Sober Up, part three

“The whole house has gone crazy.” (“The $99,000 Answer, The Honeymooners, January 28, 1956.)

Thus spoke the fictional Alice Kramden in a fit of exasperation as neighbor after neighbor in their tenement building at 328 Chauncey Street in Brooklyn, New York, dropped in a for a visit to try to stump her husband, Ralph, as he prepared for his second appearance on a fictional game show called “The 99,000 Answer.”

Having chosen the topic of popular music as his field of expertise in a brief appearance at the end of one broadcast, the bus driver for the Gotham Bus Company had his best friend, Edward L. Norton, a sewer worker, play tunes on a rented piano in his two room apartment to test his knowledge of popular music. It was while the midst of this preparation that neighbor after neighbor dropped by, and it was after Mrs. Manicotti belted a song in Italian to try to stump Ralph that Alice blurted out loud, “The whole house has gone crazy.” (There are two former friends of mine who would have been sure to correct me if I have gotten any of these details wrong had they stayed as readers of this site. However, I am pretty sure that the sequence recited above is accurate.)

Well, it is my rather singular and almost universally rejected judgment that the whole traditional Catholic world has gone crazy over the election of Donald John Trump. It is truly remarkable to see people subordinate the overriding primacy of the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law as the foundation of personal and social order while they celebrate what they think will be a respite from the unconstitutional and illegal actions of the outgoing presidential egomaniac, the contemptible statist named Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, and from the foul-mouthed creature of corruption who tried to succeed him, Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton (who was, some reports have it, in a drunken, profanity-laced fit of rage on election night when it became clear that she was going to lose the electoral college vote and thus the election itself—see Hillary Clinton in a tan alcohol, profanity-filled rage on election night.)

Once again, I am as happy as anyone else that the Clintons have been kept out of the White House. Once again, however, I believe that it unwise for Catholics to project their fondest hopes onto President-elect Donald Trump, whose mind has never been shaped by any kind of even attenuated or erroneous understanding of First and Last Things. We have a duty to pray for the good of our country, which is her Catholicization, and for those who serve in public office, including the new president-elect. Donald Trump’s beliefs, however, are not consonant with the Catholic Faith, and those who contend that there is such a consonance do the cause of truth a very grave disservice. Indeed, it is to do with him what so many “traditionally-minded” within the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism with Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI once he issued Summorum Pontificum on July 7, 2007.

It is a particular source of frustration for me, who has been chronicling the betrayals of one Republican administration after another, to find Catholics falling into the same trap now that many fell into once the Supreme Court of the United States of America had issued its decision in the case of Bush v. Gore on December 12, 2000. There was such a sense of relief that then Texas Governor George Walker Bush had kept the statist idiot and environmentalist ideologue named Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., out of the White House that all rationality was suspended from that point forward. (A Protestant commentator, Chuck Baldwin, who believes himself to be a Baptist "minister," made much the same point in: Is The Religious Right Gullible, Naive, or Willingly Ignorant?)

Many pro-life Catholics kept their mouths shut when Bush the Lesser advanced anti-life, anti-family policies and, sadder still, many others did not do their civic duty to keep informed about those policies as they preferred to believe that all was well. While the obligation to vote holds in a situation where a candidate has the cause of God and the good of souls at heart—and that, by the way, is a judgment that individuals have to make in the practical order of things, something that will be explained in the appendix in part four of this series, one’s civic duty extends also to knowing what those elected actually do once they are in office. This is a duty that most Catholics do not fulfill as most of those who bother to follow current events do not delve too deep below the surface of things or even remember who did what and when.

It is thus useful, I believe, to place in the main body of this commentary a little reminder of President George Walker Bush’s anti-life, anti-family agenda that I have included as an appendix in a score or so of articles on this site:

1) George Walker Bush said constantly in 1999 and 2000 during his campaign for the Republican Party presidential nomination that abortion was a "difficult" issue about which people of "good will" could disagree. What's difficult about knowing that killing a baby is morally wrong? Would he say that people of "good will" could disagree about racism or anti-Semitism?

2) George Walker Bush supported "exceptions" to the Fifth Commandment's absolute prohibitions to the direct, intentional taking of any innocent human life. When challenged by Dr. Alan Keys in a televised debate in Manchester, New Hampshire, in December of 1999 as to how he could justify the killing of preborn babies under any circumstances, the then Texas Governor grimaced, visibly annoyed at having been forced to confront his own mutually contradictory position, and said: "I can't explain it. It's just how I feel." Bush does not realize that he is not pro-life, that he is simply less pro-abortion than others in public life who are unconditionally pro-abortion.

3) George Walker Bush denied in his first debate with then Vice President Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., held on October 3, 2000, at Washington University in Saint Louis, Missouri, that he could do anything to reverse the United States Food and Drug Administration's authorization to market RU-486, the human pesticide, unless it had been determined to be "unsafe" for women. What about the fact that that pill is always deadly for babies?

BUSH: I don't think a president can unilaterally overturn it. The FDA has made its decision.

MODERATOR: That means you wouldn't, through appointments, to the FDA and ask them to --

BUSH: I think once a decision has been made, it's been made unless it's proven to be unsafe to women.

GORE: Jim, the question you asked, if I heard you correctly, was would he support legislation to overturn it. And if I heard the statement day before yesterday, you said you would order -- he said he would order his FDA appointee to review the decision. Now that sounds to me a little bit different. I just think that we ought to support the decision.

BUSH: I said I would make sure that women would be safe who used the drug.  (2000 Debate Transcript) [Droleskey comment: Uh, Mister Former President, the President of the United States of America can make appointments to the Food and Drug Administration who could indeed overturn such a decision by means of an administrative fiat. Moreover, the human pesticide, RU-486, is lethal to babies, Mister Former President.]


4) George Walker Bush said consistently throughout his eight years as President of the United States of America that he was working for the day when every child would be welcomed in life and protected by law." How can one claim that he is in favor of "welcoming every child and protecting him "by law" when he believes that the civil law licitly can permit the killing of certain children at certain times? How can one claim that he is in favor of "welcoming every child" and protecting him "by law" when he campaigned actively for politicians in his own political party who were completely pro-abortion (Rudolph Giuliani, Michael Bloomberg, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Susan Collins, Olympia Snow Arlen Specter--whom Bush endorsed over a partly pro-life/partly pro-abortion opponent, Patrick Toomey, in a Republican Party primary in 2004, et al.)? How can one claim that he is in favor of "welcoming every child" and protecting him "by law" when he appointed pro-abort after pro-abort. some of whom are listed above, to the upper echelons of his administration. Some of others over the years were Tom Ridge, Michael Mukasey, Alberto Gonzales, The Supreme Court? John Roberts and Samuel Alito? Sure. Remember Harriet Miers? If you don't, read these articles: The Triumph of Protestantism and Posturing and Preening.

5) George Walker Bush was proud of the fact that his administration increased the amount of money being spent by our tax dollars on domestic and international "family planning" programs, which, of course, dispatched innocent preborn babies to death by chemical means. Here is a letter sent in behalf of then President Bush to United States Representatives Carolyn Maloney (D-New York) on May 25, 2006:

The Honorable Carolyn B. Maloney
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Ms. Maloney:

Thank you for your letter to President Bush to request his views on access to birth control. The President has asked that I respond on his behalf. This Administration supports the availability of safe and effective products and services to assist responsible adults in making decisions about preventing or delaying conception.

The Department of Health and Human Services faithfully executes laws establishing Federal programs to provide contraception and family planning services. The Title X Family Planning Program and Medicaid are each significant providers of family planning services.

Additionally, this Administration strongly supports teaching abstinence to young people as the only 100 percent effective means of preventing pregnancy, HIV, and sexually transmitted infections (STIs).

I will provide this response to the other signatories of your letter.
Sincerely yours, John O. Agwunobi, Assistant Secretary for Health (Bush Supports Contraception Letter

Contraception, of course, of its very evil nature, over and above the fact that most contraceptives serve as abortifacients that kill babies chemically or act to expel fertilized human beings from implanting in the uterus, is denial of the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage.

6) George Walker Bush made announced at 9:00 p.m. on Thursday, August 9, 2001, that he was going to permitted the use of Federal taxpayer dollars to fund embryonic stem cell research on embryonic human beings whose "lines" were created before the time of his announcement. In so doing, of course, Bush authorized the death of those human beings and at the same time justify the immoral, evil practice of in vitro fertilization while doing nothing to stop the privately funded death and destruction of such embryonic human beings on those "lines" created after the date and time of his announcement:

My administration must decide whether to allow federal funds, your tax dollars, to be used for scientific research on stem cells derived from human embryos.  A large number of these embryos already exist.  They are the product of a process called in vitro fertilization, which helps so many couples conceive children.  When doctors match sperm and egg to create life outside the womb, they usually produce more embryos than are planted in the mother.  Once a couple successfully has children, or if they are unsuccessful, the additional embryos remain frozen in laboratories. (Remarks by the President on Stem Cell Research.) 

This is what I wrote at the time in the printed pages of Christ or Chaos:

Indeed, this whole controversy is the direct result of the rejection of the teaching authority of the Church on matters of faith and morals, as well as on matters of fundamental justice. For it is the rejection of the Deposit of Faith our Lord entrusted to Holy Mother Church that gave rise to the ethos of secularism and religious indifferentism, which became the breeding grounds for secularism and relativism and positivism.

A world steeped in all manner of secular political ideologies comes not only to reject the Deposit of Faith but to make war against all that is contained therein, especially as it relates to matters of the sanctity of marital relations and the stability of the family.

Contraception gave rise to abortion. Contraception also gave rise to the mentality which resulted in artificial conception. If a child's conception can be prevented as suits "partners," then it stands to reason that a child can be conceived "on demand" by using the latest technology science has to offer.

The Church has condemned artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization on a number of occasions as offenses to the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity of marital relations. Yet it is the very rejection of the Church's affirmation of what is contained in the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law which leads people, including George W. Bush, into thinking that artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization are morally licit to help couples deal with the problem of childlessness, ignoring the simple little truth that no one is entitled to a child.

Children are gifts from God to be accepted according to His plan for a particular couple. If a married couple cannot have a child on their own, they can adopt -- or they can use their time to be of greater service to the cause of the Church in the evangelization of the true Faith. No one, however, is entitled to a child.

Indeed, the whole tragedy of harvesting the stem cells of living human beings has arisen as a result of discoveries made by scientists experimenting on human beings conceived in fertility clinics to help couples conceive artificially.

That George W. Bush endorses this immoral enterprise (which is big business, by the way) and actually commends it as a way to "help" couples is deplorable.

It is as though he is saying the following: "We are not going to kill any more Jews for their body parts. We will only use the body parts of the Jews we have killed already. After all, we have people who will benefit from this research, do we not?"

Living human embryos do not have the "potential" for life, as Bush asserted on August 9, 2001. They are living human beings! To seek to profit from their destruction is ghoulish, and will only wind up encouraging the private sector to fund all stem-cell research, creating more "stem cell lines" from the destruction of living human beings. ("Preposterous," Christ or Chaos, September, 2001)

Mrs. Judie Brown, the president and founder of the American Life League, wrote a retrospective on Caesar Georgii Bushus Ignoramus's stem cell decision some years later:

You have probably heard that right at the top of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's agenda is the promise of "hope to families with devastating diseases."

What she is promising, of course, is a Congressional action that will result in tons of federal tax dollars being spent on failed research using the dead bodies of embryonic children.

The White House, of course, is saying "the president has made it clear he believes in stem cell research so much -- the administration has done more to finance stem cell research, embryonic and otherwise, than any administration in history."

You see, Bush never really banned research using the bodies of embryonic children, he merely curtailed how much research could be done using tax dollars. So it would appear that everyone ... Democrat and Republican ... is on the same page.

The tragic reality underlying such statements is that over the course of the last 34 years, politicians and a whole lot of pro-lifers have let the principle of personhood slide away into oblivion for the sake of winning elections. And the result is staring us all in the face. (Embryo Wars.)

7) The George Walker Bush version of the "Mexico City" policy, as the "gag" order that prohibited international family planning organizations from killing babies on an "elective" basis on their premises or referring women to abortuaries was called, was fraught with holes and exceptions as to make it an utter sham that convinces the average "pro-life" American that "something" is being done to save lives when the truth of the matter is that Bush's executive order permitted employees of international "family planning" agencies in foreign countries to refer for abortions on their own time in any off-site location of their choosing. In other words, the "Bush 43" "Mexico City" policy permitted an employee of the International Planned Parenthood chapter in Nairobi, Kenya, for example to say, "Look, there are things I can't tell you now. Meet me at the Nairobi McDonald's after I get out of work. I can tell you more then." The employee was then free to speak frankly about surgical abortion, to recommend the killing of a child as the only "sensible" option, to recommend a specific baby-killer and a specific place for the baby to be killed.

Here are the specific conditions outlined by the Bush executive order that re instituted the "Mexico City" policy in 2001:


1) American taxpayer funds are only denied to organizations that promote abortion as a means of "family planning." This means that direct counseling in behalf of abortion can be done if a woman claims some that she falls into one of the three usual "exceptions" (rape, incest, alleged threats to her life) for seeking an abortion.

2) Employees of international "family planning" organizations may meet with their clients off of the premises of those organizations to counsel them to use abortion as a means of "family planning" and to direct them where to kill their babies surgically.

3) International "family planning" organizations can propagate in behalf of abortion abroad as long as they "segregate" their funds. That is, such organizations must use "private" funds for promoting abortion, not the monies provided by the Federal government of the United States of America. There is, however, no accounting oversight to determine how these funds are "segregated," if they are in fact "segregated" at all.

Moreover, as noted above, the domestic and international "family planning" programs that were funded to the hilt by the administration of George Walker Bush and Richard Bruce. Cheney killed untold hundreds of thousands of children each year by means of chemical abortifacients. Mrs. Judie Brown, the founder and President of the American Life League, explained it as follows on December 18, 2007:

While many are celebrating the Congressional passage of a bill that contains the Mexico City Policy, there are those of us who are not so quick to throw a party.

The policy was contained in a piece of legislation that also provides an increase in funding for Planned Parenthood. But that's not really the worst of it.

The Mexico City Policy contains exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother ... standard fare for the pro-life politicos these days. The problem is, they fail to point out that the Mexico City Policy does not and cannot prohibit our tax dollars from paying for abortion; it can only prevent our tax dollars from paying for some abortions. Why, you may ask, did I use the word "some"?

Well, the Mexico City Policy will pay for surgical abortion in the cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother in addition to paying for chemical abortions caused by RU-486, the morning-after pill and the various birth control methods that can cause abortion.

Further, it is not clear what happens when an organization agrees to refrain from paying for abortion with U.S. tax dollars, but chooses to use those dollars to pay for other "services," thus freeing up other money to subsidize the killing.

In other words, the Mexico City Policy is fraught with problems that result in death.

So when some claim that America is no longer an "exporter of death," they are really not being totally honest with the public. America is still the number one exporter and subsidizer of preborn child killing, period. Of that there is no doubt. (AMERICA'S DEADLY EXPORT

8) George Walker Bush's Food and Drug Administration not only did not reverse the Clinton Food and Drug and Administration to market RU-496, the French abortion pill, the human pesticide. The Bush administration fully funded the use of RU-486 in both domestic and international "family planning" programs. Moreover, George Walker Bush's Food and Drug Administration approved over-the-counter sales of the so-called "Plan B" "emergency contraceptive" that is, of course, an abortifacient:


The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today announced approval of Plan B, a contraceptive drug, as an over-the-counter (OTC) option for women aged 18 and older. Plan B is often referred to as emergency contraception or the "morning after pill." It contains an ingredient used in prescription birth control pills--only in the case of Plan B, each pill contains a higher dose and the product has a different dosing regimen. Like other birth control pills, Plan B has been available to all women as a prescription drug. When used as directed, Plan B effectively and safely prevents pregnancy. Plan B will remain available as a prescription-only product for women age 17 and under.

Duramed, a subsidiary of Barr Pharmaceuticals, will make Plan B available with a rigorous labeling, packaging, education, distribution and monitoring program. In the CARE (Convenient Access, Responsible Education) program Duramed commits to:

Provide consumers and healthcare professionals with labeling and education about the appropriate use of prescription and OTC Plan B, including an informational toll-free number for questions about Plan B;

Ensure that distribution of Plan B will only be through licensed drug wholesalers, retail operations with pharmacy services, and clinics with licensed healthcare practitioners, and not through convenience stores or other retail outlets where it could be made available to younger women without a prescription;

Packaging designed to hold both OTC and prescription Plan B. Plan B will be stocked by pharmacies behind the counter because it cannot be dispensed without a prescription or proof of age; and

Monitor the effectiveness of the age restriction and the safe distribution of OTC Plan B to consumers 18 and above and prescription Plan B to women under 18.

Today's action concludes an extensive process that included obtaining expert advice from a joint meeting of two FDA advisory committees and providing an opportunity for public comment on issues regarding the scientific and policy questions associated with the application to switch Plan B to OTC use. Duramed's application raised novel issues regarding simultaneously marketing both prescription and non-prescription Plan B for emergency contraception, but for different populations, in a single package.

The agency remains committed to a careful and rigorous scientific process for resolving novel issues in order to fulfill its responsibility to protect the health of all Americans. (FDA Approves Over-the-Counter Access for Plan B for Women 18 and Over .) 

Where was the outrage from Catholics when this decision was announced?  

Where were the e-mails sent out in a frenzy to oppose this decision?  

Where were the voices to denounce George Walker Bush for what he was, a consummate "pro-life" fraud from beginning to end?  Where?  

Indeed, I have met Catholics, both in the clergy and laity alike, who, upon being informed of this fact, shrug their shoulders and say, "Gore or Kerry would have done worse. Obama has done worse now." Sure. Granted, but this doe not  exculpate one from not having denounced Bush at the time did these terrible things. Reprehensible. Absolutely reprehensible.

9) The partial, conditional ban on partial-birth abortions remains little more than a political ruse designed to convince "pro-life" voters that something substantive was being done to stop the killing of babies. There is a needless "life of the mother" exception in the ban, meaning that babies are still being killed by this method if it can be claimed that a mother's life is endangered. Moreover, killing a baby by which is termed medically by the euphemism of "intact dilation and extraction" is no more morally heinous than killing a baby by any other method at any other age. Killing a baby by means of a suction abortion or by a saline solution abortion or by a dilation and evacuation abortion (where the baby is carved up by a butcher inside of the birth canal) is no less morally heinous than partial-birth abortion. Each is the same crime before God: willful murder, one of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance.

Also, as I have pointed out repeatedly since this issue came to forefront of public debate over twenty years ago, there are two methods--the hysterotomy and dilation and evacuation--by which babies may be killed in the later stages of pregnancy. These methods can still be used to kill babies in the later stages of pregnancy with complete legal impunity. Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy specifically referred to these two methods when upholding the constitutionality of the partial-birth abortion ban in Gonzales v. Carhart, April 18, 2007:

D&E and intact D&E are not the only second-trimester abortion methods. Doctors also may abort a fetus through medical induction. The doctor medicates the woman to induce labor, and contractions occur to deliver the fetus. Induction, which unlike D&E should occur in a hospital, can last as little as 6 hours but can take longer than 48. It accounts for about five percent of second-trimester abortions before 20 weeks of gestation and 15 percent of those after 20 weeks. Doctors turn to two other methods of second-trimester abortion, hysterotomy and hysterectomy, only in emergency situations because they carry increased risk of complications. In a hysterotomy, as in a cesarean section, the doctor removes the fetus by making an incision through the abdomen and uterine wall to gain access to the uterine cavity. A hysterectomy requires the removal of the entire uterus. These two procedures represent about .07% of second-trimester abortions. Nat. Abortion Federation, 330 F. Supp. 2d, at 467; Planned Parenthood, supra, at 962-963. (Text of the Court's Opinion; see also An Illusion of a Victory.) 

10) George Walker Bush's first Solicitor General of the United States of America, Theodore Olson, submitted the following brief to the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Joseph Scheidler v. National Organization for Women to argue that the sidewalk counseling activities of pro-life champion Joseph Scheidler, the founder of the Pro-Life Action Network, constituted "banditry" under terms of the Hobbs Act of 1946 as he was depriving legitimate business, abortuaries, of their income. Can anyone say "pro-life fraud," thank you very much? 

"It is irrelevant under the Hobbs Act whether the defendant is motivated by an economic purpose, as the lower courts that have addressed the issue have correctly recognized. The text of the Hobbs Act contains no requirement of an economic motive. As explained, when a person uses force or threats to compel a business to cede control over what goods or services the business will offer, the defendant obtains the victim's property by acquiring the power to decide how the business will be conducted. That conclusion holds true whether or not the defendant has a profit-making objective.

"A contrary conclusion would allow a defendant to hijack legitimate businesses by wrongful acts of violence, threats, or fear simply because the defendant had a non-economic objective. That result would defeat the government's strong interest in protecting interstate commerce under the Hobbs Act by prosecuting extortionists who are motivated by causes other than financial gain. For instance, an economic motive requirement would immunize a defendant from prosecution under the Hobbs Act even though the defendant threatened acts of murder against a bank that loaned money to foreign nations whose policies the defendant opposed, against a retail store that sold products to which the defendant objected, or against any other business that used its land or other valuable property for a purpose that the defendant found unpalatable.

"Those acts have deleterious effects on interstate commerce, whether or not the defendant directs the use of such property for his own financial gain. To exempt such conduct from the Hobbs Act would retreat from the Act's purpose to 'protect the right of citizens of this country to market their products without any interference from lawless bandits.' In sum, when the defendant uses wrongful force or threats to wrest control over the victim's business decisions, the defendant obtains that property interest." (Brief of United States Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson in the case of Joseph Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, December 4, 2002.)


This could go on interminably. Although wearying, I have compiled this list yet again because I know that people forget and need to be reminded of basic facts that are always fresh in my mind as this my area of study and of active personal involvement for a long time. It is important to keep these facts in mind, especially to realize that Theodore Olson, has led efforts to reverse California Proposition 8 (see Meathead Meets Meathead and Irreversible By Means Merely Human), believed that saving babies from death was akin to stealing money from baby-killers in violation of interstate commerce! He made this argument in behalf of the "pro-life" administration of President George Walker Bush and Vice President Richard Bruce Cheney. Don't any of you think that George Walker Bush was "pro-life." He was an indemnifier of baby-killers in this country who funded chemical baby-killing in all instances and whose administration funded surgical baby-killing in the "hard cases."

The fact that the current completely pro-abortion team of President Barack Hussein Obama and Vice President Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., have done are doing more terrible things should not make us pine for the "good old days" of Bush-Cheney. Those days were not so "good" for preborn babies in the United States of America and elsewhere in the world, to say nothing for innocent lives in Iraq and Afghanistan who were subject to indiscriminate American bombing or other military action and/or who have suffered from the destabilization of their countries by the American presence there.

Look, these are facts.

Most Catholics were unware of these facts at the time, and there is every reason to believe that most of them will not care about the fine print of some of the next administration’s pro-life, pro-family agenda that make possible the institutionalized acceptance of various evils on an imperceptible, incremental basis rather than by means of what Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro has been doing with an “in-your-face” aggressiveness that is easy to recognize as evil and to reject as such. Evils that are disguised when people have permitted themselves to be lulled to sleep in the belief that they have “friends” in charge of government are far, far more dangerous to the good of the souls of men and thus to the pursuit of the common temporal good than evils that are promoted openly and with the avowed purpose of silencing anyone who is opposed to them.

Consider once again the wise words of the Bishop Geraldo de Proenca Sigaud, who was the Bishop of Jacarezinho, Brazil, from, January 1, 1947, to December 20, 1960, and the Archbishop of Diamantina, Minas Gerais, Brazil, from December 20, 1960, to September 10, 1980:

Discussion of the "lesser evil" brings to the fore the question of the tolerance of evil. Pope Leo writes: "But to judge aright, we must acknowledge that, the more a state is driven to tolerate evil, the further is it from perfection; and that the tolerance of evil which is dictated by political prudence should be strictly confined to the limits which its justifying cause, the public welfare, requires. Wherefore, if such tolerance would be injurious to be the public welfare, and entail greater evils on the state, it would not be lawful; for such case the motive of is wanting." (Pope Leo XIII, Libertas Praestantissimum, June 20, 1888.)

Bp. [Geraldo de Proenca] Sigaud [the Bishop of Jacarezinho, Parana, Brazil, from January 1, 1947, to December 20, 1960, and the Archbishop of Diamantina, Minas Gerais, Brazil, from December 20, 1960, to September 10, 198] gives fair warning about how the Revolution infiltrates and permeates the Church and Christian society through the "lesser evil" tactic. "Among the many ways the Revolution permeates surreptitiously into the stronghold of the Church, the first door is called the 'lesser evil.' This tactic may be compared with the famous Trojan Horse. Catholic doctrine teaches that if we cannot avoid some evil we may choose to permit some lesser evil in order to avoid the greater evil on condition we do not directly commit evil ourselves.


"(1) The liberals think a lesser evil is a small evil that is not worth fighting against;

"(2) Very many Catholics and even priests are of the opinion that conflict harms the Church as if She were not by Her very nature militant. This is why they allow evil to occupy without combating it under the pretext of prudence, charity, and apostolic diplomacy.

"(3) THEY DO NOT REALIZE THAT EVIL--EVEN A LESSER EVIL-IS ALWAYS AN EVIL, and that is why they do not seek to limit or suppress it. They live daily with the"lesser evil" and thus they forget the greater good as something horrible. For example, the separation of Church and State and that divorce be allowed among Catholics." (Bishop Geraldo de Proenca Sigaud, as cited by Hugh Akins in Synagogue Rising.)

Another example, of course, and no bout the more grievous one, is in lending invaluable support and assistance by means of backing the "lesser evil," to the Synagogue of Satan in its total war against the Mystical Body of Christ. Some Catholics who've made a habit of voting the "lesser evil" will continue to do so until they vote into office, on the world scene, the Antichrist himself, who being wholly sanitized by the corrupt Zionist-controlled media, will be portrayed before the unsuspecting peoples of earth as the most moderate and hopeful, least radical and most compassionate, and least corrupt candidate, compared to the raving lunatics competing with him. Antichrist could just as easily be a Republican conservative, a Christian Zionist, a Masonic "anti-Communist," even a Conciliarist "Catholic" wholeheartedly endorsed by the pope in Rome. He might even present himself a "traditionalist," cheered on by the many "lesser evil" traditionalists who see-no-evil in the likes of Benedict, Bush, McCain, Santorum, Gingrich, the Talmud, Israel, Zionism or Holaucastism.

It is by this shameless compromising that evil is ever moving forward, every advancing, ever conquering. "All tepidity and every thoughtless compromise," says Pius XII, "all pusillanimity and every vacillation between good and evil...all that, and all that can be added to it. has been and is a deplorable contribution to the evil which today is shaking world." (Pope Pius XII, radio message Ancora ua quinta volta, to the world, December 24, 1943, quote in Directives to Lay Apostles.) (Hugh Akins, Synagogue Rising, Catholic Action Resource Center, 2012, pp. 694.695.) 

There are  others apart from this writer who have understood the hard realities of a political system founded on false principles and how efforts to "hold back the tide" politically by enabling the so-called "lesser of two evil" result always and invariably in the further institutionalization of evil--and silence about it--from well-meaning citizens, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, who live their lives in terrified fright of some supposed "greater evil." 

I can guarantee you that the illusion of a "respite" that Catholics think has come upon us now will be used by the adversary to provide the cover he loves to use to convince us that "all is well" and that our time of chastisement has come to an end. No, the chastisement will continue as God will not be mocked. He will never bless land and bestow His favor upon it when so many sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance are not only committed under cover of the civil law but celebrated in the popular culture with a shamelessness that would have made even the pagans of ancient Rome blush.

Indeed, the devil is using the paid agitators of the false opposite of the naturalist "left," whose violent "protests" have been organized and funded in large measure by the Jewish-born atheist named George Soros (nee: Schwartz) and his allies as a means of creating sympathy for the incoming adminstration among truly patriotic Americans so that they will be less and less inclined to oppose measures that will wind up promoting various evils, including the sin of Sodm, and further restricting their legitimate liberties in the name "making American safe again." 

To wit, President-elect Trump's nominee to be the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (C.I.A.), United States Representative Mike Pompeo (R-Kansas), fully supports the unconstitutional surveillance activities of the National Security Agency that are in full violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection unreasonable against unreasonable searches and seizures that are authorized by the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review that operates in secret. This court, which was created by an act of Congress in 1978 during the administration of President James Earl Carter, Jr., was designed to serve as safeguard against various abuses of intelligence agencies since end of World War II in 1945, but its powers have expanded to such an extent that it is considered to be a parallel of the Supreme Court of the United States of America with almost sole jurisdiction over intelligence agencies. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review has approved all but twelve of 35,529 surveillance requests that have submitted to it since it started hearing such requests in 1979.

Even more frightening is the fact that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review is composed of judges selected solely by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Each of the chief justices who have appointed members to this secret court (Warren Burger, William Rehnquist, John Glover Roberts) has been a firm supporter of government surveillence programs. 

The acceptance of this court, created in full violation of the provisions of the Constitution of the United States of America (see Judge Andrew Napolitano's excellent analysis of the unconstitutional nature of the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, Is FISA Court Constitutional?, for proof of this contention), has given the intelligence agencies of the Federal government of the United States of America almost total carte blanche power to search, download and maintain all of our e-mails, text messages, phone logs and bank account information. No matter the precautions one takes, the government knows everything about what we do, and this is not going to stop in the incoming Trump administration. 

In reality, you see, we have been governed by authoritarians and demagogues of one stripe or another for most of this nation's history, and it will be no different in the administration of President Donald John Trump. 

Ladies and gentlemen, few in number that you are, Antichrist is using the forces of the "left" as a means to curry sympathy for those who his agents on the "right." This is a trap, and it is sad to see Catholics fall into this trap repeatedly. Catholics will enable a figure of Antichrist to mainstream the sodomite agenda, albeit by less coerceive means than has been done by Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro and than what would have been done by Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton, and to further restrict legitimate liberties in order to "protect" us.

Remember, Antichrist is not going to give us his calling card, and he is not going to identify his minions, for that matter, and minion of Antichrist will do that which anti-Christ, meaning, opposed to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and everything He taught to us and has entrusted exclusively to His Catholic Church for Its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication.

It is not for nothing that a Talmudic columnist, Wayne Allyn Root, calls Trump the nation's "first Jewish President," evoking the claim in the 1990s that William Jefferson Blythe Clinton was the nation's "first black President":

Just as Bill Clinton wasn’t black, but he was called “America’s first black president…

I believe Donald Trump should be called “America’s first Jewish president.”

I should know. I’m an Ivy League-educated Jewish kid from New York. 

Trust me, Donald Trump is as close as you can come to being our first Jewish president. 

The very unique traits that have made him a billionaire and now President of the United States are as Jewish as you can get!

Let me prove to you that Donald is our first Jewish president…

Donald is a lifelong New York businessman, who made his fortune in real estate. You can’t get more Jewish than that.

Well actually you can. His winter home Mar-a-Lago is on the East Coast of South Florida.

When he bought his Florida home and turned it into a popular and exclusive country club, he specifically opened the membership up to Jews. Mar-a-Lago was the first club that ever allowed Jews in Palm Beach. Donald changed the customs of the most-wealthy, WASP-y town in America to favor Jews.

Donald is family-oriented and clearly loves and dotes on all his children. He is bursting with pride at his children’s success. That could be the most Jewish trait of all. To Jews, family and children are everything.

Donald is your typical Jewish parent. Donald’s children are all Ivy League graduates- just like my daughter who recently graduated magna cum laude from Harvard. 

Donald’s daughter Ivanka has converted to orthodox Judaism. That makes Donald the first president in the history of America with orthodox Jewish grandkids.

Donald is handing his business over to his children. That is the goal of every Jewish businessman in history.

Donald is the most hardworking businessman I’ve ever met. That is a trait handed down to me by my Yiddish grandfather. I believe it is the main reason for the success of the Jewish people. I’ve been a workaholic, just like Donald, my entire life.

Donald has never worked for others. He owns all of his own businesses. My Jewish butcher father David Root taught me that 2 things mattered above all else in life- being a good father and always owning your own business.

Donald has more chutzpah than anyone I’ve ever met in my life. Chutzpah is a unique word that comes from the Yiddish language. It means you are so ambitious, you aim so high that people think you’re nuts. Donald aims higher than anyone who has ever lived. Now he’s President of the United States!

Donald is the most relentless person I’ve ever met. Relentless is a very uniquely Jewish trait. Jews are relentless fighters- we have survived thousands of years of hate, discrimination, persecution, robbery, slavery and murder. We haven’t just survived…we have thrived! I wrote the book, “The Power of RELENTLESS.” Of course it was endorsed by Mr. Relentless himself, Donald Trump.

Donald is a big success in Hollywood as a TV producer. He joins an exclusive club that is predominantly Jewish. I should know. I have created, Executive Produced and hosted hit TV shows my entire adult life.

Donald is a bigger-than-life personality. He has dynamic communication skills. He’s very charismatic, opinionated, ambitious, aggressive, combative, committed and passionate about his ideas and beliefs. He says whatever is on his mind, even if it offends. All of those are traits I’ve seen in my Jewish friends, relatives and business partners for my entire life.

Many of Donald’s political views and policies are tailor-made for Jews. He could be the most pro-Israel president in history. Donald will always stand with the Jews of Israel. 

How strong are Donald’s bonds to Israel? He was the Grand Marshal of the annual “Salute to Israel” parade.

The Jewish National Fund awarded Donald the “Tree of Life” award for his lifetime of support for the Jewish people and the state of Israel.

Jewish Week found that Donald has given generously for many years to Jewish charities. A professor of “American Jewish History” calls Trump’s charitable giving to Jewish causes “impressive” and clearly out of the ordinary for a non-Jew.

His stance on “extreme vetting” and stopping the mass importation of Muslim refugees should be welcomed and enthusiastically embraced by every American Jew. Donald’s goal is the same as mine- keeping people out of our country who could commit acts of terrorism and who have an unnatural hatred and prejudice toward Jews.

One of Donald’s first priorities as president is to re-negotiate the Iran deal- perhaps the worst treaty ever negotiated in U.S. history and a danger to Israel’s future survival.

Donald is the strongest anti-terrorism president possible. He understands our enemy is radical Islam. He uses the words “Islamic extremist” in the same sentence. That alone makes Donald the best friend Jews ever had.

Amazingly, who was one of the very first world leaders to talk to Donald after his victory? Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel. Coincidence?

Speaking of best friends, many of Donald’s friends, business partners, executives at the Trump organization, country club members at Mar-a-Lago and trusted lawyers and advisers are Jewish. No U.S. president has ever in history been surrounded by so many Jewish friends and advisers.

Trust me, by almost every possible measurement, we've just elected our first Jewish president. (Trump Is Headed to the White House as the First Jewish President.)

It is pretty bad when the aforementioned Calvinist, Chuck Baldwin, sees the dangers of Zionism more clearly than do many Catholics, including traditional Catholics, who are drunk with enthusiasm over the election of Donald John Trump as the forty-fifth President of the United States of America. Mr. Baldwin expressed particular concerns about Stephen Bannon, a baptized Catholic, who will serve as Trump's senior counselor in the White House, and his support of Zionism:

And, as I wrote last week, the biggest indicator as to whether or not he is truly going to follow through with his rhetoric is who he selects for his cabinet and top-level government positions. So far, he has picked Reince Priebus as White House chief of staff and Stephen Bannon as White House chief strategist.

Reince Priebus is an establishment insider. He did NOTHING to help Trump get elected until toward the very end of the campaign. He is the current chairman of the Republican National Committee. If that doesn’t tell you what he is, nothing will. Trump probably picked him because he is in so tight with House Speaker Paul Ryan (a globalist neocon of the highest order) and the GOP establishment, thinking Priebus will help him get his agenda through the GOP Congress. But ideologically, Priebus does NOT share Trump’s anti-establishment agenda. So, this appointment is a risk at best and a sell-out at worst.

On the other hand, Stephen Bannon is probably a very good pick. He headed, which is one of the premier “alt-right” media outlets that has consistently led the charge against the globalist, anti-freedom agenda of the political establishment in Washington, D.C. Albeit, Bannon is probably blind to the dangers of Zionism and is, therefore, probably naïve about the New World Order. I don’t believe anyone can truly understand the New World Order without being aware of the role that Zionism plays in it. (Trump Supporters Must Not Go To Sleep.)

As correct as Chuck Baldwin is about Zionism, trying to cherry pick the "good" from the "bad" in any administration's selectees is really very much beside the point as each believes in and is a practitioner of Judeo-Masonic naturalism, which means that even a baptized Catholic comes to the job infused with conciliarism's spirit of "reconciliation" with the Judeo-Masonic, anti-Incarnational principles of Modernity. Every appointee in every administration believes that it is possible to advance the common temporal good by natuarlistic means, which is a lie. They only differ over which set of naturalism's lies will serve as the best foundation to advance whatever goals they desire to accomplish.

You doubt my word?

Once again, I present to the few readers of this site simple Catholic truth:

We can command: it is not enough to be a member of the Church of Christ, one needs to be a living member, in spirit and in truth, i.e., living in the state of grace and in the presence of God, either in innocence or in sincere repentance. If the Apostle of the nations, the vase of election, chastised his body and brought it into subjection: lest perhaps, when he had preached to others, he himself should become a castaway (1 Cor. ix. 27), could anybody responsible for the extension of the Kingdom of God claim any other method but personal sanctification? Only thus can we show to the present generation, and to the critics of the Church that "the salt of the earth," the leaven of Christianity has not decayed, but is ready to give the men of today -- prisoners of doubt and error, victims of indifference, tired of their Faith and straying from God -- the spiritual renewal they so much need. A Christianity which keeps a grip on itself, refuses every compromise with the world, takes the commands of God and the Church seriously, preserves its love of God and of men in all its freshness, such a Christianity can be, and will be, a model and a guide to a world which is sick to death and clamors for directions, unless it be condemned to a catastrophe that would baffle the imagination.

20. 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.)

The world is in a mess, and although the remote cause of all personal social problems is, of course, Original Sin, which, though washed away in the baptismal font, leaves the souls of the baptized with a darkened intellect and a weakened will, it is also true that one of the chief proximate causes for the mess that afflicts us at this time, apart from our own Actual Sins, is the Protestant Revolution's overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King. And it must never be forgotten that the ancient enmies of Christ the King, the Jews, helped to foment that revolution just as they have played a role in the fomenting of every heresy and in exploiting it once it had taken hold in the minds of men. This is why it is completely delusional for anyone, especially for a believing Catholic, to discount the evil role that Talmudism will play in the life of President Trump in the White House. 

No, a "new dawn" has not arrived. We are still in the midst of the same trap that has been used by the ancient enemies of Our Lord throughout the Church's history as they have raised up and cooperated with a variety of evil forces, including Mohammedanism, to do their bidding for them. After all, each non-Catholic force in the world is inspired by the devil himself.

William Thomas Walsh's description of the close connection between the Jews of Spain and elsewhere in Europe to attack the Faith in the Middle Ages should serve as salutary warning to those Catholics who are still inebrieted by the results of the election on November 8, 2016:

The world to her [Queen Isabella of Spain] was a vast battle-ground on which invisible powers and principalities had been locked for centuries in a titanic strife for the possession of men's souls. To her the central and significant fact of history was the Crucifixion. All that had happened in the fifteen centuries since then was explained in her philosophy of history by men's acceptance or rejection of the Crucified, and the key to many riddles lay in two of His utterances: “I came not to send peace, but the word,” and “He who is not with Me, is against Me.” The peace promised to His children was in their souls, not in the world about them. The Church seemed to her like a beleaguered city, hated and misunderstood by “the world,” even as He had predicted, but unconquerable. This view was an easy one to accept in a county where a Crusade had been in progress for eight centuries, nor was it difficult anywhere in Europe for those who knew the strange story of Europe as it appeared in the medieval songs and chronicles. For Christendom actually had been involved for nearly fifteen centuries in a mortal conflict against enemies within and without; chiefly Mohammedanism without, and heresy and Judaism within.

It seemed to her that whenever the Jews had been strong enough, they had persecuted Christians, from the Crucifixion on, and when they were too weak to do so they had fought the Gospel secretly by encouraging those Christian rebellions and secessions that were called heresies. They had stoned Saint Stephen and clamored for the blood of Saint Paul. They had cut out of the Old Testament the prophecies that seemed to Christians to refer so definitely to Jesus. Because of their turbulence against the first Christian converts they had been expelled from Rome by the Emperor Claudius. And whatever sympathy Isabel's human nature might have prompted her to feel for the cruel persecutions that Jews suffered later at the hands of Christians was tempered by her conviction that the children of Israel actually had called down upon themselves at the Crucifixion a very real and tangible curse, from which they must suffer until they acknowledged the Messiah who had been born to them. One can imagine her nodding with approval as she read Saint Luke's account of the labors of saint Paul at Corinth: “Paul was earnest in preaching, testifying to the Jews, that Jesus is the Christ. But they gainsaying and blaspheming, he shook his garments, and said to them, 'Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean; and henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles.'3 “And Paul, the Jew, was in some ways the prototype of those Christian Jews who so close to Isabel's throne throughout her reign. The dialogues of Pablo (Paul) de Santa Maria, a converted Jew who was Bishop of Burgos under Isabel's father, show vehemently the common attitude toward the historic Jew in her time. The Jews, he wrote, had climbed to wealth and high offices “by Satanic persuasion”; and by these massacres He had “touched the hearts of certain Jews, who examined the Scriptures anew and abjured their errors.”4

Footnote: 3 Acts of the Apostles, XVIII, 6, Pablo de Santa Maria, mentioned just below, was formerly Selemoth Ha-Levi, tutor of Isabel's father. He was converted upon seeing an apparition of the Blessed Virgin.

Footnote: 4 Amador de los Rios, Historia de los Judios, Vol. III, p. 66. (William Thomas Walsh

Isabella of Spain: The Last Crusader, published originally by Robert McBride and Company in 1930 and republished by TAN Books and Publishers in 1987, pp. 159-160.)

This is a precise description of the world in which we live as well, afflicted with the attacks of Talmudists on the Incarnation, Nativity, and Passion, Death and Resurrection of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and upon the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law (Talmudists have been in the forefront of supporting impurity, indecency, immodesty, divorce, contraception, abortion, sodomy and the related vices that have flowed forth from these pestilential evils)--and afflicted as well by the attacks of Mohamedanism from without. The only thing that has changed is that many Catholics now find themselves rooting for a man who has chosen to surround himself with Talmudists, each of whom sees the world through the eyes of mere naturalism, which can never be a source of personal sanctity or of social order.

An affinity for Zionism betrays one as an enemy of Christ the King and His Holy Church. There can be no midde ground between the synagogue and the Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity made Man by the power of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, in the Virginal and Immaculate Womb of His Most Blessed Mother at the Annunciation. This is something that Pope Saint Pius X made very clear In case you are new to this site, here is international Zionism’s founder’s account  of  his meeting with Pope Saint Pius X on January 25, 1904, the Feast of the Conversion of Saint Paul the Apostle, in the Apostolic Palace:

Pope Saint Pius X was no ecumenist. He was unafraid to recall those outside of the Church to her maternal bosom, as he reminded the founder of Zionism, Theodore Herzl, on January 25, 1904:

HERZL: Yesterday I was with the Pope [Pius X]. . . . I arrived ten minutes ahead of time, and without having to wait I was conducted through a number of small reception rooms to the Pope. He received me standing and held out his hand, which I did not kiss. Lippay had told me I had to do it, but I didn’t. I believe this spoiled my chances with him, for everyone who visits him kneels and at least kisses his hand. This hand kiss had worried me a great deal and I was glad when it was out of the way.

He seated himself in an armchair, a throne for minor affairs, and invited me to sit by his side. He smiled in kindly anticipation. I began:

HERZL: I thank Your Holiness for the favor of granting me this audience. [I begged him to excuse my miserable Italian, but he said:

POPE: No, Signor Commander, you speak very well.

HERZL: [He is an honest, rough-hewn village priest, to whom Christianity has remained a living thing even in the Vatican. I briefly laid my request before him. But annoyed perhaps by my refusal to kiss his hand, he answered in a stern categorical manner.

POPE: We are unable to favor this movement [of Zionism]. We cannot prevent the Jews from going to Jerusalem—but we could never sanction it. The ground of Jerusalem, if it were not always sacred, has been sanctified by the life of Jesus Christ. As the head of the Church I cannot answer you otherwise. The Jews have not recognized our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people.

HERZL: [The conflict between Rome and Jerusalem, represented by the one and the other of us, was once again under way. At the outset I tried to be conciliatory. I said my little piece. . . . It didn’t greatly impress him. Jerusalem was not to be placed in Jewish hands.] And its present status, Holy Father?

POPE: I know, it is disagreeable to see the Turks in possession of our Holy Places. We simply have to put up with it. But to sanction the Jewish wish to occupy these sites, that we cannot do.

HERZL: [I said that we based our movement solely on the sufferings of the Jews, and wished to put aside all religious issues].

POPE: Yes, but we, but I as the head of the Catholic Church, cannot do this. One of two things will likely happen. Either the Jews will retain their ancient faith and continue to await the Messiah whom we believe has already appeared—in which case they are denying the divinity of Jesus and we cannot assist them. Or else they will go there with no religion whatever, and then we can have nothing at all to do with them. The Jewish faith was the foundation of our own, but it has been superceded by the teachings of Christ, and we cannot admit that it still enjoys any validity. The Jews who should have been the first to acknowledge Jesus Christ have not done so to this day.

HERZL: [It was on the tip of my tongue to remark, “It happens in every family: no one believes in his own relative.” But, instead, I said:] Terror and persecution were not precisely the best means for converting the Jews. [His reply had an element of grandeur in its simplicity:]

POPE: Our Lord came without power. He came in peace. He persecuted no one. He was abandoned even by his apostles. It was only later that he attained stature. It took three centuries for the Church to evolve. The Jews therefore had plenty of time in which to accept his divinity without duress or pressure. But they chose not to do so, and they have not done it yet.

HERZL: But, Holy Father, the Jews are in a terrible plight. I do not know if Your Holiness is aware of the full extent of their tragedy. We need a land for these harried people.

POPE: Must it be Jerusalem?

HERZL: We are not asking for Jerusalem, but for Palestine—for only the secular land.

POPE: We cannot be in favor of it.

[Editor Lowenthal interjects here] Here unrelenting replacement theology is plainly upheld as the norm of the Roman Catholic Church. Further, this confession, along with the whole tone of the Pope in his meeting with Herzl, indicates the perpetuation of a doctrinal emphasis that has resulted in centuries of degrading behavior toward the Jews. However, this response has the “grandeur” of total avoidance of that which Herzl had intimated, namely that the abusive reputation of Roman Catholicism toward the Jews was unlikely to foster conversion. Further, if, “It took three centuries for the Church to evolve,” it was that very same period of time that it took for the Church to consolidate and launch its thrust of anti-Semitism through the following centuries.

HERZL: Does Your Holiness know the situation of the Jews?

POPE: Yes, from my days in Mantua, where there are Jews. I have always been in friendly relations with Jews. Only the other evening two Jews were here to see me. There are other bonds than those of religion: social intercourse, for example, and philanthropy. Such bonds we do not refuse to maintain with the Jews. Indeed we also pray for them, that their spirit see the light. This very day the Church is celebrating the feast of an unbeliever who became converted in a miraculous manner—on the road to Damascus. And so if you come to Palestine and settle your people there, we will be ready with churches and priests to baptize all of you.

HERZL: [At this point Conte Lippay had himself announced. The Pope bade him be admitted. The Conte kneeled, kissed his hand, and joined in the conversation by telling of our “miraculous” meeting in the Bauer beerhall at Venice. The miracle was that he had originally intended to stay overnight in Padua, and instead, it turned out that he was given to hear me express the wish to kiss the Holy Father’s foot. At this the Pope made no movement, for I hadn’t even kissed his hand. Lippay proceeded to tell how I had expiated on the noble qualities of Jesus Christ. The Pope listened, and now and then took a pinch of snuff and sneezed into a big red cotton handkerchief. It is these peasant touches which I like about him best and which most of all compel my respect. Lippay, it would appear, wanted to account for his introducing me, and perhaps ward off a word of reproach. But the Pope said:

POPE: On the contrary, I am glad you brought me the Signor Commendatore.

HERZL: [As to the real business, he repeated what he had told me, until he dismissed us:]

POPE: Not possible!

HERZL: [Lippay stayed on his knees for an unconscionable time and never seemed to tire of kissing his hand. It was apparent that this was what the Pope liked. But on taking leave, I contented myself with shaking his hand warmly and bowing deeply. The audience lasted about twenty-five minutes. While spending the last hour in the Raphael gallery, I saw a picture of an Emperor kneeling before a seated Pope and receiving the crown from his hands. That’s how Rome wants it.]   (Marvin Lowenthal, Diaries of Theodore Herzl, pp. 427- 430.)

Not exactly how the conciliar "popes" have spoken to the adherents of the Talmud whenever they have permitted themselves to have been treated as inferiors in Talmudic synagogues and as Talmudic choirs have sung about how the Talmudic Jews of today are "waiting for the Messiah," now is it?

Oh, no. Pope Saint Pius X sought the conversion of souls, making no accommodations to the nonexistent legitimacy of false religions, and it is not be "anti-Semitic" to point out who is responsible for promoting and institutionalizing evils under the cover of the civil law or to demonstrate the dangers of being surrounded by true believers in the dead, superseded religion of Talmudism as Jared Kusher, President-elect Trump's son-in-law, and his wife, Ivanka Trump Kushner, Trump's eldest daughter. 

Father Denis Fahey, the great defender of the Social Reign of Christ the King, explained how the Talmudists use the “anti-Semite” card to tar anyone and everyone who opposes them and will not accept their false religion as valid and who dares to place into question their tortured accounts of human history:

Yet all the propaganda about that display of Anti-Semitism should not have made Catholics forget the existence of age-long Jewish Naturalism or Anti-Supernaturalism. Forgetfulness of the disorder of Jewish Naturalistic opposition to Christ the King is keeping Catholics blind to the danger that is arising from the clever extension of the term “Anti-Semitism,” with all its war-connotation in the minds of the unthinking, to include any form of opposition to the Jewish Nation’s naturalistic aims. For the leaders of the Jewish Nation, to stand for the rights of Christ the King is logically to be “anti-Semitic.” (Father Denis Fahey, The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation.)

These words of wisdom apply to the cultural and political legal warfare that has been waged in this country by Judeo-Masonry. Indeed, as Father Fahey quotes from Pope Pius XI:

“Comprehending and merciful charity towards the erring,” he writes, “and even towards the contemptuous, does not mean and can not mean that you renounce in any way the proclaiming of, the insisting on, and the courageous defence of the truth and its free and unhindered application to the realities about you. The first and obvious duty the priest owes to the world about him is service to the truth, the whole truth, the unmasking and refutation of error in whatever form or disguise it conceals itself.” (Pope Pius XII, Mit Brennender Sorge, March 14, 1937)

The following passages from Father Fahey's The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation describe the nature of the trap into which so many Catholics, inebrieted with joy over the election of Donald John Trump as the next President of the United States of America, have fallen and from which some may never escape:

Satan aims at preventing the acknowledgement by States and Nations of the Catholic Church as the One Way established by God for ordered return to Him. When this acknowledgement has been brought about in spite of his efforts and those of his satellites, he strives to get it undone and to induce the State to persecute the Catholic Church. The first step towards this is to get all religions, including the Jewish religion, put on the same level as the Catholic Church. The granting of full citizenship to the Jews, who as a nation are engaged in preparing for the Natural Messiah, tends in the same direction. This putting of all religious on the same level is usually called in the newspapers separation of Church and State. (Cf. Accounts of Revolutions from the French Revolution of 1789 to the Spanish Revolution of 1931).

Satan spreads perplexity and disorder in minds by confusing the false tolerance of Liberalism, by which equal rights are granted to truth and error, with the true toleranceof the Catholic Church. “As to tolerance,” writes Leo XIII (Encyclical Letter, Libertas, On Human Liberty), “it is surprising how far removed from the equity and prudence of the Church are those who profess what is called Liberalism. For, in allowing that boundless licence of which we have spoken, they exceed all limits and end at last by making no apparent distinction between truth and error, honesty and dishonesty . . . it is contrary to reason that error and truth should have equal rights . . . For right is a moral power which it is absurd to suppose that nature has accorded indifferently to truth and falsehood, justice and injustice.”

“The Church,” writes the same learned Pontiff (Encyclical Letter, Immortale Dei, On the Christian Constitution of States), “deems it unlawful to place the various forms of divine worship on the same footing as the true religion, but does not on that account, condemn those rulers who for the sake of securing some great good or of hindering some great evil, patiently allow custom or usage to be a kind of sanction for each kind of religion having its place in the State. And, in fact, the Church is wont to take earnest heed that no one shall be forced to embrace the Catholic Faith against his will.”

Satan also spreads perplexity and disorder in minds by introducing confusion between Anti-Semitism, which is the detestable hatred of the Jews as a race, and the duty incumbent upon Catholics of combating valiantly for the integral rights of Christ the King and opposing Jewish Naturalism. We see this clearly in the following quotation from the Jewish writer Bernard Lazare: “The Jew is the living testimony of the disappearance of the State based on theological principles, that state which the Anti-Semites hope to restore. From the day a Jew first occupied a public position, the Christian State was in danger. That is perfectly accurate and the Anti-Semites who say that the Jews have destroyed the correct idea of the State could more justly assert that the entrance of the Jews into Christian Society has symbolized the destruction of the State, I mean, of course, the Christian State” (L’Antisémitisme, p. 361).

Satan wants us to forget that there is one True Religion, the Supernatural Religion established by Our Lord Jesus Christ, True God and True Man. He wants us also to lose sight of the fact that there are organized forces working for the advent of the Natural Messias.

By the fact that the indiscriminate freedom of all forms of worship is proclaimed, truth is confused with error, and the Holy and Immaculate Spouse of Christ is placed on the same level as heretical sects and even as Jewish perfidy” (Pius VII, Letter, Post tam diuturnas).


Satan has not left us in doubt about his enthusiasm for the Declaration of the “rights of man” and the principles of the French Revolution of 1789. “Long live Liberty, Equality, Fraternity! That is the favourable time for us” are amongst the expressions used by the possessed children of Illfurt, Alsace. (Cf. The Devil, his words and actions in the possessed children of Illfurt, from the official documents). 

Satan aims at getting states and nations to treat with contempt the indirect power of the Catholic Church and at setting up the state or the race as the authority to decide all moral questions. He knows that this means the abrogation of the moral law and that it leads to chaos. (Father Denis Fahey, C.S. Sp., The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation.)

Catholics ignore these truths at their own peril. American presidents, no matter their political party affiliation, have long been pawns of the adversay to the advance the New World Order of Judeo-Masonry.

Well, enough of this for the moment as attention shifts to the erection of the Priestly Fraternity of the Society of Saint Pius X to the status of a "Personal Prelature" of his heinousness, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, that will be announced later today, the Feast of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Part four of this current series, though, will appear in a few days, and its focus will be on the election results themselves and a few more the president-elect's nominees for various offices. 

Today's great feast of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary will thus go unnoticed by most people, including most Catholics, in the world this day, especially given the madness of the moment. We know, however, that to dishonor the Blessed Mother is dishonor her Divine Son. It cannot be this way with us. We must honor Our Lady as we pray to her, especially by means of her Most Holy Rosary, that she will present us to her Divine Son at the moment of our deaths.

Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., wrote the following about the history of this great feast day in his The Liturgical Year, teaching us that the King of France, Charles V, understood that nations must give public honor and glory to the Mother of God:

The East had been celebrating for seven centuries at least the entrance of the Mother of God into the temple of Jerusalem, when in 1372 Gregory XI permitted it to be kept for the first time by the Roman court at Avignon. Mary in return broke the chains of captivity that had bound the Papacy for seventy years; and soon the successor of St. Peter returned to Rome. The feast of the Visitation, as we saw on July 2, was in like manner inserted into the Western calendar to commemorate the re-establishment of unity after the schism which followed the exile.

In 1373, following the example of the Sovereign Pontiff, Charles V of France introduced the feast of the Presentation into the chapel of his palace. By letters dated November 10, 1374, the masters and students of the college of Navarre, he expressed his desire that it should be celebrated throughout the kingdom: "Charles, by the grace of God king of the Franks, to our dearly beloved: health in Him who ceases not to honour His Mother on earth. Among other objects of our solicitude, of our daily care and diligent meditation, that which rightly occupies our first thoughts is, that the blessed Virgin and most Holy Empress be honoured by us with very great love and praise as becomes the veneration due to her. For it is our duty to glorify her; and we, who raise the eyes of our soul to her on high, know what an incomparable protectress she is to all, how powerful a mediatrix with her blessed Son, for those who honour her with a pure heart. . . . Wherefore, wishing to excite our faithful people to solemnize the said feast, as we ourselves propose to do by God's assistance every year of our life, we send this Office to your devotion, in order to increase your joy."

Such was the language of princes in those days. Now just at the very time the wise and pious king, following up the work begun at Bretigny by our Lady of Chartres, rescued France from its from its fallen and dismembered condition. In the State, then, as well as in the Church, at this moment so critical for both our Lady in her Presentation commanded the storm, and the smile of the infant Mary dispersed the clouds. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year.)

Imagine if we had such rulers today as France had in the glories of Christendom! Public honor and glory given to the Mother of God on her feast days.

That would be something worth praising!

Dom Gueranger explained the mystical significance of this day: 

Through the graceful infant now mounting the temple steps He takes possession of that temple whose priests will hereafter disown Him; for this child whom the temple welcomes to-day is His 'throne.' Already His fragrance precedes and announces Him in the Mother in whose bosom He is to be 'anointed with the oil of gladness' as the Christ among His brethren; already the angels hail her as the Queen whose fruitful virginity will give birth to all those consecrated souls who keep for the divine Spouse the 'myrrh' and the incense of their holocausts, those 'daughters of kings' who are to form her court of honour.

But our Lady's Presentation also opens new horizons before the Church. On the Cycle of the saints, which is not so precisely limited as that of the Time, the mystery of Mary's sojourn in the sanctuary of the Old Covenant is our best preparation for the approaching season of Advent. Mary, led to the temple in order to prepare in retirement, humility, and love for her incomparable destiny, had also the mission of perfecting at the foot of the figurative altar the prayer of the human race, of itself ineffectual to draw down the Saviour from heaven. She was, as St. Bernardine of Siena says, the happy completion of all the waiting and the supplication for the coming of the Son of God; in her, as in their culminating-point, all the desires of the saints who had preceded her found their consummation and their term.

Through her wonderful understanding of the Scriptures, and her conformity, daily and hourly, to the minutest teachings and prescriptions of the Mosaic ritual, Mary everywhere found and adored the Messias hidden under the letter; she united herself to Him, immolated herself with Him in each of the many victims sacrificed before her eyes; and thus she rendered to the God of Sinai the homage hitherto vainly expected of the Law understood, practised, and made to fructify in all the fullness that beseemed its divine Legislator. Then could Jehovah truly say: 'As the rain and the snow come down from heaven and return no more thither, but soak the earth and water it, and make it to spring: . . . so shall My word be. . . it shall not return to Me void, but it shall do whatsoever I please.

Supplying thus for the deficiencies of the Gentiles as well as of the Synagogue, Mary behold in the bride of the Canticle of the Church of the future. In our name she addressed her supplications to Him whom she recognized as the Bridegroom, without, however, knowing that He was to be her own Son. Such yearnings of love, coming from her, were sufficient to obtain from the divine Word pardon for the infidelities of the past and the immorality into which the wandering world was plunging deeper and deeper. How well did this ark of the New Covenant replace that of the Jews, which had perished with the first temple! It was for her, though he knew it not, that Herod the Gentile and continued the construction of the second temple after it had remained desolate since the time of Zorobabel; for the temple, like the tabernacle before it, was but the home of the ark destined to be God's throne; but greater was the glory of the second temple which sheltered the reality, than of the first which contained but the figure. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year.)

The readings for Matins in today’s Divine Office teach us about the generosity of Saints Joachim and Anne and the holy purity of their daughter, the very fairest flower of the human race:

Joachim took to wife that most eminent and praiseworthy woman, Anne. And even as the ancient Hannah, being stricken with barrenness, by prayer and promise became the mother of Samuel, so likewise this woman also through prayer and promise received from God the Mother of God, that in fruitfulness she might not be behind any of the famous matrons. And thus grace (for such is the signification of the name of Anne) is mother of the Lady (for such is the signification of the name of Mary.) And indeed she became the Lady of every creature, since she hath been mother of the Creator. She first saw the light in Joachim's house, hard by the Pool of Bethesda, at Jerusalem, and was carried to the Temple. There planted in the Lord, the dew of His Spirit made her to flourish in the courts of her God, and like a green olive she became a tree, so that all the doves of grace came and lodged in her branches. And so she raised her mind utterly above the lust of life and the lust of the flesh, and kept her soul virgin in her virgin body, as became her that was to receive God into her womb. (Saint John of Damascus, “From the Book Upon the Orthodox Faith,” as found in Matins, Divine Office, Feast of the Presentation of Blessed Virgin Mary.)

Such was Mary that her single life offereth an example to all. If then the doer displease us not, let us applaud the deed; if any other woman seek like reward, let her follow after like works. In the one Virgin how many glorious examples do shine forth. Her's was the hidden treasure of modesty, her's the high standard of faith, her's the self-sacrifice of earnestness, her's to be the pattern of maidenhood at home, of kinswomanhood in ministry, of motherhood in the Temple. O to how many virgins hath she been helpful, how many hath she taken in her arms and presented unto the Lord, saying Here is one who, like me, hath kept stainlessly clean the wedding -chamber, the marriage -bed of my Son!

Why should I go on to speak of the scantiness of her eating, or of the multiplicity of her work? how her labour seemed above human capacity, and her refreshment insufficient for human strength, her toil never missing a moment, her fasting taking two days together. And when she was fain to eat, she took not dainties, but whatsoever food came first to hand that would keep body and soul together. She would not sleep till need was, and even then, while her body rested, her soul watched, for she often talked in her sleep, either repeating things that she had read, or going on with what she was doing before sleep interrupted her, or rehearsing things executed, or talking of things projected. (Saint Ambrose, “The Book Upon Virgins,” as found in Matins, Divine Office, Feast of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary.)

It is plain that this was a woman of great earnestness and faith. The Scribes and Pharisees were at once tempting and blaspheming the Lord, but this woman so clearly grasped His Incarnation, and so bravely confessed the same, that she confounded both the lies of the great men who were present, and the faithlessness of the heretics who were yet to come. Even as the Jews then, blaspheming the works of the Holy Ghost, denied the very Son of God Who is of one substance with the Father, so afterwards did the heretics, by denying that Mary always a Virgin did, under the operation of the Holy Ghost, supply flesh to the Only begotten One of God, when He was about being born in an human Body, even so, I say, did the heretics deny that the Son of Man should be called a true Son, Who is of one substance with His Mother.

If we shall say that the Flesh, Wherewith the Son of God was born in the flesh, was something outside of the flesh of the Virgin His Mother, without reason should we bless the womb that bore Him, and the paps which He hath sucked. But the Apostle saith: "God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law", Gal, iv. 4., and they are not to be listened to who read this passage: "Born of a woman, made under the law." He was made of a woman, for He was conceived in a virgin's womb, and took His Flesh, not from nothing, not from elsewhere, but from the flesh of His Mother. Otherwise, and if He had not been sprung of a woman, He could not with truth be called the Son of man. Let us therefore, denying the doctrine of Eutyches, lift up our voice, along with the Universal Church, whereof that woman was a figure, let us lift up our heart as well as our voice from the company, and say unto the Saviour: Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. Blessed Mother, of whom one hath said thou art His Mother, Who reigns over earth and over heaven for ever.

Yea, rather, blessed are they that hear the Word of God and keep it. How nobly doth the Saviour say "Yea" to the woman's blessing, declaring also that not only is she blessed who was meet to give bodily birth to the Word of God, but that all they who spiritually conceive the same Word by the hearing of faith, and, by keeping it through good works, bring it forth and, as it were, carefully nurse it, in their own hearts, and in the hearts of their neighbours, are also blessed. Yea, and that the very Mother of God herself was blessed in being for a while the handmaid of the Word of God made Flesh, but that she was much more blessed in this, that through her love she keepeth Him for ever. (Homily by the Venerable Bede, as found in Matins, Divine Office, Feast of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary.)

At a time when even fully believing Catholics to look to Protestant and/or secular “conservative” commentators for ways to understand the problems of the world, we must never look to anyone for "advice" on First or Last Things who cannot make these words of Dom Prosper Gueranger his own, who cannot make his own this prayer uttered by the great Benedictine of the Nineteenth Century:

'Congratulate me, all ye that love the Lord, because when I was a little one I pleased the Most High.' Such is the invitation thou addressed to us, O Mary, in the Office chanted in thy honour; and on what feast couldst thou do so more appropriately?

When, even more little in thy humility than by thy tender age, thou didst mount, in thy sweet purity, the steps of the temple, all heaven must have owned that it was henceforth just for the Most High to take His delight in our earth. Having hitherto lived in retirement with thy blessed parents, this was thy first public act; it showed thee for a moment to the eyes of men, only to withdraw thee immediately into deeper obscurity. But as thou wast officially offered and presented to the Lord, He Himself doubtless, surrounded by the princes of His court, presented thee not less solemnly to those noble spirits as their Queen. In the fullness of the new light that then burst upon them, they understood at once thy incomparable greatness, the majesty of the temple where Jehovah was receiving a homage superior to that of their nine choirs, and the august prerogative of the Old Testament to have thee for its daughter, and to perfect, by its teachings and guidance during those twelve years, the formation of the Mother of God.

Holy Church, however, declares that we can imitate thee, O Mary, in this mystery of thy Presentation, as in all others. Deign to bless especially those privileged souls who, by the grace of their vocation, are even here below dwellers in the house of the Lord; may they be like that fruitful olive enriched by the holy Spirit, to which St. John Damascene compares thee. But is not every Christian, by reason of his Baptism, an indweller and a member of the Church. God's true sanctuary, prefigured by that of Moriah? May we through thy intercession, follow thee so closely in thy Presentation even here in the land of shadows, that we may deserve to be presented after thee to the Most High in the temple of His glory.  (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year.)

We must offer up our prayers and our sacrifices and humiliations and mortifications and penances to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, praying as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit, so that every human being on the face of this earth will recognize in the Mother of God the Singular Vessel of Devotion without whose intercession we cannot get to Heaven and whose Immaculate Heart will indeed triumph in the end.

Viva Cristo ReyVivat Christus Rex!

Our Lady of 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.