One of the nicest things about having a little-read website is that that there are fewer and fewer people to agitate with commentaries such as this one.

Although made in an effort at self-effacing humor, it has my experience over the past thirty-three years, dating back to then President Ronald Wilson Reagan’s nomination of Sanda Day O’Connor to succeed retiring Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America Potter Stewart, a Freemason was an appointee of President Dwight David Eisenhower and one of the seven justices who voted in the majority in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973, on July 7, 1981, that any effort to point out stark truths during times of celebrations of alleged “victories” for “constitutionalism” is not very welcome at all.

“You’re just letting the perfect be the enemy of the good,”  I was told in 1981 when I pointed out that Arizona State Court of Appeals Judge Sandra Day O’Connor was completely pro-abortion. “Reagan wouldn’t do that,” I was told. “You gotta trust Reagan. He knows what he is doing.”

Ronald Reagan did know what he was doing. He did know that Sandra Day O’Connor was pro-abortion. This not matter to him as he wanted to keep his campaign promise of a year before, 1980, to nominate a woman to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States of America and to narrow the “gender gap” for the Republican Party. Reagan knew that O’Connor was pro-abortion, which is why he refused to answer any questions after he made a brief statement in the Rose Garden of the White House, deferring all questions to then Attorney General William French Smith.

Here is a transcript of what happened following Reagan’s brief statement announcing the nomination of Sandra Day O’Connor:

Reporter. Do you agree with her position on abortion, Mr. President?

The President. I said that I was going to turn over all questions to the Attorney General here and let him answer the questions.

Q. But the right-to-life people object, and we just wonder if—

The President. All those questions the Attorney General is prepared to answer.

Q. But, Mr. President, you have such a firm position on that. Can you give us your feelings about her position on that?

The President. I am completely satisfied.

Q. On her right-to-life position?

The President. Yes.

Q. And did you interview her personally?

The President. Yes. (Remarks Announces the Intention To Nominate Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court of the United States of America.)

President Reagan, who supported the slicing and dicing of innocent babies in their mothers’ wombs in the so-called “hard cases,” would not hear of any objections to Sandra Day’ Connor, who served only on an intermediate level appeals court in the State of Arizona (Arizona’s Court of Appeals is the equivalent of what is the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court, which is a trial court, believe it or not; judicial nomenclature within the fifty states make as much sense as many of the decisions rendered by those courts) and who had a completely pro-abortion record when she served as the Majority Leader of the Arizona State Senate.

The late Mr. Howard Phillips, who was the founder and chairman of the Conservative Caucus Foundation, gave testimony before the Judiciary Committee of the United States Senate against the nominations of both the O’Connor and David Souter nominations, as he explained in an interview in 2005. Although I disagreed with Mr. Phillips’s support for the philosophy of the founders of the United States of America, his work exposing the fraudulent nature of various “pro-life” Republican administrations was truly admirable and stands of its well-documented merits.The interview in 2005 was conducted after then President George Walker Bush, the man who was the son of President George Herbert Walker Bush, who gave us David H. Souter, had nominated United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Judge John G. Roberts to replace O’Connor on the Supreme Court:

Let me put this into context. People say you can’t tell how a Supreme Court nominee will turn out once on the bench. I respectfully disagree. In most cases, it” very clear. I opposed the nomination of Sandra Day O’Connor because it was very clear that she had a pro-abortion record in the Arizona state senate and as a judge in Arizona. She was also allied with Planned Parenthood. I opposed David Souter because I read his senior thesis at Harvard in which he said he was a legal positivist and one of his heroes was Oliver Wendell Holmes and that he rejected all higher law theories, such as those spelled out in our Declaration of Independence. In addition, he was a trustee of two hospitals: Dartmouth Hitchcock and Concord Memorial. He successfully changed the policy of those two hospitals from ‘zero abortion’ to ‘convenience abortion.‘ I testified against Ruth Bader Ginsburg because her record was clear. She saw the Supreme Court as a Supreme Legislature. She was on the far Left of virtually every issue. Yet, only three members of the U.S. Senate voted in opposition to her confirmation. Only eight voted in opposition to Breyer. With respect to Judge Roberts, I’m in the midst of an extensive and intensive study of his record. Several things become clear, although I’m not ready to reach a final conclusion. It is clear that while he claims to have no overarching judicial philosophy he does have a point of view on most of the big issues. But that point of view is overshadowed by his pragmatism and his desire to stay within what is perceived as the mainstream. (Flynn Files – Howard Phillips Interview Part I)

The documentation provided by Howard Phillips and Mrs. Judie Brown, the founder and President of the American Life League, about Sandra Day O’Connor’s pro-abortion record was ignored by the partly pro-life and partly pro-abortion members of the United States Senate, who confirmed her by a vote of 99-0 on September 21, 1981. Here is an an excerpt from Phillips’s actual testimony before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, which was then chaired by United States Senator Strom Thurmond (R-South Carolina):

As an Arizona State Senator, she voted twice for abortion on demand through the ninth month of pregnancy; she co-sponsored a proposal to permit abortion without parental consent; she promoted ERA; she opposed the Human Life Amendment; and she failed to oppose abortions at a taxpayer-funded facility.“ (The Supreme Court Watch – A Public Service of The Conservative Caucus.)

Judie Brown, the founder and President of the American Life League, similarly testified against Sandra Day O’Connor’s nomination in 1981, also documenting O’Connor’s solid pro-abortion record as the majority leader of the Arizona State Senate. Anyone who claims that they were “surprised” by O’Connor’s opinions, summarized below by a pro-abortion organization, is dealing in a world of fanciful delusions. Howard Phillips and Judie Brown documented Sandra Day O’Connor’s pro-abortion record openly and publicly.

Sandra Day O’Connor proved herself to be a reliably firm vote in support of the chemical and surgical execution of innocent babies in their mothers’ wombs under the cover of the civil law. Among other cases, Sandra Day O’Connor joined Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was appointed by President Ronald Wilson Reagan on November 30, 1987, and sworn in on February 18, 1988, in his now infamous opinion in the case of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Robert Casey, June 29, 1992:

Although Roe has engendered opposition, it has in no sense proven unworkable, representing as it does a simple limitation beyond which a state law is unenforceable. P. 835.

(e) The Roe rule’s limitation on state power could not be repudiated without serious inequity to people who, for two decades of economic and social developments, have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail. The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives. The Constitution serves human values, and while the effect of reliance on Roe cannot be exactly measured, neither can the certain costs of overruling Roe for people who have ordered their thinking and living around that case be dismissed. Pp. 855-856. (Text of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey.)

The warfare upon the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage, a warfare that had been waged with particular fury by Margaret Sanger from the time after the First World War until her death on September 6, 1966, and endorsed “theologically” by the Lambeth Conference of the heretical and schismatic Anglican sect in 1930 and established as a constitutional “right” in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut, June 7, 1965, had become so ingrained by the 1990s that this evil was considered a “necessity” in the social and economic life of the entire United States of America. That this is indeed an established fact in the actual order of things does not vitiate the inherent evil of contraception and how it has served as the pathway, both socially and legally, to the establishment and institutionalization of the surgical execution of the innocent preborn in their mothers’ wombs.

This is all a very important prelude to commenting on the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the cases of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Connestoga Wood Specialities v Burwell, June 30, 2014, as the majority in these jointly decided cases was cobbled together on the following premises: (a) that all contraceptives, including those that are unquestionably abortifacient in nature, are thoroughly legal to manufacture, sell and use; (b) that the government of the United States of America has the right to mandate that employers provide health insurance coverage for all forms of contraceptives and “voluntary” sterilization; and (c) that Affordable Care and Health Protection Act is beyond any constitutional review (see Here To Stay).

Let me explain the premises before proceeding to comment on the case.

There are only three justices (Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas) who believe that Griswold v. Connecticut, which established a nonexistent “right” for married couples to purchase contraceptives (the right was extended to the unmarried in the case of Eisentadt v. Baird, March 22, 1972), was decided incorrectly and thus established a nonexistent constitutional “right to privacy” based on what were said to be “penumbras” emanating from the Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America. Any assault in the Hobby Lobby and Connestoga Wood cases on the “right” to manufacture, sell and use contraceptives would not have passed muster with Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy (see Planned Parenthood v. Robert Casey above), a Catholic, or with Chief Justice John G. Roberts, who did, after all, switch his vote in the combined cases of National Federation of Independent Business, et al. v. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. and Department of Health and Human Services, et al. v. Florida, et al., June 28, 2012, to bestow upon us the “gift” of the “constitutionality” ObamaDeathCare. John Roberts, a Catholic who is associated with Opus Dei, cares too much for “precedent” and actually said during his confirmation hearings in 2005 that Roe v. Wade was “settled law.” The decision in the Hobby Lobby and Connestoga Wood Specialties combined cases could not have attracted a five vote majority without extolling the availability of contraceptives, including abortifacients, to the employees of both firms, albeit not paid for by the firms themselves. And it could not have been rendered without an acknowledgment of the “right” of the government of the United States of America to mandate that employers afford health insurance coverage for “family planning” programs.

That which is inarguable, the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage, must be denied as arguments based in an acceptance of legal positivism and moral relativism are used to protect that which is ultimately responsible for this madness, religious liberty, for the owners of for-profit corporations that are “tightly-held” by private families. Even those owners, as well-meaning and courageous as they were to incur the possibility of monstrous fines that might result in the closure of their firms and the loss of thousands upon thousands of jobs, had no objections to contraception in se, only to those that work without question as abortifacients.

Moreover, as will be seen from the excerpt from the decision of the court, which was written by Associate Justice Samuel Alito, the entire framework of the legal reasoning of the five justice majority was that the contraceptive mandate imposed an unreasonable burden on the exercise of “religious freedom” as defined in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 as there are other ways for employees to obtain health insurance coverage for “family planning” programs, including the four abortifiacient contraceptives to which the owners of Hobby Lobby Stores and Connestoga Wood Specialities objected. Justice Alito went to great lengths to explain that no female employees of either firm were at risk to losing access to the four baby-killing contraceptives.

While this may be a victory for the consciences of the owners of Hobby Lobby Stores and Connestoga Wood Specialites, it is no kind of a victory at all for moral truth as every form of contraceptive is evil and as the Supreme Court conceded the constitutionality of the contraceptive mandate in and of itself, deciding that “religious freedom” and the undue burden placed on its exercise took precedence over the mandate in the cases before it.

Here is the essential reasoning of Justice Alito in the combined cases of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Connestoga Wood Specialities v Burwell, June 30, 2014:

We must decide in these cases whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 107Stat. 1488, 42 U. S. C. §2000bb et seq., permits the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to demand that three closely held corporations provide health-insurance coverage for methods of contraception that violate the sincerely held religious beliefs of the companies’ owners. We hold that the regulations that impose this obligation violate RFRA, which prohibits the Federal Government from taking any action that substantially burdens the exercise of religion unless that action constitutes the least restrictive means of serving a compelling government interest.

In holding that the HHS mandate is unlawful, we reject HHS’s argument that the owners of the companies for-feited all RFRA protection when they decided to organize their businesses as corporations rather than sole proprietorships or general partnerships. The plain terms of RFRA make it perfectly clear that Congress did not discriminate in this way against men and women who wish to run their businesses as for-profit corporations in the manner required by their religious beliefs.

Since RFRA applies in these cases, we must decide whether the challenged HHS regulations substantially burden the exercise of religion, and we hold that they do. The owners of the businesses have religious objections to abortion, and according to their religious beliefs the four contraceptive methods at issue are abortifacients. If the owners comply with the HHS mandate, they believe they will be facilitating abortions, and if they do not comply, they will pay a very heavy price—as much as $1.3 million per day, or about $475 million per year, in the case of one of the companies. If these consequences do not amount to a substantial burden, it is hard to see what would.

Under RFRA, a Government action that imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise must serve a compelling government interest, and we assume that the HHS regulations satisfy this requirement. But in order for the HHS mandate to be sustained, it must also constitute the least restrictive means of serving that interest, and the mandate plainly fails that test. There are other ways in which Congress or HHS could equally ensure that every woman has cost-free access to the particular contraceptives at issue here and, indeed, to all FDA-approved contraceptives.

In fact, HHS has already devised and implemented a system that seeks to respect the religious liberty of religious nonprofit corporations while ensuring that the employees of these entities have precisely the same access to all FDA-approved contraceptives as employees of companies whose owners have no religious objections to providing such coverage. The employees of these religious nonprofit corporations still have access to insurance coverage without cost sharing for all FDA-approved contracep-tives; and according to HHS, this system imposes no net economic burden on the insurance companies that are required to provide or secure the coverage.

Although HHS has made this system available to religious nonprofits that have religious objections to the contraceptive mandate, HHS has provided no reason why the same system cannot be made available when the owners of for-profit corporations have similar religious objections. We therefore conclude that this system constitutes an alternative that achieves all of the Government’s aims while providing greater respect for religious liberty. And under RFRA, that conclusion means that enforcement of the HHS contraceptive mandate against the objecting parties in these cases is unlawful.

As this description of our reasoning shows, our holding is very specific. We do not hold, as the principal dissent alleges, that for-profit corporations and other commercial enterprises can “opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.” Post, at 1 (opinion of Ginsburg, J.). Nor do we hold, as the dissent implies, that such corporations have free rein to take steps that impose “disadvantages . . . on others” or that require “the general public [to] pick up the tab.” Post, at 1–2. And we certainly do not hold or suggest that “RFRA demands accommodation of a for-profit corporation’s religious beliefs no matter the impact that accommodation may have on . . . thousands of women employed by Hobby Lobby.” Post, at 2. The effect of the HHS-created accommodation on the women employed by Hobby Lobby and the other companies involved in these cases would be precisely zero. Under that accommodation, these women would still be entitled to all FDA-approved contraceptives without cost sharing. (BURWELL v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC.)

To decide that the application of the Religious Freedom Restoration to owners of closely-held companies does not cause an “undue burden” on women to realize the benefits mandated by  Department of Health and Human Service’s contraceptive mandate, which was, if you recall, written personally by the former Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, a nefarious pro-abort Catholic who was closely allied and took blood money from the murdered late-term baby-killer George Tiller (see Reichstag II) and remains a Catholic in good standing in the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, is to use the exact same reasoning that Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy employed in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart, April 19, 2007.

To wit, Justice Kennedy argued that the Federal government’s ban on the the killing of babies by means of “partial-birth abortion,” known in the baby-killing trade as “dilation and extraction,” in cases except where it is alleged that a mother’s life is endangered represented no undue burden on women who wanted to kill their babies in the later stages of their development because other methods of late-term baby-killing (hysterotomy, dilation and evacuation, saline solution poisoning) remained perfectly legal:

Dr. Haskell’s approach is not the only method of killing the fetus once its head lodges in the cervix, and “the process has evolved” since his presentation. Planned Parenthood, 320 F. Supp. 2d, at 965. Another doctor, for example, squeezes the skull after it has been pierced “so that enough brain tissue exudes to allow the head to pass through.” App. in No. 05-380, at 41; see also Carhart, supra, at 866-867, 874. Still other physicians reach into the cervix with their forceps and crush the fetus’ skull. Carhart, supra, at 858, 881. Others continue to pull the fetus out of the woman until it disarticulates at the neck, in effect decapitating it. These doctors then grasp the head with forceps, crush it, and remove it. Id., at 864, 878; see also Planned Parenthood, supra, at 965.

     Some doctors performing an intact D&E attempt to remove the fetus without collapsing the skull. See Carhart, supra, at 866, 869. Yet one doctor would not allow delivery of a live fetus younger than 24 weeks because “the objective of [his] procedure is to perform an abortion,” not a birth. App. in No. 05-1382, at 408-409. The doctor thus answered in the affirmative when asked whether he would “hold the fetus’ head on the internal side of the [cervix] in order to collapse the skull” and kill the fetus before it is born. Id., at 409; see also Carhart, supra, at 862, 878. Another doctor testified he crushes a fetus’ skull not only to reduce its size but also to ensure the fetus is dead before it is removed. For the staff to have to deal with a fetus that has “some viability to it, some movement of limbs,” according to this doctor, “[is] always a difficult situation.” App. in No. 05-380, at 94; see Carhart, supra, at 858.

     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. (Gonzales v. Carhart, April 19, 2007.)

In other words, Justice Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy both reasoned their way to conclusions that well-meaning pro-life Americans believe will save babies by pointing out quite explicit that those who felt “burdened” by the laws in question had other means available to kill their babies and, in the present instance, to obtain health insurance coverage for the abortifacients to do so.

While taking nothing away from the personal victory of the owners of Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties, the fact remains that the baby-killing potions they refuse, correctly, of course, to provide coverage for directly will still be available to their employees by the alternatives provided by the Department of Health and Human Services. And while not seeking for one moment to castigate these courageous individuals who have suffered much at the hands of the anti-life anti-family, anti-Theistic statists, it is nevertheless true that their blithe acceptance of contraception in se and their willingness to provide it is offensive to God in the objective order of things and is detrimental to the eternal and temporal good of their employees and that of society-at-large.

Then again, Protestantism long ago made its “official reconciliation” with family planning. It was shortly after the Lambeth Conference met in England in 1930 that a federation of Protestant sects gathered to endorse the use of contraceptives in “limited” cases as being perfectly in accord with the Gospel of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. This caused The Washington Post, of all newspapers, to issue the following editorial on March 22, 1931:

The Federal Council of Churches in America some time ago appointed a committee on “marriage and the home,” which has now submitted a report favoring a “careful and restrained” use of contraceptive devices to regulate the size of families. The committee seems to have a serious struggle with itself in adhering to Christian doctrine while at the same time indulging in amateurish excursions in the field of economics, legislation, medicine, and sociology. The resulting report is a mixture of religious obscurantism and modernistic materialism which departs from the ancient standards of religion and yet fails to blaze a path toward something better.

The mischief that would result from an an attempt to place the stamp of church approval upon any scheme for “regulating the size of families” is evidently quite beyond the comprehension of this pseudo-scientific committee. It is impossible to reconcile the doctrine of the divine institution of marriage with any modernistic plan for the mechanical regulation of human birth. The church must either reject the plain teachings of the Bible or reject schemes for the “scientific” production of human souls. Carried to its logical conclusion, the committee’s report if carried into effect would lead to the death-knell of marriage as a holy institution, by establishing degrading practices which would encourage indiscriminate immorality. The suggestion that the use of legalized contraceptives would be “careful and restrained” is preposterous. If the churches are to become organizations for political and ‘scientific’ propaganda they should be honest and reject the Bible, scoff at Christ as an obsolete and unscientific teacher, and strike out boldly as champions of politics and science as substitutes for the old-time religion. (“Forgetting Religion,” Editorial,  The Washington Post, March 22, 1932. I have given you part of this quote in the past. This is the full editorial. I had to purchase the editorial in order to do so. No expense is spared, good and few readers, to bring you these articles.)

Several objections might be raised to this commentary, starting with the belief that the decision in the combined Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores and Burwell v. Connestoga Wood Specialities cases has dealt a severe blow to ObamaDeathCare’s “one size fits all” mandates, some of which have received “waivers,”  whose authorization is not to be found in the Affordable Care and Health Protection Act, from President Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, That this might be the case is conceded. However, it does not change the underlying reasons why what is, for all intents and purposes, government-mandated free contraception for everyone, is here to stay.

Yes, it is important at all times to recognize the limitations of the concrete circumstances in which we live, meaning that, as noted earlier in this commentary, concessions were made by Justices Alito, Scalia and Thomas to the government’s “right” to mandate health insurance for contraceptive services in order to make it possible to apply the provisions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to the owners of Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties. The legal groundwork is being laid for the five justices to provide protection to religiously-affiliated institutions, such as Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois, and the Little Sisters of the Poor in Denver, Colorado, from the Obama-Sebelius contraception coverage mandate. Pope Leo XIII taught in Libertas Praestantissimum, June 20, 1888, that Holy Mother Church will make use of the legal means available to her children to protect themselves without ever conceding anything to the falsehoods of “protections” that would be part of rightly-formed state that flow naturally from the Social Reign of Christ the King. All well and good.

My point remains, however, that the very fact that we find ourselves in this situation of arguing over the inarguable is the precise, inevitable result of the Protestant Revolution’s overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King that institutionalized theological relativism as a normal part of social life. Indeed, the revolution begun by Father Martin Luther before spreading all over the kingdoms of western Europe was founded on a rejection of the inviolability  of a ratified and consummated marriage in complete defiance of the following words of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ:

[11] And he saith to them: Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her. [12] And if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery. (Mark 10:11.)

The forces of naturalism that can be termed as Judeo-Masony exploited Protestantism’s theological relativism to make it possible for the triumph of moral relativism in every nook and cranny of everyday existence. Attacking the the inviolability and the sanctity and fecundity of marriage has been a goal of Judeo-Masonry from its very inception.

Writing in Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885, Pope Leo XIII explained how the theological relativism of Protestantism made possible the rise and the triumph of the naturalism of Judeo-Masonry:

23. But that harmful and deplorable passion for innovation which was aroused in the sixteenth century threw first of all into confusion the Christian religion, and next, by natural sequence, invaded the precincts of philosophy, whence it spread amongst all classes of society. From this source, as from a fountain-head, burst forth all those later tenets of unbridled license which, in the midst of the terrible upheavals of the last century, were wildly conceived and boldly proclaimed as the principles and foundation of that new conception of law which was not merely previously unknown, but was at variance on many points with not only the Christian, but even the natural law. (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)

Pope Leo XIII also explained the attacks on the integrity of the family by Freemasons, first in Arcanum, February 10, 1890:

Further still, if the matter be duly pondered, we shall clearly see these evils to be the more especially dangerous, because, divorce once being tolerated, there will be no restraint powerful enough to keep it within the bounds marked out or presurmised. Great indeed is the force of example, and even greater still the might of passion. With such incitements it must needs follow that the eagerness for divorce, daily spreading by devious ways, will seize upon the minds of many like a virulent contagious disease, or like a flood of water bursting through every barrier. These are truths that doubtlessly are all clear in themselves, but they will become clearer yet if we call to mind the teachings of experience. So soon as the road to divorce began to be made smooth by law, at once quarrels, jealousies, and judicial separations largely increased: and such shamelessness of life followed that men who had been in favor of these divorces repented of what they had done, and feared that, if they did not carefully seek a remedy by repealing the law, the State itself might come to ruin. The Romans of old are said to have shrunk with horror from the first example of divorce, but ere long all sense of decency was blunted in their soul; the meager restraint of passion died out, and the marriage vow was so often broken that what some writers have affirmed would seem to be true — namely, women used to reckon years not by the change of consuls, but of their husbands. In like manner, at the beginning, Protestants allowed legalized divorces in certain although but few cases, and yet from the affinity of circumstances of like kind, the number of divorces increased to such extent in Germany, America, and elsewhere that all wise thinkers deplored the boundless corruption of morals, and judged the recklessness of the laws to be simply intolerable.

Even in Catholic States the evil existed. For whenever at any time divorce was introduced, the abundance of misery that followed far exceeded all that the framers of the law could have foreseen. In fact, many lent their minds to contrive all kinds of fraud and device, and by accusations of cruelty, violence, and adultery to feign grounds for the dissolution of the matrimonial bond of which they had grown weary; and all this with so great havoc to morals that an amendment of the laws was deemed to be urgently needed.

Can anyone, therefore, doubt that laws in favor of divorce would have a result equally baneful and calamitous were they to be passed in these our days? There exists not, indeed, in the projects and enactments of men any power to change the character and tendency with things have received from nature. Those men, therefore, show but little wisdom in the idea they have formed of the well-being of the commonwealth who think that the inherent character of marriage can be perverted with impunity; and who, disregarding the sanctity of religion and of the sacrament, seem to wish to degrade and dishonor marriage more basely than was done even by heathen laws. Indeed, if they do not change their views, not only private families, but all public society, will have unceasing cause to fear lest they should be miserably driven into that general confusion and overthrow of order which is even now the wicked aim of socialists and communists. Thus we see most clearly how foolish and senseless it is to expect any public good from divorce, when, on the contrary, it tends to the certain destruction of society. (Pope Leo XIII, Arcanum, February 10, 1880.)

The assault on the inviolability of marriage by the forces of Judeo-Masonry made possible the triumph of contraception and the contraceptive mentality in the second, third and fourth decades of the Twentieth Century. Pope Pius XI prophetically warned the suppression of the primary end of marriage, the propagation and education of children as God sees fit to send them, in favor of lustful desires would result in the rise of all manner of new species of “unions” that would one day enjoy the cover of the civil law:

To begin at the very source of these evils, their basic principle lies in this, that matrimony is repeatedly declared to be not instituted by the Author of nature nor raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a true sacrament, but invented by man. Some confidently assert that they have found no evidence of the existence of matrimony in nature or in her laws, but regard it merely as the means of producing life and of gratifying in one way or another a vehement impulse; on the other hand, others recognize that certain beginnings or, as it were, seeds of true wedlock are found in the nature of man since, unless men were bound together by some form of permanent tie, the dignity of husband and wife or the natural end of propagating and rearing the offspring would not receive satisfactory provision. At the same time they maintain that in all beyond this germinal idea matrimony, through various concurrent causes, is invented solely by the mind of man, established solely by his will.

How grievously all these err and how shamelessly they leave the ways of honesty is already evident from what we have set forth here regarding the origin and nature of wedlock, its purposes and the good inherent in it. The evil of this teaching is plainly seen from the consequences which its advocates deduce from it, namely, that the laws, institutions and customs by which wedlock is governed, since they take their origin solely from the will of man, are subject entirely to him, hence can and must be founded, changed and abrogated according to human caprice and the shifting circumstances of human affairs; that the generative power which is grounded in nature itself is more sacred and has wider range than matrimony — hence it may be exercised both outside as well as within the confines of wedlock, and though the purpose of matrimony be set aside, as though to suggest that the license of a base fornicating woman should enjoy the same rights as the chaste motherhood of a lawfully wedded wife.

Armed with these principles, some men go so far as to concoct new species of unions, suited, as they say, to the present temper of men and the times, which various new forms of matrimony they presume to label “temporary,” “experimental,” and “companionate.” These offer all the indulgence of matrimony and its rights without, however, the indissoluble bond, and without offspring, unless later the parties alter their cohabitation into a matrimony in the full sense of the law.

Indeed there are some who desire and insist that these practices be legitimatized by the law or, at least, excused by their general acceptance among the people. They do not seem even to suspect that these proposals partake of nothing of the modern “culture” in which they glory so much, but are simply hateful abominations which beyond all question reduce our truly cultured nations to the barbarous standards of savage peoples. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)

We have arrived at that time when these new species of civil unions and worse yet have been endorsed under cover of the civil law and/or mandated by judicial fiat.

Remember, it was the aforementioned Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy who issued the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America on United States v. Windsor, June 26, 2014, that has opened the floodgates to the judicial imposition of “gay marriage” all over the country. (See Irreversible By Means Merely Human.) This is why four justices could not be found to grant certiorari to docket a case presented by plaintiffs who sought overturn a ban on naturalistic therapy designed to convert minors steeped in perversity from their sinful ways (see Supreme Court Declines Case Contesting Ban on Gay Conversion Therapy.)

As I noted a year ago and have emphasized repeatedly since that time, it it impossible for sentimentality and emotionalism to be retarded absent the conversion of men and their nations to the true Faith, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order.

One of the reasons our problems are so intractable is that the Americanist bisops of yore in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries saw in the false, naturalistic, semi-Pelagian, religiously indifferentist and anti-Incarnational principles of the American founding the means by which the Holy Faith could be protected. Most, although not all, especially those of German ancestry, of these bishops encouraged Catholic immigrants to become imbued with the ethos of the country, oblivious to the fact that Catholics were being converted slowly over time into viewing Holy Mother Church through the eyes of naturalism (democracy, egalitarianism, religious indifferentism, materialism) rather than viewing the world through the eyes of the Holy Faith. It is no accident at all that the revolutionaries who serve as “bishops” of the counterfeit church of America have enabled the statists at almost every turn, leaving it to well meaning members of Protestant sects to fight, albeit upon principles that are objectively false, the battles that should be fought by the Catholic Church without making any concessions at all to erroneous principles and certainly without celebrating the very false premises that are responsible for spreading all manner of social evils under cover of the civil law and throughout the midst of our popular culture much to the great delight of most Catholics.

That the lords of conciliarism in the United States of America do not fight upon the foundation of Christ the King leads them to exalt the very thing that has given us Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetro and his regime of utter statism and wanton disregard for the laws of God and man (see Taking Refuge in Racism to Break the Laws of God and Man), religious liberty.

Permit me to elaborate upon this in order to demonstrate why efforts to fight the prevailing moral evils of the day will in spite of occasional court victories that caesar will ignore just as surely as he is ignoring the just laws of the land concerning the protection of the integrity and security of this nation’s borders.

1. Barack Hussein Obama is the quintessential end product of “religious liberty.” The heresy of “religious liberty” championed by the conciliar “bishops” of the United States of America is what produced the likes of Barack Hussein Obama and made it possible for Catholics in the United States of America to view the Catholic Church and their solemn duties to her through the eyes of the Americanist concepts of “democracy,” “equality,” “freedom” and “individualism.”

Pope Leo XIII explained what the future holds for men who do believe that civil society can know social order over the course of the long term when the state gives “equal rights” to all religions, an absurdity that leads to the triumph of practical atheism, of which Barack Hussein Obama is a prime example:

To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name. Men who really believe in the existence of God must, in order to be consistent with themselves and to avoid absurd conclusions, understand that differing modes of divine worship involving dissimilarity and conflict even on most important points cannot all be equally probable, equally good, and equally acceptable to God. (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)

To think that one is going to fight the assaults of Barack Hussein Obama and Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., and Company against the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law with the very poison, religious liberty, that made their rise to public prominence possible is insanity.

2. The conciliar hierarchy of the United States of America has insisted on protecting the “liberty” of its institutions while failing to protect the rights of individual Catholic employers.

3. The conciliar hierarchy of the United States of America has thus far refused to assert that the Obama-Biden-Sebelius “contraception mandate” is evil in se and is offensive to Christ the King and to the good ordering of the domestic cell of the Church and the fundamental building block of society, the family.

4. Most of the conciliar “bishops” of the United States of America, noting very few exceptions here and there, support ObamaCare as a matter of principle.  Most of the members of the conciliar “hierarchy” and their chancery factotums subscribe to some variation of the “leftist” brand of naturalism.  These unfortunate men, who offend God every day as they stage the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service that is sacramentally barren and that falsifies Catholic doctrine (the sacerdotal nature of  the priesthood, the expiatory nature of the Holy Mass, the very Transubstantiation of bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ) and who propagate one condemned proposition after another, really believe that there is something short of Catholicism that can serve as the foundation of personal and social order. They are apostates.

5. Many of the conciliar “bishops” of the United States of America have suborned the use of contraceptives by those who bother to darken the doors of their formerly Catholic church buildings. Some have gone so far as to invite “theologians” who openly dissent from the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law to speak in parishes and/or have done nothing to prevent such speakers from speaking at universities or colleges.

6. Moreover, apart from their complete support for each of conciliarism’s multiple defections from the Holy Faith (the new ecclesiology, false ecumenism, condemned interpretation of Sacred Scripture, religious liberty, episcopal collegiality, separation of Church and States) while embracing in a full-throated manner many aspects of a culture that glorifies evil, particularly by means of indecent attire and amusements that are in and of themselves incentives to sin, they have enabled and suborned Catholics in public life who support the chemical and surgical dismemberment of the innocent preborn.

7. The American “bishops” support the vivisection of living human beings in the name of “organ donation” for purposes of “giving the gift of life.”

8. The American “bishops” undermine the innocence and purity of programs by providing programs of explicit instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments.

9. Many of the American “bishops” have promoted tolerated the promotion of –a “gay friendly” agenda in their schools, colleges, universities, seminaries, parish, religious education programs, conferences and “workshops” for purposes of “theological updating.”

10. Many of the American “bishops” and their chancery factotums still continue to recruit, protect and promote effeminate men to the conciliar presbyterate and then browbeat, intimidate and harass the victims of those among these effeminate ranks who have abused children or others for their own immoral purposes. These criminals, some of whom are still hiding information that protects men who are threats to souls and whose lack of veracity on key points could be attested to if conciliar officials had the desire to protect souls rather than the “club,” have had to be dragged yelling and screaming into court so that civil justice could be done in behalf of the victims. Is it not more than a little ironic that the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has more a sense of justice in behalf of the brutality known as “college football” than the conciliar officials (and some traditionally-minded Catholics who have been just as determined to protect friends despite the clear evidence of the “grooming” of victims, who are then blamed in a vicious campaign of character assassination, a tactic taken straight from the “playbook” of the American “bishops” and their attorneys to victimize the victims and thus to indemnify threats to souls without the slightest regard for the souls who might in jeopardy in the future as it is all about “winning” and protecting “one’s own,” you understand) have had to defend the souls for whom Our Blessed Lord and saviour Jesus Christ shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross and who have looked to them, the conciliar officials, for pastoral care? (Yes, that was one sentence.)

Remember, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is unconcerned about the fact that immoral practices have become institutionalized as something “good” accepted by large segments of society, both Catholic and non-Catholic alike. He believes that he must mitigate doctrinal and moral principles in the name of “mercy.” This might be the path of the “new evangelization” that is simply part of a “new ecclesiology” and its “new orientation” to the world and to truth itself, both supernatural and natural. It is not the path of Christ the King and His Catholic Church.

Indeed, Pope Leo XIII issued prophetic warnings to the American bishops in the 1890s to remind them that the American constitutional regime, although it had provided the framework of a what appeared to be the framework of a well-ordered republic up to that point (an order that had been maintained because of the superabundance of Sanctifying and Actual Graces in the world by means of the universal offering of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass), was not in all of its specifics the model for the rest of the world and that if left unchecked its influence would lead to a church in American different from that which was in the rest of the world:

The main factor, no doubt, in bringing things into this happy state were the ordinances and decrees of your synods, especially of those which in more recent times were convened and confirmed by the authority of the Apostolic See. But, moreover (a fact which it gives pleasure to acknowledge), thanks are due to the equity of the laws which obtain in America and to the customs of the well-ordered Republic. For the Church amongst you, unopposed by the Constitution and government of your nation, fettered by no hostile legislation, protected against violence by the common laws and the impartiality of the tribunals, is free to live and act without hindrance. Yet, though all this is true, it would be very erroneous to draw the conclusion that in America is to be sought the type of the most desirable status of the Church, or that it would be universally lawful or expedient for State and Church to be, as in America, dissevered and divorced. The fact that Catholicity with you is in good condition, nay, is even enjoying a prosperous growth, is by all means to be attributed to the fecundity with which God has endowed His Church, in virtue of which unless men or circumstances interfere, she spontaneously expands and propagates herself; but she would bring forth more abundant fruits if, in addition to liberty, she enjoyed the favor of the laws and the patronage of the public authority. (Pope Leo XIII, Longiqua Oceani, January 6, 1895.)

But if this [the term Americanism] is to be so understood that the doctrines which have been adverted to above are not only indicated, but exalted, there can be no manner of doubt that our venerable brethren, the bishops of America, would be the first to repudiate and condemn it as being most injurious to themselves and to their country. For it would give rise to the suspicion that there are among you some who conceive and would have the Church in America to be different from what it is in the rest of the world. (Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi Benevolentiae Nostrae, January 22, 1899.)

Yes, as I noted in volume one of Conversion in Reverse, which should be in a print-on-demand format in a few weeks, if not sooner, and in so many articles on this site, the worldwide church of apostasy that is the counterfeit church of conciliarism is but a manifestation of the Americanist spirit concerning Church-State relations, which is why even Catholics on the Supreme Court of the United States of America who might be inclined to advert to transcendent truths must instead be prisoners of the written words of a document that nowhere acknowledges the fact that the common civil good must be pursued in light of man’s Last End as those in public life respect, observe and apply the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law in the concrete deci

The spirit of concilairism is the spirit of Modernity, which is the spirit of the diabolical admixture of Protestantism and Judeo-Masonry. No nation can be truly “one” unless that is a true brotherhood among its citizens effected by the bonds of the Holy Faith, bonds that unite them to other Catholics worldwide in fealty to a true and legitimate Roman Pontiff, bonds that make them defenders of the Social Reign of Christ the King and of Mary our Immaculate Queen. We are merely seeing the universal manifestation of Americanism as predicted in glowing terms by Father Isaac Thomas Hecker’s biographer, Abbot Klein. Behold the wretched results as the conciliar “popes” help to reinforce the very falsehoods have dethroned Christ the King enshrined men as sovereign “kings” over their own affairs, both personally and socially.

Catholicism is the one and only foundation of social order. You have heard this before? You will keep hearing until the day I die or the day that I am unable to continue work on this site as a result of physical and/or mental infirmity, whichever shall first occur (and I realize that some of you believe that the latter condition obtains at the present time). Catholicism is the only and only foundation of personal and social order. Period.

The spirit of concilairism is the spirit of Modernity, which is the spirit of the diabolical admixture of Protestantism and Judeo-Masonry. No nation can be truly “one” unless that is a true brotherhood among its citizens effected by the bonds of the Holy Faith, bonds that unite them to other Catholics worldwide in fealty to a true and legitimate Roman Pontiff, bonds that make them defenders of the Social Reign of Christ the King and of Mary our Immaculate Queen. We are merely seeing the universal manifestation of Americanism as predicted in glowing terms by Father Isaac Thomas Hecker’s biographer, Abbot Klein. Behold the wretched results as the conciliar “popes” help to reinforce the very falsehoods have dethroned Christ the King enshrined men as sovereign “kings” over their own affairs, both personally and socially.

Catholicism is the one and only foundation of social order. You have heard this before? You will keep hearing until the day I die or the day that I am unable to continue work on this site as a result of physical and/or mental infirmity, whichever shall first occur (and I realize that some of you believe that the latter condition obtains at the present time). Catholicism is the only and only foundation of personal and social order. Period.

You continue to doubt this?

Well, consider once again these words of Pope Saint Pius X, contained in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910:

Here we have, founded by Catholics, an inter-denominational association that is to work for the reform of civilization, an undertaking which is above all religious in character; for there is no true civilization without a moral civilization, and no true moral civilization without the true religion: it is a proven truth, a historical fact.

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 Rosary, the Rosary, the Rosary. Use it well. 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.

Viva Cristo Rey!

Viva La Virgen de Guadalupe!

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.

Saint Elizabeth of Portugal, pray for us.

As Jorge Mario Bergoglio takes up pretty much all of the “oxygen in the room” these days, it has been very difficult to write about other matters in the past thirteen months, although there have been some articles now and again, a writer with responsibilities as a husband and a father must be selective about how to use his time. It has thus been far more important for me to write about Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s serial offenses against the honor and glory and majesty of the Most Blessed Trinity and the harm that he has done to the eternal and temporal good of souls, who have been redeemed by the shedding of every single drop of the Most Precious Blood of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday.

Preface

There are times, however, when it is important to write on matters such as the still developing situation in Ukraine. 

As the situation in Ukraine is complex and involves a variety of historical, geopolitical, economic, linguistic, cultural factors, much of which is steeped in mythologies, including those that most Americans have about the United States of America, that have little to do with actual reality, any commentary on it is necessarily fraught with a whole host of qualified distinctions. That is, there are as many ways to look at the situation in Ukraine as there are those who comment upon it. It is important, therefore, for anyone seeking to comment on it to be careful and judicious in presenting a complex situation in as fair and reasonable manner as possible.

Additionally, it should be pointed out that a commentary such as this one does concern infallibly revealed truths. While truths contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith will be brought to bear upon various points in this commentary, especially in the conclusion, much of this commentary is a review of historical facts and geopolitical factors have developed the way that have as a result of the Protestant Revolution’s overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King that was institutionalized by the rise of the multifaceted and interrelated by the rise of the forces of naturalism that can be called by the name of Judeo-Masonry, which refers to the overarching belief of all naturalists: that the Incarnation and Redemptive Act of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is irrelevant to the temporal or eternal good of men and their nations.

With this preface having been stated, which is by way of reminding readers that this commentary is provided merely to provide something of one Catholic’s perspective on a complex matter, it is my goal here to provide the sort of commentary on the issue of illegal immigration, which was published four years ago this month (see Good Catholic Common Sense Must Prevail, part 1 and Good Catholic Common Sense Must Prevail, part 2).

No “White Hats” or “Black Hats” in the Ukrainian Situation

Steeped in the mythology of American “exceptionalism,” most Americans, including the lion’s share of Catholics, believe that all “good” is always on the “side” of the government of the United States of America in matters of disputes with traditional enemies such as Russia or China. Some Americans are upset with President Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro for his response to the crisis in Ukraine, which began when its then corrupt president, Viktor Yanukovych, was overthrown in a crowd-sponsored coup d’etat on February 22, 2014, fleeing to exile in Russia. While Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro is indeed a vacillating fool on matters of foreign policy, a man who is tongue-tied and paralyzed when it comes to dealing with even the hint of a suggestion that Mohammedanism is evil in se, no American president has any business meddling the affairs of Ukraine. There have been too many American presidents who have made it a point to meddle in the affairs of other nations, engaging in exercises of social engineering that resulted in the persecution of foreign nationals and the needless deaths of untold numbers of Americans, who should never have been put in harm’s way in the first place.

Yanukovych, who had been Prime Minister of Ukraine from November 21, 2002, to December 31, 2004, had been elected to the presidency in 2004 before the Supreme Court of Ukraine invalidated his election on grounds on election fraud following days of protest that came to be known as the “Orange Revolution.” The man who was elected in the presidency in the court ordered rerun election, Viktor Yushchenko, proved himself to be corrupt in his own right and did not even qualify for the ballot to run for re-election in 2010, at which time Viktor Yanukovych was elected and actually got to serve as the president of Ukraine until his ouster nearly three months ago now. In other words, politics in the former Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, which was in existence, albeit with an ever-changing set of national boundaries from March 10, 1919, to December 25, 1991, are filled with intrigue, corruption and scandal. Sort of sounds like the naturalist farce that takes place here in the United States of America, doesn’t it?

Vladimir Putin Takes Advantage of Centuries of Conflict

Vladimir Putin, the President of the Russian Federation a former Soviet KGB agent and director of one of its successors, the FGB, under Russian President Boris Yeltsin, from 1998 to 1999, is a corrupt Russian autocrat by dint of his own personality. It was his assignment to track down foreign nations in the Democratic Republic of [East] Germany, a task to which he devoted himself with utmost diligence. He has distinguished himself during his two different tenures as President of the Russian Federation as a corrupt man who rewards his friends lavishly, something that the czars and commissars did before him, of course, and who is not averse to the harassing and silencing of those in his country who dare to criticize him, whether publicly or privately. If you think about this for a moment or two, it might occur to you that it is an act of utter hypocrisy for American President Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro to criticize Putin’s actions within the Russian Federation as he, Obama/Soetoro, resents and seeks to punish those who criticize him and his polices, which he believes are infallible and thus beyond question.

As a Russian nationalist who has aligned himself with the heretics of the Russian Orthodox Church, whose leaders have long sought to persecute Ukrainian Catholics, especially those who belong to the Uniate Rite Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, which has roots dating back to the very Christianization of Russia itself and has been a Uniate Rite since the late-Sixteenth Century at the time of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in 1595, Vladimir Putin has attempted to portray his actions in Crimea (which was given to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic by then First Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Nikita S. Khrushchev, who was known as the “Butcher of the Ukraine”–see Crimes of khrushchev Against the Ukrainian People and The Bumpkin Butcher) during his time as the regional governor until Stalin, in 1954) and in the eastern part of Ukraine as being a bulwark against the godlessness of the Western world’s New World Order. Some “conservatives,” including some here in the United States of America, have fallen for this public relations effort.

It must be remembered that Russian Orthodoxy and Russian nationalism are one and the same, which is why the late Dr. Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, who suffered in the gulags under Joseph Stalin for having criticized him, was an admirer of Putin’s in the late-1990s precisely because of the latter’s Russian nationalism and why the late Pultizer Prize laureate in literature, who was justly critical of Western immorality, materialism, legal positivism and relativism, hated the Catholic Faith. For all of his excellent work condemning Marxism and Western liberalism, Solzhenitsyn equated Christianity with Russian Orthodoxy and Russian nationalism.

Moreover, as has been noted on this site many times in the past, the errors of Russia spoken of by Our Lady in the Cova da Iria near Fatima, Portugal, refer to the antecedent roots of Bolshevism, Russian Orthodoxy.

Indeed, Marxism-Leninism, the most aggressive, atheistic form of socialism, was but a logical successor of nearly one thousand years of errors in Russia that made it possible for Talmudic financiers to build on the overthrow of the the Social Reign of Christ the King wrought by Orthodoxy by instituting the overtly anti-Theistic rule of the politburo. Just take a look at three of the pre-Communist errors of Russia, which remains, I believe, an instrument by which a chastisement will be visited upon the West for its infidelity to Christ the King and to Mary our Immaculate Queen:

1. Denial of Papal Primacy, presaging the errors of Martin Luther and John Calvin and Thomas Cranmer, et al.

2. Denial of the Magisterial Authority of the Catholic Church, leaving doctrinal decisions in the hands of committees of bishops.

3. The subordination of the Orthodox Church to the civil state, presaging the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King and the separation of Church and State wrought by Martin Luther and cemented by the rise of Judeo-Masonry and other, inter-related forces of naturalism.

Obviously, the errors of Russian Orthodoxy helped to shape the nature of Russian government over the centuries, something that Greek Orthodoxy, finding itself immersed in the heart of Mohammedanism, could not do. Thus it is that Russian Orthodoxy helped to pave the way over the centuries for Protestantism and Freemasonry by means of its rejection of the Social Reign of Christ King as it must be exercised by the Catholic Church.

The principle error of Modernity, the rejection of the Incarnation as an absolute necessity in the right ordering of men and their nations, had its antecedent roots in Russia. The errors of Russia influenced, albeit indirectly at times and through many filters, the ideas of the so-called Enlightenment in the West. And the failure of those anti-Incarnational and, at times, anti-Theistic ideas to resolve social problems, which have their remote cause in Original Sin and their proximate causes in the Actual Sins of men, made possible the rise of all manner of utopian theories.

Vladimir Putin is thus no friend of the true Faith. He is simply wrapping himself up in the mantle of Russian Orthodoxy to arouse support in the Russian Federation and to win the sympathy of ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine, having first wrested control of Crimea from the provisional government in Kiev, which is, the birthplace of Christianity in Russia, in order to isolate those who overthrew Viktor Yanukovych and put the economic squeeze on them so that they will eventually make their peace with “Greater Russia.” Putin is simply reconstituting parts of Imperial Russia and the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. For a review of the many times in which the boundaries of Ukraine have been redrawn over the centuries, please see 22 Maps That Explain The Centuries-Long Conflict In Ukraine.

Vladimir Putin also has geopolitical goals to accomplish as he seeks to reestablish a semblance of Russian dominance in a region that has seen come under the influence of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the apparatchiks who run the European Union. Viktor Yanukovych is in exile now because he accepted Vladimir Putin’s bribe of “economic assistance” rather than that offered by the Eurosocialists of the West, whose ways of “freedom” and “diversity” were admired by the mobs that showed him the way out of Kiev to his exile in Moscow.

In other words, the dispute in Ukraine is not about “right and wrong.” It is about which set of errors, the anti-Incarnational errors of Modernity adhered to by the West or the errors of Russian nationalism that have persecuted untold millions of human beings, including our coreligionists in Poland, Lithuanian, Belarus and Ukraine over the centuries, is going to serve as the driving political force in what will remain of the territorial boundaries of the country after Putin is finished with this latest effort to redraw those lines.

The West and the Overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych

For its part, the morally corrupt leaders of the pro-abortion, pro-perversity governments of the European Union and the United States of America have a vested interest in helping to spread the same joys of “democracy” and “freedom” that have permitted licentious to lay waste to the remnants of formerly Catholic Europe, whose indigenous population, choked off by means of chemical and surgical abortifacients, is being overcome by the descendants of the Mohammedan hordes who were turned back by Charles Matel at the Battle of Tours on October 10, 732 A.D., by the combined Christian forces under the leadership of King John of Austria in the Battle of Lepanto on October 7, 1571, and by the forces under the command of Polish King John Sobieski in the Battle at the Gates of Vienna on September 12, 1683. Western leaders and their Talmudic financiers have wanted to establish a foothold in the former birthplace of Christianity in Russia, taking full advantage of the fact that over sixty-two percent of the population of Ukraine is atheistic, fruit of over seventy years of Bolshevik rule, interrupted in some parts of the country because of Nazi occupation during World War II. This is all about the consequence of the errors of Russia spreading as Our Lady said would be the case if it was not consecrated to her Immaculate Heart by a true pope and all of the world’s true bishops.

Western leaders, steeped in their support of all manner of social evils as they advance a statism whose goals are Marxist in conception if not in name, see the mobs that ousted the corrupt Yanukovych ready instruments to enslave under their schemes of social engineering and banking. There is not a shred of moral superiority to be found in those who have denounced Vladimir Putin’s bold dismemberment of Ukraine.

Indeed, the aforementioned Dr. Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn identified the West’s ethnocentrism as the chief reason its leaders are incapable of understanding the rest of the world, including his own beloved Russia, then in Soviet captivity:

There is the concept of the Third World: thus, we already have three worlds. Undoubtedly, however, the number is even greater; we are just too far away to see. Any ancient deeply rooted autonomous culture, especially if it is spread on a wide part of the earth’s surface, constitutes an autonomous world, full of riddles and surprises to Western thinking. As a minimum, we must include in this category China, India, the Muslim world and Africa, if indeed we accept the approximation of viewing the latter two as compact units. For one thousand years Russia has belonged to such a category, although Western thinking systematically committed the mistake of denying its autonomous character and therefore never understood it, just as today the West does not understand Russia in communist captivity. It may be that in the past years Japan has increasingly become a distant part of the West, I am no judge here; but as to Israel, for instance, it seems to me that it stands apart from the Western world in that its state system is fundamentally linked to religion.

How short a time ago, relatively, the small new European world was easily seizing colonies everywhere, not only without anticipating any real resistance, but also usually despising any possible values in the conquered peoples’ approach to life. On the face of it, it was an overwhelming success, there were no geographic frontiers to it. Western society expanded in a triumph of human independence and power. And all of a sudden in the twentieth century came the discovery of its fragility and friability. We now see that the conquests proved to be short lived and precarious, and this in turn points to defects in the Western view of the world which led to these conquests. Relations with the former colonial world now have turned into their opposite and the Western world often goes to extremes of obsequiousness, but it is difficult yet to estimate the total size of the bill which former colonial countries will present to the West, and it is difficult to predict whether the surrender not only of its last colonies, but of everything it owns will be sufficient for the West to foot the bill.

But the blindness of superiority continues in spite of all and upholds the belief that vast regions everywhere on our planet should develop and mature to the level of present day Western systems which in theory are the best and in practice the most attractive. There is this belief that all those other worlds are only being temporarily prevented by wicked governments or by heavy crises or by their own barbarity or incomprehension from taking the way of Western pluralistic democracy and from adopting the Western way of life. Countries are judged on the merit of their progress in this direction. However, it is a conception which developed out of Western incomprehension of the essence of other worlds, out of the mistake of measuring them all with a Western yardstick. The real picture of our planet’s development is quite different. (Dr. Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, A World Split Apart. June 8, 1978.)

Those who have any sense of history know how well American attempts to Americanize other countries, starting with Our Lady’s own beloved Mexico, have worked in the course of this country’s history (see  Then, Now and Always: Viva Cristo Rey!, part one, Then, Now and Always: Viva Cristo Rey!, part two, Then, Now and Always: Viva Cristo Rey!, part three, Then, Now And Always: Viva Cristo Rey!, part four and Then, Now And Always: Viva Cristo Rey!, part five). Catholics suffered mightily under the yoke of one American-backed revolutionary Masonic regime after another, the devil’s revenge for Our Lady of Guadalupe’s having converted over nine million Aztecs and Mayans to the true Faith.

Consider, just as a reminder, the following Congressional testimony from an April 29, 1920, from a hearing held by United States Senate Subcommittee on Foreign Relations concerning the hatred of the administration of President Thomas Woodrow Wilson for the Catholic Faith and how its minions aided the Masonic revolutionaries there in their quest to kill Catholics fully six years before the outbreak of the Cristeros War:

On Thursday, April 29, 1920, The United States Senate Subcommittee on Foreign Relations heard Testimony taken at Washington D.C. Among the many people who testified were Fr. Francis P. Joyce, a Captain and Chaplain in the United States Army and Catholic nun Mother Elias De Sta Sacto, of the Discalced Carmelite Order.

Father Joyce testified of his visit to John R. Silliman: “...Mr. Silliman, personal representative of President Wilson to Carranza. I visited him in the office of Consul Canada, and asked that he take it up with the State Department and obtain a boat to ship those people out of the country. He said, “On what grounds?” I said to him, “If not on the grounds of religion, at least on the ground of humanity. These are women. The priests are men and will have to make shift for themselves.” He then stood up and said, “It is generally admitted by everybody that the worst thing in Mexico, next to prostitution, is the Catholic Church, and both must go.” To prevent a fight I was hustled out of the consul’s office, and reprimanded in a military way for some words I had with Mr. Silliman.”

Fr. Joyce also testified about how the U.S. Government refused all help for the refugees and noted “When the Americans evacuated Vera Cruz, I understood that more than 400 of the sisters were left behind. Afterward I was told that Carranza and Villa’s army tried to have one prostitute to every four soldiers, and that many of these sisters were impressed as camp followers for Carranza’s army…”

Mother Elias De Sta Sacto testified, in part, “They have closed the temples and prohibited the sacraments to the extent of shooting the priest who dares to hear confession or to administer the sacraments. The confessionals and some images of the saints have been burned in the public squares to the accompaniment of bands of music and impious speeches. They have profaned the churches, entering them on horseback, smashing the images, treading the relics under foot, throwing the Hosts about the floor and even giving them to the horses to eat with the fodder…” “…Immorality has increased to such a degree that they have profaned not only virgins but have violated nuns, carrying them away by force where they now suffer horribly. To the great suffering of my soul I have seen in Mexico the sad and lamentable fate of many sisters who have been victims of the unbridled passions of the soldiers. I found many bewailing their misfortune and that were about to become mothers, some in their own homes, others in maternity hospitals. Others unable to flee from despair have surrendered to a life of evil…” See full details here. (See Mr. Martin Hill, Historical details reemerge: U.S. Government supplied 10 Million rounds of ammo, 10,000 Enfield Rifles, military planes & tanks to Slaughter tens of thousands of Catholic Freedom Fighters.)

As horrible as the crimes being committed by the Mohammedan terrorists in Nigeria at this time, let us remember that the government of the United States of American financed and provided massive armed assistance to the Masonic revolutionaries in Our Lady’s country, Mexico, who attacked consecrated religious sisters as described above. The “American Dream,” anyone?

Moreover, lest anyone contend that John R. Silliman’s hatred of the Catholic Church was not a reflection of the views of the man whom James Cardinal Gibbons, the Americanist Archbishop of Baltimore from 1877 to 1921, permitted to address him as “Mister Gibbons,” Thomas Woodrow Wilson, let me provide this corrective, especially for those who are new to this site or who may have forgotten the quotation below that has been used in a number of articles on this website.

Father Francis Clement Kelley, later the founding bishop of the then named Diocese of Oklahoma City and Tulsa, was told the following to his face when he, representing the American bishops and the Extension of Society of which he was the first head, met with Wilson at the White House the anticlerical sieges of Venustiano Carranza as early as 1915 after Carranza took his stolen office:

Wilson replied: ‘I have no doubt but that the terrible things you mention have happened during the Mexican revolution. But terrible things happened also during the French revolution, perhaps more terrible things than have happened in Mexico. Nevertheless, out of that French revolution came the liberal ideas that have dominated in so many countries, including our own. I hope that out of the bloodletting in Mexico some such good yet may come.’

Having thus instructed his visitor as to the benefits which must perforce accrue to mankind out of the systematic robbery, murder, torture and rape of people holding a proscribed religious conviction, the professor of politics [Wilson] suggested that Father Kelley visit Secretary of State Williams Jennings Bryan, who expressed his deepest sympathy. Obviously, the Wilson administration was committed to supporting the revolutionaries. All efforts of Catholics to succor their coreligionists across the border were to prove fruitless, as they were to prove once again in 1924, when the fiercest persecution of all was begun by President Plutarco Calles. (Robert Leckie, American and Catholic, Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, 1970, p. 274.)

Bishop Kelley described Wilson’s steadfast support for the Carranza regime and justified his refusal to assist Catholics being persecuted in Mexico:

Carranza was chosen by the President of the United States, Woodrow Wilson, to be the President of Mexico. When the Turks massacred the Armenians the Christian world shouted its protest. When the Russians murdered the Jews the shout was repeated. No people shouted louder against the massacres than the Americans and the English. About the horrors perpetrated against the Catholics of Mexico few voices were raised. President Wilson told an Indianapolis audience that he would allow the Mexicans to shed all the blood they wanted. He told me in his office in the White house that, as the inspiration of democracy had come out of the French Revolution, which had shed as much blood as Carranza and his men, perhaps something good would come out of the Mexican debacle. His words were offered in consolation. I thanked him and withdrew. (Bishop Francis Clement Kelley, Blood-Drenched Altars, published originally in 1935 by the Bruce Publishing Company, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and republished by TAN Books and Publishers in 1987, p. 237.)

Wilson did, however, write a letter, dated March 20, 1915, but most likely authored by Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan, shortly thereafter his meeting with Father Kelley to explain that he was, of course, opposed to the “treatment already said to have been accorded priests has had a most unfortunate effect upon opinion outside of Mexico” (cf. Kelley, p. 241). This is interesting as Wilson was plotting all along to using his own agents in Mexico to pave the way for a constitution with anticlerical provisions. The lady had protesteth a bit too much.

Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro and his minions are only the logical heirs of the statist crimes committed in the past by the likes of Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, Thomas Woodrow Wilson, Warren Harding, John Calvin Coolidge, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Dwight David Eisenhower, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Lyndon Baines Johnson, Richard Milhous Nixon, Gerald Rudolph Ford, Jr., George Herbert Walker Bush, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton and George Walker Bush before them.

Catholics in The Philippines suffered mightily under the yoke of American “liberation” and occupation after the Spanish-American War in 1898, something that was documented in part three of the series linked just above.

We know also of how the efforts of President Thomas Woodrow Wilson, the moralistic American exceptionalist and Germanophobe who needlessly involved the armed forces of the United States of America in World War I and then presided over the creation of secular, Masonic regimes in Central and Eastern Europe in the name of a “democratic self-determination” that did nothing but destabilize the region and helped to prepare the way for the conquering of these nations by the Third Reich of Adolf Hitler and the Red Army of the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin.

We have also seen in more recent times the disastrous results of the American military intervention in Afghanistan (see Bag Man in a Karakul Hat), which has been a total failure, and the supposed “liberation” and then the subsequent occupation of Iraq, something that devastated this country, including the country’s Catholic population, and made it a haven of all manner of Mohammedan terrorists as its domestic politics wound up being controlled by oligarchs who are just as corrupt as Saddam Hussein (see Longer Than World War II.)

Not content with the failure of American social engineering in Iraq and Afghanistan, the administration of Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, flush with enthusiasm for the supposed “Arab Spring” that resulted in such catastrophe for Catholics and Coptic Orthodox Christians in Egypt and made Libya into another haven for Mohammedan terrorists, something that leaders of the current administration knew and did nothing to stop prior to attack that killed four American in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, statist who is our president “red lined” Syria and targeted it for attack. It was Vladimir Putin, of all people, saved him from committing a blunder that would have cost even more American lives in the midst of a civil war whose results have no effect on the legitimate national security interests of the United States of America (see Different Chief, Same War Drums).

Unlike his starry-eyed opponents in the West, however, Vladimir Putin does not blink when he sets out to accomplish the dismemberment of a country. He knew that the weaklings in the West would not risk a nuclear conflagration over Ukraine. He knows that all of their support for mobs in Kiev that ousted Viktor Yanukovych meant nothing as he could rouse ethnic Russian mobs to pillage and kill in Crimea and in the eastern part of Ukraine.

Alas, you see, it is far easier for Putin to Russify lands that are historically Russian than it is for the blind statists and globalists of the West to “Americanize” or “democratize” lands that will never conform to the American model of “democracy” that is responsible for the triumph of unbridled licentiousness and the rise of a neo-barbarism that calls to mind the state of much of Europe before it as Catholicized in the First Millennium.

American Hypocrisy at Work Once Again

The condemnation by American policy-makers of the dismemberment of Ukraine by Vladimir Putin and the paramilitary forces he has funded in Crimea,whose population of Mohammedans, descendants of the murderous Tartars, was “cleansed” by the Imperial Russian government in the latter part of the Nineteenth Century, and in eastern Ukraine is both disingenuous and hypocritical.

After all, the United States of America provided billions upon billions of dollars to the government of the State of Israel, whose founders seize the property of Palestinian Arabs, Christians and Mohammedans alike, and then carted off most of Palestinians into “detention centers,” where they were treated with total contempt and utter cruelty. Particularly harsh in his treatment of the Palestinians–and all other Arabs for that matter–was the moral monster named Ariel Sharon, who died on January 28, 2014, after lingering in a coma for nearly eight years, the infamous Butcher of Beirut, whose crimes were discussed in Moral Monsters. Still and all, course, lobbyists for the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee keep making sure that the money keeps flowing to the murderous Israeli regime, noting that the current administration has been more publicly and privately since before President Lyndon Baines Johnson supported Israel in the Six Day Way in 1967 that saw even more territory occupied by Israelis, followed by even more persecution of Arabs. Johnson was even silent as the Israel Air Force attacked the U.S.S. Liberty (see Devils Without Tails).

Perhaps even more to the point, of course, is the long record that the government of the United States of America sports in seizing lands within its own midst, to say nothing of the brutality accorded the states of the Confederate States of America, composed of eleven states whose state legislatures had declared their independence from the United States of America in 1861.

To wit, no miracle effected before his eyes by Our Lady of Prompt Succor at the Battle of New Orleans in 1815, Andrew Jackson remained a bloodthirsty hater of Indians, a man who engaged in a massive exercise in American social engineering in the forced relocation in 1831 of the Cherokees, Creeks, Seminoles, Chickasaws and, Choctawas from Georgia and Florida into what is now Oklahoma. Even his fellow Freemason and Tennesseean, United States Representative David Crockett, voted against the Indian Removal Act of 1830. Jackson’s darkened, Masonic heart was completely unmoved by the cruelty experienced along the Trail of Tears and the several thousand deaths that it caused, evoking, of course, memories of the Grand Derangement of the Acadians out of Nova Scotia in 1755 (see Applause For Killers).

This is part of what Crockett wrote in 1834, three years after the removal of the Indians had commenced:

I have almost given up the Ship as lost. I have gone So far as to declare that if he martin vanburen is elected that I will leave the united States for I never will live under his kingdom. before I will Submit to his Government I will go to the wildes of Texas. I will consider that government a Paridice to what this will be. In fact at this time our Republican Government has dwindled almost into insignificancy our [boasted] land of liberty have almost Bowed to the yoke of Bondage. Our happy days of Republican principles are near at an end when a few is to transfer the many. (Davy Crockett on the removal of the Cherokees.)

Unfortunately for Davy Crockett, he did not understand that he was witnessing even at that early stage in American history the degeneration of a nation founded on false, naturalistic, anti-Incarnational, religiously-indifferentist and semi-Pelagian principles. He thought Texas was to be a place of refuge. Many think so today as well! Alas, there is no hiding place from the slave drivers. No hiding place at all.

Thus, no matter what anyone else might assert, if even only by implication, Andrew Jackson, though grateful for the miracle that provided him with a military victory at the Battle of New Orleans, remained an American slave driver of demagoguery and hatred and racialism in  his own Masonic right as mouthed the slogans of “the people’s will” that he had learned so well from the pamphleteers who evangelized in behalf of the false principles of the French Revolution. His policies of social engineering have been followed by most of his successors in the American presidency, including the three immediate past presidents and the current occupant of the White House. When in doubt, “engineer” the world to suit one’s ideological purposes. This is what Andrew Jackson believed.

Abraham Lincoln was just as much as social engineer as had been Andrew Jackson, personally authorizing rank terrorism to imposed upon civilians in the states of the Confederacy. Particularly stark is the stain on American history that occurred in Cold Harbor, Virginia, in 1864. Here is a very moving account, written by Mr. Michael Reardon, a pioneering traditional Catholic whom I am privileged to count as a friend:

In the month of June 1864, General [Ulysses S.] Grant’s army came on the premises (at Old Cold Harbor) and swept it clean of everything in the way of supplies for man or beast.” So spoke my great-great aunt, an eyewitness.

During the first 12 days of June, we commemorate the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Cold Harbor (May 31-June 12, 1864), the main assault of which took place at early dawn on June 3, 1864, a contest in which 7,000 Union soldiers were mortally wounded in some 20 minutes of fighting on a site later referred to by a Union general who fought there as “the Golgotha of American history.”

The sound of that assault was described by inhabitants of Richmond 12 miles away as that of a “volcanic eruption.” All told, the number of Americans killed and wounded at Cold Harbor was, by conservative estimates, some 13,000, with the vast majority Union. It is believed that estimates of casualties were deceivingly kept lower than the reality by the [President Abraham] Lincoln Administration due to the then upcoming presidential election.

Grant reportedly told his staff on the evening of June 3, ”I regret this assault more than any one I have ever ordered. … No advantage has have been gained sufficient to justify the heavy losses suffered,” sentiments that he would later express in his memoirs.

Battle commenced from Cold Harbor property

The battle received its name from the property at Old Cold Harbor, which at the time consisted of a farm of 182 acres, a corn house, a wagon house, a stable, a general use house, (structures with some 6,500 square feet of ground space) and a dwelling house that also served as a hotel/tavern: Burnett’s Inn.

The property sat at a crossroads where five roads met, and still do.

The triangular property known today as Ellerson’s Garage was a part of the property, with the main body of land located diagonally (southeast) across the road from it, at what is today Rock Hill Road and Cold Harbor Road.

Property owned by Burnett family

When the [Civil] War commenced in 1861, the property, recorded simply as “The Cold Harbor Property” at Hanover Courthouse, was owned by my great-great-grandfather, Isaac Burnett, 58, and his wife, the former Sarah Hughes, 51, who resided there with their 13 children, nine daughters and four sons, one of whom, George, my great-grandfather, served the Confederacy for two and a half years, was wounded, finally surrendering with the 24th Virginia Cavalry and Lee at Appomattox. (His daughter, Lena, my grandmother, was born in the tavern in 1879.)

Burnetts in uniform

George Burnett and three of his first cousins, John, James and William Burnett, were all members of Company B, 24th Virginia Cavalry.

Company B was the prime unit that hunted down and killed Union Col. Ulric Dahlgren within hours after Dahlgren’s unsuccessful raid on Richmond in March 1864.

According to the book 24th Virginia Cavalry, by Darryl Holland, “This company was famous for being instrumental in the ambush that stopped the notorious Dahlgren Raid in March 1864, Company B being the largest body of organized Confederate troops in the field during the incident.”

Papers found on Dahlgren’s body, with their contents widely published in newspapers, showed that the purpose of the raid was the killing of Jefferson Davis and his Cabinet, and that revelation is believed by historians to have set in motion events that led to the assassination of Lincoln a year later. Thus that action of Company B might have altered history significantly.

These three cousins of George lived less than two miles from Cold Harbor in a house that still stands in what is today the Pine Knoll subdivision, on 609 acres owned by their father, Richard Burnett, a Methodist minister. (James and John are today buried on the property.)

Among this unit’s many engagements with the enemy was that at Cold Harbor, where 16-year-old John snuck through enemy lines at night to visit his family, returning to his unit before daylight.

The unit also was present when the great Jeb Stuart fell at Yellow Tavern. (Also serving with Company B were George’s future brothers-in-law, my great-great-uncles, David and Benjamin Barker.)

The Burnett ancestry

Isaac Burnett, the owner of the Cold Harbor property, was a direct descendent of John Burnett, a wealthy Scottish merchant who in 1638 received a Charter from Charles I, the King of England, Scotland, that declared “John Burnett of Aberdeen the sole merchant of our Kingdom of Scotland that hath supplied the plantations of Virginia and become our tenant there…”

John Burnett, in turn, was a direct descendent of Alexander Burnett, born in 1275, an early 14th century ally of King Robert the Bruce of Scotland in his war against the English and who was handsomely rewarded, along with his descendents, with noble title and land.

The ancestral home of the Burnetts is Crathes Castle in Aberdeen, Scotland, a structure that took 40 years to build.

Devastation at the hands of the Union army

In the spring of 1862, the Union Army under Gen. George McClellan camped on the Cold Harbor property for six weeks and cleaned it of all its supplies of food and livestock, leaving the family only its dwelling house, four empty buildings, fences and timber.

Gen. Grant, however, would not be so generous.

In the words of Martha Burnett McGhee, Isaac’s 21-year-old daughter at the time of the Battle: “In the month of June 1864, Gen. Grant’s army came on the property and swept it clean in the way of supplies for man or beast.”

Among the items taken by the two armies were 152 acres of corn, oats and potatoes, 87 hogs, many slaughtered on the property, nine milk cows, one mule, three yearlings, 50 fowl and the substantial contents of the storage houses in hundreds of bushels of grain, eight tons of hay, hundreds of pounds of bacon, flour, etc.

The Union army’s horses and cattle were set free to graze on those crops in cultivation and the fields were “fed off as clean as a floor,” according to Martha Burnett McGhee.

As a point of interest, Martha Burnett observed a Union soldier take a large glass bowl from the tavern and hide it in a haystack. She went out in the night and hid it in another haystack. That bowl remains in the family today, owned by a cousin, also a descendent of George Burnett.

In addition, Grant’s army cut and removed all 40 acres of timber on the property (which would have supplied at least 30 cords of wood per acre according to Isaac’s son, Richard.) All of the property’s fences were taken (more than 4,000 panels.)

The stable, corn house, wagon house and general use house were all dismantled by his army and taken away, leaving only the tavern, four rooms of which were used as a Union hospital and much damaged.

In the words of June Banks Evans, from her book, “Men of Metadequin,” which is a historical account of the early families of Hanover County: “After the Battle of Cold Harbor, the lives of these families were in shambles — the churches had been closed, their ministers serving as army chaplains; the raiding Federal troops had carried off livestock, horses and food supplies; some sons and fathers had gone to war, never to return; and the farmlands, once so productive, were reverting to scrubby, untilled fields.”

Claims brought by the Burnett family against the U.S. Government, and which were placed before the U.S. Congress as late as 1905, were denied in the hostile atmosphere that existed against the South in the post-war years.

Tribute from a former enemy

There was no greater soldier fighting for the North than Medal of Honor recipient Joshua Chamberlain.

As general in charge of the surrender at Appomattox, he ordered a salute of arms to the surrendering Confederate army.

Years later, looking back to Appomattox, Chamberlain described the Confederate soldier as “the embodiment of manhood: men whom neither toils and suffering, nor the fact of death, nor disaster, nor hopelessness could bend from their resolve, standing before us now, thin, worn, and famished, but erect, and with eyes looking level into ours, memories that bound us together as no other bond.”

If a former enemy felt bound in spirit with the Confederate soldier due to the heroic virtue the latter displayed, should we who have the blood of Confederate soldiers running through our veins and who walk the same grounds that they walked not display a measure of that same virtue in defense of the heritage they so gallantly fought and died for? (Michael Reardon, Cold Harbor: ‘The Golgotha of American history’.)

The issue in the War between the States was not slavery, which would have died out as institution on its own. The issue in the War between the States was state sovereignty, which the United States of America upholds in other nations under certain sets of circumstances while at other times, such as in Ukraine at the present time, protests that no such sovereignty exists for those who ally with the “wrong” side.

Moreover, the Union Army’s seizure of property and the devastation of the lives of the families that lived in Cold Harbor, Virginia, one hundred fifty years ago come May 31, 2014, the Feast of the Coronation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, was very similar to what transpired thirty-four years later in The Philippines and Operation Keelhaul, which was directed by none other than then General Dwight David Eisenhower after World War II in 1945:

“You may not be aware of it, but Dwight D. Eisenhower was responsible for implementing the very evil repatriation of millions of Eastern European refugees (many of whom were Catholic) who had fled from the communist take over. This evil was code named Operation Keelhaul. Many people actually committed suicide rather than to be forced back to their homeland under Satanic communist rule. The entire Yalta Conference was also part of this whole diabolical plot to further the Judeo-Masonic destruction of Christianity and bring about the reign of antichrist.” (Comment provided by Mr. Dennis Bilodeau, a reader of this site, in 2012.)

There is simply no moral high ground on which the United States of America, which permits the chemical and surgical assassination of nearly four thousand innocent babies in their mothers’ wombs every day and untold numbers of people in hospitals by means of starvation and dehydration or by vivisection for their body members even though they are not dead, to stand to denounce Vladimir Putin’s actions in Ukraine as he is merely doing what comes naturally to a Russian nationalist: to protect the people of his nationality for his own domestic political purposes in the Russian Federation and to show the West that Russia will not dance to the tune of its bankers.

Whither the Catholics of Ukraine

Only about a third of the country of Ukraine is Christian. Of that percentage, only fifteen percent are Catholics, who constitute about six percent of the total population in Ukraine. Nearly sixty-six percent of Christians in Ukraine belong to one of three different sets of the Orthodox.

Still and all, the Russian Orthodox leadership, with which Vladmir Putin has allied himself, has long been upset about the presence of any form of Catholicism in the Ukraine, no less of the Latin elements that remain among Roman Rite Catholics in the country. The Russian Orthodox have never gotten over the inroads made by Catholicism in Ukraine during the time of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth  from 1569 to 1795. Much like their counterparts in “ecumenical dialogue” in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, the Russian Orthodox hierarchy, staring with Patriarch Krill himself, desire to eradicate true Catholicism, although the Russians want to do so not for the sake of conciliarism but to make Ukraine “pure” for Russian Orthodoxy without the “corrupting” influence of what is seen as the “Roman religion.”

A report in late-2009 explained Russian patriarch’s “concerns” about Catholic churches in the Ukraine that were seized by the Soviets after World War II and then given to their own control in repayment for their “cooperation” with the KGB. Many of these churches were taken back by Catholics after the apparent fall of the Soviet Union on December 25, 1991. Although Russian Orthodox officials have said that they not seeking the return of the churches, they do want some accommodation to be made to provide “worship space” for the Orthodox in the Ukraine. Would Jorge Mario Bergoglio be willing to offer the return of a few Catholic churches to make possible a meeting with Patriarch Kiirill I and a show of “communion from the heart.” You betcha:

Patriarch Kirill, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, would be willing to meet Pope Benedict after disputes with Catholics in Ukraine are resolved, Archbishop Hilarion, the Church’s external relations head, has said.  A meeting with the pope would begin to heal the 1,000 year-old-rift between the Western and Eastern branches of Christianity, which split in 1054 amid disputes over doctrine and papal authority that remain unresolved.

“This is not an issue of when the meeting will take place, but what will be discussed,” Hilarion told journalists on Tuesday.  He said the patriarch of the 165-million-strong Russian Orthodox Church, whose believers include the majority of Russia’s population as well as millions in neighbouring ex-Soviet countries Ukraine and Belarus, wanted a conflict in western Ukraine over church property to be resolved first.

“The situation in western Ukraine is the primary reason for the blocking of the meeting,” he said.

After the disintegration of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, Eastern Rite Catholics who owe their allegiance to Rome took back some churches that had been confiscated by communist authorities after World War Two and given to the Orthodox.  The Russian Orthodox Church does not demand the churches are returned but wants the Vatican to take “concrete measures” towards improving the situation, Hilarion said, such as helping Orthodox followers who have only Catholic churches nearby.

“As soon as there are positive dynamics (from the Vatican) towards resolving this issue, then we can return to the issue of the pope and patriarch meeting,” Hilarion said.

He did not specify if the patriarch wanted help given only to members of the Russian Orthodox Church or to an independent Orthodox church formed in Ukraine in the 1990s, which rejects Russia’s top clergy despite Kirill’s appeals for unity.

Last year’s election of Kirill brought fresh hope that a historic meeting between pope and patriarch could take place. Relations between the Vatican and the Russian Orthodox Church were discussed last month when Russian President Dmitry Medvedev briefly met the pope.

Hilarion said the Eastern Rite Catholics took more than 500 churches from the Russian Orthodox, who are the largest autocephalic church amongst the world’s 220 million Orthodox Christians.  Until 1946, the churches belonged to the Eastern Rite Catholics, a sizeable minority in western Ukraine who endured hardship under Moscow’s rule until the collapse of the Soviet Union.

“We do not argue the fact that these temples belonged to them before 1946 but we categorically disagree with the methods which (they) used to get them back,” Hilarion said.

The dispute over the church buildings is just one sticking point in relations between the Russian church and the Vatican. The Russian church has accused Rome of trying to poach converts following the fall of communism, something the Vatican denies.

Kirill’s predecessor, Patriarch Alexiy, who spearheaded the revival of his church after decades of communist persecution, treated rival religions and churches with suspicion. John Paul hailed from Poland, a traditional enemy of Russia, and his fight against Soviet Communism was interpreted by the Orthodox Church as a crusade against Russia.  German-born Pope Benedict, a theological conservative, is viewed by Orthodox hierarchs as a more welcome partner than his predecessor John Paul II. (Ukraine dispute blocks Vatican, Russian Orthodox meeting – Hilarion.)

It is a mystery why Patriarch Kirill I has been concerned about agents of the counterfeit church of conciliarism seeking to “poach converts” from Orthodoxy as such work, which is, of course, nothing other than the work of the Apostles and was what prompted Saint Josaphat Kuntsevych to give up up his life the hands of the Orthodox on November 12, 1623, in what is now the country of Belarus, which borders the Ukraine. The counterfeit church of conciliarism’s agents have agreed some time ago to refrain from such apostolic work:

22) Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Eastern, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other; that is to say, it no longer aims at proselytizing among the Orthodox. It aims at answering the spiritual needs of its own faithful and it has no desire for expansion at the expense of the Orthodox Church. Within these perspectives, so that there will no longer be room for mistrust and suspicion, it is necessary that there be reciprocal exchanges of information about various pastoral projects and that thus cooperation between bishops and all those with responsibilities in our Churches can be set in motion and develop. (Full Text of the Balamand Statement.)

No need to worry, Patriarch Kirill. Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II,Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis, Walter “Cardinal” Kasper and Kurt “Cardinal” Koch have been way, way ahead of you. Bergoglio will knuckle under to whatever demands Kirill makes of him just as much as leaders of Western nations have to issue empty threats and meaningless economic sanctions as the ally of Russian Orthodoxy, Vladimir Putin, busies himself with the dismemberment of Ukraine before he makes direct commands on the provisional government in Kiev for “greater cooperation.”

Pope Leo XIII, writing in Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae, June 29, 1894, begged the Orthodox to do what the conciliarists believe is “offensive:” to convert unconditionally to the true Faith, the Catholic Faith, and to be as duly submissive to the authority of legitimate Roman Pontiffs as had been their forebears in the First Millennium, thus demolishing the sophistic attempts by the conciliar “popes,” including “Saint John Paul,” Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and Jorge Mario Bergoglio Francis, to contend that the the bishops in the East had not been submissive to the Roman Pontiffs in the First Millennium:

First of all, then, We cast an affectionate look upon the East, from whence in the beginning came forth the salvation of the world.  Yes, and the yearning desire of Our heart bids us conceive and hope that the day is not far distant when the Eastern Churches, so illustrious in their ancient faith and glorious past, will return to the fold they have abandoned.  We hope it all the more, that the distance separating them from Us is not so great: nay, with some few exceptions, we agree so entirely on other heads that, in defense of the Catholic Faith, we often have recourse to reasons and testimony borrowed from the teaching, the Rites, and Customs of the East.

The Principal subject of contention is the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff.  But let them look back to the early years of their existence, let them consider the sentiments entertained by their forefathers, and examine what the oldest Traditions testify, and it will, indeed, become evident to them that Christ’s Divine Utterance, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, has undoubtedly been realized in the Roman Pontiffs.  Many of these latter in the first gates of the Church were chosen from the East, and foremost among them Anacletus, Evaristus, Anicetus, Eleutherius, Zosimus, and Agatho; and of these a great number, after Governing the Church in Wisdom and Sanctity, Consecrated their Ministry with the shedding of their blood.  The time, the reasons, the promoters of the unfortunate division, are well known.  Before the day when man separated what God had joined together, the name of the Apostolic See was held in Reverence by all the nations of the Christian world: and the East, like the West, agreed without hesitation in its obedience to the Pontiff of Rome, as the Legitimate Successor of St. Peter, and, therefore, the Vicar of Christ here on earth.

And, accordingly, if we refer to the beginning of the dissension, we shall see that Photius himself was careful to send his advocates to Rome on the matters that concerned him; and Pope Nicholas I sent his Legates to Constantinople from the Eternal City, without the slightest opposition, “in order to examine the case of Ignatius the Patriarch with all diligence, and to bring back to the Apostolic See a full and accurate report”; so that the history of the whole negotiation is a manifest Confirmation of the Primacy of the Roman See with which the dissension then began.  Finally, in two great Councils, the second of Lyons and that of Florence, Latins and Greeks, as is notorious, easily agreed, and all unanimously proclaimed as Dogma the Supreme Power of the Roman Pontiffs.

We have recalled those things intentionally, for they constitute an invitation to peace and reconciliation; and with all the more reason that in Our own days it would seem as if there were a more conciliatory spirit towards Catholics on the part of the Eastern Churches, and even some degree of kindly feeling.  To mention an instance, those sentiments were lately made manifest when some of Our faithful travelled to the East on a Holy Enterprise, and received so many proofs of courtesy and good-will.

Therefore, Our mouth is open to you, to you all of Greek or other Oriental Rites who are separated from the Catholic Church, We earnestly desire that each and every one of you should meditate upon the words, so full of gravity and love, addressed by Bessarion to your forefathers: “What answer shall we give to God when He comes to ask why we have separated from our Brethren: to Him Who, to unite us and bring us into One Fold, came down from Heaven, was Incarnate, and was Crucified?  What will our defense be in the  eyes of posterity?  Oh, my Venerable Fathers, we must not suffer this to be, we must not entertain this thought, we must not thus so ill provide for ourselves and for our Brethren.”

Weigh carefully in your minds and before God the nature of Our request.  It is not for any human motive, but impelled by Divine Charity and a desire for the salvation of all, that We advise the reconciliation and union with the Church of Rome; and We mean a perfect and complete union, such as could not subsist in any way if nothing else was brought about but a certain kind of agreement in the Tenets of Belief and an intercourse of Fraternal love.  The True Union between Christians is that which Jesus Christ, the Author of the Church, instituted and desired, and which consists in a Unity of Faith and Unity of Government.

Nor is there any reason for you to fear on that account that We or any of Our Successors will ever diminish your rights, the privileges of your Patriarchs, or the established Ritual of any one of your Churches.  It has been and always will be the intent and Tradition of the Apostolic See, to make a large allowance, in all that is right and good, for the primitive Traditions and special customs of every nation.  On the contrary, if you re-establish Union with Us, you will see how, by God’s bounty, the glory and dignity of your Churches will be remarkably increased.  May God, then, in His goodness, hear the Prayer that you yourselves address to Him: “Make the schisms of the Churches cease,” and “Assemble those who are dispersed, bring back those who err, and unite them to Thy Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.”  May you thus return to that one Holy Faith which has been handed down both to Us and to you from time immemorial; which your forefathers preserved untainted, and which was enhanced by the rival splendor of the Virtues, the great genius, and the sublime learning of St. Athanasius and St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nazianzum and St. John Chrysostom, the two Saints who bore the name of Cyril, and so many other great men whose glory belongs as a common inheritance to the East and to the West. (See also the excellent discussion of the the history of what led up to the Greek Schism that is contained in Fathers Francisco and Dominic Radecki’s Tumultuous Times.)

The fact that the conciliarists reaffirm the Orthodox in their heretical beliefs and do not exhort them to convert to the true Faith is yet another proof that the “spirit” guiding them comes from Hell as the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, is immutable. Those who say otherwise stand condemned by the infallible of Pope Pius IX and the Fathers of the [First] Vatican Council (see the material included in Around and Around They Go.)

Catholics, both those who belong to the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, which has undergone its own “de-Latinization” program in recent decades as part of the “springtime” of the “Second” Vatican Council, and those who belong to the Roman Rite should be preprared to suffer, perhaps as much as have the Catholics in Iraq and Syria. and Egypt. There can be no room in the New World Order of the Judeo-Masonic West and the Russian nationalism for even the heretical conciliar version of Catholicism, which is seen as an enemy of “human rights” in the West and of “true patriotism” in Russia.

No Peace Without Christ the King

Human nature is flawed as a result of Original Sin. The souls of men are wounded further by the effects of their Actual Sins, which is why we must seek to recover by penance what we have lost by sin. There will always be conflicts in the world even if it is God’s Holy Will for the Social Reign of Christ the King to be restored prior to the Second Coming of Our King on the Last Day.

Indeed, Pope Pius XII, writing in his first encyclical letter, Summi Pontificatucs, October 10, 1939, explained that Europe was frequently torn by wars even when there its kingdoms recognized the true Faith. Pope Pius XII also noted, however, the difference between then and now and his own time was that conflicts last longer, are more deadly and more intractable precisely because men have turned away from Christ the King, choosing to persist in their sins:

28. The present age, Venerable Brethren, by adding new errors to the doctrinal aberrations of the past, has pushed these to extremes which lead inevitably to a drift towards chaos. Before all else, it is certain that the radical and ultimate cause of the evils which We deplore in modern society is the denial and rejection of a universal norm of morality as well for individual and social life as for international relations; We mean the disregard, so common nowadays, and the forgetfulness of the natural law itself, which has its foundation in God, Almighty Creator and Father of all, supreme and absolute Lawgiver, all-wise and just Judge of human actions. When God is hated, every basis of morality is undermined; the voice of conscience is stilled or at any rate grows very faint, that voice which teaches even to the illiterate and to uncivilized tribes what is good and what is bad, what lawful, what forbidden, and makes men feel themselves responsible for their actions to a Supreme Judge.

29. The denial of the fundamentals of morality had its origin, in Europe, in the abandonment of that Christian teaching of which the Chair of Peter is the depository and exponent. That teaching had once given spiritual cohesion to a Europe which, educated, ennobled and civilized by the Cross, had reached such a degree of civil progress as to become the teacher of other peoples, of other continents. But, cut off from the infallible teaching authority of the Church, not a few separated brethren have gone so far as to overthrow the central dogma of Christianity, the Divinity of the Savior, and have hastened thereby the progress of spiritual decay.

30. The Holy Gospel narrates that when Jesus was crucified “there was darkness over the whole earth” (Matthew xxvii. 45); a terrifying symbol of what happened and what still happens spiritually wherever incredulity, blind and proud of itself, has succeeded in excluding Christ from modern life, especially from public life, and has undermined faith in God as well as faith in Christ. The consequence is that the moral values by which in other times public and private conduct was gauged have fallen into disuse; and the much vaunted civilization of society, which has made ever more rapid progress, withdrawing man, the family and the State from the beneficent and regenerating effects of the idea of God and the teaching of the Church, has caused to reappear, in regions in which for many centuries shone the splendors of Christian civilization, in a manner ever clearer, ever more distinct, ever more distressing, the signs of a corrupt and corrupting paganism: “There was darkness when they crucified Jesus” (Roman Breviary, Good Friday, Response Five).

31. Many perhaps, while abandoning the teaching of Christ, were not fully conscious of being led astray by a mirage of glittering phrases, which proclaimed such estrangement as an escape from the slavery in which they were before held; nor did they then foresee the bitter consequences of bartering the truth that sets free, for error which enslaves. They did not realize that, in renouncing the infinitely wise and paternal laws of God, and the unifying and elevating doctrines of Christ’s love, they were resigning themselves to the whim of a poor, fickle human wisdom; they spoke of progress, when they were going back; of being raised, when they groveled; of arriving at man’s estate, when they stooped to servility. They did not perceive the inability of all human effort to replace the law of Christ by anything equal to it; “they became vain in their thoughts” (Romans i. 21).

32. With the weakening of faith in God and in Jesus Christ, and the darkening in men’s minds of the light of moral principles, there disappeared the indispensable foundation of the stability and quiet of that internal and external, private and public order, which alone can support and safeguard the prosperity of States.

33. It is true that even when Europe had a cohesion of brotherhood through identical ideals gathered from Christian preaching, she was not free from divisions, convulsions and wars which laid her waste; but perhaps they never felt the intense pessimism of today as to the possibility of settling them, for they had then an effective moral sense of the just and of the unjust, of the lawful and of the unlawful, which, by restraining outbreaks of passion, left the way open to an honorable settlement. In Our days, on the contrary, dissensions come not only from the surge of rebellious passion, but also from a deep spiritual crisis which has overthrown the sound principles of private and public morality. (Pope Pius XII, Summi Pontificatus, October 10, 1939.)

Our true popes were as one in reminding Catholics that Protestant Revolution led to the subsequent rise and triumph of naturalism, thereby hasting the decay of men and their nations to the point of barbarism and beyond.

Pope Pius XII’s predecessor, Pope Pius XI, used his own first encyclical letter, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922, to remind the world that there is simply no peace, either in the souls of men or in the world where the persistence in sin is glorified as a “human right:”

13. It is most sad to see how this revolutionary spirit has penetrated into that sanctuary of peace and love, the family, the original nucleus of human society. In the family these evil seeds of dissension, which were sown long ago, have recently been spread about more and more by the fact of the absence of fathers and sons from the family fireside during the War and by the greatly increased freedom in matters of morality which followed on it as one of its effects. Frequently we behold sons alienated from their fathers, brothers quarreling with brothers, masters with servants, servants with masters. Too often likewise have we seen both the sanctity of the marriage tie and the duties to God and to humankind, which this tie imposes upon men, forgotten.

14. Just as the smallest part of the body feels the effect of an illness which is ravaging the whole body or one of its vital organs, so the evils now besetting society and the family afflict even individuals. In particular, We cannot but lament the morbid restlessness which has spread among people of every age and condition in life, the general spirit of insubordination and the refusal to live up to one’s obligations which has become so widespread as almost to appear the customary mode of living. We lament, too, the destruction of purity among women and young girls as is evidenced by the increasing immodesty of their dress and conversation and by their participation in shameful dances, which sins are made the more heinous by the vaunting in the faces of people less fortunate than themselves their luxurious mode of life. Finally, We cannot but grieve over the great increase in the number of what might be called social misfits who almost inevitably end by joining the ranks of those malcontents who continually agitate against all order, be it public or private.

15. It is surprising, then, that we should no longer possess that security of life in which we can place our trust and that there remains only the most terrible uncertainty, and from hour to hour added fears for the future? Instead of regular daily work there is idleness and unemployment. That blessed tranquillity which is the effect of an orderly existence and in which the essence of peace is to be found no longer exists, and, in its place, the restless spirit of revolt reigns. As a consequence industry suffers, commerce is crippled, the cultivation of literature and the arts becomes more and more difficult, and what is worse than all, Christian civilization itself is irreparably damaged thereby. In the face of our much praised progress, we behold with sorrow society lapsing back slowly but surely into a state of barbarism.

16. We wish to record, in addition to the evils already mentioned, other evils which beset society and which occupy a place of prime importance but whose very existence escapes the ordinary observer, the sensual man — he who, as the Apostle says, does not perceive “the things that are of the Spirit of God” (I Cor. ii, 14), yet which cannot but be judged the greatest and most destructive scourges of the social order of today. We refer specifically to those evils which transcend the material or natural sphere and lie within the supernatural and religious order properly so-called; in other words, those evils which affect the spiritual life of souls. These evils are all the more to be deplored since they injure souls whose value is infinitely greater than that of any merely material object. . . .

28. These words of the Holy Bible have been fulfilled and are now at this very moment being fulfilled before our very eyes. Because men have forsaken God and Jesus Christ, they have sunk to the depths of evil. They waste their energies and consume their time and efforts in vain sterile attempts to find a remedy for these ills, but without even being successful in saving what little remains from the existing ruin. It was a quite general desire that both our laws and our governments should exist without recognizing God or Jesus Christ, on the theory that all authority comes from men, not from God. Because of such an assumption, these theorists fell very short of being able to bestow upon law not only those sanctions which it must possess but also that secure basis for the supreme criterion of justice which even a pagan philosopher like Cicero saw clearly could not be derived except from the divine law.

Authority itself lost its hold upon mankind, for it had lost that sound and unquestionable justification for its right to command on the one hand and to be obeyed on the other. Society, quite logically and inevitably, was shaken to its very depths and even threatened with destruction, since there was left to it no longer a stable foundation, everything having been reduced to a series of conflicts, to the domination of the majority, or to the supremacy of special interests.

29. Again, legislation was passed which did not recognize that either God or Jesus Christ had any rights over marriage — an erroneous view which debased matrimony to the level of a mere civil contract, despite the fact that Jesus Himself had called it a “great sacrament” (Ephesians v, 32) and had made it the holy and sanctifying symbol of that indissoluble union which binds Him to His Church. The high ideals and pure sentiments with which the Church has always surrounded the idea of the family, the germ of all social life, these were lowered, were unappreciated, or became confused in the minds of many. As a consequence, the correct ideals of family government, and with them those of family peace, were destroyed; the stability and unity of the family itself were menaced and undermined, and, worst of all, the very sanctuary of the home was more and more frequently profaned by acts of sinful lust and soul-destroying egotism — all of which could not but result in poisoning and drying up the very sources of domestic and social life.

30. Added to all this, God and Jesus Christ, as well as His doctrines, were banished from the school. As a sad but inevitable consequence, the school became not only secular and non-religious but openly atheistical and anti-religious. In such circumstances it was easy to persuade poor ignorant children that neither God nor religion are of any importance as far as their daily lives are concerned. God’s name, moreover, was scarcely ever mentioned in such schools unless it were perchance to blaspheme Him or to ridicule His Church. Thus, the school forcibly deprived of the right to teach anything about God or His law could not but fail in its efforts to really educate, that is, to lead children to the practice of virtue, for the school lacked the fundamental principles which underlie the possession of a knowledge of God and the means necessary to strengthen the will in its efforts toward good and in its avoidance of sin. Gone, too, was all possibility of ever laying a solid groundwork for peace, order, and prosperity, either in the family or in social relations. Thus the principles based on the spiritualistic philosophy of Christianity having been obscured or destroyed in the minds of many, a triumphant materialism served to prepare mankind for the propaganda of anarchy and of social hatred which was let loose on such a great scale. . . .

47. It is apparent from these considerations that true peace, the peace of Christ, is impossible unless we are willing and ready to accept the fundamental principles of Christianity, unless we are willing to observe the teachings and obey the law of Christ, both in public and private life. If this were done, then society being placed at last on a sound foundation, the Church would be able, in the exercise of its divinely given ministry and by means of the teaching authority which results therefrom, to protect all the rights of God over men and nations.

48. It is possible to sum up all We have said in one word, “the Kingdom of Christ.” For Jesus Christ reigns over the minds of individuals by His teachings, in their hearts by His love, in each one’s life by the living according to His law and the imitating of His example. Jesus reigns over the family when it, modeled after the holy ideals of the sacrament of matrimony instituted by Christ, maintains unspotted its true character of sanctuary. In such a sanctuary of love, parental authority is fashioned after the authority of God, the Father, from Whom, as a matter of fact, it originates and after which even it is named. (Ephesians iii, 15) The obedience of the children imitates that of the Divine Child of Nazareth, and the whole family life is inspired by the sacred ideals of the Holy Family. Finally, Jesus Christ reigns over society when men recognize and reverence the sovereignty of Christ, when they accept the divine origin and control over all social forces, a recognition which is the basis of the right to command for those in authority and of the duty to obey for those who are subjects, a duty which cannot but ennoble all who live up to its demands. Christ reigns where the position in society which He Himself has assigned to His Church is recognized, for He bestowed on the Church the status and the constitution of a society which, by reason of the perfect ends which it is called upon to attain, must be held to be supreme in its own sphere; He also made her the depository and interpreter of His divine teachings, and, by consequence, the teacher and guide of every other society whatsoever, not of course in the sense that she should abstract in the least from their authority, each in its own sphere supreme, but that she should really perfect their authority, just as divine grace perfects human nature, and should give to them the assistance necessary for men to attain their true final end, eternal happiness, and by that very fact make them the more deserving and certain promoters of their happiness here below.

49. It is, therefore, a fact which cannot be questioned that the true peace of Christ can only exist in the Kingdom of Christ — “the peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ.” It is no less unquestionable that, in doing all we can to bring about the re-establishment of Christ’s kingdom, we will be working most effectively toward a lasting world peace. (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.)

This is pretty clear.

Despite all of the blathering about “inter-religious dialogue” as the means to “peace” in the world that we have heard from the conciliar “popes” from the time of the “election” of “Saint John XXIII” on October 28, 1958, the Feast of Saints Simon and Jude, the Social Reign of Christ the King is the necessary precondition, although never an infallible guarantor, of a just social order founded upon a due concern for the eternal good souls.

The entire world, including the people in Ukraine, Syria, Nigeria, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Russia, Red China, Vietnam, Cuba, Laos, Libya, Egypt, is suffering because of the anti-Incarnational errors of Modernity, which have metastasized so rapidly in the past fifty-five years now because of the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s “official reconciliation” with those errors.

To Our Lady of Fatima and Saint Joseph

As noted before, we are suffering the consequences of the failure of Pope Pius XI, who may not have been aware of Our Lady’s request for the collegial consecration of Russia to her Immaculate Heart, Pope Pius XII, caught in the throes of the Cold War in the immediate aftermath of World War II, to consecrate Russia with all of world’s true bishops to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

The errors of Russia have indeed spread throughout the world, including here in the United States of America, and remain influential in Russia and its neighbors. Indeed, we must never forget that “Saint John XXIII” promised silence about Communism at the “Second” Vatican Council in exchange for the presence of Russian Orthodox “observers” at this milestone event in the history of heresy (see The Council of Metz).

We must also remember that Saint Joseph, the Patron of the Universal Church and the Protector of the Faithful, appeared with Our Lady during the Miracle of the Sun on October 13, 1917, in the Cova da Iria near Fatima, Portugal. Saint Joseph’s protection is essential to keep us from the blight of the twin, interrelated errors of Modernity in the world and Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

There is only one path to peace, the true peace of Christ the King, and that is the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. May the Rosaries we pray every day help to plant the seeds for the restoration of Catholicism as the one and only foundation of personal and social order.

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saint John Baptist de la Salle, pray for us.

The administration of Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetero, Jr., is filled with racialists, men and women who believe that is is necessary to “correct” past injustices, real or imagined, by exculpating those who skin color happens to be anything other than “white” when they are accused of serious crimes or of seeking to intimidate the descendants of those associated with the slave-holding of the past even though most white people never owned slaves and a significant number of them are descended from immigrants who suffered all manner of unjust, invidious discrimination upon their arrival on the shores of the United States of America and simply offered up the difficulties as they sought to make new lives for themselves without considering themselves to be perpetual victims who had to “right” every “wrong” of the past.

Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro and his wife, Michele Robinson Obama, who is also an attorney, and United States Attorney General Eric Holder are indeed racialists, people who believe that nonwhites are superior to whites and thus have the “right” to special, preferential treatment insofar as discipline in schools for errant behavior and grading on examinations and admissions to colleges or universities or professional schools and in being hiring and considered for promotions by employers. The Obamas and Eric Holders believe that they are “entitled” to the “power” that has come their way, determined to use that power to make it difficult for their hated “white power structure” to recapture any claim on policy-making and to “force” them to submit to their own “vision” of a “just” United States of America where preferential treatment must be given to nonwhites in perpetuity even though nearly fifty years of so-called “affirmative action” has resulted in the rise of generations of Americans who believe that life is one gigantic “entitlement” program that indemnifies them against incompetence, sloth, malfeasance and even overt criminal activity. In other words, blacks can do no wrong and “whitey” just has to “pay” for what he did to “their people” in the past.

Such is the belief of pagans who are nothing other than the end-products of Modernity, veritable monsters whose souls are seething with hatred and revenge, people who believe that the possession of power in this world defines their “importance” of human beings and assures “their people” of “getting what is due them” once and for all.

Too strong?

Well, consider Attorney General Eric Holder’s own words three years ago when questioned on Tuesday, March 1, 2011, by a subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations of the United States House of Representatives about why he did not seek to prosecute members of the “New Black Panther Party” in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, who stood outside of a polling place on November 4, 2008, as they shouted such things as “white devil” and “you are about to ruled by the black man, cracker.” One of their number, a fellow going by the name of “Minister King Shabazz,” was holding a billy club in a menacing manner. Poll watchers saw several people turn away from the polling place as a result (here is a video of the incident):

Attorney General Eric Holder said Tuesday that voter intimidation by members of the New Black Panther Party was different than the historic intimidation experienced by “my people.”

The New Black Panther Party had uniformed members stationed outside of Philadelphia polling stations in November 2008 shouting racial insults. One carried a nightstick.

Holder responded to statements made by Texas Republican Rep. John Culberson at a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing. Culberson said, “There’s clearly overwhelming evidence that your Department of Justice refuses to protect the rights of anybody other than African-Americans to vote.”

Holder said, “When you compare what people endured in the South in the ’60s to try to get the right to vote for African Americans, to compare what people subjected to that with what happened in Philadelphia… I think does a great disservice to people who put their lives on the line for my people.”

In December, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights released a scathing report on the Justice Department’s handling of the New Black Panthers case.

Civil Rights Commission Chairman Gerald A. Reynolds wrote, “Because the Department withheld relevant documents and relevant officials’ and supervisors’ witness testimony, the Commission was limited in its ability to complete a final report.”

“Based upon the incomplete, incorrect and changing explanations offered by the Department for its actions, the Commission decided to examine whether the U.S. Department of Justice enforced voting rights in a race-neutral manner when it reversed course in the New Black Panther Party case,” Reynolds wrote in an introductory letter for the report.

The Justice Department had dropped nearly all charges against defendants from the New Black Panther Party.

“The Department refused to comply with certain Commission requests for information concerning DOJ’s enforcement actions, and it instructed its employees not to comply with the Commission’s subpoenas for testimony,” Reynolds wrote.

The New Black Panther Party has been denounced by leaders of original Black Panther Party as a bastardized, racist version of the 60s’ group.

Reacting to the new group, co-founder of the original Black Panthers, Bobby Seale, said, “The Black Panther Party were not revenge nationalists. My organization was all power to all the people whether you’re black, white, blue, green, yellow, or polka dot.”

“The Party operated on love for black people, not hatred of white people,” said the foundation dedicated to the memory of the late Huey Newton.

Megan Mitchell, communications director for Culberson, told The Daily Caller, “the congressman believes that the attorney general needs to be the attorney general of all Americans.” (Eric Holder and “My People”; see also the scathing report of the U. S. Civil Rights Commission on this unquestioned exercise preferential treatment being accorded to human beings solely because of the color of their skin.)

“My people.”

“My people.”

What a racialist.

Voter intimidation of white Americans cannot be compared to voter intimidation of black of Americans because to do so would be to a ” great disservice to people who put their lives on the line for my people”?

Prosecutors should go easy in cases of “black on white” crime and seek maximum penalties in cases of “white on black” crime? An endless succession of “affirmative action” and other preferential programs to “level the playing field” in the acquisition, retention and increase of civil power, economic clout and social prestige. Yes, this is the vision and the goal of the Obamas and Eric Holder, who says that “affirmative action” has only just begun to remedy the injustices of the past:

Our own attorney general, ostensibly committed to even-handed enforcement of the nation’s laws, referred to blacks as “my people.”  Strangely, it is socially acceptable for only certain groups to proudly claim ethnic group membership.  If similar tribal loyalties were publicly boasted by a white ethnic, that would be seen as sinister.  Just imagine the reaction if a President Bush had identified — on the basis of race — with a victim of minority-on-white crime by saying, “Channon Christian looks like my daughters.”

Identifying with an ethnic group as one’s own “people” will lead in most cases to in-group favoritism.  Cultural pride is one thing, but proclaiming exclusive ethnic group affiliation while occupying a position of public trust is another.  This tendency is too often written off as a harmless cultural tic or a healthy form of therapeutic identity formation.  The trouble is that there is a worldview lying beneath the “my people” language.

In his remarks, the attorney general has provided the most explicit statement of ethnic favoritism and racial grievance by a high public official in American history.  And the racket has just begun: “When do people of color truly get the benefits to which they are entitled?” asks Holder.  The question is rhetorical, and his constituents know the answer.

In this liberal, racialized conception of society, minority groups are supposedly not getting “benefits to which they are entitled.”  The danger in this attitude is not just that people are asking for free stuff from the government.  The danger is that minority group members are made to believe that society is purposefully withholding benefits from them due to their racial group membership.  Hence the resentment and latent animosity lurking at the core of the welfare state, and its ever-expanding legion of dependents.

This menacing fact was once openly recognized by sociologists.  Decades ago, Edward C. Banfield wrote that urban social problems will increasingly come to be regarded as the fault of “callousness or neglect by the ‘white power structure'” [2].  Just as expected, we now have a cult of anti-white resentment named Critical Race Theory being taught in law schools around the nation.

The constant use of physical metaphors like “white power structure” will guarantee that some people view themselves — usually falsely — as being intentionally excluded from that structure.  Of course, structures comprise people, so real human beings will inevitably become targets of the resentment originally intended for abstract “power structures.”

The victim mentality feeds off racial bitterness, which is constantly politicized and enflamed.  We see this in the rhetoric of Congresswoman Frederica Wilson (D-Florida), who said that Trayvon Martin was “hunted down like a dog.”  The attorney general and president are doing their part to sow the seeds of bitterness, entitlement, and racial favoritism.  By acknowledging those seeds, one begins to understand why racial double standards and potential violence are so easily stirred up amidst controversies such as the current one involving Trayvon Martin. (Eric Holder’s Revenge. I want to add that the late Edward Banfield’s The Unheavenly City and The Unheavenly City Revisited were outstanding books describing urban poverty. I read the first book when taking a course on Urban Politics at Saint John’s University as an undergraduate in the Spring Semester of 1972–can that be forty years ago now?–and used it in courses that I taught on the subject over the decades. Obviously, Banfield’s books provided no supernatural perspective. One who read them, however, with an understanding of First and Last Things could nevertheless appreciate the author’s insights about how the policies of the statists had enslaved the poor to make them a new caste of slaves here in the United States of America.)

Here is news for the Obamas and Eric Holder, who, as the head of the Deputy Attorney General under that zealous seeker of truth in Travelgate, Whitewatergate, Chinagate and other scandals, Attorney General Janet Reno (a pro-abortion, pro-perversity Catholic), in the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice in the administration of one Caesar Gulielmi Clintonus Ignoramus, helped the grease the skids for Clinton’s presidential pardon on January 20, 2001, of fugitive financier Marc Rich, whose former wife, Denise Rich, was a major fund-raiser for the Democratic Party, who had taken refuge in Switzerland to evade prosecution in the United States of America: There is no “affirmative action program” in Heaven.

I am sorry, one’s skin color does not exempt one from the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law. We are not judged by God at the moment of our Particular Judgments on the basis of our skin color. We are judged on the basis of whether we are in a state of Sanctifying Grace as a member of the Catholic Church.

There is no “affirmative action” program in Heaven, and the mere fact of being black, white, red, brown, yellow, pink or turquoise (or any combination thereof) has no bearing whatsoever on one’s absolute obligation to live in accord with the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law as these have been entrusted by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Himself to the Catholic Church for their eternal safekeeping and infallible explication. Each and every human being on the face of this earth has an obligation to try, despite their sins and failings, to cooperate with the graces won for us on Calvary by the shedding of every single drop of Our Lord’s Most Precious Blood that flow into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces, to live in accord with the Deposit of Faith, and those who serve in public office have an positive obligation to pursue the common temporal good in the light of the pursuit of man’s Last End, the possession of the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost for all eternity.

Says who? Every true pope of the Catholic Church, that’s who, including Pope Saint Pius X?

That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man’s eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man’s supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it. (Pope Saint Pius X, Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906.)

As Catholics, my friends, we know that God does not judge us on the basis of the race or ethnicity. Our immortal souls is made unto His own very image and likeness in that we have a rational soul with an intellect to know Him and a will to choose with which to love and to serve Him. Human beings do not love God as “blacks” or as “whites” or as “Latinos or Latinas” or as “Orientals” or as “Native Americans” or as “Italians” or as “Croatians” or as “French” or as “Americans” but as creatures whose immortal souls have been redeemed by the shedding of every single drop of the Most Precious Blood of the Divine Redeemer, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Human beings are called upon to love God as He has revealed Himself to them through His true Church, the Catholic Church, and to love their own immortal souls as they have been redeemed at so great a cost. Our principal identity as human beings is as members of the Catholic Church. Everything else about us (race, ethnicity, nationality, gender), although occurring certainly within the Providence of God, is secondary.

As I tried to explain to students during my days as a college professor, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ embraced all of the legitimate joys and sorrows of this passing, mortal vale of tears as He underwent His fearful Passion and Death. We suffer or experience joy as human beings, as redeemed creatures, not as mere animals identifiable by external characteristics. There are no such things as “black” tears or “white” tears or “Indian” tears. There is no such thing as “white” joy or “black” joy” or “Latino” joy. The use of the “race” or “ethnicity” or “gender” card is the refuge of cowardly scoundrels who seek privilege and/or to indemnify slothful or corrupt behavior.

We are to see in each person the very impress of the Divine Redeemer and to treat Him accordingly, rendering unto each person that which is his due. We are to discriminate unjustly (we must discriminate justly in many circumstances of our lives as we choose which merchant to patronize, which person to employ, who to admit to a seat in a college or a professional school, to deny employment or privileges to those steeped in public scandal, etc.) against no one nor must we use the external characteristics of a human being to extend privileges that are undeserving and/or would result in an injustice to someone else.

Ah, the Obamas and Eric Holder are penultimate expressions of the farce that must occur in a world when people do not realize that they identities are defined by the fact that they have rational, immortal souls created in the very image and likeness of the Most Blessed Trinity that have been redeemed by the shedding of the Most Precious Blood of the Divine Redeemer, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, during this fearful week of weeks.

Human beings are supposed to be bound together by the common bonds of the Catholic Faith, not to break into warring tribes along ethnic or racial or geographic lines, seething with hatred and resentment at those who have “more” (power, money, fame, prestige, accomplishment) than they do. We are to help each other get home to Heaven as members of the Catholic Church who aspire to make reparation to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary for our sins, fulfilling these words of Saint Paul in his Epistle to the Ephesians as we seek to build up each other as members of the Mystical Body of Christ on earth:

[16] From whom the whole body, being compacted and fitly joined together, by what every joint supplieth, according to the operation in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body, unto the edifying of itself in charity. This then I say and testify in the Lord: That henceforward you walk not as also the Gentiles walk in the vanity of their mind, [18] Having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their hearts. [19] Who despairing, have given themselves up to lasciviousness, unto the working of all uncleanness, unto the working of all uncleanness, unto covetousness. [20] But you have not so learned Christ;

[21] If so be that you have heard him, and have been taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus: [22] To put off, according to former conversation, the old man, who is corrupted according to the desire of error. [23] And be renewed in the spirit of your mind: [24] And put on the new man, who according to God is created in justice and holiness of truth. [25] Wherefore putting away lying, speak; ye the truth every man with his neighbour; for we are members one of another.

[26] Be angry, and sin not. Let not the sun go down upon your anger. [27] Give not place to the devil. [28] He that stole, let him now steal no more; but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have something to give to him that suffereth need. [29] Let no evil speech proceed from your mouth; but that which is good, to the edification of faith, that it may administer grace to the hearers. [30] And grieve not the holy Spirit of God: whereby you are sealed unto the day of redemption.

[31] Let all bitterness, and anger, and indignation, and clamour, and blasphemy, be put away from you, with all malice. [32] And be ye kind one to another; merciful, forgiving one another, even as God hath forgiven you in Christ.  (Ephesians 4: 16-32.)

This spirit of the Divine Redeemer, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, He Who is the King of all men and all nations whether or not they know or accept Him as such, is far, far from the wretched, darkened hearts of haters such as the Obamas and Eric Holder, people intent on “remedying” every past injustice imaginable as they seek to persecute those who disagree with what they believe to be their “infallible” ideological agenda that they pursue relentlessly in behalf of one objectively grave evil after another. Holder’s own Department of Justice sought several years ago to persecute a woman, Mary Susan Pine, who did sidewalk counseling in the State of Florida, an act of rank administration tyranny and a gross miscarriage of justice and abuse of civil power that was denounced as such by Judge Kenneth Ryskamp, the senior judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida:

The Department of Justice has given up its bid to prosecute a pro-life counselor and agreed to pay her $120,000 in a case a judge said never should have been brought.

Mary Susan Pine, who stands outside abortion clinics and advises women not to have the procedure, was accused of blocking a car from entering a Florida abortion clinic in 2009. In December, a judge threw out the case, in which the government sought $10,000 in fines and a permanent injunction barring Pine from counseling women outside the Presidential Women’s Center in West Palm Beach, Fla. The government had been appealing the ruling until it was announced Monday it would no longer pursue the case.

Pine’s lawyer said she was a victim of a politically-driven prosecution.

“It is irresponsible for the U.S. Department of Justice to place politics above principle when deciding to prosecute, and thus attempt to silence, a pro-life sidewalk counselor without any evidence of wrongdoing,” Mathew Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, said in a statement. “When the nation’s highest law enforcement officer files suit against any citizen, the suit must be based on the law coupled with compelling evidence. Anything less is an abuse of the high office.”

A spokesperson for the Department of Justice defended prosecution decision as “based on the facts presented during our investigations and the applicable federal laws.” In Pine’s case, “the department made a decision to settle with the defendant rather than continue with costly litigation.”

Florida District Judge Kenneth Ryskamp said in December the case appeared to be part of a “concerted effort” between the government and the Presidential Women’s Center.

“The Court is at a loss as to why the government chose to prosecute this particular case in the first place,” Ryskamp wrote in a summary judgment order against the feds. “The court can only wonder whether this action was the product of a concerted effort between the government and PWC, which began well before the date of the incident at issue, to quell Ms. Pine’s activities rather than to vindicate the rights of those allegedly aggrieved by Ms. Pine’s conduct.”

Under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) federal law, DOJ officials alleged that Pine obstructed a car from entering the Florida abortion clinic on Nov. 19, 2009.

Pine, who could not be reached for comment, had denied obstructing any vehicle from entering the clinic. (DOJ officials drops appeal, pays Florida pro-life sidewalk counselor.)

Sure, protect the “New Black Panther Party.” Rush to judgment on the case of Travyon Martin back in 2012. The new caste of political leaders who are but the final product of false, naturalistic, anti-Incarnational and semi-Pelagian principles of the American founding (see Conversion in Reverse, which is still available for sale) will protect “their people” while they use the full powers of the Department of Justice to intimidate “reactionary” citizens such as Mary Susan Pine who try to be a peaceful, prayerful presence in front of America’s killing centers so as to convince at least one woman to save her baby from those who are paid to butcher her innocent preborn baby and to use the offices of the Internal Revenue Services to conduct audits on political opponents such as even low-level members of the self-described “Tax Enough Already” (TEA) Party.

Let’s be clear on all of this.

Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro and Eric Holder, et al., consider all opposition to them to be illegitimate. Living in the Manichean world of good and evil that is a part of the American ethos, the Obama/Soetoro cadre of statists believes all opposition voices must be silence. Intimidation, not excluding the politicization of the Internal Revenue Service and the threat of prosecution. These cowardly tyrants raise the specter of “racism” to shield themselves in their lawless activities that defy the laws of both God and man. They are truly Tyrants Who Speak About “Freedom”.

Although Tyrant Holder’s exchange with United States Representative Louis Gohmert (R-Texas) received a great deal of attention in the past week, it is good to highlight it here as it is just one contemporary proof of Holder’s resentment of his actions being called into question by anyone, including an elected member of the United States House of Representatives who, unlike Holder, is answerable to his constituents on Tuesday, November 4, 2014:

REP. LOUIE GOHMERT (R-TX) Attorney General, I’ve read in the 5th Circuit opinion, about 9600 summaries of transcripts of conversations that the Justice Department had that were made available to attorneys for the terrorists. I still do not understand why your department can provide documents to terrorists’ lawyers, and many of them to four out of eight of the terrorists, and not provide them to members of Congress.

Sir, I’ve read you what your department promised, and it is inadequate, and I realize that contempt is not a big deal to our attorney general, but it is important that we have proper oversight.

ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER: You don’t want to go there, buddy. You don’t want to go there, okay?

GOHMERT: I don’t want to go there?

HOLDER: No.

GOHMERT: About the contempt?

HOLDER: You should not assume that that is not a big deal to me. I think that it was inappropriate. I think it was unjust, but never think that that was not a big deal to me. Don’t ever think that.

GOHMERT: Well I’m just looking for evidence, and normally we’re known by our fruits, and there have been no indications that it was a big deal, because your department has still not been forthcoming in producing the documents that were the subject of the contempt.

HOLDER: The documents that we were prepared to make available then, we’re prepared to make available now that would have obviated the whole need. This was all about the gun lobby and a desire to have a —

GOHMERT: Sir, we’ve been trying to get to the bottom of Fast and Furious where people died, where at least a couple hundred Mexicans died, and we can’t get the information to get to the bottom of that, so I don’t need lectures from you about contempt, because it is very difficult to deal with asking questions.

HOLDER: And I don’t need lectures from you either.

GOHMERT: As a former judge, I’d never have asked questions of someone who’s been held in contempt. We waited ‘til the contempt was purged, and then we asked questions. (Eric Holder To Louie Gohmert: “You Don’t Want To Go There, Buddy”)

“You don’t want to go there, buddy”?

What incredible arrogance.

The chief law enforcement officer of the United States of America, who serves in that capacity after having been confirmed by the United States Senate in 2009 following his nomination by his comrade-in-statist-arms, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, believes that a member of the United States House of Representatives has no right to “go there” to question him about his violations of the Constitution of the United States of America and of the laws passed by Congress itself. He believes that he is answerable to no one, especially to the Divine Judge, Christ the King, for his wanton, bold and arrogant abuse of the powers of his office. Too bad for those killed as a result of Fast and Furious. Just too bad.

Tyrant Holder took an oath to uphold the Constitution, whose defects helped made the election of his patron, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, possible. Yet it is that he believes that he has wide prosecutorial discretion to do whatever he wants as long as its consistent with “his” values, which include violating the direct mandates of Federal law concerning the sentencing of those convicted of trafficking in illegal substances.

Representative Louie Gohmert’s commendable condemnation of Tyrant Holder’s abuse of law and his contempt of Congress came just a few days before a two Federal judges who serve on a panel to supervise the uniform enforcement of sentencing guidelines rebuked  him for his abuse of prosecutorial discretion and the intellectual dishonesty he displayed when testifying before them recently without informing them that he had already issued his directive to Federal prosecutors to go easy on what he believes are “low-level” drug traffickers:

(CNSNews.com) — Two federal judges on the U.S. Sentencing Commission said Thursday that Attorney General Eric Holder stepped “outside the legal system” and exceeded the authority of the executive branch by sending “improper instruction” to federal prosecutors to reduce drug sentences before they were officially approved by either the commission or Congress.

“I have been surprised at the attorney general’s steps taken to proceed with this reduction outside of the legal system set up and established by the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984,” Judge Ricardo Hinojosa, the commission’s vice chair, said during a public hearing in the Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building in Washington.

“As you all know, the commission in the act is given the authority to promulgate and amend guidelines on a yearly basis. And in the act itself, Congress has preserved its right to reject any potential promulgation of, or amendment to, any guidelines made by the commission itself after the commission has acted.

“Meaning that if Congress does not reject a guideline amendment, it will not go into effect until November 1st of this year if we vote in favor of this amendment.,” said Hinojosa, who is also the chief judge of the Southern District of Texas.

“When the attorney general testified before us, he failed to mention that the night  before, at around 11 pm, the department had ordered all of the assistant U.S. attorneys across the country to (and it’s not clear to me whether it was supposed to be not oppose or to argue for, in fact the U.S. attorneys in front of my court have said they’ve been asked to argue for) the two-level reduction in all drug trafficking cases before the commission has acted and before Congress has had the opportunity to vote its disapproval of the commission’s actions, if Congress is so inclined, which is certainly the right that they have preserved for themselves in the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984,” Hinojosa said.

“It would have been nice for us to have known and been told beforehand that this action had been taken, so any of us who would have liked to have asked the attorney general under what basis under Title 18…the courts were being asked by the Justice Department to follow this request.

“If it was because the attorney general had spoken in favor of this proposal, that is a dangerous precedent because attorney generals in the past have consistently expressed opinions to the commission on guideline promulgation and amendments, many times for an increase, and sometimes for a lowering of the penalties.

“But none have ever then asked the courts to proceed with increases or decreases simply because the attorney general has spoken in support of them before the commission has acted and before the Congress has exercised its statutory right not to act,” the vice-chairman said. (Judge: Law Provides Executive No Authority to Cut Drug Sentences.)

How does Eric Holder react to rebukes such as those given him by Representative Louie Gohmert and Judges Rico Hinojosa?

What else?

Cry racism, which is exactly what Holder did when speaking before a convention organized by the nefarious pro-abort, racialist, inciter of riots and racial hatred and resentment named Alfred Sharpton, the founder of the so-called “National Action Network”:

“The last five years have been defined by significant strides and by lasting reforms even in the face, even in the face of unprecedented, unwarranted, ugly and divisive adversity,” Holder said. “If you don’t believe that, you look at the way — forget about me, forget about me. You look at the way the attorney general of the United States was treated yesterday by a House committee — has nothing to do with me, forget that. What attorney general has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment? What president has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment?” (Eric Holder strays from planned remarks.)

What a unspeakably horrible, self-piteous, self-righteous demagogue.

No President has “ever had to deal with this kind of treatment”?

Barack Hussen Obama/Barry Soetoro has had minimal opposition from the mostly hapless members of the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist “right,” save for the likes of Representatives Louis Gohmert and Dan Issa and a few others precisely because he is black. He has been protected from any serious effort to impeach him for his own numerous crimes, including the arbitrary suspending of the provisions Federal law in the manner of the late Hugo Chavez, misrepresenting and covering up the Mohammedan terrorist attack on the American compound in Benghazi, Libya, on Tuesday, September 11, 2012, sweeping under the rug, along with Holder, the scandal of Internal Revenue Service’s tax-exempt division’s targeting of “conservative” groups and its auditing of administration critics (such as Dr. Ben Carson and several outspoken critics of ObamaCare), refusing to protect the legitimate national sovereignty of the United States of America by encouraging an influx of illegal immigrants and to provide them with de facto amnesty and a vast array of social services in order to make them wards of the civil state and loyal voters of the Democratic Party when they are granted citizenship by executive fiat, using the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency to spy on ordinary Americans whose only “crime” is expressing opposition to him and his policies, using the Federal Bureau of Investigation as a tool of intimidating opponents and, among so many other offenses, seeking to restrict the use or to confiscate altogether private property under various bogus texts, no less spending this country far, far into the abyss of national debt.

Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro has been protected by his race, which he has chosen to highlight and to exploit despite the fact that he is actually bi-racial. He has exceeded the criminality of the administrations of Presidents Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Lyndon Baines Johnson, Richard Milhous Nixon, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton and George Walker Bush combined. (My upcoming article on the situation on Crimea and Ukraine will review past presidential crimes, including those perpetrated on innocent human beings in other parts of the world.) He has received a free pass from most careerists in the Republican Party and has been enabled by the talking heads and paid sycophants in the mainslime media.

Moreover, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro and Eric Holder believe that any effort to prevent voter fraud is an exercise in racial intimidation. Caesar Obamus Barackus Igoranums said so himself at Alfred Sharpton’s National Action Network convention in New York, New York:

President Obama deplored on Friday what he called a Republican campaign to deny voting rights to millions of Americans as he stepped up efforts to rally his political base heading into a competitive midterm campaign season.

Appearing at the annual convention of the Rev. Al Sharpton’s National Action Network in Manhattan, Mr. Obama accused Republicans of trying to rig the elections by making it harder for older people, women, minorities and the impoverished to cast ballots in swing states that could determine control of the Senate.

“The right to vote is threatened today in a way that it has not been since the Voting Rights Act became law nearly five decades ago,” Mr. Obama said in a hotel ballroom filled with cheering supporters, most of them African-American. “Across the country, Republicans have led efforts to pass laws making it harder, not easier, for people to vote.”

Speaking a day after a conference in Texas commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, Mr. Obama linked the issue to the movement that helped pave the way for him to become the nation’s first black president.

“America did not stand up and did not march and did not sacrifice to gain the right to vote for themselves and for others only to see it denied to their kids and their grandchildren,” he said.

Republicans in some swing states have advanced new laws that go beyond the voter identification requirements of recent years. Among other things, state lawmakers are pushing measures to limit the time polls are open and to cut back early voting, particularly weekend balloting that makes it easier for lower-income voters to participate. Other measures would eliminate same-day registration, make it more difficult to cast provisional ballots or curb the mailing of absentee ballots.

Over the last 15 months, at least nine states have enacted voting changes making it harder to cast ballots. A federal judge last month upheld laws in Arizona and Kansas requiring proof of citizenship, like a birth certificate or a passport, leading other states to explore following suit.

Sponsors of such laws have said they are trying to prevent voter fraud and argue that Democrats overstate the impact of common-sense measures in a crass and transparent effort to rile up their most fervent political supporters.

“They want to create an issue out of nothing,” said Sean Spicer, communications director for the Republican National Committee. “The bottom line is, they know they’re on the wrong side of the issues that are important with voters, and the only way they can win is by scaring their base into voting.”

Mr. Spicer said the new laws proposed in some states had more to do with establishing uniformity, ensuring fairness between urban and rural communities and containing costs. He argued that Georgia actually saw minority voter participation increase after a new identification law went into effect.

Mr. Obama said nothing about a compromise idea presented to him in Texas this week by Andrew Young, the civil rights leader and former United Nations ambassador. Mr. Young proposed bridging the divide over ballot security by putting photographs on Social Security cards, which are issued to all citizens.

Former President Bill Clinton embraced the idea, but the White House did not. “We haven’t had a chance to review it,” said Jay Carney, the president’s press secretary.

The focus on voting rights came in the same week when Mr. Obama and other Democrats highlighted efforts to combat pay inequality for women, another critical constituency in the fall campaign. The president continues to promote an increase in the minimum wage, an issue popular with core Democratic voters, as well as some Republicans.

In addressing the National Action Network for the first time in three years, Mr. Obama made no mention of new details that came to light this week about Mr. Sharpton’s work as a confidential informer for the F.B.I. in the 1980s. Mr. Sharpton, in introducing Mr. Obama, said nothing about it either.

Instead, Mr. Sharpton embraced the president as a champion of the organization’s causes, despite past grumbling among some activists that Mr. Obama has not been energetic enough in addressing issues of concern to African-Americans.

“He has been an action president,” Mr. Sharpton told the audience. “I’m not talking about style. I’m not talking about rhetoric. I’m not talking about who would high-five us. I’m talking about action.”

He cited the president’s health care program and efforts to create private sector jobs and ensure equal pay for women. “This man didn’t talk,” Mr. Sharpton said. “He didn’t play us cheap. He brought us action.”

A relaxed Mr. Obama laughed and said he appreciated that. “Although I do also have style,” he added with a smile. “I just want to point that out.”

He also raised an old scandal, which he spent years trying to put to bed, when he said laws requiring passports or birth certificates would disenfranchise voters.

“Just to be clear, I know where my birth certificate is,” he said to laughter and cheers, referring to questions about whether he had been born in the United States that largely quieted down after he produced a birth certificate in 2011. (Caesar Says the Right to Vote Multiple Times and Without Proof of Citizenship Is Theatened.)

“This recent effort to restrict the vote has not been led by both parties,” Obama said, speaking to 1,600 people at the Sheraton ballroom in Midtown Manhattan.

“It’s been led by the Republican Party …. If your strategy depends on having fewer people showing up to vote, that’s not a sign of strength. That’s a sign of weakness. And not only is ultimately bad politics, ultimately it is bad for the country.”

He said it was undemocratic to force Americans to produce an ID such as a passport to vote.

“About 60% of Americans don’t have a passport. Just because you don’t have the money to travel abroad doesn’t mean you shouldn’t vote at home.

“Just to be clear I know where my birth certificate is,” he joked. “I think it’s still up on a website somewhere. Do you remember that?” he added, referring to his release of the certificate. (Obama stands by Rev. Al Sharpton.)

Leaving aside the typical fear-mongering and race-baiting that is, of course, second nature to Obama/Soetoro, Eric Holder and the master of such tactics, Alfred Shaprton, that are designed to turn out the vote in the midterm national elections on November 4, 2014, Obama/Soetoro’s line of reasoning, such as it is, was fallacious and disingenuous.

One needs photo identification to open a bank account, a little gift of the statist named George Walker Bush and the Patriot Act.

One needs photo identification to be able to run the gauntlet known as the Keystone Cops who pass for security guards at our airports, who are under direct orders to target everyone but those who are actual terrorists as “racial profiling,” which the Israelis use to keep their own aircraft safe, is forbidden.

One needs photo identification and proof of citizenship or permanent residency or a work visa to get a job legally in the United States of America.

Why is asking for such identification when voting to be considered an effort to exclude black Americans and Spanish-speaking Americans from participating in the farce of naturalism we call elections, which are control by two competing crime families of naturalism in the first place?

As for the Social Security card proposal, suffice it to say that this is a sham as there is a cottage industry of producing false Social Security cards for illegal immigrants, something that Jorge Mario Bergoglio himself would support as a “civil right.”

There is yet a larger question, however: why would the President and the Attorney-General of the United States of America want to be associated with and to lend further credibility to Alfred Sharpton, who perpetrated the Tawana Brawley hoax in 1987, slandered a New York State trooper, Stephen Pagones, and then refused to pay the judgment that the latter won against him in a defamation suit?

Here is just a thumbnail sketch of the man who has been embraced with such fervor by Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro and Eric Holder and Vice President Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.:

Among the earliest and clearest voices to condemn Trent Lott’s benighted remarks last month were those of conservatives and Republicans, who were repelled by his nostalgia for segregation and quick to call for his ouster. When will liberals and Democrats show the same maturity and forcefully repudiate the noxious racial lout in their own tent, New York demagogue Al Sharpton?

And when will the media, which aggressively mined Lott’s racial history and prominently reported the results, show a similar interest in digging into Sharpton’s record — a record far more shameful and egregious than anything Lott has to answer for.

This is a subject of more than idle interest. Al Sharpton says he is running for president. He has no hope of landing the White House, the Democratic nomination, or more than a handful of convention delegates, but that won’t stop him from getting plenty of ink and air time. And maybe it shouldn’t; presidential campaigns have often been enlivened and even enlightened by candidates who had no more chance of winning the presidency than they did of winning the Preakness.

But it is impossible to imagine, say, David Duke running for president as a Republican and not being shunned by every leading figure in the party. Impossible to imagine his campaign appearances being covered in news accounts that made no mention of his history in the Ku Klux Klan and his links to neo-Nazis. Impossible to imagine that he would be treated as just another candidate, albeit one with a “controversial” past. No one would roll over for Duke. Why are they rolling over for Sharpton?

After all, Sharpton’s résumé is at least as vile as Duke’s.

1987: Sharpton spreads the incendiary Tawana Brawley hoax, insisting heatedly that a 15-year-old black girl was abducted, raped, and smeared with feces by a group of white men. He singles out Steve Pagones, a young prosecutor. Pagones is wholly innocent — the crime never occurred — but Sharpton taunts him: “If we’re lying, sue us, so we can . . . prove you did it.” Pagones does sue, and eventually wins a $345,000 verdict for defamation. To this day, Sharpton refuses to recant his unspeakable slander or to apologize for his role in the odious affair.

1991: A Hasidic Jewish driver in Brooklyn’s Crown Heights section accidentally kills Gavin Cato, a 7-year-old black child, and antisemitic riots erupt. Sharpton races to pour gasoline on the fire. At Gavin’s funeral he rails against the “diamond merchants” — code for Jews — with “the blood of innocent babies” on their hands. He mobilizes hundreds of demonstrators to march through the Jewish neighborhood, chanting, “No justice, no peace.” A rabbinical student, Yankel Rosenbaum, is surrounded by a mob shouting “Kill the Jews!” and stabbed to death.

1995: When the United House of Prayer, a large black landlord in Harlem, raises the rent on Freddy’s Fashion Mart, Freddy’s white Jewish owner is forced to raise the rent on his subtenant, a black-owned music store. A landlord-tenant dispute ensues; Sharpton uses it to incite racial hatred. “We will not stand by,” he warns malignantly, “and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business.” Sharpton’s National Action Network sets up picket lines; customers going into Freddy’s are spat on and cursed as “traitors” and “Uncle Toms.” Some protesters shout, “Burn down the Jew store!” and simulate striking a match. “We’re going to see that this cracker suffers,” says Sharpton’s colleague Morris Powell. On Dec. 8, one of the protesters bursts into Freddy’s, shoots four employees point-blank, then sets the store on fire. Seven employees die in the inferno.

If Sharpton were a white skinhead, he would be a political leper, spurned everywhere but the fringe. But far from being spurned, he is shown much deference. Democrats embrace him. Politicians court him. And journalists report on his comings and goings while politely sidestepping his career as a hatemongering racial hustler.

When Sharpton came to Boston to promote his campaign last week, for example, the news coverage was uniformly upbeat. The Boston Herald noted the “joyous singing and thunderous applause” that greeted the “civil rights leader,” whose “energetic visit left many enthusiastic about his presidential bid.” The Globe announced the arrival of “the colorful and controversial 48-year-old community activist” with a story listing the places and times of his public appearances. The only allusion to his ugly record was a vague quote from a local minister: “He obviously has a lot of history and controversy to overcome.” That was quickly countered by Sharpton’s own self-description as a man known “for my fights against racial profiling and discrimination.”

Well, that isn’t what Steve Pagones or the family of Yankel Rosenbaum or the loved ones of those who were burned alive at Freddy’s Fashion Mart know him for. As they can testify, Sharpton is a vicious liar and a dangerous bigot. As a matter of moral hygiene, his party and the press should be able to say so, too. (Al Sharpton: The Democrat’s David Duke;  see also Michelle Malkin, Where was Bozo the VP today?)’

It is only natural that professional race-baiters and agitators who must seek to tarnish and make illegitimate any criticism of them or their policies and positions by playing the race card so that they can proceed to break the laws of God and man.

See how the race-baiters and true haters and agitators love each other:

As I have noted so many times on this site, images such as the one just above are but the logical rotten fruit of the work of the men a founding hatred for Christ the King and their founding principles that have convinced men that they can establish a social order without regard to any religion, no less the true religion, which is the very premise of Judeo-Masonry.

Even the concept of natural justice under the likes of Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro and Eric Holder has become somewhat analogous to the “Ministry of Justice” in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics from its earliest days of operation. Nikolai Krylenko, who would rise eventually to the post of “Commissar of Justice” under Joseph Stalin in 1929 and served in this position until 1931, was the chief prosecutor of Moscow in 1923 during the show trial of Archbishop Jan Cieplak, of the countless numbers of Catholic martyrs of the Soviet Union that was so admired by Barack Hussein Obama’s Marxist mentor, Frank Marshall Davis. It was during ths unjust prosecution of Archbishop Cieplak that Krylenko made a bold pronouncement, which is contained in the following paragraph about the persecution of Christians by the Soviets:

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

It is also by Soviet “law” that Nikolai Krylenko died as he was executed after a twenty minute show trial on July 29, 1938. And it is by such “law” that we are governed at this time.

Imagine if Catholics held the same attitudes of resentment about the harsh, violent and sometimes murderous treatment accorded their forbears by Protestants and Freemasons in this country in the Nineteenth Century as the Obamas and Eric Holder and their ideological brethren do about the injustices that have been done to “their” people. Consider this vignette provided by none other than that great evangelizer and patron of the American Indians, Father Pierre-Jean De Smet, S.J.:

The Carbonari, then numerous in America, received their orders direct from European lodges. They edited a paper, L’Eco d’Italia, and labored unceasingly to prejudice the people against the Church and trammel the authority of the Bishops. In the hope of recovering their waning influence, the Protestant ministers made common cause with the revolutionaries. This was the beginning of a vast conspiracy, which imperiled, for a time, Catholic liberty in the United States.

The Know-Nothings, a new society, began to be organized about 1852. Theirs was a secret order, which bound its members by a solemn oath. It was formed, ostensibly, to defend the rights of the poor against European invasion. “America is for Americans” was its slogan. With this object in view, they endeavored to have severe naturalization laws enacted against the new arrivals from Europe, and exclude citizens born of foreign parents from holding public offices. In reality, these fanatics combated no so much the foreign immigration. as the fidelity of Europeans, especially the Irish, to the Church of Rome. To base calumnies they added murder, pillage, incendiarism, and, before long, found an occasion for opening the campaign. In the spring of 1853 the Papal Nuncio to Brazil, Archbishop Bedini, arrived in New York, bringing the Sovereign Pontiff’s blessing to the faithful in the Untied States. He was charged, moreover, to investigate the conditions of Catholicism in the great Republic.

The Know-Nothings saw in this mission a grave attack upon American liberties. Their newspapers denounced the perfidious and ambitious intrigues of Rome. The apostate priest Gavazzi came from London and placed his eloquence at the service of his follow-socialists and friends. for several months he followed the Envoy form one city to the other, vomiting forth lies, threatening him with dire reprisals, and through fiery denunciation endeavored to stir up the masses against the “Papists.”

From vituperation and abuse there was but one step to action. On Christmas day in Cincinnati a band of assassins attempted to do way with the Nuncio. Driven off by the police, they revenged themselves by burning him in effigy. This odious scene was enacted in several towns. Conditions pointing to renewed attacks, Archbishop Bedini was forced to depart after a short sojourn in the United States. But the hostilities did not cease with the departure of the Nuncio. The campaign lasted for three years, attended by violent outrages and attacks, and armed forces had presently to interfere to defend life and property. A witness of these disorders, Father De Smet draws a gloomy picture of existing conditions in his letters. “The times are becoming terrible for Catholics in these unhappy States. Nowhere in the world do honest men enjoy less liberty.”

“European demagogues, followers of Kossuth, Mazzini, etc., have sworn to exterminate us. Seven Catholic churches have been sacked and burned; those courageous enough to defend them have been assassinated.” “The future grows darker, and we are menaced from every side. If our enemies succeed in electing a President from ranks–until now the chances have been in their favor–Catholics will be debarred from practicing their religion; our churches and schools will be burned and pillaged, and murder will result from these brawls. During this present time [1854] over twenty thousand Catholics have fled to other countries seeking refuge from persecution, and many more talk of following them. The right to defame  and exile is the order of the day in this great Republic, now the rendezvous of the demagogues and outlaws of every country.”

No laws were enacted for the protection of Catholics, and in some States the authorities were openly hostile. “The legislators of New York and Pennsylvania are now busy with the temporal affairs of the Church, which they wish take out of the hands of the Bishops. These States have taken the initiative, and others will soon follow. In Massachusetts, a mischief-making inquisition has just been instituted, with the object of investigating affairs in religious houses. In Boston, a committee of twenty-four rascals, chosen from among the legislators, of which sixty are Protestant ministers, searched and inspected a convent of the Sisters of of Notre Dame de Namur.”

While making a tour of the Jesuit houses with the Provincial, Father De Smet more than once braved the fury of the fanatics. In Cincinnati, a priest could now show himself in the street without being insulted by renegade Germans, Swiss, and Italians. In Louisville, thirty Catholics were killed in an open square and burned alive in their houses. Those who attempted to flee were driven back into the flames at the point of pistols and knives. Even in St. Louis, several attempts were made in one week upon the lives of citizens. The Jesuits were not spared. At Ellsworth, Maine, Father Bapst was taken by force from the house of a Catholic where he was hearing confessions, was covered with pitch, rolled in feathers, tied, swung by his hands and feet to a pole, and carried through the city to the accompaniment of gross insults. (Father E. Lavaille, S.J., The Life of Father De Smet, S.J. (1801-1873): Apostle of the Rocky Mountains, published originally in 1915 by P. J. Kenedy & Sons, New York, New York, and reprinted by TAN Books and Publishers in 2000 with the additions and the subtitle, “Apostle of the Rocky Mountains.” pp. 262-265.)

No, those persecuted Catholics were not the “people” of Barack and Michele Robinson Obama and Eric Holder, which is why they have sought to demonize what they think are the authorities of the Catholic Church in the United States of America who expressed opposition to caesar’s mandate requiring all employers, including religious institutions, to provide coverage for contraceptive pills and devices and sterilization. “Their” “people” are only those who “look” like they do and, secondarily, those others who, regardless of their skin color or creed, are “enlightened” enough to agree with them on every prescription of public policy they issue to be followed without a whimper by the unwashed masses who they hold in such utter and complete contempt, which is why they must use demagoguery much in the manner of the Know-Nothings” in order to keep those masses from recognizing them for what they are: tyrannical racialists and race-baiters and Marxist ideologues of the first order.

While they will work with “Catholics” of the ilk as Kathleen Sebelius and Nancy Patricia D’Alesandro Pelosi, the Obamas and Holder have a hated for believing Catholics, especially, as mentioned before in this article, the “white Irish-Catholic power structure” in Cook County, Illinois:

The Chicago Sun-Times’s Lynn Sweet picked out an interesting morsel in Jodi Kantor’s book about the Obama family:

“When Michelle Obama worked in Mayor Daley’s City Hall in the early 1990s, she was ‘distressed’ by how a small group of ‘white Irish Catholic’ families — the Daleys, the Hynes and the Madigans — ‘locked up’ power in Illinois.

“She particularly resented the way power in Illinois was locked up generation after generation by a small group of families, all white Irish Catholic — the Daleys in Chicago, the Hynes and Madigans statewide.”

Obama White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley, one of those hated white Irish Catholics, resigned the same weekend the book’s juiciest tidbits leaked out.

It is probably all just a coincidence, but sometimes coincidences reveal bigger truths.

And the bigger truth is that Bill Daley left the White House because he lost to Valerie Jarrett and to the president’s wife in the battle for the philosophical direction of the Obama White House.

I don’t know if Michelle Obama’s antipathy toward white Irish Catholics finally became too much of a barrier to Daley or not. But I do know that Daley was only ineffective because his boss would not let him be effective.

Bill Daley is a political pragmatist. He cuts deals. Like his father and his brother, he is not a left-wing ideologue; nor is he a Republican in Democratic clothing.

He is a pro-business Democrat, an increasingly rare breed these days in Washington.

Obama is not a pro-business Democrat. His wife is not a pro-business Democrat. They don’t like the business community. They don’t trust the free market. They want to spread wealth around (other people’s wealth, I might add). (Obama’s real reelection problem.)

As was predictable, however, Barack Obama/Barry Soetoro, had no re-election problem in 2012. After all, he was “opposed’ by yet another laughably obsequious servant of Judeo-Masonry, Wilard Mill Romney (take a look after Holy Week at an eight-part video series: An Case Against Obama and Romney part 1, A Case Against Obama and Romney part two, A Case Against Obama and Romney part 3, A Case Against Obama and Romney, part four, A Case Against Obama and Romney, part five, A Case Against Obama and Romney, part six, A Case Against Obama and Romney part seven and A Case Against Obama and Romney, part eight).

Father De Smet accurately described the persecution of Catholics. Unfortunately, however, he believed that the very thing that produced this persecution, the insanity of “freedom of conscience,” would save the day for Catholics, who would cheer mightily when their liberties were respected by all others. The logic of the evil of “liberty of conscience” is such, however, that the very thing exalted by so many Catholics, including the courageous, zealous, indefatigable apostle of souls, Father Pierre-Jean De Smet, was bound to wind up infecting the minds of Catholics worldwide, producing a false religion, conciliarism, that sees “good” in all false religions and believes that Catholics can “learn” from the differing beliefs of others. Father De Smet did not understand that the ultimate expression of “liberty of conscience” would be the likes of the Obamas and Eric Holder.

Popes Gregory XVI and Pius IX had issued warnings about “liberty of conscience” that were never repeated to Catholics in the “free” United States of America:

“This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. “But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error,” as Augustine was wont to say. When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly “the bottomless pit” is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws — in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty. (Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)

For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of “naturalism,” as they call it, dare to teach that “the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones.” And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that “that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require.” From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an “insanity,” viz., that “liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way.” But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching “liberty of perdition;” and that “if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling.”

And, since where religion has been removed from civil society, and the doctrine and authority of divine revelation repudiated, the genuine notion itself of justice and human right is darkened and lost, and the place of true justice and legitimate right is supplied by material force, thence it appears why it is that some, utterly neglecting and disregarding the surest principles of sound reason, dare to proclaim that “the people’s will, manifested by what is called public opinion or in some other way, constitutes a supreme law, free from all divine and human control; and that in the political order accomplished facts, from the very circumstance that they are accomplished, have the force of right.” But who, does not see and clearly perceive that human society, when set loose from the bonds of religion and true justice, can have, in truth, no other end than the purpose of obtaining and amassing wealth, and that (society under such circumstances) follows no other law in its actions, except the unchastened desire of ministering to its own pleasure and interests?” (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864.)

Father De Smet may not have seen these encyclical letters or have applied them to the situation in the United States of America. Father De Smet did, however, recognize that the Cross of the Divine Redeemer was necessary to civilize any peoples. His tireless work in converting and instructing the Indians prompted them to trust him more than the representatives of the government of the United States of America. Father De Smet had instructed representatives of various tribes gathered at the Fort Laramie Council in September of 1851 about the terms of a treaty that had been proposed by the United States government, writing the following after he had made his presentation:”

“Promises, threats, firearms, and swords,” said he, “are less effective than the Black Robe’s words of peace and the civilizing banner of the cross.” (Letter from Father De Smet to the editor of the Brussels Journal, June 30, 1853, as quoted in (Father E. Lavaille, S.J., The Life of Father De Smet, S.J. (1801-1873): Apostle of the Rocky Mountains, published originally in 1915 by P. J. Kenedy & Sons, New York, New York, and reprinted by TAN Books and Publishers in 2000 with the additions and the subtitle, “Apostle of the Rocky Mountains.” p. 235.)

The Cross of the Divine Redeemer, Christ the King, can even civilize the likes of the Obamas and Eric Holder. It can always civilize us once and for all if we resolve to quit our sins and make reparation for them as the consecrated slaves of Our Royal Messias through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of His Most Most Blessed Mother.

It is, therefore, with great humility that we must recognize how many times we have been on the wrong of the Cross. It is with great gratitude that we most approach the Paschal Triduum of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’s Passion, Death and Resurrection, recognizing, of course, that we have denied Him as did Saint Peter, that we have washed our hands of our own guilty as did Pontius Pilate, that we have sold Him out for thirty pieces of silver rather repeatedly as Judas Iscariot did just once on this very day, Spy Wednesday. We must never kid ourselves into believing that we have not played–and sometimes continue to play–the roles of a Saint Peter or a Pontius Pilate or a Judas Iscariot in our lives. What matters, of course, is that we recognize the fact of betrayals and get ourselves to a true bishop or a true priest in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance every week if at all possible.

As we make reparation each and every day for our own many sins, we must make sure to pray–and by name–for the conversion of those who in public life who use the “race card” so shamelessly as they support one objective moral evil after another under cover of law, oblivious to the fact that social and economic conditions must worsen in any nation where such evils are protected under cover of law and promoted in every aspect of its popular culture. To this end, of course, we must pray as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit, entrusting all to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

The Neros and Diocletians and Trajans of Modernity will pass from the scene upon the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. They–and their conciliar enablers, starting with Jorge Mario Bergoglio–will be but footnotes in history. We may not live to see this day. Not to worry. The Apostles did not see the glory of the first Christendom with their own bodily eyes. They were content to plant the seeds for its glories. We can do no less in our own day as the totally consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, asking for all of the graces we need each day so that we will not fold like cheap cameras when it comes to our defense of the Catholic Faith, including our defense of the Social Reign of Christ the King.

May Our Lady help us to be led out of the prison of our own sins and selfishness and the lies of Modernity and Modernism as we are enlightened at all times by the Light Who is her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, King of men and their nations. May the day come soon when He is recognized by the Constitution of the United States of America as the King of this nation as He is of all nations.

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

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.

Saint Justin Martyr, pray for us.

Saints Tiburtius, Valerian and Maximus, pray for us.