the stroke-disabled Wilson left office on March 4, 1921, that the thirty-third Freemason named Franklin Delano Roosevelt used the Internal Revenue Service to audit his "enemies." He contravened the law in numerous ways as he used the legislative powers illicitly given to regulatory agencies by Congress during the Great Depression and during World War II to set the stage for Barack Hussein Obama's rule by decree and presidential fiat. Roosevelt, the fifth cousin of the Republican statist and fellow thirty-third degree Freemason, Theodore Roosevelt, the uncle of Eleanor Roosevelt, even ordered his Attorney General, Robert Jackson, to engage in domestic espionage. Roosevelt’s directive took the form of a memorandum dated May 21, 1940.

Robert Jackson, who was appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States of America on July 11, 1941, did not like the directive as he believed that Franklin Roosevelt had authorized domestic surveillance on anyone suspected of being subversive. Jackson’s successor, however, Francis Biddle, who took office as the Attorney General of the United States of America on August 25, 1941, had no qualms about the directive, delegating the task of carrying it out to the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, John Edgar Hoover, who was more than happy to run with this new expansion of his authority to investigate anyone at any time for any reason. The history of the Federal government’s surveillance since that time is one of completely unchecked growth.

Do not think for a single moment that abuses of deep state bureaucrats being exposed at this time is anything new. Illegal surveillance by the Federal government has been on the rise since World War II and the establishment of permanent intelligence agencies. Modern technology has advanced to such a point that these agencies, acting both legally and illegally, monitor every means of human communication today save for those done with an old-fashioned typewriter that has not connection of any kind to the internet or to a telephone line.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation itself, as noted just above, has long seen itself as a “check” upon elected officials, and John Edgar Hoover, who served as Director of the Bureau of Investigation from May 10, 1924, to March 22, 1935, and then as the founding Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation from March 23, 1935, until the time of his death on May 2, 1972, believed in the suppression of political dissent dating back to his days as the head of President Thomas Woodrow Wilson’s “War Emergency Division’s” “Alien Enemy Bureau” one hundred years ago. Please, what is going on now, although certainly shocking to those not conversant with the darker sides of American history, is really nothing new at all.

Although Presidents Harry S. Truman and John Fitzgerald Kennedy each considered firing Hoover, the latter had amassed too much information on too many people. This information, most of it gathered quite illegally and/or by the improper use of Federal Bureau of Investigation field agents, was Hoover’s own kind of “insurance policy.”

President Lyndon Baines Johnson, on the other hand, knowing what kind of “insurance policy” that Hoover had on him, whetted Hoover’s appetite for domestic surveillance under the thinnest of legal pretexts, including wiretapping his own vice president, the garrulous spendthrift with taxpayer dollars named Hubert Horatio Humphrey:

Resigned to Humphrey's candidacy [in 1968], Johnson pressed his Vice President throughout the campaign not to stray too far from the Administration's position on Vietnam.

Humphrey largely complied. But at the end of September, when he showed greater flexibility than the White House on how to end the war, Johnson reacted angrily. He told Clark Clifford that he doubted Humphrey's ability to be President. He lacked the guts for the job. After Humphrey had become Vice President and expressed doubts about the war, the White House, according to a Humphrey aide, Ted Van Dyk, had arranged for wiretaps on Humphrey's office phones. Van Dyk learned this from two Secret Service agents on the vice-presidential detail. Neither Van Dyk nor Humphrey was surprised. Though Johnson in principle disliked taping and wiretaps, he secretly taped more than 7,500 of his own telephone conversations as President. Moreover, during the 1964 campaign, after a visit to the White House, Richard Russell wrote, "Hoover has apparently been turned loose and is tapping everything.... [Johnson] stated it took him hours each night to read them all (but he loves this)." The speed with which Johnson had information about Humphrey's presidential campaign suggested to Van Dyk that the White House was still tapping Humphrey's phones in 1968. Johnson apparently wanted the taps to gain advance notice and a chance to dissuade him should Humphrey decide to break away on the war. (Three New Revelations about Lyndon Baines Johnson.)

It should be noted, however, that the liberal Robert Dallek, who authored the synopsis of his own book about Lyndon Baines Johnson, did not include the following fact about Johnson’s wiretapping in 1968 that is covered in another book:

In 1968, President Lyndon Johnson ordered Hoover to tap the phone of Republican vice- presidential nominee Spiro Agnew on the suspicion that Agnew was telling the South Vietnamese that they would get a better peace agreement from Nixon if he were elected president. The taps did not reveal that Agnew ever made such a deal. (Henry M. Holden, FBI 100 Years: An Unofficial History, Zenith Press, an imprint of MBI Publishing, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 2008, p. 218.)

Now, readers of this site know that I carry no brief for President Donald John Trump as he is a tool of one faction of the synagogue (see Jerusalem Belongs to Christ the King and His True Church, part three for a reminder of this simple fact).

However, Trump is only slight more of an egregious personality, especially by dint of his unrestrained use of profanity in public (for Catholic teaching on the use profanity, see Exposing the Farce Once and For All), which has resulted in a frenzy of profane words being spoken publicly and printed on many “respectable” websites and even in newspapers, than others who have served as President of the United States of America. As one who taught courses on the presidency throughout my thirty years as a college teacher of political science, I can tell you that the description of Lyndon Baines Johnson’s coarseness and vulgarity provided in the full text of the link provided above is mild in comparison to what the man was like in all unvarnished reality.

Alas, not even Donald John Trump, who is the victim of a false Federal Intelligence Surveillance Application, understands the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America as he supported the renewal of this unconstitutional violation of the citizens’ freedom from unreasonable searches (see Trump Signs Bil Renewing Mass Cyber Surveillance Program).

The Fourth Amendment?

Our minders in the Federal government of the United States of America have, in effect told us, “We don’t need no stinkin’ Fourth Amendment.

Moreover, it has been case for most of this country’s history that our minders in the Federal government of the United States of America have violated the laws of God and of men to suit their sorry purposes whenever they deemed it “necessary” to do so.

Congress after Congress abdicated its legislative authority to the Executive Branch of the Federal Government of the United States of America from the time of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s “New Deal” forward, although, as noted earlier, a lot of the spade work had been done during the administrations of Theodore Roosevelt and Thomas Woodrow Wilson. Nearly seventy independent or quasi-independent regulatory agencies within the Federal government exist to this very day, each composed of commissioners who are beyond the control of a president to remove and who chafe at the thought of true legislative oversight of their unconstitutional “rule-making” authority (deemed to be “constitutional” by the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Company, April 12, 1937).

Readers will note I claimed that independent regulatory commissions (and the quasi-independent commissions) are unconstitutional. I have taught this in my government classes over the decades. I will make this claim whenever I write about this subject (or have taught about it in my bygone days as a college professor of political science and constitutional law) no matter the fact that the Supreme Court of the United States of America has ruled that such agencies, which are staffed by commissioners who are appointed by a president for a term, usually seven years, that is longer than one presidential administration but shorter than two, and confirmed by the United States Senate are constitutional (see, for example, Humphrey's Executor v. United States of America, May 27, 1935).

My reasoning is simple: these agencies exercise each of the powers that are particular to the three  branches of government as the commissioners who serve on them make rules that have the binding force of law (which rules are supposed to be founded in Congressional legislation) and also enforce the very rules that they create while serving finally as the court of first instance for litigants to appeal decisions made about the enforcement of these rules. Although readers of this site, few in number though you may be, know that I am a critic of the founders of this nation, they are the individuals who crafted the Constitution in order to prevent what they believed could be a tyranny of the majority. Writing in The Federalist, Number 47, James Madison explained:

No political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value, or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty, than that on which the objection is founded. The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. Were the federal Constitution, therefore, really chargeable with the accumulation of power, or with a mixture of powers, having a dangerous tendency to such an accumulation, no further arguments would be necessary to inspire a universal reprobation of the system. I persuade myself, however, that it will be made apparent to every one, that the charge cannot be supported, and that the maxim on which it relies has been totally misconceived and misapplied. In order to form correct ideas on this important subject, it will be proper to investigate the sense in which the preservation of liberty requires that the three great departments of power should be separate and distinct. (Federalist No. 47.)

Behold a system, however, that has indeed degenerated to a point where non-elected officials have the accumulated powers of the three branches of government--legislative, executive, and judicial. This has occurred because James Madison, a virulent anti-Catholic who is considered to be the "father" of the Constitution, believed that there were sufficient safeguards contained within the Constitution to provide a check upon the consistent misuse of power by those serving in the three branches of government.

This is not even to mention William Jefferson Blythe Clinton's aggressive promotion of the chemical and surgical execution of the innocent preborn and the role played by Attorney General Janet Reno, a Catholic, mind you, in organizing the Violence Against Abortion Providers Conspiracy (VAAPCON) Task Force under the authority of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)  to intimidate pro-life Americans, including a woman in Toledo, Ohio, who was visited by FBI agents after she had written to a baby-killer to tell her that she was praying for her conversion, an act that was deemed by the agents to have constituted a "violent threat" against the baby-killer (see FBI's VAAPCON Spies on Pro-Lifers for more information about the Clinton-Reno war against pro-lifers).

It was also during the administration of William Jefferson Blythe Clinton that the Chairman of the Federal Election Commission, a woman by the name of Lois Lerner, sought to intimidate former Illinois State Representative Al Salvi by seeking to bring charges against him that were found by a Federal judge to be without merit whatsoever.

Here is a report that was published in 2013:

CHICAGO - The IRS scandal may have its roots in Illinois politics. Specifically, the 1996 U.S. Senate race between Democrat Congressman Dick Durbin and conservative Republican State Rep. Al Salvi.

More than a decade before his 2010 letter to IRS officials urging the agency to target conservative organizations, U.S. Senator Dick Durbin's political career crossed paths with Ms. Lerner when she was head of the Enforcement Division of the Federal Election Commission (FEC), and directly involved in the 1996 Illinois U.S. Senate race.

Soon after the IRS story broke, Al Salvi told Illinois Review that it was IRS official Lois Lerner who represented the FEC in the 1996 Democrat complaint against him. According to Salvi, Lerner was, without question, politically motivated, and went so far as to make him an offer: "Promise me you will never run for office again, and we'll drop this case."

Salvi declined her offer. In fact he ran for Illinois Secretary of State in 1998.

But when he saw Lerner plead the Fifth Amendment before Congress last week, he recognized her. "That's the woman," Salvi said. "And I didn't plead the Fifth like she did."

In 2000, a federal judge dismissed the FEC case against him, clearing Salvi's name and reputation.

Now with the revelations about Lerner, the IRS, and the intriguing connection to Durbin, Salvi shared with Illinois Review his experience with Lois Lerner.

The 1996 FEC Complaint against Salvi

During the last several weeks of the 1996 Illinois U.S. Senate campaign, two FEC complaints were filed against Salvi - one by Illinois Democrats about the way he reported a loan he made to himself, and another by the Democratic Senatorial Committee about a reported business donation.

Salvi made a personal loan to his campaign for $1.1 million to fund the last campaign ads in the expensive Chicago television ad market. News of that loan and the filed FEC complaint dominated Chicago media headlines towards the end of the campaign, suffocating the life out of Salvi's threatening momentum.

"We couldn't get our message out because day after day, the media carried story after story about the FEC complaint," Salvi told Illinois Review in an exclusive interview. 

After Salvi lost to Durbin, he was left to face the FEC complaints. The Commission alleged that the Salvi committee:

·         Reported bank loans to Mr. Salvi as personal loans from the candidate, never identifying the source of the funds;

·         Failed to report debts to the candidate;

·         Failed to file 48-hour notices for personal advances from the candidate; and

·         Failed to disclose campaign-related payments by the candidate to vendors and a bank.

A federal district court dismissed the case against Salvi in 1999, and the FEC appealed it to the 7th U.S. District Court of Appeals.

The FBI was called in at one point to gather evidence on the case. According to Salvi, two FBI agents unexpectedly visited the Salvis' home, and interrogated his elderly mother about her $2,000 check to her son's campaign and where she got "that kind of money." 

Salvi says he saw the visits as nothing but intimidation, making it clear the FEC intended to use his case as a example to others.

At the same time, Salvi said, other conservative groups such as the Christian Coalition were besieged by the FEC demands. One time, representatives from several investigated conservative groups even convened on a conference call to compare notes on how the Clinton Administration was scouring their organizations' financial and activity records.

In fact, Salvi's case (and name) was highlighted as an example several times in the FEC's monthly publication until the case was finally dismissed in 2000.

It was while dealing with the FEC complaint that Salvi says he first met Lois Lerner, then the head of the FEC Enforcement Division.

During one conversation with Lerner, she offered a deal Salvi says he'll never forget, and neither will his brother and attorney, Mike Salvi.

"She said, 'If you promise to never run for office again, we'll drop this case,'" Salvi recalled.

At the time, Salvi said, he figured it was probably just Dick Durbin's way of getting him out of politics. 

Salvi said he refused Lerner's offer because he knew he had done nothing wrong and wanted to leave the door open for future campaigns. In 1998, Salvi ran for Illinois Secretary of State while the 1996 FEC case against him continued.

Nearly four years and a hundred thousand dollars in legal fees later, federal judge George Lindbergh dismissed the FEC case against him, leaving the FEC attorney Lois Lerner -- who was present and actively arguing before the judge -- shocked. 

"The judge said to Lerner, 'Let me get this straight - Mr. Salvi loaning himself money is legal, and you have no complaint against that, is that right?'" Salvi said. "Ms. Lerner agreed. Then the judge said, 'You just don't like the way his attorneys filled out the report?' Lerner agreed."

Case dismissed, the judge said shaking his head and pounding his gavel, as Lerner objected.

"We never lose!" Lerner said to Salvi afterwards.

Despite all the Democrats' efforts, Salvi never paid the FEC a dollar in fines or penalties.

Congressional Hearings On IRS Scandal 

Salvi, now 53, said when he saw Lerner on television last week, those FEC hearings all came back to his memory -- 13 years later. "I didn't plead the Fifth," Salvi said.

And the taxpayers had no choice but to pay for Lerner's legal trail that lasted for over four years.

Durbin Asks IRS For Help in 2010

After the U.S. Supreme Court decided the Citizens United case, many incumbent politicians became concerned about the activities of organizations like Crossroads GPS, which had announced it would be running issue ads against Illinois' Democrat candidate for U.S. Senate Alexi Giannoulias, who was campaigning to succeed Barack Obama in the U.S. Senate.

In October 2010, Durbin wrote IRS Commissioner Shulman about the tax exemption status of Crossroads - a job that would find its way to IRS official Lois Lerner.

I write to urge the Internal Revenue Service to examine the purpose and primary activities of several 501(c)(4) organizations that appear to be in violation of the law.

One organization whose activities appear to be inconsistent with its tax status is Crossroads GPS, organized as a (c)(4) entity in June. The group has spent nearly $20 million on television advertising specific to Senate campaigns this year. If this political activity is indeed the primary activity of the organization, it raises serious questions about the organization's compliance with the Internal Revenue Code.

Other 2010 letters to the IRS with similar requests from elected officials may be included in four Congressional investigations now scheduled to take place in the next few weeks.

Salvi says it will be interesting to see how Lois Lerner, Dick Durbin, the FEC, IRS, and Illinois politics intersect as these investigations continue. (Lerner intrigue goes back to '96 DurbinSalvi.)

Unfortunately for Mr. Salvi, however, he did knuckle under to the then Chairman of the Republican National Senatorial Campaign Committee after he had told him to quit talking about abortion or lose the committee's financial support. Oh, yes, you want the name of that individual? I will happily give it to you as it is none other than the now-former United States Senator Alfonse M. D'Amato (R-New York), against whom I ran, unsuccessfully, of course, for the senatorial nomination of the Right to Life Party of the State of New York in 1998. (See Blood Money Talks Loud And Clear, part two, for details.)

Mind you, this is not to ignore President Richard Milhous Nixon's efforts to investigate and intimidate, if not sabotage, political opponents. In his case, however, even some Republicans at the time recognized wrongdoing for what it was and refused to suborn it. Wrongdoing by Democratic presidential administrations has always been enabled by the mainslime media, not checked.

Additionally, it should be noted that former President George Walker Bush authorized more invasions of the privacy of ordinary American citizens than any of his predecessors combined. The use of the coercive power of the state has increased dramatically since the events of September 11, 2001, without any real increase in the security of this country (indeed, our border with Mexico is a sieve through which is passing countless numbers of Mohammedans intent on doing us no good at all).

There will come a time in the near future when some presidential administration is going to use the sophisticated means of data collection on ordinary citizens established under George W. Bush to question them closely about their beliefs. The Roman Emperors, who had their own system of informants, many of them Jews of the Diaspora, to persecute Catholics, to be sure, could not have dreamed of a system as comprehensive and draconian as has been developed in a supposedly "free" country by a supposedly "conservative" chief executive. Make no mistake about it, George Walker Bush paved the way for the election and the policies of his successor, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro.

Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro and his chief "intellectual" advisor, the well-connected Chicagoland ideologue named Valerie Jarrett, seethed with complete and utter contempt for those who criticized him, something that was apparent as early as 2008 when he made the following remarks a private fundraising event in Sodom on the Bay, California:

But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.  (Barack Hussein Obama, Obama: No Surprise That Hard-Pressed Pennsylvanians Cling to Guns and Religion; see also Obama's Communist Mentor.)

Obama/Soetoro governed in a manner completely befitting the beliefs he expressed privately in San Francisco, California, ten years ago, and public opinion surveys during his eight treacherous years in office indicated that he enjoyed public opinion a robust fifty-nine percent approval in the Gallup survey at the time he left office on January 20, 2017, although he continues his “shadow government” designed to bring down his successor.

Worthy of Stalin Himself

Obama/Soetoro’s plan to oust his successor included keeping President-elect and then President Donald John Trump from knowing the fact that he, Trump, was under active investigation for alleged “collusion” with Russia. Part of this plan was to have the deep state operative who served as the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (F.B.I.) from September 4, 2013, to May 9, 2017, James Brien Comey, to provide the president-elect with the false assurance that he was not under investigation when the opposite was true:

January 5 [2016] was the day President Obama was presented with the ballyhooed report he had ordered to be rushed to completion by multiple intelligence agencies before his administration ended, “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections.” The briefing that day was conducted by four intelligence-community leaders: James Comey, Michael Rogers, John Brennan, and James Clapper, directors respectively of the FBI, NSA, CIA and the Office of the National Intelligence Director.

Just as significant: January 5 was the day before these same intelligence-community leaders would brief President-elect Trump on the same report.

Also on hand at the January 5 White House briefing were Vice President Joe Biden and acting Attorney General Sally Yates. According to Rice, immediately after the briefing, President Obama had his two top law-enforcement officials, Yates and Comey, linger for “a brief follow-on conversation” with the administration’s political leadership: Obama, Biden, and Rice.

Let’s think about what was going on at that moment. It had been just a few days since Obama imposed sanctions on Russia. In that connection, the Kremlin’s ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak, had contacted Trump’s designated national-security adviser, Michael Flynn. Obama-administration leadership despised Flynn, who (a) had been fired by Obama from his post as Defense Intelligence Agency chief; (b) had become a key Trump supporter and an intense critic of Obama foreign and national-security policy; and (c) was regarded by Yates and Comey as a possible criminal suspect — on the wayward theories that Flynn’s contacts with Kislyak could smack of a corrupt quid pro quo deal to drop the sanctions and might violate the never invoked, constitutionally dubious Logan Act.

What else was happening? The Justice Department and FBI had gone to the FISA court on October 21, 2016, for a warrant to spy on former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. That warrant relied largely on the Steele dossier, which alleged a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin involving (a) a cyberespionage operation against the 2016 election, (b) corrupt negotiations regarding the sanctions, and (c) the Kremlin’s possession of “kompromat” that would enable the Putin regime to blackmail President-elect Trump.

Significantly, by the time of this January 6meeting with Trump, the 90-day surveillance period under the FISA warrant would have had just a bit over two weeks left to run — it was set to expire just as Trump was to take office. (Reporting suggests that there may also have been a FISA warrant on Paul Manafort around this time.) The Obama administration was therefore confronting a deadline if the FISA warrant was to be renewed while Obama was still in power. The officials in the meeting would need to figure out how the investigation could continue despite the fact that its central focus, Trump, was about to be sworn in as president.

Obama had incredibly claimed that he never intervened in cases under investigation by he Justice Department and FBI. He was emphatic in an April 2016 interview with Fox’s Chris Wallace: “I do not talk to the attorney general about pending investigations. I do not talk to FBI directors about pending investigations. We have a strict line and always have maintained it.” Ever the cheeky Obama, he made this claim while in the same breath arguing against indicting Hillary Clinton.

Obviously, if Obama was having a “follow-on conversation” with Yates and Comey, what it was following on was the briefing he’d just received about an investigation implicating the Trump campaign in Russian espionage. (As Comey’s March 20 House testimony would later elucidate, Russia’s interference in the election was always seen by law-enforcement officials as inseparable from suspected Trump campaign collusion in that interference.) There would be no reason to have such a follow-on conversation unless Obama wanted an update on what his law-enforcement officials were doing.

Consequently, Rice’s “by the book” bunkum is transparent: Obama officials claimed to adhere to a book that forbade consultations between political leaders and investigators. But here they were consulting. So Rice tried to cover the tracks in her email: She revises history such that the consultation morphs into a mere friendly reminder that Obama wanted everything done by the book. He was certainly “not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective,” no siree. . . .

That is what Rice’s email is really about: not sharing with the incoming Trump administration classified information about the Trump-Russia investigation, such as the basis for seeking a FISA warrant on Carter Page.

The dilemma was that the Obama administration had placed “the incoming team” — in particular, President-elect Trump — under investigation. Remember, Obama’s law-enforcement agencies believed the Steele dossier. No, the FBI had not been able to corroborate it; but, as former FBI director Comey told Congress, the bureau deemed its author, Christopher Steele, to be a reliable source. Steele, moreover, had collaborated on the project with Nellie Ohr, the wife of Bruce Ohr, Yates’s top aide at the Justice Department. Even if the Justice Department and the FBI could not prove Steele’s allegations, at least not yet, they still believed that Trump was compromised and that the Russians could be blackmailing him. If they had not believed those allegations were credible, they would not have put them in a warrant application to the FISA Court.

So we arrive at the knotty question for Obama political and law-enforcement officials: How do we “engage with the incoming team” of Trump officials while also determining that “we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia”? How do we assure that an investigation of Trump can continue when Trump is about to take over the government? (The Purpose of Susan Rice's "By the Book" Email to Herself. Also see Sharyl Attkisson's Did Obama Withhold Intel From Trump .)

Behold the new Commissars who take it upon themselves to concoct and then execute schemes worthy of a police state.

Then again, what does contempt for one's opponents, misuse of the Internal Revenue Service, the busting of the Federal budget that has doubled the national debt to over twenty trillion dollars, the violation of numerous provisions of the Constitution of the United States of America and of Federal laws mean to most Americans?


Obama/Soetoro got re-elected on November 6, 2012, even though he had demonstrated himself as contemptuous of the laws of God and men as he is of those who dare to oppose his "received wisdom." The man has told lie after lie ("If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor," etc.) without putting too much of a dent in his undeserved popularity even now as it has become eminently clear that he used the intelligence and law enforcement agencies of the government of the United States of America to thwart the election of Donald John Trump and then, to borrow a phrase, executed an “insurance policy” that would cast a pall over the “legality” of Trump’s election and his ability to govern after inauguration. In plain English, therefore, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Sotoero and his cast of supporting fiends, are at the heart of a conspiracy that originated with Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton and her own cast of fiends to overthrow the duly-elected government of the United States of America.

Indeed, The United States Department of Justice, which has supervision, at least in theory, of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, under Attorney Generals Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch became somewhat analogous to the "Ministry of Justice" in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics from its earliest days of operation.

Nikolai Krylenko, who would rise eventually to the post of "Commissar of Justice" under Joseph Stalin in 1929 and served in this position until 1931, was the chief prosecutor of Moscow in 1923 during the show trial of Archbishop Jan Cieplak, of the countless numbers of Catholic martyrs of the Soviet Union that was so admired by Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro's Marxist mentor, Frank Marshall Davis. It was during this unjust prosecution of Archbishop Cieplak that Krylenko made a bold pronouncement, which is contained in the following paragraph about the persecution of Christians by the Soviets:

Krylenko, who began to speak at 6:10 PM, was moderate enough at first, but quickly launched into an attack on religion in general and the Catholic Church in particular. "The Catholic Church", he declared, "has always exploited the working classes." When he demanded the Archbishop's death, he said, "All the Jesuitical duplicity with which you have defended yourself will not save you from the death penalty. No Pope in the Vatican can save you now." As the long oration proceeded, the Red Procurator worked himself into a fury of anti-religious hatred. "Your religion", he yelled, "I spit on it, as I do on all religions, -- on Orthodox, Jewish, Mohammedan, and the rest." "There is no law here but Soviet Law," he yelled at another stage, "and by that law you must die." (Francis McCullagh, The Bolshevik Persecution of Christianity, E. P. Dutton Company, New York, New York, 1924, p. 221.)

It is also by Soviet "law" that Nikolai Krylenko died as he was executed after a twenty-minute show trial on July 29, 1938. And it is by such "law" that the “left” always governs while the “right” makes concessions to this “law” when it suits their own purposes for “national security.” Adherents of the false opposite of the naturalist “left” believe that they can define “law,” “legality” and “morality” however they desire to suit their purposes at any given moment. This is but a variation of the concept of “law” and the “legal process” in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro used his concept of “law” to engage in “transformative” policy-making, and he did so  with an iron will as he issued unconstitutional and/or illegal executive orders and presidential directives, chose not to enforce the nation’s just immigration laws, presiding over the doubling of the national debt (see National Debt Grows By Nine Billion Dollars Under Obama), conspired with Congressional Democrats to pass the so-called Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act by means of the “reconciliation” process, thereby circumventing both the filibuster rules of the United States Senate and, more importantly, the constitutional requirement (found in Section 8 of Article I) that all bills raising revenue originate in the United States House of Representatives, used the Internal Revenue Service as a means to bludgeon political opponents with tax audits and to harass “conservative” groups applying for tax-exempt status, presided over an administration that misused the Federal government’s regulatory powers, and covered-up such major scandals as the Fast and Furious gun-running scheme, Benghazi, and the Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton’s e-mail server. Mind you, this is only a partial listing of the Caesar Obamus’s successes. A very comprehensive listing of what any reasonable human being would call scandalous violations of the Constitution—but are viewed as “successes” by Obama/Soetoro and his apologists—can be found at A Complete Guide to Obama's Scandals, Gaffes, and Power Grabs.

In other words, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro was very successful as the most lawless man ever to have served as the nation’s Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief.

Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro was as successful as he was because he was enabled at every turn by his co-conspirators, those who work in the mainslime media, and by his hapless opponents in the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist “right,” who refused to take any real measures to defend the country against this lawless, power-grabbing president for fear of being called “racist.” While noting that Obama/Soetoro and his first Attorney General, Eric Himpton Holder, ceaselessly used the “race card” to take refuge for their crimes against God and man, the political and moral cowardice of Congressional Republicans made it more possible for the former president to legislate as he pleased from the Oval Office in the West Wing of the White House without regard to any true Congressional oversight.

As is very well-known—and as I wrote about endlessly in The Wanderer week after week in the 1990s, Madame Defarge (aka Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton) and the entire Clinton family crime syndicate are notorious for the contempt they themselves have for the laws of God and of men. These career criminals and pathological liars do not believe themselves bound to any kind of law, whether supernatural or natural, but they have always believed that they can use the law as they please to teach lessons of one kind or another to lesser mortals who dare to criticize them and/or challenge their false assertions and beliefs.

The Clintons always try to neutralize their critics and accusers by making numerous threats against them before turning these threats into reality by publicly humiliating them, something that William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, Jr., did with particular aplomb in the wake of the efforts of Republicans In the United States House of Representatives to impeach him in 1998 and 1999. The late United States Representative Henry Hyde (R-Illinois), then-House Speaker Newton Leroy Gingrich (R-Georgia), then-Representative Robert Barr (R-Georgia), then-Representative and Speaker-elect Robert Livingston (R-Louisiana), and United States Senator Dan Burton (R-Indiana) had their dirty laundry aired rather thoroughly by Clinton, thanks to the efforts of the private investigator, Jack Palladino, that he hired to discredit his political adversaries. They unleashed private Jack Palladino twenty years ago this year to find and then disseminate dirt on the Congressional Republicans who were investigating Clinton.

It is more than clear now that former Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Richard Comey, his former deputy director, Andrew McCabe, special agents Peter Strozk and his paramour, Lisa Page, as well as former United States Department of Justice Deputy Associate Attorney General Bruce Ohr, among others, engaged in a massive conspiracy (1) to protect former First Lady/former United States Senator/former Secretary of State Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton from a true investigation of her criminal actions related to her using unsecured personal communications devices to transmit classified information to her home-brewed internet server as a means to evade transparency by means of Freedom of Information requests; and (2) to thwart the election of Donald John Trump and, failing that, to derail his presidency by making it appear as though his election was the result collusion between the Trump campaign and agents acting in behalf of the Russian government (see, for example, Peeling Back the Layers of Hillary Clinton's Deceit for a summary of some of ways in which scheme was executed).

What is being called the “Nunes memo, which was issued by the Intelligence Committee of the  United States House of Representatives on Friday, February 2, 2018, the Feast of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, was made necessary because officials in the United States Department of Justice, which is ostensibly under the control of a weakling named Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, who is the Attorney General of the United States of America, stonewalled the committee’s repeated requests for various documents related to application made to super-secret and, I contend, unconstitutional Federal Intelligence Security Court (a view that is held by many others, including Andrew Napolitano, Why We Should Care About FISA Court's Partisan Political Games), to spy on the Trump campaign. “Magnanimously,” therefore, officials of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice, permitted two members of the House Intelligence Committee to review the documents in a special room accompanied by two members of the committee’s staff to take notes.

Obviously, the facts outlined in the Nunes Memo mean that the whole pretext of the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller was false, something note in a recent opinion column in The Washington Post:

How does anything in the memo impact the validity of the special counsel’s investigation? Well, it matters that the pre-Mueller Justice Department investigation was prompted by anti-Trump, pro-Hillary partisans who used U.S. law enforcement in an effort to derail the Trump campaign. So, determining what Mueller knew and when he knew it is an essential and relevant question. When did Mueller realize he was at the helm of an investigation tainted by illegitimate roots? If he doesn’t think it matters, he needs to explain why.

Part of what makes the memo from House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) significant is that it confirms the presence of an anti-Trump, pro-Clinton celloperating at the highest ranks of the FBI. Based on the past year of reporting, we know that the partisan cabal included the likes of Obama-era Attorney General Lorretta Lynch, former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe, former FBI counterespionage section chief Peter Strzok, former associate deputy attorney general Bruce Ohr and perhaps others. Democrats and their allies in the media won’t admit it, but the memo reveals that the U.S. presidential election appears to have almost been hijacked — not by the Russians or the Trump campaign colluding with the Russians, but by Clinton campaign agents colluding with anti-Trump allies within the FBI. Their efforts were partially fueled by Clinton campaign opposition research. They used a slew of lies and distortions they deployed in an attempt to pursue the Trump campaign.

With that said, it is worth remembering that the Democrats’ dossier wasn’t determinative in launching the entire Russia probe. But the revelation of its use does expose anti-Trump individuals in the FBI and confirm their anti-Trump biases. They took a phony document and used it to advance their own political objectives. It is fair to ask: What else did they do?

I always thought it was kind of weird to begin with that then-FBI Director James B. Comey briefed President-elect Trump about the dossier. And now, I wonder whether he might have done it as part of an effort to cover the anti-Trump faction’s tracks or to at least gently reveal that the dossier was being used by the government. I guess no one told President Trump the dossier had already been used against his interests in an official government proceeding.

Anyway, it is going to take some time to process the impact of the Nunes memo. But it can’t just be dismissed with a shrug. Was Mueller ever going to report that the FBI colluded with anti-Trump forces to undermine the Trump campaign by relying on information supplied via anti-Trump foreign nationals paid by the Clinton campaign? The Nunes memo challenges the entire premise of the special counsel’s investigation — especially if there is now a serious inquiry about whether the president obstructed justice of an investigation that was inappropriately initiated by the government in the first place.

I was very respectful of the FBI’s objections to the memo being released. But now that I have read it, I wonder why they made a big deal about revealing sources and methods. I don’t see any of that. The memo is a consequential expose of the malice and wrongdoing of certain partisans within the FBI. Granted, the information in the memo is being disputed by some as incomplete and inaccurate. We will see.

And oh by the way, there’s more to come. From what I hear, the FBI inspector general’s report is due anytime, and it will be an additional powerful indictment of many inside the FBI.

The bottom line is that this memo further confirms that somebody colluded with the Russians, that somebody withheld material information from government officials and that somebody even used laundered money to pay for campaign dirt that was partially supplied by Russian agents. Well, that somebody wasn’t the Trump campaign. That should matter a great deal to Mueller. So where does this investigation go from here? (https://www.wSo What Does the Nunes Memo Have to do with Mueller? . See also Patrick Joseph Buchanan’s column on the subject, Nunes Battles Deep State and End the Corrupt Mueller Investigation Now.)

The “deep state” is real, but this should not come as any kind of surprise whatsoever. The senior career civil servants who make up the permanent government are, at least for the most part, products of leftist “educational” institutions who are committed statists. These senior career officials believe that they, not the “people”—and certainly not Christ the King—are “sovereign.” 

In this case, however, James Brien Comey and his stooges, including Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and Bruce Ohr, were working for the admirer of the Fidel Castro School of Opposition Management, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, who was doing the bidding of the Vladimir Lenin School of Opposition Liquidation, headed by William Jefferson Blythe Clinton and Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton:

Newly revealed text messages between FBI paramours Peter Strzok and Lisa Page include an exchange about preparing talking points for then-FBI Director James Comey to give to President Obama, who wanted “to know everything we’re doing."

The message, from Page to Strzok, was among thousands of texts between the lovers reviewed by Fox News. The pair both worked at one point for Special Counsel Robert Mueller's probe of alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Page wrote to Strzok on Sept. 2, 2016, about prepping Comey because "potus wants to know everything we're doing." According to a newly released Senate report, this text raises questions about Obama's personal involvement in the Clinton email investigation.

In texts previously revealed, Strzok and Page have shown their disdain for Republicans in general, as well as Trump, calling him a "f---ing idiot," among other insults.

Among the newly disclosed texts, Strzok also calls Virginians who voted against then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe's wife for a state Senate seat "ignorant hillbillys." (sic)

That text came from Strzok to Page on Nov. 4, 2015, the day after Jill McCabe lost a hotly contested Virginia state Senate election. Strzok said of the result, "Disappointing, but look at the district map. Loudon is being gentrified, but it's still largely ignorant hillbillys. Good for her for running, but curious if she's energized or never again."

Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., along with majority staff from the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, is releasing the texts, along with a report titled, “The Clinton Email Scandal and the FBI's Investigation of it.”

The newly uncovered texts reveal a bit more about the timing of the discovery of "hundreds of thousands" of emails on former Congressman Anthony Weiner's laptop, ultimately leading to Comey's infamous letter to Congress just days before the 2016 presidential election.

Sept. 28, 2016, Strzok wrote to Page, "Got called up to Andy's [McCabe] earlier.. hundreds of thousands of emails turned over by Weiner's atty to sdny [Southern District of New York], includes a ton of material from spouse [Huma Abedin]. Sending team up tomorrow to review... this will never end." According to the Senate report, this text message raises questions about when FBI officials learned of emails relevant to the Hillary Clinton email investigation on the laptop belonging to Weiner, the husband to Clinton aide Huma Abedin.

It was a full month later, on Oct. 28, 2016, when Comey informed Congress that, "Due to recent developments," the FBI was re-opening its Clinton email investigation.

"In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation. I am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday..." Comey said at the time.

The question becomes why Comey was only informed by his investigative team on Oct.  27, if the Clinton emails on Weiner’s laptop were discovered by Sept. 28, at the latest. 

Other texts show more examples of the officials' opposition to Trump. 

On Election Day 2016, Strzok wrote, "OMG THIS IS F***ING TERRIFYING." Page replied, "Omg, I am so depressed." Later that month, on Nov. 13, 2016, Page wrote, "I bought all the president's men. Figure I need to brush up on watergate."  

The next day, Nov. 14, 2016, Page wrote, “God, being here makes me angry. Lots of high fallutin’ national security talk. Meanwhile we have OUR task ahead of us.”

Page’s meaning here is unclear, but according to the Senate report, coupled with Strzok’s Aug. 15 text about an “insurance policy,” further investigation is warranted to find out what actions the two may have taken.

The last text is from Page to Strzok, and comes on June 23, 2017, when she wrote, "Please don't ever text me again."

It's unclear whether she was mad at her friend, or if she suddenly became aware that they, and their thousands of texts, had been discovered. (More Texts Between Strzok and Page Uncovered, Leading to More Questions.)

Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro believes that any American who does not believe in his own brand of statism has no right to hold public office and that ordinary citizens who agree with “opponents” and might even vote for them are to be monitored for “hate crimes.” Thus it is that the very people who reject immutable truths revealed by God in the very Flesh and entrusted by Him to His true Church for their safekeeping and infallible explication believe in their own infallibility, which is why they work overtime to suppress all dissent as illegitimate.

Before commenting on President Donald John Trump and how has helped to enable the ongoing coup against him by not being ready to throw out senior-level political appointee holdovers from the administration of his corrupt, lawless predecessor, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, it would be useful to illustrate some of the antecedent root causes of how the United States of America was destined from its inception to become the preserve of deep state bureaucrats. This did not all happen overnight, and it is not at all any kind of surprise.

Deep State and Deep Anti-Catholicism

Unbeknownst to most Americans, however, is that the “deep state” that is trying to—and may indeed—take down a man who gets a thrill at the skill of anything military (see The Lawrence Welk Show) and is letting his generals (Kelly, McMaster, Mattis) call the shots on the deployment of American troops to fight needless battles started by the neoconservative war hawk, George Walker Bush, and expanded to Libya and Syria by the globalist war hawk, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, has deep ties to the Anti-Catholicism of the so-called “Progressive Movement” of the latter Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries.

The “Progressive Movement,” which is more or less synonymous with the “Good Government Movement,” began in the 1880s as many WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants) elitists and secular Darwinists/social “progressives” became alarmed at the growing political influence of Catholic immigrants in urban politics. There was the fear that these immigrants and their descendants could become so influential as to have a major say in national politics and thus be able to elect a Catholic as President of the United States of America. Such an event, the “progressives” believed, would make the United States of America a vassal of Pope Leo XIII.

Those who are familiar with my own writing over the decades know that the fear of these early “progressives” was unfounded as none of the Catholic immigrants who used the ward or election district political clubs of the Democratic Party in urban areas had any intention whatsoever of converting the United States of America to become a Catholic country. They simply wanted to use the local political clubs as a means of upward social and economic mobility that was being denied to them in a systematic manner by the pronounced and sometimes overtly violent anti-Catholicism that is deeply embedded in the American soil that is manifested very clearly today by the open contempt which the current generation of “progressives” has for believing Catholics.

It was to blunt the rise of the growing influence of Catholic immigrants from Ireland (both those who arrived in the 1820s and those who arrived in the 1840s and thereafter), Italy (especially after the overthrow of the Papal States), Hungary and other places in Central Europe during the revolutions of 1848, Germany (during the Freemason Otto von Bismarck’s Kulturkampf against Holy Mother Church), and Eastern Europe (after the War between the States as the need for skilled and unskilled labor increased during the Second Industrial Revolution) that the WASPS and their Judeo-Masonic compatriots devised various “reforms” to take as much political power as possible away from the political party bosses who controlled, if not rigged, elections and who controlled the entire process of hiring government employees and awarding contracts for the provision of various services. The hiring, retention and promotion of government employees was solely in the hands of the ward bosses and their over-bosses at the county and city levels.

Such a situation, the “progressives” said at the time, resulted in institutionalized political graft and fraudulent election results. It was time, the “good government reformers believed, to “professionalize” public administration to insure a supposedly unbiased and competent set of well-trained administrators who would serve the public interest and not that of professional politicians. It was time, the “good government” do-gooders bellowed, to implement a professional civil service at all levels of government in the United States of America.

Although there were multiple other reforms designed to limit the power of political bosses and thus to produce “efficient,” “honest” and “competent administration of public policy (primary elections, which were designed to take the power of nominating candidates for public office away from professional political party bosses, nonpartisan elections at the civic level, the county or city manager system, whose goal was to place the actual administration of a city or a county under the supervision of a professionally trained “nonpartisan,” thus leaving a mayor or county executive as a ceremonial figurehead who cut ribbons when the next Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company or F. W. Woolworth store opened in the community, and what are called the direct democracy reforms—the referendum, whether binding or nonbinding, the initiative, which was proposed to take power out of the hands of boss-controlled city councils and state legislatures, and the recall, which is a petition-initiated “citizen” effort to remove an elected official from office before his term has expired), the institutionalization of the civil service by the government of the United States of America by means of the Pendleton Civil Service Act of 1883, prompted by the assassination of President James Abram Garfield by a deranged office-seeker, Charles Guiteau, two years before, provided the model that would be adopted over time by state and local governments.

The Pendleton Civil Service Act, which underwent some reforms of itself with the passage of the United States Civil Service Act of 1978, established a system requiring most positions in the Federal government to be filled by a “merit system” that selected the top candidates who had the best scores on publicly announced, competitive examination (usually the “rule of seven” or the “rule of eleven” or the “rule of three) for advertised positions. Those hired serve a probationary period of usually nine months, after which they cannot be dismissed except for a long, cumbersome process known as “administrative cause.” In other words, civil servants have life tenure as long as the positions they hold are not eliminated by budgetary restrictions, noting a few restrictions and qualifications in the cases of civil servants who have been grossly incompetent or negligent in the performance of their duties.

Although the civil service took root at the Federal level in the latter part of the Nineteenth Century, the patronage system remained strong at the state and local levels until the Great Depression, which made it very difficult for the political party bosses and their under-bosses to dole out “welfare” (government jobs and contracts, food, legal favors, etc.) in exchange for loyalty expressed by working as volunteers to elect the party’s candidates given the large number of people in need of help, it was the aforementioned Great Depression that dealt the death blow to the boss system in many places, admitting a few exceptions here and there. The Welfare State, which had some of its roots in the administrations of Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Thomas Woodrow Wilson, arose to take the place of the boss system and, more importantly, to take the place of the extended family, which was under attack by means of liberalized divorce laws in some states and the ready access to and acceptance of contraception. The Welfare State was administered by career civil servants, who then had a vested interest in keeping their clients dependent upon “their” largesse and expanding the scope of those who would become dependent upon government support for their very existence.

Even long before the Great Depression and over forty years before the Bolshevik Revolution, Otto von Bismarck, the prototypical socialist and social engineer, sought to make large segments of the German population dependent upon the largesse of the civil state so that the citizenry would be more inclined to look the other way as it, the civil state, increased control of their daily lives over the course of time. The Eurosocialist states are all descended from Otto von Bismarck and Karl Marx, whose "radicalism," as the Freemason Bismarck saw it, he sought to preempt by the creation of his own social welfare state. It was this social welfare state that American liberals saw as the basis of creating the more “perfect” social order on purely secular grounds.

As has been noted many times on this site, one of the proximate root causes of what can be called "liberalism" is the writing of John Locke, whose views were the direct result of the Protestant Revolution that began in England under King Henry VIII in 1534 and resulted in the proliferation of Protestant sects in a kingdom that had been Catholic for nearly a millennium. Readers of this site know that I care very much about root causes.

The Protestant Revolt engendered murder and mayhem in the German states after it was launched by the hideous, lecherous, drunken Augustinian monk named Father Martin Luther, O.S.A., on October 31, 1517, when he posted his "ninety-five theses" on the door of Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany. Luther himself was aghast to see the almost instantaneous moral degeneration of his "evangelicals" into violent mobs who pilfered and sacked formerly Catholic churches and lived riotously, oblivious to the fact that he was responsible for this degeneration by depriving those who followed his revolution against Christ the King of the Sacraments and of the true teaching that Our King has entrusted to His Catholic Church for Its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication.

In like manner, of course, the Protestant Revolt in England engendered murder and violence, much of which was state-sponsored as Henry Tudor was responsible between the years of 1534 and 1547 for ordering the executions of over 72,000 Catholics who remained faithful to the Catholic Church following the decree that Parliament has passed that declared him to be the "supreme head of the Church in England as far as the law of God allowed." As was the case in the German states as princes gave Luther protection so that they, the princes, could govern in a Machiavellian manner free of any interference from Rome or their local bishops, so was it the case in England that the Protestant Revolution provided the receipt for the unchecked tyranny of English monarchs.

Indeed, the kind of state-sponsored social engineering that has created the culture of entitlement in England and elsewhere in Europe has its antecedent roots in Henry's revolt against the Social Reign of Christ the King and His Catholic Church in the Sixteenth Century.

Henry had Parliament enact various laws to force the poor who had lived for a nominal annual fee on the monastery and convent lands (as they produced the food to sustain themselves, giving some to the monastery or convent) off of those lands, where their families had lived for generations, in order to redistribute the Church properties he had stolen to those who supported his break from Rome. Henry quite cleverly created a class of people who were dependent upon him for the property upon which they lived and the wealth they were able to derive therefrom, making them utterly supportive of his decision to declare himself Supreme Head of the Church in England. Those of the poorer classes who had been thrown off  the monastery and convent lands were either thrown into prison (for being poor, mind you) or forced to migrate to the cities, where many of them lost the true Faith and sold themselves into various vices just to survive. The effects of this exercise of state-sponsored engineering are reverberating in the world today, both politically and economically. Indeed, many of the conditions bred by the disparity in wealth created by Henry's land grab in the Sixteenth Century would fester and help to create the world of unbridled capitalism and slave wage that so impressed a German emigre in London by the name of Karl Marx. Unable to recognize the historical antecedents of the real injustices he saw during the Victorian Era, Marx set about devising his own manifestly unjust system, premised on atheism and anti-Theism, to rectify social injustice once and for all. In a very real way, Henry of Tudor led the way to Lenin of Russia.

The abuses of power by English monarchs led to all manner of social unrest in England, especially as those Anglicans who were followers of John Calvin sought to eradicate all remaining vestiges of Catholicism from Anglican "worship" and "doctrine" (removing Latin from certain aspects of the heretical Anglican liturgy, smashing statues, eliminating high altars in favor of tables, things that have been undertaken in the past forty years in many formerly Catholic churches that are now in the custody of the counterfeit church of conciliarism). This unrest produced the English Civil Wars of the 1640s and the establishment in 1649 of what was, for all intents and purposes, a Calvinist state under the control Oliver Cromwell that became a Cromwellian dictatorship between the years of 1653 to 1660 until the monarchy under the House of Stuart was restored in 1660. Oh yes, King Charles I lost his head, quite literally, in 1649 as the "Roundheads" of Oliver Cromwell came to power in 1649 following seven years of warfare between "parliamentarians" and "royalists." Revolutions always wind up eating their own. The English monarchy itself was eaten up by the overthrow of the Social Reign of the King of Kings by Henry VIII of the House of Tudor in 1534.

King James II, who had converted to Catholicism in France in 1668 while he was the Prince of York under his brother, King Charles II of the restored monarchy, acceded to the English throne in on June 6, 1885, following his brother's death, which occurred after Charles II himself had converted to the the Faith on his deathbed. Suspicious that the property that had been acquired and the wealth that had been amassed as a result of Henry VIII's social-engineering land grab of 150 years before would be placed in jeopardy, Protestant opponents of King James II eventually forced him to abdicate the throne in 1688, his rule having been declared as ended on December 11 of that year. The abdication of King James, whose second wife, Mary of Modena, had been assigned Blessed Father Claude de la Colombiere as her spiritual director when she was the Princess of York, is referred to by Protestant and secular historians as the "glorious revolution," so-called because it ushered in the penultimate result of the Protestant Revolution, the tyranny of the majority.

It was to justify the rise of majoritarianism that John Locke, a Presbyterian (Calvinist) minister, wrote his Second Treatise on Civil Government. Locke believed, essentially, that social problems could be ameliorated if a majority of reasonable men gathered together to discuss their situation. The discussion among these "reasonable men" would lead to an agreement, sanctioned by the approval of the majority amongst themselves, on the creation of structures which designed to improve the existing situation. If those structures did not ameliorate the problems or resulted in a worsening of social conditions then some subsequent majority of "reasonable men" would be able to tear up the "contract" that had bound them before, devising yet further structures designed to do what the previous structures could not accomplish. Locke did not specify how this majority of reasonable men would form, only that it would form, providing the foundation of the modern parliamentary system that premises the survival of various governments upon the whims of a majority at a given moment.

In other words, England's "problem" in 1688 was King James II. The solution? Parliament, in effect, declared that he had abdicated his throne rather than attempt to fight yet another English civil war to maintain himself in power as the man chosen by the parliamentarians to replace him, his own son-in-law William of Orange, who was married to his daughter Mary, landed with armed forces ready to undertake such a battle. The parliamentary "majority" had won the day over absolutism and a return to Catholicism.

Unfortunately for Locke, you see, social problems cannot be ameliorated merely by the creation of structures devised by "reasonable men" and sanctioned by the majority.

All problems in the world, both individual and social, have their remote causes in Original Sin and their proximate causes in the Actual Sins of men. There is no once-and-for-all method or structure by which, for example, "peace" will be provided in the world by the creation of international organizations or building up or the drafting of treaties.

There is no once-and-for-all method or structure by which, for example, "crime" will be lessened in a nation by the creation of various programs designed to address the "environmental" conditions that are said to breed it.

The only way in which social conditions can be ameliorated is by the daily reformation of individual lives in cooperation with the graces won for men by the shedding of the Most Precious Blood of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ upon the wood of the Holy Cross and that flow into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces. And to the extent that social structures can be effective in addressing and ameliorating specific problems at specific times in specific places those who create and administer them must recognize their absolute dependence upon God's graces and that there is no secular, non-denominational or inter-denominational way to provide for social order. Social order and peace among nations depend entirely upon the subordination of the life of every person and the activities of every nation to the Social Reign of Christ the King as it is exercised by the Catholic Church. 

There is, therefore, amongst American Catholics who adhere to some kind of "leftist" worldview a belief that it is indeed the role of government to "solve" social ills, most of are the result, over and above the after-effects of Original Sin, the systematic, planned breakdown of the stability of the family that was one of the chief goals of Freemasons in state legislatures, starting in North Dakota, in the late-Nineteenth Century to liberalize divorce laws.

This systematic, planned breakdown of the family was expedited by the spread of contraception in the 1920s, leading ultimately to an epidemic of divorce and remarriage as spouses felt "free" to be violate the Sixth Commandment injunction against adultery. Husbands abandoned wives. Wives abandoned husbands. Children became lost and confused. Entire classes of people became dependent upon the largesse of the civil state as a result. And this is to say nothing of the direct effort on the part of Margaret Sanger to break down the stability of the families of black Americans so that they could enjoy the benefits of her sort of social engineering, a fact that has been documented on this site in several articles.

If one believes in the leftist paradigm, however, one will be absolutely convinced that social "problems" are the result of not enough government spending and not enough government programs and not enough government regulations and not enough efforts to direct the daily lives of those who are dependent upon them and, ultimately, of us all as the "experts" and the bureaucrats know better as to how we should live than we do. Former President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton said as much in the late-1990s (I believe that it was when making a speech in Buffalo, New York). Let me see if I can find the quote. All right, here it is:

Clinton: "I can spend your money better than you can." 

In a post-State of the Union speech in Buffalo, NY on January 20, 1999, Bill Clinton was asked why not a tax cut if we have a surplus. Clinton's response:

"We could give it all back to you and hope you spend it right... But ... if you don't spend it right, here's what's going to happen. In 2013 -- that's just 14 years away -- taxes people pay on their payroll for Social Security will no longer cover the monthly checks... I want every parent here to look at the young people here, and ask yourself, 'Do you really want to run the risk of squandering this surplus?' "Source: Washington Times, January 21, 1999. (Quote and commentary found at: Bill Clinton - Stupid Quotes and Statements.)

As the leaders of the “Good Government” (or “Progressive” or “Reform”) were shaped by the Lockean/Pelagian belief that it was possible to reform human behavior by the creation of structural reforms without any reliance upon Sanctifying and Actual Graces, however, these do-gooding nincompoops did not believe that their great ideas would create what was destined to become a fourth branch of government unaccountable even to the elected officials and their political appointees (Cabinet and sub-Cabinet appointees, for instance) who had nominal authority over them. Civil servants know that elected officials come and go while they stay, which is why they are usually pretty immune to any kind of pressure to change their ways, including the alliances that many of them form with leftist, Soros-funded “community organizations” who drink to the point of inebriation from the trough of taxpayer funding.

Although the senior career civil servants who do much of the actual implantation of public policy do not run for office, they are political creatures who develop alliances with key members of Congressional committees that have oversight responsibility over their work and with lobbyists who work with constituencies affected by the policies they administer. This “iron triangle” or “unholy alliance” as it has been called in political science literature is quite adept at thwarting any and all efforts on the part of a presidential administration whose leadership is intent on changing policies and/or the way in which they are administered.

What we are seeing at this present time, therefore, is just an open manifestation of a phenomenon that is now one hundred thirty-five years old at the Federal level, admitting that the situation is a little different in some urban and suburban areas where there are still vestiges of the old-time political machine, something that is particularly true in my own native County of Nassau, New York.

Career bureaucrats in the Federal civil service who do not like President Donald John Trump have made gargantuan efforts to coopt the president’s political appointees to follow their lead, not his, in the administration of public policy. This cooptation seems have been most successful in rendering United States Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions into little other than a bureaucratic functionary who is afraid to offend the sensibilities of senior career Justice Department officials, most of whom are, shall we say, decidedly to the “left” of center and are working actively to effect his ouster, whereupon the campaign to get rid of a “President” Michael Pence would commence.

Reckless Federal Spending, Much of Which Funds Evil Programs

One of the ironies of the consternation facing many of those who have been serving as cheerleaders for President Trump is that he is still a big government, free-spending liberal, and he is being pushed in this regard by his Kabbalist daughter and her Kabbalist husband, Ivanka Trump Kusher and her “Mr. Wonderful,” Jared Kushner (we may yet find out that the president’s untimely dismissal of deep state’s James Brien Comey was done at the behest of “Mr. Wonderful,” who may have been worried about his own business contacts with Russians, most of whom are Talmudic gangsters, of course, with the support of Vice President Michael Pence—see  How Trump Decided to Fires James Comey).

United States Senator Rand Paul was entirely correct to oppose the two-year budget deal that President Donald Trump signed into law on Friday, February 9, 2017, the Feast of Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Commemoration of Saint Apollonia, that is nothing other than an irresponsible continuation of the free-spending ways of the George Walker Bush and Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro that were enabled by the Congress of the United States of America during the times both Houses were controlled by the organized crime family of the naturalist “right (January 20, 2001-June 6, 2001, January 3, 2003-January 3, 2007, and January 3, 2015-present, noting as well that Republicans have controlled the United States House of Representatives from January 3, 2011, to the present tie) or by the organized crime family of the naturalist “left” (January 3, 2007-January 3, 2011, noting the fact that Democrats controlled the United States Senate, which was split equally between Democrats and Republicans from January 3, 2001, to June 6, 2001, before United States Senator James Jeffords—R-Vermont—decided to bolt the Republican Party and become an “independent” who agreed to caucus with the Democrats, thus making the pro-abort, pro-perversity United States Senator Thomas Daschle—D-South Dakota, making the bum the Senate Majority Leader until January 3, 2003).  The national debt grows no matter who occupies the White House or and/or which of the two organized crime families of the false opposites of natural control the Congress of the United States of America.

Senator Paul’s courageous condemnation of this irresponsible spending, which further burdens a country saddled with a massive moral debt to God for the sins it has spread around the world with such abandon and for the sins that its laws sanction, if not actually encourage, here at home with a massive financial debt that will crush future generations of Americans unless Our Lord Himself intervenes to put an end to the madness caused by the Protestant Revolution and Judeo-Masonry.

A brief summary of Senator Paul’s located on his Senate website below is followed by an interview he gave to Major Garrett, the moderator of the Columbia Broadcasting System television network news department’s Face the Nation program on Sunday, February 11, 2018, Quinquagesima Sunday and the Commemoration of the Apparition of Our Lady of Lourdes:

The number one threat to our country's future is our debt. The number one threat to our national security is our debt.

This deal gives the President the power to borrow unlimited amounts of money.

This deal represents the worst of the Washington culture. The Left and the Right have come together in an unholy alliance to explode the debt. The Left gets more welfare, the Right gets more military contracts, and the Taxpayer is stuck with the bill!

This a bipartisan busting of the budget caps that will further indenture the next generation.

I promised the voters of Kentucky to oppose deficits, to oppose budgets that don't balance, and to spend only what we have. I will not give this President or any President to power to borrow unspecified amounts of money. 

Our debt now equals our entire economy. 

Not raising the debt ceiling means we would be forced to only spend what comes in --- also known as a balanced budget. I could accept that.  But I also could accept a balanced budget amendment that brings us into balance over five years.

The debt threatens us like never before and now is the time to take a stand.

I have travelled far and wide across America and I have not met one Republican outside of DC who supports adding an unlimited increase in the debt ceiling.

I hope my colleagues will listen to their constituents before voting for this terrible, no good, rotten deal. (Remarks Preoared bt Senator Rand Paul on the Floor of the United States Senate.)

MAJOR GARRETT: We go now to Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul whose objection to this week's funding agreement touched off an ever so brief government shutdown. Senator Paul joins us from Palm Beach Florida. Senator, what did you accomplish?

SENATOR RAND PAUL: Well you know I think we should draw attention to the fact that we're spending so much money. I ran for office in 2010 with what was called sort of the Tea Party tidal wave. At that point we were very, very critical of President Obama's deficits you know approaching a trillion dollars in a year. We talked endlessly about them we had 100,000 people rally on the Mall in Washington. And I'm still against deficit spending just because Republicans are doing it doesn't make it any better.

MAJOR GARRETT: And now we have deficits projected to be a trillion dollars again and yet they're growing non-recessionary economy or are you troubled by that?

SENATOR RAND PAUL: Yeah, I'm very worried and I think one of the questions the Republicans I think are not willing to ask themselves is can you be fiscally conservative and be for unlimited military spending. There's sort of this question, "Is the military budget too small or maybe is our mission too large around the world?" And because Republicans are unwilling to confront that they want more, more, more for military spending. And so to get that they have to give the Democrats what they want which is more and more and more for domestic spending and the compromise while some are happy with bipartisanship. Well if the bipartisanship is exploding the deficit I'm not so sure that's the kind of bipartisanship we need.

MAJOR GARRETT: From your point of view, Senator, on the defense side of the equation is the spending and the mission, are they reckless?

SENATOR RAND PAUL: I think the mission is- is beyond what we need to be we're actively in war in about seven countries. And yet the Congress hasn't voted on declaring or authorizing the use of military force in over 15 years now. So I've been one that's been bugging the Senate and Congress to say how can we be at war without ever voting on it don't the American people through their representatives get a chance to say when we go to war. I think the Afghan war is long past its mission. I think we killed and captured and disrupted the people who attacked us on 9/11 long ago. And I think now it's a nation building exercise. We're spending 50 billion dollars a year. And if the president really is serious about infrastructure, a lot of that money could be spent at home. Instead of building bridges and schools and roads in Afghanistan or in Pakistan. I think we could do that at home and the interesting thing is I think the president's instincts lean that way but --


MAJOR GARRETT: His policies, his policies, have not though.

SENATOR RAND PAUL: And that's sort of the problem and this is something that we've seen even going back to Reagan conservatives said, "Oh, we love Reagan." Then the people appointed around him were often big government types. That's a little bit of the problem I see here is that I think Donald Trump is probably the least interventionist minded president we've had in a long time. I mean he criticized George Bush for the intervention in the Iraq war. I think he's not that excited about continuing the Afghan war forever. But the generals who surrounded him with don't want to admit that there isn't a military solution. And so the war goes on and on and on. And really I think after 15 years and a trillion dollars that the Afghan it's time for them to take over their country.

MAJOR GARRETT: Senator Paul you and I have talked about this many times you know the instincts in Washington are to spend. You know that's what's going to happen and yet you voted for the tax cut which is contributing to these deficit and debt problems. How do you reconcile those two facts?

SENATOR RAND PAUL: I think if you're for tax cuts and for increasing spending that's hypocritical. But if you're for tax cuts and you're also for cutting spending a corresponding amount. See I would offset the tax cuts with spending cuts and there are a few of us that would actually do that. When we had the budget deal that lowered the taxes I also had an amendment to look at and try to control entitlement spending at the same time to pay for the tax cuts. But interestingly I could only interest three other Republicans. We had four votes total to try to control entitlement spending and that is where the money is.

MAJOR GARRETT: And that's sort of the way, Senator, because you know where the votes are. You know the votes are there for tax cuts. You know they're not there for spending cuts. So, isn't there any part of your voting pattern that is irresponsible?

SENATOR RAND PAUL: I don't think so because you know I can only control how I vote. So I voted for the tax cuts and I voted for spending cuts. The people who voted for tax cuts and spending increases. I think there is some hypocrisy there and it shows they're not serious about the debt. But all throughout my career I've always voted for spending cuts and I'm happy to offset cuts in taxes with cuts in spending. So no I think that I've had a consistent position in being very concerned about the debt and I want to shrink the size of government. So, the reason I'm for tax cuts is I to return more of the money to the people who own that who- who actually deserve to have their money returned to them. But it also shrinks the size of government by cutting taxes or should if you cut spending at the same time. (CBS News Transcript of Rand Paul on Face the Nation, February 11, 2018. Senator Paul also penned a very good opinion piece to oppose the president’s planned “May Day” parade. See Rand Paul: Bring Troops Home, Then Throw a Parade.)

Similar comments about the irresponsibility of the budget deal that had been agreed to by United States Senator Majority Leader Addison Mitchel McConnell (R-Kentucky) and United States Minority Leader (D-New York) that received the support of President Donald John Trump were authored by United States Representative Andy Biggs (R-Arizona) a day before Congress voted to go on another unrestrained binge of reckless Federal spending:

The budget caps deal produced by Senate Majority Leader McConnell and Minority Leader Schumer is a fiscal disaster parading as a military support bill. They argue that we need to fully fund the military. I agree. That’s why we sent a bill to the Senate earlier this week that fully funded the military – without adding more than $500 billion to our deficit over the next 18 months, as their plan does.

Further, the House fully funded the military in the budget bills sent to the Senate almost six months ago. The Senate has taken no action on those bills, but keeps forcing short-term spending bills, which even Senator Lindsey Graham agrees, is extremely harmful to our military.

This bad deal is an unconditional surrender on Republican principles and our platform.

If Congress approves the spending package, federal spending will grow by more than 10 percent. As a part of the deal, our nation’s debt limit will be suspended. This means that Congress will spend as much as it can borrow – without limits. Plan on even more national debt ahead.

If we are going to spend more than the credit limits, not to mention more than we bring in on the revenue side each month, we should be enacting serious spending cuts. Spending reductions should not be treated as an afterthought on a massive spending package.

After caving in on spending, the bill actually funds our troops for only another six weeks, until we are forced to consider our sixth spending bill of the fiscal year just a few weeks from now. This is absurd – and irresponsible.

Congress’s pattern of relying on short-term spending bills – on average, more than five times a year for the last 20 years – has brought on a plethora of problems. Our military is subjected to uncertainty in planning and execution of its missions. Our agencies incur the waste of preparing for government shutdowns multiple times each year. The dissipation incurred by failure of the Senate to pass the appropriations bills has also heaped an enormous national debt on this and future generations.

This is nothing short of self-immolation through legislative malfeasance. We are putting our grandchildren in an awful bind. If we cannot pass a budget and reduce the size of government now, we must wonder what kind of America they will see when they grow up. Will it be a thriving, free nation where they can fulfill their greatest aspirations, or will it be a broken and bankrupt country?

Almost six months ago, the House passed twelve appropriations bills and sent them over to the Senate. The Senate has had an opportunity for months to consider these bills and give them an up-or-down vote through regular order. This could have solved our problems. Yet, the other chamber has refused to perform its constitutional responsibility, threatening the financial stability of our military personnel.

Our troops are suffering now due to our lack of courage to pass a financially responsible, long-term budget, and our grandchildren will suffer later due to our propensity to kick the can down the road.

When will we act like the Republicans our constituents expect us to be? When will we cut spending, balance the budget, and eliminate our national debt? The time should be now, but sadly, we are too set in our free-spending, big government ways to change.

I strongly oppose this deal. We must drain the swamp and decrease the size of government. I implore my colleagues to vote against this legislation. (Representative Andy Biggs, When Will We Act Like Republicans and Vote as our constituents expect us?)

Reasoned arguments such as Senator Rand Paul’s and Representative Andy Bigg’s were lost on the Democrats and the Republicans, many of whom want to reward their corporate donors and to continue to receive perquisites from lobbyists while catering to various constituency groups at home who benefit from the supposedly “free goodies” doled out to them by craven careerists.

To believe that the collective forces of statism and the overt evils associated with it can be retarded by purely naturalistic means is illusory. Then again, I do recall a chap who has spoken often in the past forty years of something he has termed “the illusion of secular salvation.” Can’t recall the name at this moment, though.

As noted earlier, most of the social problems facing the United States of America are the result of the systematically planned and implemented Judeo-Masonic revolution against the stability of the family to create a dependency caste that looks to government programs for “solutions,” which is why President Donald John Trump’s acquiescence to funding Planned Barrenhood for another two years, meaning until the last year of his term, 2020, is to call down himself and the country the wrath of God.

The following speaks for itself:

( - Despite promising to defund Planned Parenthood, President Donald Trump signed a budget Friday, which was passed by the Republican-led Congress, that fully funds the nation’s largest abortion provider.

In a letter to pro-lifers during the election, Trump and Vice President Mike Pence said “I am committed to … Defunding Planned Parenthood as long as they continue to perform abortions, and reallocating their funding to community health centers that provide comprehensive health care for women.

While the budget provides more funding for community health centers, it also fully funds Planned Parenthood.

In fact, Trump has signed multiple continuing resolutions (CRs) that fully funded Planned Parenthood despite his campaign promise to defund it.

During the March for Life last month, House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) told the crowd, “In the House, we passed legislation to defund Planned Parenthood.” In May 2017, the House voted to defund Planned Parenthood through an Obamacare repeal, but the bill failed to clear Congress.

As reported prior to the vote, pro-life groups called on Congress not to fund Planned Parenthood in the budget.

Dr. Alveda King, director of Civil Rights for the Unborn for Priests for Life, told, “I do not support continuing to fund Planned Parenthood through the continuing resolution. I don’t want to see a government shutdown but I also don’t want to see $1.5 million a day flowing to the nation’s largest abortion provider.

“My prayer is that Congress will fund community health centers but withdraw funding from any organization that makes its money from the blood of the innocents,” King said.

Operation Rescue President Troy Newman said, “I think it’s repulsive that Republicans would continue to fund Planned Parenthood through any sort of continuing resolution for baby body parts. Their director was forced to resign. Other abortionists have been convicted of various criminal activities, botched abortions, we’ve recorded again and again.

“And no taxpayer funding should ever go to fund such a horrific criminal enterprise like Planned Parenthood. The Republicans talk about shutting down the government over building a wall. I say the most worthy thing you can shut down the government for is to defund Planned Parenthood,” Newman said.

Tom McClusky, vice president of government affairs with the March for Life, told, “Continuing Resolutions, omnibuses and mega two year budgets are what happens when Congress has been bipartisanly dysfunctional.  

“For the first time in years the House of Representatives passed Appropriation bills through regular order – however the Senate could not be bothered. The result is a continuation of Obamacare and continued taxpayer funding of a billion dollar abortion industry. Once again making Congress, and taxpayers, culpable, for hundreds of thousands of abortions,” McClusky said in a statement. (Budget Deal Fully Funds Planned Barrenhood.)

A brief note is in order here to counter Dr. Alveda King’s support for “community health centers,” a proposition that was supported by a number of Republicans in 2015 when the undercover videos taking by the Centers for Medical Research proved that Planned Barrehood was selling fetal body parts in violation of Federal law. Such a proposal is an illogical shell game, and it was dissected over thirty-one months ago in Shifting Funding From One Evil Organization To Many Others.

To wit, there are many Catholics who are sincerely concerned about the future of a country suffering from the manifestation of the perfection of the inherent degeneracy of its founding principles—as well as from the logical effects that flow from the proliferation of the sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance under cover of the civil law—have been willing for the past two years to ignore Donald J. Trump’s asinine assertion that Planned Barrenhood does “much good,” something he stated on “Super Tuesday, March 1, 2016, Tuesday of the Second Week of Lent:

( - At a press conference on Tuesday night in Florida, businessman Donald Trump, who is running for the Republican presidential nomination, said that Planned Parenthood has “done some very good work” but that he would not give federal funds to the organization “as long as you have abortion going on at Planned Parenthood."

"I'm just doing what's right," said Trump. "Look, Planned Parenthood has done very good work for some--for many, many--for millions of women. And I'll say it and I know a lot of the so-called conservatives, they say that's really--because I'm a conservative, but I'm a common sense conservative--but millions of women have been helped by Planned Parenthood. But we're not going to allow and we're not going to fund as long as you have the abortion going on at Planned Parenthood and we understand that and I've said it loud and clear."

In its latest annual report, Planned Parenthood said that its affiliates performed 323,999 abortions in the fiscal year that ended on Sept. 30, 2014. The same report said that in the year that ended on June 30, 2015, Planned Parenthood received $553.7 million in government health service grants and reimbursements.

At the press conference a reporter asked Trump: “Does it feel to you yet like you are the presumptive Republican nominee--and along those lines, you had some complimentary things to say about Planned Parenthood. You said you could be flexible on immigration. Are you trying to adjust your tone to a more general election message?”

Trump responded:

“I'm just doing what's right. Look, Planned Parenthood has done very good work for some--for many, many--for millions of women. And I'll say it and I know a lot of the so-called conservatives, they say that's really--because I'm a conservative, but I'm a common sense conservative--but millions of women have been helped by Planned Parenthood.

“But we're not going to allow and we're not going to fund as long as you have the abortion going on at Planned Parenthood and we understand that and I've said it loud and clear.

"But--and we'll see what happens--but Planned Parenthood, millions of people, and I've had thousands of letters from women that have been helped. And this wasn't a set-up, this was people writing letters.

“I'm going to be really good for women. I'm going to be good for women's health issues. It's very important to me, very important to me. And maybe that is not a perfect conservative view but I can tell you one thing, I'm more conservative than anybody on the military, on taking care of our vets, on the border, on the wall, on getting rid of Obamacare and coming up with something much, much better and certainly getting rid of Common Core and bringing education to a local level, so that you're going to have good education for our children who are being absolutely starved for proper education.

"So, Sara, I mean, you know, you can call it what you want. But I am a truth teller and I will tell the truth. Okay.” (Trump Says Millions of Women Have Been Helped by Planned Barrenhood.)

In other words, it is all right to fund the denial of the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage. It is all right to fund the chemical assassination of innocent preborn children by means of chemical abortifacients. No, is not. It is evil do so, and efforts to “make America great again” and/or to provide for the national security and end the sellout of American national sovereignty to the multifaceted system of world governance that is more or less in place will fail repeatedly. Evil—and any compromise in principle with it—can never be the foundation of a just social order domestically or security internationally.

No matter the fact that President Donald J. Trump does see, however inchoately, the truth on various “trees”, he is not a truth teller when it comes to Planned Barrenhood as he does not know the truth about its evil inceptions, not that the truth would matter to him as he supports ready access to contraceptives as an established fact of life, if not as an actual good. The president does not know the truth because he does not know anything about First and Last Things, which why the administration of President Donald John Trump may be in mortal peril from deep state’s Robert Mueller as the “left” is more committed to their own evils than the “right” is committee to retarding them.

Trump’s Enabling of the Deep State Coup Against Him

As has been noted several times in the past, Donald John Trump was thoroughly unprepared to govern following his election on November 8, 2016. Neither he nor those who advised him took the time to research the necessity of having a “book” of names to fill the sub-Cabinet positions that are supposedly superior to the senior career civil service officers in each Cabinet department and Federal agency under a president’s direct authority. This is why many political positions in the Executive Branch of the government of the United States of America remain unfilled nearly thirteen months into the Trump administration.

President-elect Donald John Trump had no idea of the complexity of the Federal government and he did not even know how many subordinates work in the Executive Office of the President at the White House and across Seventeenth Street in the Old Executive Office Building. He admitted this to then President Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro when the two met in the White House after the November 8, 2016, election. Trump’s ignorance of the complexity of the Federal government left him in the most unfavorable position of leaving Obama/Soetoro’s political appointees in their jobs to serve as a veritable fifth column against him.

Admitting that Senate Democrats were holding up the nomination of their then colleague, United States Jefferson Beauregard Sessions (R-Alabama), to be confirmed as the Attorney General of the United States of America—an appointment that was certainly one of Trump’s most glaring blunders, Obama/Soetoro holdover Sally Yates was in a position to wreak havoc with the new administration as Acting Attorney General because the new president had given no thought as to cleaning out the Obama/Soetoro Ministry of Injustice, something that should have been one of his top priorities. Unwittingly, of course, he helped to perpetuate the ongoing conspiracy against him by this unpreparedness.

Perhaps even more to the point is that President-elect Trump should have removed James Brien Comey from his position as the Director of the American Praetorian Guard during the transition period, and it was an even further blunder for President Trump to believe that he could schmooze Comey into dropping all investigations into Lieutenant General Michael Flynn’s dealings with Russian officials and companies, no less the fact that Flynn was not forthcoming in a strangely-timed interview with, of all people, F.B.I. Special Agent Peter Strzok on January 24, 2017, about his, Flynn’s meeting with and Sergey Kisylak, the Russian Ambassador to the United States of America (for the mystifying details of Comey’s own initial views of Flynn’s interview, please see Byron York’s Comey Told Congress FBI Agents Did Not Think that Flynn Lied).

As noted earlier in this commentary, while Comey deserved to be fired, the timing of when he did so could not have been worse, especially since the president himself undercut the statement issued by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosentein outlining the reasons for the petulant Comey’s dismissal by telling both the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, and Russian Ambassador Kisylak last year that he had fired Comey because of the investigation into the Trump campaign’s nonexistent “collusion” with Russians to “rig” the election:

The White House maintained Comey was let go due to his handling of an investigation into Clinton’s private email server used during her tenure as secretary of state. But Trump has suggested that he considered the Russian investigation when he fired Comey. 

Comey also informed a Senate intelligence committee that Trump had asked for the FBI to drop its investigation into Flynn; the White House said Trump was not attempting to influence his FBI director.

Comey, too, told the committee that he offered Trump repeated reassurances that he was not under an FBI investigation.

After Comey’s dismissal, Trump met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Sergey Kislyak, the Russian ambassador at the time, where he shared classified information regarding ISIS threats, the Washington Post reported.

Trump told those officials that firing Comey – who he allegedly called a “nut job” – took “great pressure” off of him, The New York Times later reported. (What To Know About Trump and Russian Investigation.)

President Donald John Trump has shown that he is overconfident in his ability to win people over, and this narcissism did him no favors with James Brien Comey. While it is true that a president has the full authority to fire the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which is part of the Executive Branch of the government of the United States of America, at any time for any reason even if that president is under investigation, it is also true that firing Comey when he did and his own stated concerns about the “Russian investigation” that contradicted the Rosenstein letter to Comey outlining the reason for the latter’s dismal demonstrate Trump’s belief that things would just “blow over” the way that past troubles have.

Unfortunately for Trump, however, his Talmudic “fixer,” Roy Cohn, a sodomite, has been dead for nearly thirty-two years, and, unaided by clarity of mind that he would have if he had belief in, access to and cooperation with Sanctifying Grace, one steeped in naturalism and the egotism that flows from it all too easily will never be able to realize that he must let Christ the King fix his soul by converting to the true Faith before accepting injustices committed against him by others as just chastisements for his own many sins. It is only then that he would be able to pursue justice in an ordered manner.

It is this same overconfidence that the president has in his abilities to shape a “narrative” that prompted him to authorize a false statement seven months ago to explain why one of his sons, Donald Trump, Jr., met with a Russian woman, Natalia V. Veselnitskaya, who was, it appears, working with the Clinton-connected GPS Fusion firm that authorized the notorious Christopher Steele dossier. Veselnitskaya baited Trump, Jr., with “dirt” about Hillary Clinton, and the poor young man was dumb enough to meet the woman and his father was dumber to authorize a cover story that might be used against him by Deep State’s Robert Mueller (see Trump Story Was Not True).

After all, not fearful in the slightest of his own Particular Judgment—a phrase he has probably never heard in his entire seventy-one and one-half years of life, the vainglorious, thin-skinned egomaniac in the White House has lived a life of moral reprobation that has included his serial acts of adultery during his “three” marriages and, to quote a phrase used by the late attorney Edward Bennett Williams about one his clients’ penchant for lying pathologically, a tendency to make statements “at variance with objective truth.” (The name of Mr. Williams’s client? Well, he was a fellow owner of a professional sports team, a chap named George S. Steinbrenner III. Ever hear of him? He’s dead for nearly eight years now.) Trump’s lifelong recourse to lying and/or exaggerating the truth of a situation may yet wind up enabling the deep state coup against him to be successful. He, like the fictional bus driver for the Gotham Bus Company, Ralph Kramden, has a BIIIIIIIG MOUTH!!!!!!!!

To be clear, there is an ongoing deep state coup against the current president of the United States of America. This coup has been orchestrated with the mentality of the Stasi (the secret police that spied upon and repressed opponents of the East German Communist government from 1945 to 1989) by past and current officials of the government of the United States of America. This having been noted, however, one of the reasons that the coup may be successful is that the man against whom it is being waged is himself an amoral naturalist who believes that the ends justifies the means.

After all, a man whose Talmudic personal attorney, Michael Cohen, admitted to having “facilitated” a payment of $130,000 to an alleged “actress” to keep her quiet during the course of the presidential campaign in October of 2016 is one day going to find that there is a moral reckoning in this life, as well as to say nothing of the next, even if that reckoning comes in the form of injustices against him in the objective order of things by a deep state operative. Robert Mueller, who is intent on getting a presidential scalp. I mean, Mueller has the full cooperation of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and Trump’s deputy campaign manager, Rick Gates, and such cooperation would not have been sought unless they had something “offer” Deep State Mueller in exchange for a “good deal.” As Judge Andrew Napolitano noted two months ago now, reduction of charges pelas don't come free. What are they telling Mueller and his staff of partisan Democratic prosecutors?

To be sure, the United States Department of Justice contended on Friday, February 16, 2018, the Friday after Ash Wednesday, that thirteen Russian nationals did conspire to disseminate disinformation against Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton and United States Senator Rafael Edward Cruz (R-Texas) to favor United States Senator Bernard Sanders (Stalinst-Vermont) and Donald John Trump. The accusations were contained in an indictment obtained by “special counsel” Robert Mueller but do not include any allegation against American nationals and state that Russian operatives organized “pro” and “anti” Trump rallies in the Borough of Manhattan, City of New York, New York, on November 12, 2016. Agitation of this kind has only one source, the adversary, who uses whoever he can to foment it in the world.

The thirteen indicted Russian nationals reside in St. Petersburg, Russia, and there is little chance that they will be extradited to the United States of America, which means nothing to deep state Mueller, who wins the “news cycle” for the Sunday “talk” programs that have become “services” at which naturalists their homage to the secular high priests of alleged journalism. (See httIndictment Reveals Russians Also Organized Anti-Trump Rallies after the 2016 Election for details of the indictments announced two days ago.)

It is, of course, not “news” that the Russians tried to interfere in an American election as they have been wreaking havoc in American society ever since the Russian Revolution and the subsequent infiltration of colleges, universities, law schools, labor unions, Hollywood and Broadway, “music” and so-called “social justice” and “peace” movements. Much, although certainly not all, of the social unrest that started in the 1960s was generated by Soviet agents, including those who had infiltrated Holy Mother Church in the decades before the “Second” Vatican Council and then at that robber baron council itself. The Soviets/Russians have been in the business of playing the two false opposites of naturalism against themselves in the United States of America and other “free countries” for a century. It is not for nothing that Our Lady told Jacinta and Francisco Marto and Lucia dos Santos to pray for the Rosary for poor sinners for the conversion of Russia even before the Bolshevik Revolution that would take place on November 7, 2017, just twenty-six days after the Miracle of the Sun in the Cova da Iria near Fatima, Portugal.

A secular commentator put the he matter of the Mueller indictments this way:

The criminal indictment of 13 Russians for allegedly trying to influence “U.S. political and electoral processes” provides no evidence of any collusion between these Russians – or any other Russian officials – and the Trump campaign in the 2016 presidential race.

While the description of alleged Russian activities is very troubling, it is important to note that the indictment makes no mention of any hacking or other activity that changed ballots, vote counts, or actually interfered with the election.

n essence, the indictment is for trying to run the typical type of public misinformation campaign that the Soviet KGB was infamous for throughout the Cold War.

According to the indictment, the Russians themselves called what they were doing “information warfare against the United States” through social media platforms and other internet-based media. That included YouTube, Facebook, Instagram and Twitter.

The indictment says the Russians “knowingly and intentionally conspired to defraud” the U.S. and describes how these Russians allegedly conspired to hide their activities to prevent any disclosure of who they were and what they were doing.

Instead, “posing as U.S. persons and creating false U.S. personas, (the Russians) operated social media pages and groups designed to attract U.S. audiences,” the indictment alleges.

According to the indictment, the social media posts of the Russians addressed “divisive U.S. political and social issues, falsely claimed to be controlled by U.S. activists when, in fact, they were controlled” by the Russians. They even used “the stolen identities of real U.S. persons to post on social media” accounts, the indictment charged.

The 13 Russians all allegedly worked for the Internet Research Agency, a Russian-controlled company headquartered in St. Petersburg, Russia. It allegedly secretly received funding from two other Russian front companies.

According to the indictment, the Russians traveled to the U.S. “under false pretenses for the purpose of collecting intelligence” and also “procured and used computer infrastructure, based partly in the United States, to hide the Russian origin of their activities and to avoid detection by U.S. regulators and law enforcement.”

Using these fraudulent social media fronts, the Russians “posted derogatory information about a number of candidates,” the indictment said. Their operations allegedly included denigrating candidates such as Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, while supporting Bernie Sanders, Jill Stein, and Donald Trump.

According to the indictment, all of this was done by the accused without revealing their Russian identities. Most importantly, and no doubt to the disappointment of liberals, some of the defendants posing as Americans only communicated “with unwitting members, volunteers, and supporters of the Trump campaign involved in local community outreach, as well as grassroots groups that supported then-candidate Trump” (emphasis added), according to the indictment.

In other words, according to the indictment, to the extent these Russians had any contact with members of the Trump campaign, those individuals had no idea that these defendants were anything other than Americans who wanted to help the campaign. The Russians took elaborate steps to disguise their identity and their true motives.

These Russians didn’t just target the United States. They also went after “domestic audiences within the Russian Federation” as well other “foreign audiences in various countries,” the indictment says.

What were these secret Russians posting about? The indictment says they were instructed to “write about topics germane to the United States” such as foreign policy and economic issues. They were directed to create “political intensity through supporting racial groups, users dissatisfied with (the) social and economic situation and oppositional social movements.”

The Russians allegedly created “thematic group pages on social media sites” on everything from immigration to the Black Lives Matters movement. And they allegedly bought internet ads to support these pages.

The Russians apparently really wanted to create dissension. After the election, using their false U.S. identities, they allegedly organized and coordinated “political rallies in support of then president-elect Trump, while simultaneously using other false U.S. personas to organize and coordinate U.S. political rallies protesting the results of the 2016 U.S. presidential election,” according to the indictment.

Two of those rallies in New York on Nov. 12, 2016, were secretly organized by the Russians, one on the theme of “show your support for President-Elect Donald Trump,” while the second rally was on the theme of “Trump is NOT my President,” the indictment alleges.

These alleged Russian activities, if they occurred, violated numerous federal laws. Foreigners are banned from participating in political campaigns, including independently paying for political ads that support or oppose a candidate. According to the indictment, the Russians did that, too, when they bought political ads starting in April 2016 on “social media and other online sites expressly advocating for the election of then-candidate Trump or expressly opposing Clinton.”

These ads were allegedly paid for through PayPal, Russian bank accounts and credit cards “often registered in the names of fictitious U.S. personas.”

These are, obviously, serious allegations. If true, these Russians broke numerous federal laws.  But there is no evidence or allegation at this point that the Trump campaign – or any other presidential campaign – was aware of, or participated in, any nefarious activities designed to create social and political conflict in the U.S. (/Mueller Indictment Does not Show Truump Collusion with Russia.)

Committed to the spread of error and disinformation, the Soviets/Russians have long sought to interfere with elections in the supposedly “free” countries of the West whose deep state apparatchiks have so much “respect” for constitutional due process. It was during the Cold War that certain members of the organized crime family of the naturalist “left,” including then President James Earl Carter, Jr., the late United States Senator Edward Moore Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) and the late Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, Thomas P. O’Neil (D-Massachusetts), implored Soviet officials to them prevent former California Governor Ronald Wilson Reagan from being elected president on Tuesday, November 4, 1980, and then to thwart his re-election on Tuesday, November 6, 1984.

Michael Reagan, the adopted son of the late President Ronald Wilson Reagan and his true wife, Jane Wyman, who converted to Catholicism later in life at the behest of fellow actress Loretta Young, explained the efforts of Democrats to convince Soviet officials to collude with them to keep his father out of the White House in 1980—and then to get him out four years later after the Chappaquidick Kid tried to enlist the Soviets to help make him, Kennedy, the 1980 Democratic Party presidential nominee:

Did the Russians hack the 2016 election? The CIA, President Obama, and the media think so.

What did we learn from the hacked emails? Well, we learned that Hillary Clinton maintained "both a public and a private position" — one for the voters, one for Goldman Sachs. We learned that the DNC conspired against Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary. We learned about the corrupt inner workings of the Clinton Foundation. And on and on.

In short, we learned the truth.

Sure, it’s offensive that a foreign power would try to manipulate an American election. But it’s not all that different from what President Obama did in 2015, sending $350,000 (U.S. taxpayer dollars!) to a group called OneVoice, supposedly to further peace efforts in Israel. The money was actually spent on a failed attempt to unseat Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

President Obama and OneVoice tried to smear Netanyahu with lies. By contrast, the hacked emails, though stolen, told the truth. Clearly, Democrats are not opposed to manipulating elections. They are only opposed to losing elections.

When my father, Ronald Reagan, was president, Democrat politicians secretly connived with the Soviets in failed attempts to manipulate elections and defeat Ronald Reagan. Former intelligence officer Herbert Romerstein dug through the Soviet archives after the fall of the USSR and uncovered secret documents written by KGB agent Victor Chebrikov. The documents revealed that Senator Edward "Ted" Kennedy had sent a friend, former Senator John Tunney of California, to contact the KGB. Tunney’s mission: undermine then-President Jimmy Carter.

On March 5, 1980, as Kennedy was challenging Carter in the primaries, Tunney met with the KGB and urged the Soviets to sabotage Carter’s foreign policy efforts. It’s amazing: Two high-ranking Democrats — a sitting U.S. senator and a former senator — sought Soviet help in undermining American foreign policy and manipulating an American election.

One 1980 document stated that Kennedy offered to condemn President Carter’s policy toward the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in exchange for KGB help. News accounts of that period prove that Kennedy did, in fact, openly criticize Carter’s Afghanistan policy.

Even more amazing: President Carter himself was also willing to jump into bed with the Soviets. In the closing days of the 1980 presidential campaign, while trailing Ronald Reagan in the polls, Jimmy Carter sent a political ally, industrialist Armand Hammer, to a secret meeting with Soviet ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin at the embassy in Washington. Hammer asked the Soviets to help Carter win votes in key states by allowing Jewish "refuseniks" to emigrate to Israel. The Soviets rejected Hammer’s request.

In January 1984, former President Carter approached Ambassador Dobrynin in person. Carter wanted to derail President Reagan’s defense buildup, and asked for help from the Evil Empire in unseating President Reagan. It’s not clear if the Soviets gave Carter what he wanted.

Then there’s Speaker of the House Thomas P. "Tip" O’Neill. He privately told Ambassador Dobrynin that it was in everyone’s best interests if the Soviets would help the Democrats keep "that demagogue Reagan" from being re-elected. O’Neill warned Dobrynin that the "primitive instincts" of this "dangerous man" would plunge the world into war.

It must have amazed Anatoly Dobrynin that these prominent liberals — Ted Kennedy, Armand Hammer, Jimmy Carter, and Tip O’Neill — all viewed President Reagan as more dangerous than any Communist dictator. Historian Paul Kengor observed that the Soviet archives showed "the lengths to which some on the political left . . .were willing to go to stop Ronald Reagan."

Why did the KGB documents come to light? They surfaced because Ronald Reagan toppled the Evil Empire, ended the Cold War, and thwarted the joint Democrat-Soviet effort to manipulate the election.

Fast-forward to 2016. The Democrats are desperate to blame their election loss on Russian interference. President Obama has ordered a complete investigation, and says he wants a report on his desk before he leaves office. Well, Mr. President, I wanted you to have all the information, including how the Democrats tried to manipulate U.S. elections in 1980 and 1984 — with the help of the Russians.

Karma really sucks, doesn’t it?

Especially if you’re a Democrat. (How Democrats Try to Use Russia to Defeat My Father.)

Funny, neither United States Senator Mark Warner (D-Virginia) nor United States Representative Adam Schiff (D-California) have mentioned anything about this collusion. Well, to quote the late Arthur Gordon Linkletter, people are funny. Warner and Schiff are regular comedians. Their “comedy” is such, however, that they will never mention the very serious efforts of Democrats to get the Soviet Union to work with them against President Reagan nor make any reference to an article that appeared in Forbes magazine in 2009 shortly after the pro-abortion, pro-perversity Edward Moore Kennedy’s death on Tuesday, August 25, 2009, the Feast of Saint Louis IX, King of France:

Picking his way through the Soviet archives that Boris Yeltsin had just thrown open, in 1991 Tim Sebastian, a reporter for the London Times, came across an arresting memorandum. Composed in 1983 by Victor Chebrikov, the top man at the KGB, the memorandum was addressed to Yuri Andropov, the top man in the entire USSR. The subject: Sen. Edward Kennedy.

"On 9-10 May of this year," the May 14 memorandum explained, "Sen. Edward Kennedy's close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow." (Tunney was Kennedy's law school roommate and a former Democratic senator from California.) "The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov."

Kennedy's message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. "The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations," the memorandum stated. "These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign."

Kennedy made Andropov a couple of specific offers.

First he offered to visit Moscow. "The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA." Kennedy would help the Soviets deal with Reagan by telling them how to brush up their propaganda.

Then he offered to make it possible for Andropov to sit down for a few interviews on American television. "A direct appeal ... to the American people will, without a doubt, attract a great deal of attention and interest in the country. ... If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interviews. ... The senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side."

Kennedy would make certain the networks gave Andropov air time--and that they rigged the arrangement to look like honest journalism.

Kennedy's motives? "Like other rational people," the memorandum explained, "[Kennedy] is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations." But that high-minded concern represented only one of Kennedy's motives.

"Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in 1988," the memorandum continued. "Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the Democratic Party may officially turn to him to lead the fight against the Republicans and elect their candidate president."

Kennedy proved eager to deal with Andropov--the leader of the Soviet Union, a former director of the KGB and a principal mover in both the crushing of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution and the suppression of the 1968 Prague Spring--at least in part to advance his own political prospects.

In 1992, Tim Sebastian published a story about the memorandum in the London Times. Here in the U.S., Sebastian's story received no attention. In his 2006 book, The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism, historian Paul Kengor reprinted the memorandum in full. "The media," Kengor says, "ignored the revelation."

"The document," Kengor continues, "has stood the test of time. I scrutinized it more carefully than anything I've ever dealt with as a scholar. I showed the document to numerous authorities who deal with Soviet archival material. No one has debunked the memorandum or shown it to be a forgery. Kennedy's office did not deny it."

Why bring all this up now? No evidence exists that Andropov ever acted on the memorandum--within eight months, the Soviet leader would be dead--and now that Kennedy himself has died even many of the former senator's opponents find themselves grieving. Yet precisely because Kennedy represented such a commanding figure--perhaps the most compelling liberal of our day--we need to consider his record in full.

Doing so, it turns out, requires pondering a document in the archives of the politburo.

When President Reagan chose to confront the Soviet Union, calling it the evil empire that it was, Sen. Edward Kennedy chose to offer aid and comfort to General Secretary Andropov. On the Cold War, the greatest issue of his lifetime, Kennedy got it wrong. (Ted Kennedy Sought to Convince Soviets to Work Against Ronald Reagan.) 

I suppose there is “collusion” and then there is collusion. Hypocrisy rules the day in our artificial world of Judeo-Masonic naturalism.

The sanctimonious Democrats and the outraged Republicans do not want to understand is that the Middle Ages of Christendom was rife with intrigue as aspirants to thrones in various kingdoms sought to enlist the assistance of foreign kings and/or potentates. Many of the nefariously-minded among these plotters secured funding for their schemes from Talmudists to conjure up false evidence against rightful monarchs who governed in a just manner according to the mind of Christ the King as He has discharged It exclusively in His Catholic Church, and it is just the case today that America’s own false opposites are funded to the hilt by different factions of the synagogue.

The more things change…

Once Again, Catholicism, Nothing Else

All of this having been noted, however, most Americans just go about their business without being bothered too much about the myriad details of the ongoing coup. Sure, some polls indicate that a majority of Americans do believe that Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, Madame Defarge and the Federal Bureau of Investigation conducted illegal espionage on candidate Donald John Trump and have worked against him since his inauguration. In the long term, however, it is important to remember that most Americans do not give a moment’s thought to the daily slaughter of the innocent preborn by chemical or surgical means, to say nothing of the dispatching of innocent human beings in hospices and in hospitals by means of “palliative care.”

As insidious as the plot against a presidential candidate to make it appear that he was a veritable Manchurian Candidate and the subsequent coup to oust a sitting president based on a collection of falsehoods is, the United States of America will forever be needlessly divided by the errors of its false, naturalistic, religiously indifferentist and Pelagian founding principles. It is impossible to produce a well-ordered society when men blaspheme God openly and use liberty as a cloak for malice. This country is so deep in the abyss of religious indifferentism and moral relativism that it is customary for grandparents to think nothing of their grandchildren committing unrepentant sins of fornication and even of sodomy itself.

Donald John Trump cannot make a country “great again” that was never truly great in the first place as its people have never recognized Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as the King of all nations or have honored His Most Blessed Mother as Our Immaculate Queen. National greatness can never be achieved when men sin wantonly and unrepentantly as order within a nation depends upon order within souls, and order within souls is the fruit of men abiding habitually in a state of Sanctifying Grace.

Naturalism advances evil either radically or incrementally. In the end, however, every kind of naturalism produces evil in its wake, and evil brings down upon men and their nations a variety of just chastisements sent by God Himself to call them to correct lest their immortal souls perish for all eternity.

The principal purpose of those who govern is to pursue the common temporal good in accord with the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law to advance man’s Last End, the possession of the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost for all eternity in Heaven, something that Pope Saint Pius X summarized so very clearly in Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906:

That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man's eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man's supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it. The same thesis also upsets the order providentially established by God in the world, which demands a harmonious agreement between the two societies. Both of them, the civil and the religious society, although each exercises in its own sphere its authority over them. It follows necessarily that there are many things belonging to them in common in which both societies must have relations with one another. Remove the agreement between Church and State, and the result will be that from these common matters will spring the seeds of disputes which will become acute on both sides; it will become more difficult to see where the truth lies, and great confusion is certain to arise. Finally, this thesis inflicts great injury on society itself, for it cannot either prosper or last long when due place is not left for religion, which is the supreme rule and the sovereign mistress in all questions touching the rights and the duties of men. Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State. (Pope Saint Pius X, Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906.)

The fact that the conditions favorable to a Catholic state do not exist at this time does nothing to detract from the immutability of the Catholic teaching explicated so clearly by Pope Saint Pius X.

Indeed, the fact that the conditions favorable to a Catholic state do not exist at this time is the result of the proliferation of a deliberate, planned attack by the adversary himself upon it by using the combined, interrelated errors of Protestantism and Judeo-Masonry to uproot the Holy Cross as the foundation of personal and social order in Europe and to make sure it was not the foundation of such order here in the United States of America.

Father Denis Fahey made this exact point in The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World:


By the grace of the Headship of the Mystical Body, our Lord Jesus Christ is both Priest and King of redeemed mankind and, as such, exercises a twofold influence upon us. Firstly, as a Priest, He communicates to us the supernatural life of grace by which we, while ever remaining distinct from God, can enter into the vision and love of the Blessed Trinity. We can thus become one with God, not, of course, in the order of substance or being, but in the order of operation, of the immaterial union of vision and love. The Divine Nature is the principle of the Divine Vision and Love, and by grace we are ‘made partakers of the Divine Nature.’ This pure Catholic doctrine is infinitely removed from Masonic pantheism. Secondly, as King, our Lord exercises an exterior influence on us by His government of us. As King, He guides and directs us socially and individually, in order to dispose all things for the reception of the Supernatural Life which He, as Priest, confers.

Society had been organized in the thirteenth century and even down to the sixteenth, under the banner of Christ the King. Thus, in spite of deficiencies and imperfections, man’s divinization, through the Life that comes from the sacred Humanity of Jesus, was socially favoured. Modern society, under the influence of Satan, was to be organized on the opposite principle, namely, that human nature is of itself divine, that man is God, and, therefore, subject to nobody. Accordingly, when the favourable moment had arrived, the Masonic divnization of human nature found its expression in the Declaration of the Rights of Man in 1789The French Revolution ushered in the struggle for the complete organization of the world around the new divinity–Humanity. In God’s plan, the whole organization of a country is meant to aid the development of a country is meant to aid the development of the true personality of the citizens through the Mystical Body of Christ. Accordingly, the achievement of true liberty for a country means the removal of obstacles to the organized social acceptance of the Divine Plan. Every revolution since 1789 tends, on the contrary, to the rejection of that plan, and therefore to the enthronement of man in the place of God. The freedom at which the spirit of the revolution aims is that absolute independence which refuses submission to any and every order. It is the spirit breathed by the temptation of the serpent: ‘For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened; and you shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.’ Man decided then that he would himself lay down the order of good and evil in the place of God; then and now it is the same attitude. (Father Denis Fahey, The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World, p. 27.)   

The civil state has an obligation to recognize the true Faith and to pursue the common temporal good in light of man's Last End: the possession of the glory of the Beatific Vision of Father, Son and Holy Ghost in Heaven for all eternity. This obligation is immutable even though the anti-Incarnational civil state of Modernity is founded in a revolution against it. That which is true does not cease being true simply because men reject it and then base their social structures upon its rejection.

While it is true that Holy Mother Church accommodates herself to the actual situations in which her children live, exhorting them to make use of existing laws to their benefit and thus to the good of souls, she never ceases to proclaim the truth even when men reject it.

Although the counterfeit church of conciliarism has embraced the falsehood of a "healthy secularity," the Catholic Church has taught from time immemorial that those who exercise authority in a civil government have an obligation to subordinate all things that pertain to the good of souls to the Deposit of Faith that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has entrusted exclusively to the Catholic Church for Its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication. Yes, I well understand that even most Catholics, no less thorough-going naturalists or agnostics or atheists, find this to be utter madness to the point of frothing at the mouth as though they are suffering from hydrophobia.

It is nevertheless the case that the Catholic Church has indeed condemned the separation of Church and State has she has insisted that she has the authority from her Invisible Head and Divine Bridegroom, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, to interpose herself with civil officials in grave matters pertaining to the eternal good of souls after--and only after--the exhausting of her Indirect Power of teaching and preaching and exhortation Pope Leo XIII, writing in Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885, made it abundantly clear that the civil state has an obligation to subordinate itself in all that pertains to the good of souls to the true religion:

As a consequence, the State, constituted as it is, is clearly bound to act up to the manifold and weighty duties linking it to God, by the public profession of religion. Nature and reason, which command every individual devoutly to worship God in holiness, because we belong to Him and must return to Him, since from Him we came, bind also the civil community by a like law. For, men living together in society are under the power of God no less than individuals are, and society, no less than individuals, owes gratitude to God who gave it being and maintains it and whose everbounteous goodness enriches it with countless blessings. Since, then, no one is allowed to be remiss in the service due to God, and since the chief duty of all men is to cling to religion in both its teaching and practice-not such religion as they may have a preference for, but the religion which God enjoins, and which certain and most clear marks show to be the only one true religion -- it is a public crime to act as though there were no God. So, too, is it a sin for the State not to have care for religion as a something beyond its scope, or as of no practical benefit; or out of many forms of religion to adopt that one which chimes in with the fancy; for we are bound absolutely to worship God in that way which He has shown to be His will. All who rule, therefore, would hold in honor the holy name of God, and one of their chief duties must be to favor religion, to protect it, to shield it under the credit and sanction of the laws, and neither to organize nor enact any measure that may compromise its safety. This is the bounden duty of rulers to the people over whom they rule. For one and all are we destined by our birth and adoption to enjoy, when this frail and fleeting life is ended, a supreme and final good in heaven, and to the attainment of this every endeavor should be directed. Since, then, upon this depends the full and perfect happiness of mankind, the securing of this end should be of all imaginable interests the most urgent. Hence, civil society, established for the common welfare, should not only safeguard the wellbeing of the community, but have also at heart the interests of its individual members, in such mode as not in any way to hinder, but in every manner to render as easy as may be, the possession of that highest and unchangeable good for which all should seek. Wherefore, for this purpose, care must especially be taken to preserve unharmed and unimpeded the religion whereof the practice is the link connecting man with God. (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.) 

This is why the details of the current deep state coup against a naturalist and hedonist who has been faithless to each of his “three wives” and who has hosted “pageants” that have offended the Holy Virtues of Purity and Modesty, leading many to commit sins of thought and deed as a result, while interesting in and of themselves, are really very much beside the point. A country that is founded on error and promotes it and every kind of sinful activity in the name of “liberty” here and abroad is on very borrowed time, and no man who acts and speaks as does Donald John Trump has any knowledge of Who God is or what He has revealed to us exclusively through His true Church.

Donald John Trump’s view of “God” is Judeo-Masonic, and, as Pope Leo XIII noted in Humanum Genus, April 20, 1884, it matters not that he is not any kind of member of the Masonic federation:

For, from what We have above most clearly shown, that which is their ultimate purpose forces itself into view -- namely, the utter overthrow of that whole religious and political order of the world which the Christian teaching has produced, and the substitution of a new state of things in accordance with their ideas, of which the foundations and laws shall be drawn from mere naturalism.

What We have said, and are about to say, must be understood of the sect of the Freemasons taken generically, and in so far as it comprises the associations kindred to it and confederated with it, but not of the individual members of them. There may be persons amongst these, and not a few who, although not free from the guilt of having entangled themselves in such associations, yet are neither themselves partners in their criminal acts nor aware of the ultimate object which they are endeavoring to attain. In the same way, some of the affiliated societies, perhaps, by no means approve of the extreme conclusions which they would, if consistent, embrace as necessarily following from their common principles, did not their very foulness strike them with horror. Some of these, again, are led by circumstances of times and places either to aim at smaller things than the others usually attempt or than they themselves would wish to attempt. They are not, however, for this reason, to be reckoned as alien to the masonic federation; for the masonic federation is to be judged not so much by the things which it has done, or brought to completion, as by the sum of its pronounced opinions. (Pope Leo XIII, Humanum Genus, April 20, 1884.)  

Yes, it is the sum of the "pronounced opinions" of Judeo-Masonry that matters, not any specific program or line of action, although there have been programs and lines of action (the establish of public schools and the mandating of curricula of study, legislation liberalizing divorce, attempts at imposing laws forbidding the wearing of clerical garb in public and of the operation of parochial schools, the promotion of contraception and abortion and licentious perversity in civil law and public culture) that members of the lodges have undertaken over the course of this nation's history that were meant to be detrimental to the Faith. The Judeo-Masonic spirit convinces even believing Catholics that the social encyclical letters of our true popes don't apply to the United States of America, and that simple statements of Catholic truth, including the one below from Pope Saint Pius X's Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910, have been made "obsolete" over the course of time:

For there is no true civilization without a moral civilization, and no true moral civilization without the true religion: it is a proven truth, a historical fact. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.) 

The following passage from Pope Leo XIII’s Humanum Genus, April 20, 1884, summarized the essence of this Judeo-Masonic ethos very succinctly:

But the naturalists go much further; for, having, in the highest things, entered upon a wholly erroneous course, they are carried headlong to extremes, either by reason of the weakness of human nature, or because God inflicts upon them the just punishment of their pride. Hence it happens that they no longer consider as certain and permanent those things which are fully understood by the natural light of reason, such as certainly are -- the existence of God, the immaterial nature of the human soul, and its immortality. The sect of the Freemasons, by a similar course of error, is exposed to these same dangers; for, although in a general way they may profess the existence of God, they themselves are witnesses that they do not all maintain this truth with the full assent of the mind or with a firm conviction. Neither do they conceal that this question about God is the greatest source and cause of discords among them; in fact, it is certain that a considerable contention about this same subject has existed among them very lately. But, indeed, the sect allows great liberty to its votaries, so that to each side is given the right to defend its own opinion, either that there is a God, or that there is none; and those who obstinately contend that there is no God are as easily initiated as those who contend that God exists, though, like the pantheists, they have false notions concerning Him: all which is nothing else than taking away the reality, while retaining some absurd representation of the divine nature.

When this greatest fundamental truth has been overturned or weakened, it follows that those truths, also, which are known by the teaching of nature must begin to fall -- namely, that all things were made by the free will of God the Creator; that the world is governed by Providence; that souls do not die; that to this life of men upon the earth there will succeed another and an everlasting life.

When these truths are done away with, which are as the principles of nature and important for knowledge and for practical use, it is easy to see what will become of both public and private morality. We say nothing of those more heavenly virtues, which no one can exercise or even acquire without a special gift and grace of God; of which necessarily no trace can be found in those who reject as unknown the redemption of mankind, the grace of God, the sacraments, and the happiness to be obtained in heaven. We speak now of the duties which have their origin in natural probity. That God is the Creator of the world and its provident Ruler; that the eternal law commands the natural order to be maintained, and forbids that it be disturbed; that the last end of men is a destiny far above human things and beyond this sojourning upon the earth: these are the sources and these the principles of all justice and morality.

If these be taken away, as the naturalists and Freemasons desire, there will immediately be no knowledge as to what constitutes justice and injustice, or upon what principle morality is founded. And, in truth, the teaching of morality which alone finds favor with the sect of Freemasons, and in which they contend that youth should be instructed, is that which they call "civil," and "independent," and "free," namely, that which does not contain any religious belief. But, how insufficient such teaching is, how wanting in soundness, and how easily moved by every impulse of passion, is sufficiently proved by its sad fruits, which have already begun to appear. For, wherever, by removing Christian education, this teaching has begun more completely to rule, there goodness and integrity of morals have begun quickly to perish, monstrous and shameful opinions have grown up, and the audacity of evil deeds has risen to a high degree. All this is commonly complained of and deplored; and not a few of those who by no means wish to do so are compelled by abundant evidence to give not infrequently the same testimony.

Moreover, human nature was stained by original sin, and is therefore more disposed to vice than to virtue. For a virtuous life it is absolutely necessary to restrain the disorderly movements of the soul, and to make the passions obedient to reason. In this conflict human things must very often be despised, and the greatest labors and hardships must be undergone, in order that reason may always hold its sway. But the naturalists and Freemasons, having no faith in those things which we have learned by the revelation of God, deny that our first parents sinned, and consequently think that free will is not at all weakened and inclined to evil. On the contrary, exaggerating rather the power and the excellence of nature, and placing therein alone the principle and rule of justice, they cannot even imagine that there is any need at all of a constant struggle and a perfect steadfastness to overcome the violence and rule of our passions.

Wherefore we see that men are publicly tempted by the many allurements of pleasure; that there are journals and pamphlets with neither moderation nor shame; that stage-plays are remarkable for license; that designs for works of art are shamelessly sought in the laws of a so-called verism; that the contrivances of a soft and delicate life are most carefully devised; and that all the blandishments of pleasure are diligently sought out by which virtue may be lulled to sleep. Wickedly, also, but at the same time quite consistently, do those act who do away with the expectation of the joys of heaven, and bring down all happiness to the level of mortality, and, as it were, sink it in the earth. Of what We have said the following fact, astonishing not so much in itself as in its open expression, may serve as a confirmation. For, since generally no one is accustomed to obey crafty and clever men so submissively as those whose soul is weakened and broken down by the domination of the passions, there have been in the sect of the Freemasons some who have plainly determined and proposed that, artfully and of set purpose, the multitude should be satiated with a boundless license of vice, as, when this had been done, it would easily come under their power and authority for any acts of daring.

What refers to domestic life in the teaching of the naturalists is almost all contained in the following declarations: that marriage belongs to the genus of commercial contracts, which can rightly be revoked by the will of those who made them, and that the civil rulers of the State have power over the matrimonial bond; that in the education of youth nothing is to be taught in the matter of religion as of certain and fixed opinion; and each one must be left at liberty to follow, when he comes of age, whatever he may prefer. To these things the Freemasons fully assent; and not only assent, but have long endeavored to make them into a law and institution. For in many countries, and those nominally Catholic, it is enacted that no marriages shall be considered lawful except those contracted by the civil rite; in other places the law permits divorce; and in others every effort is used to make it lawful as soon as may be. Thus, the time is quickly coming when marriages will be turned into another kind of contract -- that is into changeable and uncertain unions which fancy may join together, and which the same when changed may disunite. (Pope Leo XIII, Humanum Genus, April 20, 1884.)

This is a perfect description of the Judeo-Masonic world in which we live. No amount of the insane babbling of naturalists is ever going to “fix” that which is premised upon one falsehood after another. There is no getting the Humpty Dumpty Protestant and Judeo-Masonic of naturalism back together again as it is of, for and by the devil himself. The battle of the “false opposites” of the “left” and the “right” only result in one thing: more naturalism, which means more statism and more pressure to accept evil or face the might of caesar’s wrath and/or more pressure to make excuses when a member of the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist “right” who is under attack by ruthless opponents supports programs that are evil further bankrupts a country monetarily that has always been bankrupt theologically and morally.

The Protestant and Judeo-Masonic ethos that is at the heart of the American founding and has precipitated many errors and the conflicts between false opposites of naturalism ever since was described as follows by William Thomas Walsh in Characters of the Inquisition:

(1) The isolation of the human soul from God. The indifference and godlessness of our day are directly traceable to the triumph of Manicheanism under the guise of Sixteenth Century Protestantism. Many thoughtful Protestants are now beginning to see that the Revolt inflicted a ghastly wound upon Christianity without adding anything to it. Such positive Christian elements as the Reformers taught were already in Catholicism. As for the aberrations – Luther's doctrine of grace, Calvin's predestination – how many who call themselves Protestants today believe in the divinity of Christ; a Methodist will say he believes in the existence of some vague Life Force, not a personal God. With each generation the descendants of the men and women who were led from the Catholic fold by plausible reformers promising them primitive Christianity, become less and less concerned with any religion, and more the prey of Communism, Fascism or some other panacea with new false hopes of creating something permanently good on the frail structure of human nature alone. These will not even listen to the ancient wisdom of the Catholic Church; as Mr. Chesterton wrote somewhere, “They are tired of hearing what they have never heard.”

(2) Moral confusion and nihilism. There is and can be no objective and eternal standard of conduct, except that of Christ, as interpreted by His Church. All the old sins and follies that the Church began to drive into exterior darkness two thousand years ago, have come back to destroy the peace of individuals and the harmony of society. Divorce is destroying the family, murder the individual. The free love of the Beghards and the Alumbrados is corrupting the young. What is the prevalent craze for self-destruction but a manifestation of the old Manichean despair of life? And what is the fatal race-suicide known euphemistically as “birth control” but the old nastiness of the Manichees, born of cowardice, sensuality, distrust of life itself and the Author of life? Usury, which the medieval schoolmen called theft, and capitalism, which in its reprehensible form they identified as one of the seven deadly sins (greed), are defended by dull college professors in the name of economic law; while the enslaved masses everywhere pay tribute to the modern Mammon.

(3) Intellectual confusion. The Catholic Church speaks with authority in our world in defense of the human reason against a thousand sophistries having their origin in obscure feelings or prejudices. It has become the fashion in certain academic circles to speak disdainfully of logic itself, and of the law of cause and effect, as if these were relics of medieval barbarism. It was not merely a coincidence that a Manichean thought, or rather feeling has appeared extensively in our literature, and in some of the best of it, wherever the Protestant Revolt has prepared for the return of darkness and slavery. Consider the Manichean attitudes in some of Thomas Hardy's work – especially in Jude the Obscure, in The Return of the Native, and in that frightful sneer at the end of Tess; in Ibsen's Master Builder and Hedda Gabler; in Shelley's Defense of Poetry; in the Autobiography of Mark Twain; in such plays as the Piper of Josephine Preston Peabody, The Scarecrow of Percy Mackaye, and a great deal of O'Neill's work; even in that calm Victorian, Tennyson, who puts into the mouth of a Catholic King a sentiment that would have set Bernard Gui on the trail of any Albigensian:

“For why is all around us here,

As if some lesser god has made the world,

but had not force to make it as he would,

Until the High God enter from beyond . . .?”

Not to press the point too far – for some liberty must be allowed the facies of poets! – this and much more that could be mentioned is clearly symptomatic of the sickness which afflicts a world which will not turn to Christ.

(4) Totalitarianism. Is not the present evolution of government a retrogression toward heresies that the medieval Inquisitors combatted with all their might? Communism, first propagated by the Freemasons on the ruins of Protestantism, finally set up in Russia the absolute state which the Fraticelli had invoked (in so far as the state of science and communications would permit them to envisage it): it was a perversion also of their concept of primitive Christianity, without private property. The Nazi State, set up partly in imitation of Mussolini's Fascism, as a natural reaction to Communism, had also another parentage. The ideal of the omnipotent absolute state, for whose sake the individual exists, was expressed in very similar terms on behalf of Kaiserism by Bernhardi, in 1911; and Bernhadi's teacher was Treitchke, who in turn acknowledged his indebtedness to Martin Luther. (I have developed this idea further in an article published in The Sign, with quotations from Luther and others, in February, 1940.) Thus in two different directions we trace the origins of the Totalitarian State, toward which, by imitation or reaction, the governments of the whole world are tending, to breaches made by medieval heretics in the walls of the City of God, in despite of the watchdogs of the Inquisition.

The list could be extended. All the evils that the Inquisition sought to repress, and did in great measure repress, have returned to the modern world, grown great and ravening, to feed upon our children. What then of the evils incidental to the Inquisition itself – torture, loss of liberty and even life, occasional deceit and hypocracy? Are we better in those regards? Can anyone think of the torture cells maintained by the Reds in Spain in 1936-7 to drive their victims mad, (the cells constructed by the “Loyalist” Reds “were described as hollow cement blocks four feet height and containing a cement chair and bed, built in a slanting position so that it was impossible for a prisoner to sit or lie down for more than a minute at a time. Raised cement blocks were arranged in a crazy-quilt fashion on the floor to prevent prisoners from standing up. The prosecutor (in the Cik trial) charged that the Loyalists placed rings in the eyelids of prisoners to keep them open in the glare of powerful lights.  Some of the witnesses testified that the prisoners were denied food and water and were flogged, sometimes while suspended head down from the ceiling or while cold water was showered upon them. Witnesses said the cells were pained with hundreds of yellow spots, broad black lines and scores of black and white cubes.” –  Associated Press, dispatch from Barcelona, June 13, 1939, published in the New York Sun and other newspapers, Torquemada would have shrunk from the very idea of such diabolical ingenuity.) of the unspeakable butcheries of civilians and priests by both Germans and Russians in Poland in 1939, of the unrestrained villainy of modern warfare, of all our nightmare of hypocrisy, abortion, child-suicide, unpunished murder, and what is worse even that all these monstrosities, disdain for the Deity Himself, without wondering whether we have really progressed to a point where we can look patronizingly upon the memory of a Torquemada?

All the worst miseries which men everywhere endure today, while they begin “withering away for fear and expectations of what shall come? – famine and pestilence and civil wars whose shadows may already be discerned on the dim walls of the futre – all these have been foretold by the Popes of modern tomes, on after another pointing out the causes that must lead to such effects, and pleading with mankind to turn away from them to the only possible remedy, held forth by Christ in the Catholic Church. Against all the progressive steps in the disintegration of the European Order, from the Manichees to the Communists and other state worshippers, The Vicars of Christ have uttered solemn and deliberate warnings, based upon ample information. Very soon after the reorganization of the Freemasonry by the Grand Lodge of England, in Spain, the situation was clearly seen at Rome; and in 1738, Pope Clement XII uttered the first formal denunciation of this particular heresy, this oriental dissolvent in modern guise. “If they were not doing evil, they would not fear the light,” he said of all societies, without any exception, of the Masonic type or affiliation. He forbade Catholics to join them, favor, support, shelter, or defend them in any way, or even to receive the members into their homes. Any Catholic so doing was excommunicated by the very fact, and the ban could be removed only by the Pope himself, save in the danger of death. This, as we have seen, did not deter vain, ambitious or stupid Catholics, even among the clergy here and there, from being drawn into an organization which pretended to be social and philanthropic, and masked its real aims and nature from all its neophytes, from all except a few initiates. The Popes of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries continued to raise their voices against the stealthy advances of this mystery of iniquity. Pius XII accused the Freemasons of being the chief causes of the revolutionary upheavals (antichristian in their direction) of Europe. Gregory XVI said they were guilty of sacrilege, infamy and blasphemy, and promoted heresy and revolution. Pius IX applied to them the words that Christ addressed to the scribes and pharisees who sought His destruction, “You are of your father the devil, and the works of your father you will do.” He called them the wolves in sheep's clothing against whom Our Lord and the Apostles had warned the first Christians. In another letter he referred to them as “the Synagogue of Satan . . . whose object is to blot out the Church of  Christ, were it possible from the face of the Universe.” Renewing the condemnations of his predecessors, he explicitly included Freemasons in America “and in whatever part of the world they may be.”

Pope Leo XIII warned the world that Freemasonry was the real source and center of Communist and Atheist propaganda. “In this insane and wicked endeavor,” he wrote, “we may almost see the implacable hatred and spirit of revenge with which Satan himself is inflamed against Jesus Christ.” In that same magnificent encyclical he cried out to all Catholics, laymen as well as priests, to “tear the mask off the face? Of the hidden menace. If not, he said, “the ruin and overthrow of all things must necessarily follow.: (Encyclical, Humanum genus, 1884.)

This tremendous prophecy, deliberately uttered by the Vicar of Christ, and now being fulfilled with terrible literalness as the flimsy structure built of the sands of the great apostacy of the Sixteenth Century comes crashing down about us, has of course been generally disregarded by the world, as the prophecies of Christ were disregarded. Other profound observations from Leo and his successors have met the same characteristically Christian fate; nevertheless they remain as truth.

It was Pius XI who pointed out the close spiritual affinity of Liberalism and Socialism, even when they waged a sham battle across the arena of the world. “Let us bear in mind,” he wrote in Quadragesimo Anno, “that the parent of this cultural Socialism was Liberalism, and that its offspring will be Bolshevism.” He had no more regard for one of these antichristian aberrations than for the other. Liberalism, he said, had shown as early as 1891 “its utter impotence to find a right solution of the social question,” while Socialism “would have exposed human society to still graver dangers by offering a remedy much more disastrous than the evil it designed to cure.” (Quadragesimo Anno, 1931)

This great Pope remarked that since the time of Leo XIII the “capitalistic economic regime” had “penetrated everywhere”; and that:

“it is patent that in our days not alone is wealth accumulated, but immense power and despotic economic domination are concentrated in the hands of a few, and that those few are frequently not the owners, but only the trustees and directors of invested funds, who administer them at their good pleasure. This power becomes particularly irresistible when exercises by those who, because they hold and control money, are able also to govern credit and determine its allotment, for that reason supplying, so to speak, the lifeblood to the entire economic body, and grasping, as it were, in their hands the very soul of production, so that no one dare breathe against their will. This accumulation of power, the characteristic note of the modern economic order, is a natural result of limitless free competition which permits the survival of those only who are the strongest, which often means those who fight most relentlessly, who pay least heed to the dictates of conscience. This concentration of power has led to a threefold struggle for domination. First, there is the struggle for dictatorship in the economic sphere itself; then, the fierce battle to acquire control of the state, so that its resources and authority may be abused in the economic struggles. Finally, the clash between states themselves. . .  The state, which should be the supreme arbiter, ruling in kingly fashion far above all party contention, intent only upon justice and the common good, has become instead a slave, bound over to the service of human passion and greed.” (Quadragesimo Anno, 1931)

Elsewhere, of course, Pius condemned the totalitarian theory which, reacting against the evil here described, rushed to the opposite extreme, and erroneously hald that the individual existed for the benefit of the state. None of these panaceas could reach the center of the disorder; they were all, inf fact, so many forms of Socialism, one fighting the other, but all tending toward a common end. With characteristic acuteness, Pius noticed that since the time of Leo XIII Socialism had broken up into various forms, of which he condemned even the most moderate.

“The question arises, or is unwarrantably proposed in certain quarters, whether the principles of Christian truth also could not be somewhat moderated and attenuated, so as to meet Socialism, as it were, halfway upon a common ground. Some are engaged by the empty hope of gaining Socialists in this way to our cause. But such hope are vain. Those who wish to be apostles among the Socialists should preach the Christian truth whole and entire, openly and sincerely, without any connivance with error. If they wish in truth to be heralds of the Gospel, let them convince Socialists that their demands, in so far as they are just, are defended much more cogently by the principles of Christian faith, and are promoted much more efficaciously by the power of Christian charity . . . Whether Socialism be considered as a doctrine or as an historical fact, or as a movement, if it really remain socialism, it cannot be brought into harmony with the dogmas of the Catholic Church, even after it has yielded to truth and justice in the points. We have mentioned; the reason being that it conceives human society in a way utterly alien to Christian truth.

“According to Christian doctrine, Man, endowed with a social nature, is place here on earth in order that he may spend his life in society, and under authority ordained by God, that he may develop and evolve to the full all his faculties to the praise and glory of his Creator; and that, by fulfilling faithfully the duties of his station, he may attain to temporal and eternal happiness. Socialism, on the contrary, entirely ignorant of or unconcerned about his sublime end both of individuals and of society, affirms that living in community was instituted merely for the sake of advantages which it brings to mankind. Goods are produced more efficiently by a suitable distribution of labor than by the scattered efforts of individuals. Hence the Socialist argue that economic production, of which they see only the material side, must necessarily be carried on collectively, and that because of this necessity men must surrender and submit themselves wholly to society with a view to the production of wealth. Indeed, the possession of the greatest possible amount of temporal goods is esteemed so highly, that man's higher goods, not excepting liberty must, they claim, be subordinated and even sacrificed to the exigencies of efficient production. They affirm that the loss of human dignity, which result from these socialized methods of production, will be easily compensated for by the abundance of good produced in common and accring to the individual who can turn them at his will to the comforts and culture of life. Society, therefore, as the Socialist conceives it, is, on the one hand, impossible and unthinkable without the use of compulsion of the most excessive kind: on the other it fosters a false liberty, since in such a scheme no place if found for true social authority, which is not based on temporal and material advantages, but descends from God alone, the Creator and Last End of all things. If, like all errors, Socialism, contains a certain element of truth (and this founded upon a doctrine of human society peculiarly its own, which is opposed to true Christianity . . . No one can be at the same time a sincere Catholic and a true Socialist." (Quadragesimo Anno, 1931)

Since Pius XI wrote those words in 1931, the nations of the world generally have taken long steps toward various forms of Socialism which, however different they appeared on first view, are more and more revealing themselves as essentially the same. Communism, the most radical and patently godless form was not too remote ideologically from its pretended rival Nazi-Socialism, to lie down beside it in the same foul nest, when it suited both to beget a second great war. Other nations, loving freedom, have been conquered and drawn into the two Socialist orbits. Still others have imitated Socialist regimes by reaction, or by military necessity. Few have been able to maintain fully the sacredness of human personality. The tiny nations of Portugal and Ireland, both thoroughly Catholic, are glorious exceptions. Of Spain, I have high hopes; may the Catholic spirit of General Franco prevail, and not certain others, very different and very crafty, which still exist in the country and even in high places, hungry for power. England, while fighting Hitler, has kept a friendly hand mysteriously outstretched toward his partner, Stalin; and whatever the outcome of the present war, is likely to emerge from it shackled to some form of Socialism.

Here in the United States Socialism has made more cautious but not the less evident gains. It is rather amusing, and at the same time depressing, to see that likable Socialist Mr. Norman Thomas denouncing both Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Wilkie as champions of peace-time conscription, which he says (and I think rightly) must lead toward dictatorship, and to realize at the same time that both these gentlemen are fundamentally (that is to say spiritually) as Socialistic as he is. If we judge not by what a man says he is or even believes he is, but by the antithesis set up by Pope Pius XI as a test of spirits, this conclusion becomes inescapable. Mr. Roosevelt has tried to save the country by curtailing production. Mr. Wilkie proposes to do it by speeding up curtailing production,  Yet both these Liberals, as they proudly call themselves, are interested primarily in production; in the material, in the things of this world. It is difficult, of course, to see how a politician could wholly free himself from such concerns, and I am not criticising either, or discussing any issues, political or economic, between them – whoever is elected will be entitled to our obedience, under the Constitution, and no doubt, will do his best according to his lights. I would only suggest that niether has the lights necessary to solve the social problem. (It is true that both have spoken reverently in public of Divine Providence; but so, for that matter has Hitler; so have the politicians of every country, except godless Russian..) Not too much must be expected from these well-meaning statesmen. They are children of a Liberalism evolving rapidly into Socialism. Both are high in the ranks of a secret society proscribed and abhorred by the Catholic Church, and denounced by Pope Leo XIII as the true source of Socialism and Communism, and the general corruption of European and world society. They are servants of the same invisible masters, to whose obedience they are bound by oaths – masters who may not even be in America, but in Europe or Asia; masters of whose exact identity they may themselves be ignorant. When they speak of “Democracy,” one must remember this background, and the fact that the elastic word has been used by many Liberals to include even the tyranny of Soviet Russia. Can Democracy be anything but a farce among men, when some of them, including the most influential, belong to a secret society whose real aims and principles have been repeatedly disclosed as political and anti-Christian? The French Catholics, in the sad clarifying light of catastrophe, have recently found the answer to this question. As Our Holy Father Pope Pius XII said in welcoming the French Ambassador after the tragedy of last summer, “Like lightening which flashes through heavy clouds, the devastating lights of war . . . have torn from the eyes of all careful and sincere observers that veil of prejudices which for half a century the voice of the Church, and especially the reiterated warnings of the last Popes, Our venerated predecessors, did not succeed in penetrating . . . May the lessons of this bitter period in acts which permit us to hope in the future for a revival of Christian spirit, particularly in the education of youth . . .” and  “the creation of a new Christian order . . . When will this desired hour arrive? God preserves the secret of it; but We beseech Him to hasten its advent.”

All this is part of a universal conflict between the church of Christ and the Prince of This World.  All other conflicts are either subsidiary to this or camouflages for it. Just now there seems to be a deadly strife between international capitalism, intrenched in the United States and gradually leading this country toward a State Socialism or (what amounts to the same thing) toward a State Capitalism, and on the other side, the seemingly more godless and godless forms of Socialism beyond the seas. Yet if Nazi-Socialism and Bolshevism, after so violent a sham battle, could so speedily come to terms, for a purpose convenient to both, what is to prevent this American Socialism, now in the making and already accepted and propagated by the dominant educational forces of this county, from arriving at mutually agreeable arrangements with both the Soviet and the Nazi forms of Socialism, whenever it may suit the real leaders on both sides to do so? Within a generation we have seen our Liberal politicians denounce the Soviet, cultivate friendly relations with it, and denounce it again – this time more coyly. As the world grows smaller in time, may not all the forms of Socialism be gathered together by skilful hands into a World Sate, such as many Masonic writers have advocated, and the League of Nations sought to achieve? It is not only conceivable,  but probable; for all forms of Socialism (even if some still call themselves Democracies) will be animated by a single obscure but powerful principle: the worship of the material, which is and always must be the negation of Christianity. Here, then, by a masterly anithesis, Pius XI has cast a strong light upon the shapes of things to come. It is all the more revealing when it shows us only the recurrence upon a larger stage of a deathless drama that happened long ago. Christ still lives in His Mystical Body, the Church, as truly as in the human body he took from Our Lady; and when the time comes for Him to be crucified again in His Church, depend upon it, Pilate and Herod that day will find a way to patch up their differences, some Caiaphas will cry, “Crucify Him! We have no king but Caesar!” and there will always be found some Judas to give the kiss of death.

Admittedly (perhaps my wish is father to this thought) we may by some miracle escape that fate, here in America. Perhaps despite their affiliations, Mr. Roosevelt or Mr. Wilkie, as political Catholic admirers of each will tell us, will be led in the right direction by a divine hand. Again, perhaps not. Only the future can reveal this. Meanwhile this much is certain: the United States, in a very few years, will be either a Catholic country (and therefore a free country) or a Socialist country, (and therefore a slave country). “He who is not with Me is against Me.” History demonstrates the unfailing truth of this dilemma.

Here on the last edge and in the twilight of the world, the stage is set for the reenactment of an ancient tragedy – or can it this time be a comedy? Here are all the actors who have appeared over and over again in that tragedy in Europe. Here we have most of the Freemasons of the world, the Jews, most of the gold and its masters; Parthians and Medes and Elamites – men gathered together from all nations under the sun, speaking one language, leading a common life; and among them heirs of all the isms and heresies that the Catholic Church has denounced throughout the centuries, and some millions of good bewildered folk who have ceased to believe much in anything, and do not know what they believe, or whether anything be worth believing; and, scattered among these millions with their roots in such movements of the past, some twenty-five millions of Catholics.

Now, either the Catholic body will come into sharp conflict with those about them, or they will not.

If they do not, it will be the first time in history that the Mystical Body of Christ (and American Catholics, like all others, are “cells” of that Body) has not aroused violent and unreasoning antagonism. This has been so uniformly a characteristic of the life of Christ and the life of the Catholic Church, that when persons calling themselves Christian or Catholic do not meet with oppositions, and strong opposition, one may well begin to wonder whether they are profoundly Christian and truly Catholic. Perhaps then it is a reflection upon us American Catholics that we have inspired so little antagonism (comparatively) thus far. Perhaps we have not been telling our neighbors the truth, the strong truth, the hard saying they will not like: that the real test of our republican experiment here must ultimately be whether it accepts or opposes the Church of Christ; that it must become either a Catholic state, or a slave state.

A great many Catholics, influenced by the Protestant or Liberal environments in which they have lived, have sincerely and deliberately set out to propagate Christianity in such ways as to never arouse antagonism. They have compromised with Socialism, they have compromised with the economy theory of history, they have emphasized the importance of various material elements. It is a sad evidence of the lack of unity into which we have been betrayed when a Catholic Justice of the Supreme Court [Frank Murphy] can publicly proclaim that “Democracy” is more important than religion; when a Catholic priest, who has taught for some years at the Catholic University at Washington and has filled our country with his disciples, openly goes to address a Jewish Masonic lodge (though Catholics are still forbidden by Canon 2335 to cooperate with or condone Masonry in any way)—and this, according to the press, not to remind his hearers of their true home in the Church Catholic, but to confirm them in their sense of injured innocence; or when a Catholic journalist burns a little incense on the altar of the economic theory of history, or a Catholic college professor condones usury, or defends the Communist cause in Spain.

Now all these gentlemen, these liberal broad-minded Catholics, many of whom are teaching the next generation of American Catholics no doubt think that they are doing a service to God in smoothing out our differences with others, and neglecting to utter the challenge which Christianity has uttered everywhere else in the world, until the opposed gnashed its teeth, and took up stones to cast. Perhaps they hope in this way to avert persecution, and gradually to bring about the conversion of the country they love to the true Faith. I do not impugn their motives or their sincerity; indeed, they are often animated by a great, if misguided charity. But if the history of Christianity teaches anything, it fairly cries out from the stones of desecrated and stolen churches that if they have their way, they will do just the opposite to what they intend, and even worse. They will lead us, if we are foolish enough, to follow them, to that abyss over which English Catholics fell, one by one and family by family, in the Sixteenth Century. The English Catholics, a huge majority, were kept comparatively silent and inactive in the face of an intolerable but gradual oppression by a small rich crafty minority, in the hope that if they ever compromised on this point and that point, they would ultimately prevail, since they were more numerous, and had truth on their side. The result was the almost complete extinction of Catholicism in England for centuries—perhaps forever. (William Thomas Walsh, Characters of the Inquisition, New York, P.J. Kenedy & Sons, 1940 pp. 281-294.)

That last paragraph summarized the theme that I have tried to hammer home in hundreds upon hundreds of lengthy commentaries on this site—and in countless hours of lectures around the country and online. William Thomas Walsh’s prophetic vision of what would happen to Catholicism in the United States of America has been accomplished by conciliar revolutionaries, many of whose American predecessors before the “Second” Vatican Council sought to pave the way for the triumph of Americanist “ideals.”

Yes, the United States of America has become a slave state controlled by the same set of forces that the Inquisition sought to eliminate from within Holy Mother Church. This is because the United States of America was founded on false principles, including those of “religious liberty” and “religious indifferentism” that contributed to the rise of counterfeit church of conciliarism, whose very false spirit was being pioneered by Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America Frank Murphy and the others, including that nameless priest who taught at the Catholic University of America, described by Mr. Walsh above.

Don’t kid yourselves. Donald John Trump and his gaggle of Talmudic relatives, friends and advisers is not going to retard the prevailing evils of the day. No man who believes that Jerusalem is the “eternal capital of Israel” or who agrees to reckless spending policies that will fund a wasteful military intent on its pursuit of endless war, which is one of the goals of Trotskyism, after all.

Although he does not know that this is so, President Donald John Trump is a Pelagian, who believes that Americans can accomplish anything they desire to achieve, something that he said in approximate words in his first State of the Union address to a special joint meeting of the two houses of the Congress of the United States of America on Tuesday, January 30, 2018:

Americans fill the world with art and music.  They push the bounds of science and discovery.  And they forever remind us of what we should never forget:  The people dreamed this country. The people built this country.  And it is the people who are making America great again.

As long as we are proud of who we are, and what we are fighting for, there is nothing we cannot achieve.

As long as we have confidence in our values, faith in our citizens, and trust in our God, we will not fail. (https://www.President Donald John Trump, State of the Union Address, January 18, 2018.)

“Our God.”

The Most Blessed Trinity?

No, any “god” one wants to believe in, that “god.”


What kind of "music"?

To believe that Americans can achieve whatever they desire as long as they are “proud of who we are, and what were our fighting for” is the essence of the Pelagian belief in human self-redemption, that is, that men can stir up graces within themselves to be holy and to do whatever it is they need to do.

Father Frederick Faber explained the Pelagian influence of the modern world in the following passage from The Precious Blood:

All devotions have their characteristics; all of them have their own theological meanings. We must say something, therefore, upon the characteristics of the devotion to the Precious Blood. In reality the whole Treatise has more or less illustrated this matter. But something still remains to be said, and something will bear to be repeated. We will take the last first. Devotion to the Precious Blood is the devotional expression of the prominent and characteristic teaching of St. Paul. St. Paul is the apostle of redeeming grace. A devout study of his epistles would be our deliverance from most of the errors of the day. He is truly the apostle of all ages. To each age doubtless he seems to have a special mission. Certainly his mission to our is very special. The very air we breathe is Pelagian. Our heresies are only novel shapes of an old Pelagianism. The spirit of the world is eminently Pelagian. Hence it comes to pass that wrong theories among us are always constructed round a nuclear of Pelagianism; and Pelagianism is just the heresy which is least able to breathe in the atmosphere of St. Paul. It is the age of the natural as opposed to the supernatural, of the acquired as opposed to the infused, of the active as opposed to the passive. This is what I said in an earlier chapter, and here repeat. Now, this exclusive fondness for the natural is on the whole very captivating. It takes with the young, because it saves thought. It does not explain difficulties; but it lessens the number of difficulties to be explained. It takes with the idle; it dispenses from slowness and research. It takes with the unimaginative, because it withdraws just the very element in religion which teases them. It takes with the worldly, because it subtracts the enthusiasm from piety and the sacrifice from spirituality. It takes with the controversial, because it is a short road and a shallow ford. It forms a school of thought which, while it admits that we have an abundance of grace, intimates that we are not much better for it. It merges privileges in responsibilities, and makes the sovereignty of God odious by representing it as insidious. All this whole spirit, with all its ramifications, perishes in the sweet fires of devotion to the Precious Blood.

The time is also one of libertinage; and a time of libertinage is always, with a kind of practical logic, one of infidelity. Whatever brings out God's side in creation, and magnifies his incessant supernatural operation in it, is the controversy which infidelity can least withstand. Now, the devotion to the Precious Blood does this in a very remarkable way. It shows that the true significance in every thing is to be found in the scheme of redemption, apart from which it is useless to discuss the problems of creation. (Father Frederick Faber, The Precious Blood, written in 1860, republished by TAN Books and Publishers, pp. 258-259.)

This is why it is so important to keep focused on the root causes of our problems rather than getting lost in the “trees” of particular developments, each of which is simply a tool used by the adversary to keep people agitated and thus distracted from seeing the fact that both Modernity and Modernism have been veritable “Humpty Dumpties” tottering on their respective walls before falling over into a gazillion pieces.

Catholicism, although not an infallible guarantor of social order given fallen human nature, is nevertheless the necessary precondition of such order, something that our true popes have taught from time immemorial, especially as the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ has been under attack in the past five hundred years:

Perhaps a reminder in this regard is in order:

No, Venerable Brethren, We must repeat with the utmost energy in these times of social and intellectual anarchy when everyone takes it upon himself to teach as a teacher and lawmaker - the City cannot be built otherwise than as God has built it; society cannot be setup unless the Church lays the foundations and supervises the work; no, civilization is not something yet to be found, nor is the New City to be built on hazy notions; it has been in existence and still is: it is Christian civilization, it is the Catholic City. It has only to be set up and restored continually against the unremitting attacks of insane dreamers, rebels and miscreants. omnia instaurare in Christo. (Pope Saint Pius X,Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

Let the Princes and Rulers of peoples remember this truth, and let them consider whether it is a prudent and safe idea for governments or for states to separate themselves from the holy religion of Jesus Christ, from which their authority receives such strength and support. Let them consider again and again, whether it is a measure of political wisdom to seek to divorce the teaching of the Gospel and of the Church from the ruling of a country and from the public education of the young. Sad experience proves that human authority fails where religion is set aside. The fate of our first parent after the Fall is wont to come also upon nations. As in his case, no sooner had his will turned from God than his unchained passions rejected the sway of the will; so, too, when the rulers of nations despise divine authority, in their turn the people are wont to despise their human authority. There remains, of course, the expedient of using force to repress popular risings; but what is the result? Force can repress the body, but it cannot repress the souls of men. (Pope Benedict XV, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, November 1, 1914.)

There exists an institution able to safeguard the sanctity of the law of nations. This institution is a part of every nation; at the same time it is above all nations. She enjoys, too, the highest authority, the fullness of the teaching power of the Apostles. Such an institution is the Church of Christ. She alone is adapted to do this great work, for she is not only divinely commissioned to lead mankind, but moreover, because of her very make-up and the constitution which she possesses, by reason of her age-old traditions and her great prestige, which has not been lessened but has been greatly increased since the close of the War, cannot but succeed in such a venture where others assuredly will fail. (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.)

Whenever men are forgetful of Original Sin and its after-effects on their own souls and thus upon the souls of all other men—and seek to excuse their own Actual Sins if they have any concept of sin whatsoever, you see, they will  be forever lost in the “trees” of this passing, mortal vale of tears without once recognizing that they must quit their sins and reform their lives in cooperation with the graces won for them by the shedding of every single drop of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’s Most Precious Blood during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday and that flow into their souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces, to realize a true and lasting reformation of society.

Pope Pius XI, writing to condemn German national socialism and its deification of the German state and its “pureblood” Aryans, explained that no kind of naturalistic scheme can achieve a just social order in this passing world where we have not a permanent dwelling:

Every true and lasting reform has ultimately sprung from the sanctity of men who were driven by the love of God and of men. Generous, ready to stand to attention to any call from God, yet confident in themselves because confident in their vocation, they grew to the size of beacons and reformers. On the other hand, any reformatory zeal, which instead of springing from personal purity, flashes out of passion, has produced unrest instead of light, destruction instead of construction, and more than once set up evils worse than those it was out to remedy. No doubt "the Spirit breatheth where he will" (John iii. 8): "of stones He is able to raise men to prepare the way to his designs" (Matt. iii. 9). He chooses the instruments of His will according to His own plans, not those of men. But the Founder of the Church, who breathed her into existence at Pentecost, cannot disown the foundations as He laid them. Whoever is moved by the spirit of God, spontaneously adopts both outwardly and inwardly, the true attitude toward the Church, this sacred fruit from the tree of the cross, this gift from the Spirit of God, bestowed on Pentecost day to an erratic world. (Pope Pius XI, Mit Brennender Sorge, March 17, 1937.)

Sober up.

Donald John Trump does not believe this, of course, and even though there is much irrational hatred directed at him by adherents of  the false opposite of the naturalist “left” and that his presidency has helped to give those who care a glimpse into the workings of the “deep state,” the fact remains that he is doing evil in his own naturalist right as William Thomas Walsh’s description of Judaism at the same of Saint Peter the Apostle applies to him and all other naturalists of the “right” as well:

From the later words and acts of Simon bar Jonas, it is plain that his conception of the Messiah, as he advanced toward manhood, was that of the vast majority of the Jewish people. Few could imagine the Holy One coming to suffer in atonement for the sins of the world, much less for the sins of Israel. Everyone knew that Moses had been punished for disobedience, that the Babylonian captivity had been the penalty for connivance with idolatry. Yet the old sense of sinfulness had yielded to a certain proud complacency, born in part, no doubt, of an awareness of very real virtues. The Jewish leaders forgot that they were a Chosen People not through any special excellence of their own, but through God's favor to Abraham. This sort of smugness easily takes possession of classes long established in wealth and power.

The doctrine of original sin in particular had been almost wholly forgotten in Israel. True, it still stood boldly forth on the first pages of the Book of Genesis. This makes it all the more astonishing that no one preached it, and hardly any believed it. Perhaps their recent sorrows had made the Jews forget the primal tragedy which was the beginning of human history. Perhaps the vision of towering wheat fields had little by little come to blot out of their minds the memory of the tree of knowledge, the locked garden, the flaming sword. A future woven out of hopeful dreams had become more real than a past as aching and tangible as the rocks of Judea.

It is a curious fact that this sort of idealizing is sometimes the very stuff of which materialists are made. It is because they love this world, its satisfactions and its power, that they turn away from its imperfections to an imaginary world in which they want those gratifications to be fully realize – but in the flesh, in the here and now. Only a mystery of grace could turn such mundane aspirations into a spiritual hope. (William Thomas Walsh, Saint Peter the Apostle, New York: The Macmillan Company, 1948, pp. 24-25.)

May we, as believing Catholics, eschew all false hope in the naturalists of this passing who believe in their own mythic “greatness” and/or that of a nation proud to be founded and steeped in one error after another, begging Our Lady, especially through her Most Holy Rosary, to help us to plant a few seeds, especially during our Lenten practices of prayer, fasting, mortification, almsgiving and other sacrifices, for the restoration of the Social Reign of Christ the King and of Our Lady as the Immaculate Queen of all men and nations. 

Viva Cristo ReyVivat Christus Rex!

Our Lady of the the 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.

Saint Simon, pray for us.

Saint Marie-Bernard Soubirous, pray for us.