No Rules For Liars and Fascists
by Thomas A. Droleskey
Only those living in a world of willful self-delusion can ignore the simple fact most of American electoral politics and public policy is driven by the amorality (undertaking actions without regard to any considerations of their inherent morality or immorality) that was popularized by the Italian Renaissance author named Niccolo Machiavelli at the end of the Fifteenth Century. Most of the naturalists who run for office are concerned about winning for the sake of winning, although the naturalists of the "left" are, at least as a general rule, much more ruthless and savage than their counterparts in the false opposite of the "right."
To wit, as corrupt as he he was, the late Ferdinand Marcos, who was President of the Republic of the Philippines from December 30, 1965, to February 25, 1986, did not have the heart to order his military commanders to fire on those conducting the "people revolution" in February of 1986 to demand his ouster following what were incontestably fraudulent election results that gave him a supposed "victory" over the widow of the assassinated Benigno Aquino, Corazon Aquino. Despite his years of mendacity and the authorize of the use of torture and illegal imprisonments and martial law, Ferdinand Marcos could specifically ordered his military commanders, who wanted to fire upon the protesters, to disperse his opponents without violence. And Augusto Pinochet, the military president of Chile from September 11, 1973, March 11, 1990, began to make the transition from his corrupt and sometimes brutal rule, begun when power was seized (with the help of the government of the United States of America under the administration of President Gerald Rudolph Ford, Jr., from a Soviet client, an avowed Communist by the name of Salvador Allende, on September 11, 1973, following a personal plea made in April of 1987 by Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II to plan the day for his departure from power. Pinochet listened. He complied.
True, both Ferdinand Marcos and Augusto Pinochet were Catholics. This, perhaps more than anything else, permitted them to listen to reason and to face facts squarely when it was time for them to depart the scene. Both of them did so, however, marking a sharp contrast with the autocrats of the "left" who believe that it is both permissible and necessary to use whatever means available to them, up to and including armed force, to seize and/or maintain power. Although the naturalists of the "right" in this country can and so use all manner of emotional appeals to win votes, the ruthless and vehemence of their counterparts in the "left" is without almost any bounds whatsoever.
Former President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, who is revered by many Americans despite all of the public scandal attached to his name, including the fact that Juanita Broderick accused him of assaulting her (an accusation that even some United States Senators of the Democratic Party were said to have found quiet credible when they reviewed the evidence on the matter kept in a special evidence room during Clinton's impeachment trial in 1999), decried what he called "the politics of personal destruction" even as he authorized a scorched earth policy to be used to discredit any Republican critic who said that he was deserving of being impeached by the United States House of Representatives in 1998 and then convicted by a two-thirds majority vote of the United States Senate. The late United States Representative Henry Hyde (R-Illinois) and former United States Representatives Robert Barr (R-Georgia) and Robert Livingston (R-Louisiana), who was supposed to succeed then House Speaker Leroy Newton Gingrich (R-Georgia), and United States Representative Dan Burton (R-Indiana) had their own misdeeds laid out in graphic detail for all the world to see. Clinton, who continued to decry the "politics of personal destruction" even after his trial in the United States Senate resulted in his acquittal, authorized this scorched policy, standing above the fray as righteous and sanctimonious as ever.
Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has emerged as an elder "stateswoman" in her capacity as the United States Secretary of State, used to speak of the "vast right wing conspiracy" that was opposed to her devoted husband, also asserting on various occasions that she as a lightning rod for criticism because many people are afraid of a strong woman. This was worse than farce as Hillary Clinton clung to her husband's coattails in order to rise to national prominence. She considered the humiliations she suffered at his hands by means of his serial infidelity to her to be but a small price to pay for getting her chance at a share of the presidency, if not the presidency itself, which is a goal that she might yet hold if Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ does not intervene to put an end to all of this madness caused, proximately speaking, that, by the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King wrought by the Protestant Revolution and the rise of the naturalistic forces that can be described collectively as Judeo-Masonry.
Hillary Diane Clinton made a very calculated choice: instead of running for office on her own in the 1970s she chose to follow her boyfriend from Yale Law School, one William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, to Arkansas, knowing full well about his, shall we say, straying eye. A girl friend of the then Miss Rodham's asked her why she would want to endure Clinton's endless womanizing. As is recounted in David Maraniss's First in His Class: A Biography of Bill Clinton (Touchstone, 1995), Miss Rodham chuckled a bit in response to her friend's question and then said, "Bill Clinton's going to be President of the United States." Preternatural knowledge? One can't rule it out. After all, anyone who engages in "seances" (Eleanor Roosevelt Roosevelt, call your office) invites the devil and his minions into an intimate alliance with him, whether or not he realizes it. Hillary Diane Rodham gave up a lot to go to Arkansas back in 1974. She was sure that she had found her meal-ticket back to the highest place in all of Washington, D.C., the White House, taking but a mere eighteen years to reach the point where her fellow citizens would have, as she boasted early in her husband's 1992 campaign for the Democrat Party presidential nomination, "two for the price of one."
Having endured Clinton's philandering and living in the State of Arkansas, where she worked very hard to establish herself as an advocate, as she saw it for "children" (disregarding the inconvenient little fact that she also advocates the murder of innocent preborn children), Hillary Rodham Clinton (it took her awhile to adopt her husband's last name) was not about to let the facts of her husband's sordid private life get in the way of their going to the White House. The First Lady of Arkansas took it upon herself to steamroller Gennifer Flowers in early-1992, dismissing the latter's charges of an illicit relationship with her husband to be "trash for cash." It was the quintessence of the Alinsky approach: "Pick the target, free it, personalize it and polarize it." Although Hillary Diane Rodham may not have agreed with everything in Saul Alinsky's ideology, she certainly adopted Alinsky's methodology when her cherished goal of ultimate power in Washington, D.C., without having to endure the rough-and-tumble of electoral politics appeared to be in jeopardy. She was at one and the same time a victim of an serial-adulterer of a husband and an attack dog to save that same husband's career, having attached her own future to his in an almost Faustian manner. Topping it all over, she played the role of the martyr when Republicans criticized her for anything that she said and did during her husband's two terms in office.
As has been demonstrated many times on this site over the years, even the recent deployment of tactics of total destruction by the lords of the contemporary "left" are but a recrudescence of President Thomas Woodrow Wilson's efforts to silence all opposition to American involvement in what we call now World War I (then called the World War or the Great War) as he demonized such opposition and signed legislation that was described by United States Senator Hiram Johnson (R-California) as follows: "... "[I]t is now illegal to criticize the government of the United States at any time for any reason." President Franklin Delano Roosevelt turned agents of the Internal Revenue Service loose on his opponents, especially the late Hamilton Stuyvesant Fish III, a Republican Congressman from November 2, 1920, to January 3, 1945, and convinced his cronies in the American hierarchy to convince Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli, then the Secretary of State for the Holy See, to authorize the silencing of his fiercest opponent, Father Charles Coughlin. A great deal of disinformation about the thirty-third degree Mason, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, was fed to the future Pope Pius XII by Americanist bishops, who served as lackeys and water boys for Roosevelt, at the time and after his ascending to Throne of Saint Peter on March 2, 1939. (For present purposes, my few and far between readers, I am leaving out the oppressive measures used by Abraham Lincoln to suppress dissent during the War Between the States as Lincoln was simply an old-fashioned abuser of power to achieve his ends.)
What we are witnessing at the present time, however, is particularly odious, admitting that various state and local governments in various parts of the country in the Nineteenth and early-Twentieth Centuries did all manner of things, up to and including violence, to suppress voter turnout of Catholics and blacks and those deemed to be "unacceptable" to WASPs (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants). We are witnessing an effort on part of a committed bunch of leftist thugs and goons in the administration of Caesar Barackus Obamus Ignoramus to indemnify the suppression of opposition at the ballot box.
Leaving aside my own particular judgment concerning the farcical nature of the elections in a system where the devil raises up bogeyman of the "left" to make their naturalist counterparts in the "right" seem like veritable champions of justice when they are concerned, at least for the most part, about their own careers and wind up being corrupted by the trappings of office once elected (see
When Lesser is Greater and
"I Will Reign In Spite of All Who Oppose Me"), the fact that the United States Department of Justice under its sleazy head, Attorney General Eric Holder, who corrupted justice when serving in the administration of President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton by greasing the skids for the pardon of fugitive financier Marc Rich, has refused to prosecute members of the "New Black Panther Party" who sought to intimidate voters in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on Tuesday, November 4, 2008, is a particularly chilly reminder that fascists of the "left" take no prisoners. They play by no rules save for their own:
On Election Day 2008, Maruse Heath, the leader of Philadelphia's New Black Panther Party, stood in front of a neighborhood polling place, dressed in a paramilitary uniform.
Within hours, an amateur video showing Heath, slapping a black nightstick and exchanging words with the videographer, had aired on TV and ricocheted across the nation.
Among those who saw the footage was J. Christian Adams, who was in his office in the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division in Washington.
"I thought, 'This is wrong, this is not supposed to happen in this country,' " Adams said. "There are armed men in front of a polling place, and I need to find out if they violated the law, because in my mind there's a good chance that they did."
The clash between the black nationalist and the white lawyer has mushroomed into a fierce debate over the government's enforcement of civil rights laws, a dispute that will be aired next week when the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights unveils findings from a year-long investigation.
Two months after Election Day, Adams and his supervisors in the George W. Bush administration filed a voter-intimidation lawsuit against Heath and his colleagues, even though no voters had complained. The Obama administration months later dismissed most of the case, even though the Panthers had not contested the charges.
Interviews and government documents reviewed by The Washington Post show that the case tapped into deep divisions within the Justice Department that persist today over whether the agency should focus on protecting historically oppressed minorities or enforce laws without regard to race.
The dispute over the Panthers, and the Justice Department's handling of it, was politicized from the start, documents and interviews show. On Election Day, the issue was driven by Republican poll watchers and officials and a conservative Web site.
Within hours, an amateur video showing Heath, slapping a black nightstick and exchanging words with the videographer, had aired on TV and ricocheted across the nation.
Among those who saw the footage was J. Christian Adams, who was in his office in the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division in Washington.
"I thought, 'This is wrong, this is not supposed to happen in this country,' " Adams said. "There are armed men in front of a polling place, and I need to find out if they violated the law, because in my mind there's a good chance that they did."
The clash between the black nationalist and the white lawyer has mushroomed into a fierce debate over the government's enforcement of civil rights laws, a dispute that will be aired next week when the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights unveils findings from a year-long investigation.
Two months after Election Day, Adams and his supervisors in the George W. Bush administration filed a voter-intimidation lawsuit against Heath and his colleagues, even though no voters had complained. The Obama administration months later dismissed most of the case, even though the Panthers had not contested the charges.
Interviews and government documents reviewed by The Washington Post show that the case tapped into deep divisions within the Justice Department that persist today over whether the agency should focus on protecting historically oppressed minorities or enforce laws without regard to race.
The dispute over the Panthers, and the Justice Department's handling of it, was politicized from the start, documents and interviews show. On Election Day, the issue was driven by Republican poll watchers and officials and a conservative Web site.
At the department, Adams and his colleagues pushed a case that other career lawyers concluded had major evidentiary weaknesses. After the Obama administration took over, high-level political appointees relayed their thoughts on the case in a stream of internal e-mails in the days leading to the dismissal.
That decision to pull back the lawsuit caused conflicts so heated that trial team members at times threw memos in anger or cursed at supervisors.
The dismissals triggered outrage from conservatives and congressional Republicans, two internal Justice Department inquiries and the investigation by the conservative-controlled civil rights commission. The debate has thrust Eric H. Holder Jr., the nation's first African American attorney general and long the target of Republican attacks, into an unwelcome spotlight.
In recent months, Adams and a Justice Department colleague have said the case was dismissed because the department is reluctant to pursue cases against minorities accused of violating the voting rights of whites. Three other Justice Department lawyers, in recent interviews, gave the same description of the department's culture, which department officials strongly deny. . . .
Civil rights officials from the Bush administration have said that enforcement should be race-neutral. But some officials from the Obama administration, which took office vowing to reinvigorate civil rights enforcement, thought the agency should focus primarily on cases filed on behalf of minorities.
"The Voting Rights Act was passed because people like Bull Connor were hitting people like John Lewis, not the other way around," said one Justice Department official not authorized to speak publicly, referring to the white Alabama police commissioner who cracked down on civil rights protesters such as Lewis, now a Democratic congressman from Georgia. (Turmoil in the Justice Department.)
One can argue that the United States Voting Rights Act, passed first in 1965, is an unconstitutional infringement upon the legitimate rights of the states to regulate the voting process, although it was passed to enforce the provisions of the Fifteenth Amendment, which sought to enfranchise the newly freed slaves in those states where were not permitted to vote. An entire series of laws were passed by states of the former Confederate States of American to make it difficult for the newly freed slaves and their descendants to vote once the era of Reconstruction ended in 1877. Such hideous laws included those with "grandfather clauses" (preventing males, who alone had the franchise in the Nineteenth Century, from voting if their grandfathers had not been voters) and poll taxes (which were designed to disenfranchise black men and poor white men) and literacy tests.
Some of the literacy tests were designed to make it absolutely impossible for any blacks to vote.
Although I can't provide you with the exact reference as it was in a state and local government textbook that I used over three decades ago now, one of the famous stories involving the injustice of the literacy test occurred in Birmingham, Alabama, in 1924. A black man, who could read and write English, showed up at his polling place. His literacy test consisted of being asked to read the headline from the Peking, China, newspaper, which, of course, was written in characters of the Chinese dialect used in Peking (as the name of China's capital city was transliterated at the time). The man responded as follows when asked what the headline meant: "It means ain't no colored folk are goin' to vote here today." Anyone who can justify this exercise in rank racialist bigotry is no friend of Christ the King.
The injustices of the past, however, do not legitimize what happened in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and in other parts of the nation on November 4, 2008. Then again, what can we expect from those who identify themselves first and foremost by means of their skin color rather than by the fact that they have a rational, immortal soul that has been created by God and redeemed by the shedding of the Most Precious Blood of Jesus, the very Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity made Man in the Virginal and Immaculate Womb of His Most Blessed Mother by power of God the Holy Ghost.
This is the basis of human identity. God has no preference for race or ethnicity. He loves His rational creatures. He wills their good, the ultimate expression of which is the salvation of their immortal souls as members of the Catholic Church. We are not to traffic in any kind of racialist ideology to justify the persecution and oppression of those who are of a "race" or an "ethnicity" that is deemed to be inferior to us or deserving of harsh treatment because of past injustices.
Pope Pius XI made this abundantly clear in Mit Brennender Sorge, March 17, 1937, when he condemned the racialist ideology of Nazi Germany under the murderous tyrant and occultist named Adolf Hitler:
Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the State, or a particular form of State, or the depositories of power, or any other fundamental value of the human community -- however necessary and honorable be their function in worldly things -- whoever raises these notions above their standard value and divinizes them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God; he is far from the true faith in God and from the concept of life which that faith upholds.
Yes, God made each of us as specific human beings, replete with the characteristics of body and soul that He has willed for us from all eternity. It is, as Pope Pius XI noted in the passage above, good to honor one's ancestral background. Fine. Those who seek to "divinize" their racial or ethnic or national identity, however, are acting in an idolatrous manner, distorting and perverting " an order of the world planned and created by God." This is a firm condemnation of everything to do with the diabolical notion of "white supremacy" no matter how many names and disguises are used to hide this falsehood that comes straight from the devil. And it is also a firm condemnation of the hatred and resentment of whites on the part of professional black hustlers and merchants of fear who are just as much black supremacists as are those who believe in the "supremacy" of the Caucasian race.
Although it is quite legitimate to question the very need of any kind of Voting Rights Act, no less the one that was enacted in 2006 and signed into law by then President George Walker Bush, and the burdens that it places on state governments at a time when there are no literacy tests or poll taxes or grandfather clauses or racial segregation mandated by the civil law, the Act is part of the United States Code, the official compilation of the laws passed by the Congress of the United States of America. That officials in the United States Justice Department would take a view of the law that excludes its enforcement in cases where white voters are being intimidate at polling places is a most telling commentary on the rise of a generation of lawyers steeped in the entitlement mentality that has been bred by the absolute injustice that has been and continues to be so-called "affirmative action" programs.
I've got news for the practitioners of "identity" politics at the United States Justice Department: there is no "affirmative action program" in Heaven. One enters Heaven regardless of race, color, ethnicity or national origin. One enters Heaven solely by being in a state of Sanctifying Grace as a member of the Catholic Church and having paid back the entirety of one's debt for his forgiven Mortal Sins, his unforgiven Venial Sins and his own general attachment to sin, whether in this life or after having spent time as a member of the Church Suffering in Purgatory. Being "black" does not gain one automatic entry into Heaven (nor does it deny one such entrance as was asserted most scandalously by a now deceased priest) any more than being "white" gains or denies one entrance to Heaven. We must be die as Catholics in a state of Sanctifying Grace and have satisfied the debt of our sins and have been purified of our disordered self-love to enter Heaven.
As there is no "affirmative action program" in Heaven, you see, there can be none in this passing, mortal vale of tears. None whatsoever. To visit injustices upon innocent human beings because some of those who "look" like they do have committed injustices in the past is beyond farcical. It has no foundation even in a purely naturalistic view of the Natural Law, no less as that Natural Law is safeguarded and taught by the Catholic Church, she who is its authentic repository and infallible explicator.
Although it is certainly true that no registered voter in the City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, complained about the behavior of the "New Black Panther Party" in the incident described in The Washington Post article, the thugs of this "party" did not contest the charges that were brought against them by career attorneys in the administration of former President George Walker Bush. They knew the charges to be true as there was video evidence of the thuggery. This mattered not one itsy-bitsy little bit to the leftist elitists and racialists in Eric "Let's Make a Deal to Pardon a Fugitive Financier" Holder's Justice Department. "They" are in charge now, and they are going to make sure that the currently reigning caesar stays in power as he seeks to denounce his opponents as illegitimate and driven by "fear" and bigotry and ignorance and by "foreign money" being pumped into campaigns.
Why is anyone shocked about this? Why?
These are the very same people who believe that innocent human beings can be butchered in their mothers' wombs by chemical and surgical means under cover of the civil law.
These are the very same people who believe that perverse sins against nature entitle one to special "rights" under the law.
These are the very same people who believe that those oppose abortion and contraception and perversity must be "watched" as they are capable, they believe, of committing "hate" crimes.
These are the very people who believe that citizens are but the mere creatures of the state.
Why is anyone shocked about the attitudes expressed by the appointees of Caesar Barackus Obamus Ignoramus to the United States Department of Justice?
As I note all of the time to the utter indifference of practically all but around twelve or thirteen people who actually read these articles (all right, I am using New York hyperbole--actually, New York understatement--to make a point), this is all but the logical result of the rejection of the Social Reign of Christ the King in the belief that "modern man" can arrange his social affairs without regard to the Deposit of Faith and without belief in, access to and cooperation with Sanctifying Grace. Pope Leo XIII summarized this any number of times in his great encyclical letters, including in Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900:
This generative and conservative power of the virtues that make for salvation is therefore lost, whenever morality is dissociated from divine faith. A system of morality based exclusively on human reason robs man of his highest dignity and lowers him from the supernatural to the merely natural life. Not but that man is able by the right use of reason to know and to obey certain principles of the natural law. But though he should know them all and keep them inviolate through life-and even this is impossible without the aid of the grace of our Redeemer-still it is vain for anyone without faith to promise himself eternal salvation. "If anyone abide not in Me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up and cast him into the fire, and he burneth" John xv., 6). "He that believeth not shall be condemned" (Mark xvi., 16). We have but too much evidence of the value and result of a morality divorced from divine faith. How is it that, in spite of all the zeal for the welfare of the masses, nations are in such straits and even distress, and that the evil is daily on the increase? We are told that society is quite able to help itself; that it can flourish without the assistance of Christianity, and attain its end by its own unaided efforts. Public administrators prefer a purely secular system of government. All traces of the religion of our forefathers are daily disappearing from political life and administration. What blindness! Once the idea of the authority of God as the Judge of right and wrong is forgotten, law must necessarily lose its primary authority and justice must perish: and these are the two most powerful and most necessary bonds of society. Similarly, once the hope and expectation of eternal happiness is taken away, temporal goods will be greedily sought after. Every man will strive to secure the largest share for himself. Hence arise envy, jealousy, hatred. The consequences are conspiracy, anarchy, nihilism. There is neither peace abroad nor security at home. Public life is stained with crime. (Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900.)
Haven't we seen too much evidence of "the value and result of a morality divorced from divine faith"? We see it every day of our lives. It is before our very eyes.
We must pray all the more, therefore, for the restoration of the Social Reign of Christ the King as the fruit of Our Lady's Fatima Message and the proper consecration of Russia, which has certainly spread its errors far and wide, to her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart by a true pope with all of the world's true bishops.
As I wrote a few days ago and will repeat again: We must enfold ourselves into the love of the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary and the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus as we make reparation for our own many sins, which are so responsible for the worsening of the state of the Church Militant on earth and of the world-at-large, as we seek to restore all things in Christ the King and Mary our Immaculate Queen.
The enemies of Christ the King within in our souls and in the world-at-large will be defeated by Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary and the fulfillment of her Fatima Message.
Have every confidence that this will be so!
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now? This is still the month of Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary. It is indeed time to pray a Rosary now!
Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us!
Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
