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 authorized of the use of torture and illegal imprisonments and martial law, Ferdinand Marcos 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 Broaderick 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 (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 sham 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 Diane Rodham Clinton, who is the most admired woman in the United States of America as she prepares to leave her position as the United States Secretary of State to prepare, presumably, for yet another run for the presidency in the 2015-2016 presidential election cycle, used to speak of the "vast right wing conspiracy" that was opposed to her devoted husband, also asserting on various occasions that she was a lightning rod for criticism because many people are afraid of a strong woman.
This was worse than farce as Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton clung to her husband's coattails for over two decades in order to rise to national prominence. She considered the humiliations that 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 Rodham 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 Saul Alinsky methodology of crushing one's opponents that she had learned so well at Wellesley College from 1966 to 1970: "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 those hapless creatures called Republicans criticized her for anything that she said and did during her husband's two terms in office.
William Jefferson Blythe Clinton and his wife, the outgoing Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Diane Clinton, live in a world filled with lies. Truth has never mattered to them. Truth is what they say it is. They are the ultimate positivists and relativists.
To wit, then United States Senator Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton (D-New York)
asserted in a prepared speech on Monday of Holy Week, March 17, 2008,
that she had come under "sniper fire" while on a tarmac in Tuzla,
Bosnia, in 1996. Much has been written about this incontrovertible lie,
which Mrs. Clinton had told several times before in the past few months,
in the past two weeks since it was proven by means of news footage from
the Columbia Broadcasting System that she had walked off of a plane
with her daughter, Chelsea Clinton, with great calm and was greeted by
school children. There was no sniper fire. There was no mad dash to
"safety" as she was walking on the tarmac. The whole thing was a lie
from beginning to end. (Hillary Clinton Bosnia Trip Exposes by CBS. ou CBS News Video Contradicts Clinton's Story, CBS' Sharyl Attkisson Was On Bosnia Trip - And Got A Warm, Sniper-Free Welcome.)
This is nothing new, as we know. Here is a far from exhaustive list, recited several times on this site over the years,
of lies and cover-ups and misfeasance and corruption that have stood
out over the years. No one, therefore, should be the least bit surprised
about the latest whopper told by Hillary Clinton, who claims that she
"misremembered" the Tuzla event:
1. Bill and Hillary Clinton lied in 1992 about
Gennifer Flowers. Mrs. Clinton called Flowers's accusations against her
husband to be nothing other than "trash for cash," although her husband
admitted in their famous 60 Minutes interview with Ed Bradley
that he had caused "pain" in their marriage. Hillary Clinton did this
repeatedly throughout the White House years, thereby demonstrating that
she, the "woman of change," would crush any woman who had been used
and/or abused by her husband in order to have her own chance to serve as
President of the United States of America.
2. Travelgate and Vince Foster.
3. Filegate.
4. Whitewatergate.
5. Billing records-gate. Does anyone not
believe that Mrs. Clinton did not leave the billing records from the
Rose Law Firm in the White House reading room?
6. Monicagate, which resulted ultimately in
Bill Clinton's copping a plea agreement with Independent Counsel Robert
Ray on January 19, 2001, just before he left office. It should also be
noted that the Clintons were ruthless in attempting to destroy the
reputation of anyone and everyone who sought to criticize them or to
investigate them, making Richard Nixon's "Plumbers' Unit" seem like a
band of amateurs. Take a look at a very partial list of some of the
names of Clinton "enemies" who were "exposed" as having their own
personal problems during the midst of Monicagate: United States
Representatives Bob Barr, Henry Hyde, Dan Burton, and Bob Livingston.
Ah, yes, the compassionate Clintons? Just don't get in their way. They
take no prisoners.
7. Serbiagate: the bombardment of the Serbs
to favor the Kosovo Mohammedans in the former Yugoslavia, a bombardment
that Clinton directed despite the fact that he had no authorization
from the Congress of the United States of America to do so. Thousands of
innocent Serbians were killed as a result of the bombing, conducted
under the auspices of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (N.A.T.O.)
8. Chinagate. How many nefarious arms
merchants and drug dealers and other low life figures slept in the
Lincoln Bedroom of the White House and/or had "coffees" with the
Clintons in the 1996 election cycle?
9. Bill Clinton claimed in 1995 that
Congressional Republicans wanted to "cut spending" on various domestic
entitlement programs, deliberately misrepresenting the truth that his
hapless adversaries, whom he could not have conjured up more perfectly
than if he had asked Barbara Eden of I Dream of Jeannie to have
done so for him ("Jeannie, I want a group of opponents who will be so
hapless and so spineless that they will surrender to me the moment I
begin to lie about them:"), wanted to cut the projected rate of growth in Federal spending on such programs. Actual spending was going to increase no matter whose
budget program, Clinton's or the Republicans', wound up being enacted.
Clinton represented the Republican plan as a "cut" in actual spending
when it was simply a slower rate of increase in spending that the one he
was proposing. In other words, Bill Clinton just out-and-out lied.
10.Bill Clinton said in a radio address on
June 8, 1996, that
"I have vivid and painful memories of black churches being burned in my
own state when I was a child." No such burnings took place during his
childhood.
11. Hillary Clinton has claimed that her
parents named her after the man who conquered Mount Everest on May 29,
1953, the late Edmund Hillary. Mrs. Clinton's parents were quite
prophetic. She was born on October 26, 1947.
It should come as no surprise to any of us that Secretary Clinton can just dismiss with her typical use sanctimony and bluster any notion that the false, misleading stories told by one Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro administration after another, including by Obama/Soetoro himself and, among others, Clinton herself and United States Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, saying "What does does it make?"
"With all due respect, the fact is that we had
four dead Americans," Clinton said angrily as she testified before the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, an appearance delayed more than a
month because of her ill health.
"Was it because of a protest, or was it because of guys out for a walk
one night who decided they'd go kill some Americans? What difference, at
this point, does it make?" she said, making chopping motions with her
hands for emphasis.
"It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again." (Hillary Clinton: 'What Difference Does It Make?')
Truth has never mattered to the Clintons.
What well-planned, well-armed terrorist attack?
What al-Qaeda backed terrorists?
What does it matter?
Well, the truths contained in the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law have never mattered to the Clintons.
The truth about their lives has never mattered to the Clintons.
Not even the words of the Constitution have mattered to the Clintons or, of course, to their fellow naturalists of the false opposite of the "left.
The only thing that has mattered to the merchants of death named William Jefferson Blythe Clinton and his accomplice in crimes against God and man named Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton is themselves and their power.
United States Senator Ronald Harold Johnson (R-Wisconsin), during whose line of questioning Hillary Clinton made his "What difference does it make?" remark, explained in a column in USA Today on Wednesday, January 23, 2013, that the truth about what happened in Benghazi, Libya, on Tuesday, September 11, 2012, matters, especially since lies were told during the midst of a presidential election to provide cover for the re-election of a man who had claimed that "terrorism" had been defeated with the killing of Osama bin Laden on Monday, May 1, 2011:
During her Senate testimony, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated
that approximately 25 Americans who were on the ground or who witnessed
the terrorist attack in Benghazi were immediately evacuated. Secretary
Clinton also revealed that neither she, nor her senior people, debriefed
or spoke with those people immediately after the attack, or for months
afterward, to understand what happened. She stated that she didn't want
to be later accused of playing politics.
When I questioned her about the misinformation disseminated for days
by the administration, most notably by Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice
on Sunday news programs five days after the attack, she asked, "What
difference does it make?"
If you don't expeditiously debrief the
people who witnessed the attack, how can you understand who initiated
it, what weapons they used and who may have been involved? How do you
initiate a proper response if you don't know what transpired? How do you
move properly to protect other American assets and people in the
region? How do you know what failures occurred, so that you can
immediately correct them, if you have not debriefed the very victims of
those failures? And lastly, how do you tell the truth to the American
people if you don't know the facts?
Our diplomatic forces in
Benghazi were denied the security they repeatedly requested for many
months before Sept. 11, 2012. Secretary Clinton stated that she was not
told of those desperate requests in the most dangerous region in the
world. As a result, our people in Benghazi were ill-prepared to repel or
avoid that attack, and four Americans were murdered. For many days
after the event, the American people were also misinformed as to the
nature and perpetrators of that attack.
In truth, Benghazi is a failure of leadership — before, during and after the terrorist attack.
To
answer Secretary Clinton, it does make a difference. It matters
enormously for the American public to know whether or not their
president and members of his administration are on top of a crisis and
telling them the truth. (Sen. Ron Johnson: Secretary Hillary Clinton, you failed.)
Yes, of course.
Truth matters.
The truth about what happened in Benghazi, Libya, on Tuesday, September 11, 2012, and thereafter as the pro-abortion, pro-perversity administration of Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro and Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., engaged in a massive operation of cover-up and disinformation matters.
Unfortunately for Senator Ronald Harold Johnson, the truth about the killing of innocent preborn babies every day under cover of the civil law matters, something that he dismissed three months ago as being of no importance in then upcoming election between that hapless, mercurial naturalist and Mormon, former Commonwealth of Massachusetts Governor Willard Mitt Romney, and a veritable lord of the world, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro on Tuesday, November 6, 2012:
WALLACE: Senator Johnson, Mitt Romney disavowed
Richard Mourdock's comments and, Richard Mourdock has tried to walk them
back. But it does bring up the bigger question. Why should a woman who
believes of freedom of choice when it comes to abortion, why should she
vote for Mitt Romney, who said he'd like to see Roe vs. Wade overturned
and who favors cutting off all federal funding for Planned Parenthood?
JOHNSON: Well,
Chris, first of all, I have heard one person talk about the abortion
issue during the entire campaign. What people in Wisconsin, what is
moving the needle here is they recognize Mitt Romney is an individual,
who when faced with the legislature that's controlled 85 percent by
Democrats who is actually able to work with the Democrats, you take a
look at his record versus President Obama, who has been totally unable
to work with divided government in Washington --
WALLACE: Sir, if I may, on the question of abortion, though --
JOHNSON: It's just --
WALLACE: Go ahead.
JOHNSON: I
mean, Chris, it's not even an issue. It's not an issue here in
Wisconsin. It doesn't even -- it doesn't even move the radar at all.
What
people are concerned about, like I said -- yesterday, it was
unbelievable how many people came up to me, demanding answers on
Benghazi. I had a father, a Marine, a young Marine, saying, listen I
want to know who the commander-in-chief is and what orders he gave and
what didn't he give. And that's really the question on the table I think
for the last 10 days, is what happened in Benghazi and, abortion
doesn't even show up. (Key
senators on presidential swing state showdown, Fox News Sunday, Sunday,
October 28, 2012, Feast of Christ the King and the Commemoration of the
Twenty-second Sunday after Pentecost.)
No, the truth of the relationship between order in the soul and order in society does not matter to Ronald Harold Johnson. What mattered to him during last year's quadrennial farce called a presidential election was the "bottom line," get naturalists of the false opposite of "right" elected.
You see, Senator Johnson, it is like this: a nation where forty-eight percent of its citizens, as opposed to forty-four percent, support the chemical and surgical slaughter of the innocent preborn under the cover of the civil law, and where sixty percent of its populace support the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973, will be one in which most citizens do not care if their government lies to them about the killing of our diplomats and others abroad. Who cares about truth? Very few people, including very few Catholics.
Why does not truth matter to the false opposites of the naturalist "left" and the naturalist "right"?
Because truth did not matter to Pontius Pilate when he was staring at Truth Incarnate, Who was about to redeem his immortal soul on the wood of the Holy Cross, when He stood in front for judgment:
[36] Jesus answered: My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of
this world, my servants would certainly strive that I should not be
delivered to the Jews: but now my kingdom is not from hence. [37] Pilate therefore said to him: Art thou a king then? Jesus answered:
Thou sayest that I am a king. For this was I born, and for this came I
into the world; that I should give testimony to the truth. Every one
that is of the truth, heareth my voice. [38] Pilate
saith to him: What is truth? And when he said this, he went out again
to the Jews, and saith to them: I find no cause in him. [39] But you have a custom that I should release one unto you at the pasch:
will you, therefore, that I release unto you the king of the Jews? [40] Then cried they all again, saying: Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber. (John 18: 36-40.)
Falsehoods and errors must abound in a land where Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is not recognized as its king, a land whose whole social fabric is based upon one Protestant and Judeo-Masonic lie after another.
Louis Edouard "Cardinal" Pie, who was the Bishop of Poitiers, France
from from May 23, 1849, to the time of his death on May 18, 1880, explained to us in very succinct terms the falsehoods of the anti-Incarnational civil state of Modernity:
The main error, the capital crime of this century is the pretension
of withdrawing public society from the government and the law of God... The principle laid at the basis of the whole modern social structure is
atheism of the law and of the institutions. Let it be disguised under
the names of abstention, neutrality, incompetence or even equal
protection, let us even go to the length of denying it by some
legislative dispositions for details or by accidental and secondary
acts: the principle of the emancipation of the human society from the
religious order remains at the bottom of things; it is the essence of
what is called the new era. (Cardinal Pie, Pastoral Works, vol. VII, pp. 3, 100)
Who is a proponent and enable of the "new era," of a "new world order," a matter who rejects the Social Reign of Christ the King in theory and in fact?
You got it.
Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI.
What Cardinal Pie said to Louis Bonaparte, who was portraying himself as Emperor Napoleon III, could be said anew to Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and his band of conciliar revolutionaries, men to whom the immutable truths of the Catholic Faith have mattered as little as they have to the likes of Bill and Hillary Clinton and their feckless opponents:
The time has not come for Jesus Christ to reign? Well, then the time
has not come for governments to last. (Cardinal Pie, meeting with
Emperor Napoleon III)
This truth should matter to us.
Does it?
We must pray all the more 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.
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?
Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us!
Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
