Arguing Over That Which Is Inarguable

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.

Behold the Self-Righteous Righteously Defend Error

Let it be stipulated at the beginning of this commentary that Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro is the most unrepentantly bold statist and appeaser in the history of the United States of America.

Let it be stipulated also that Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro is the most lawless statist in the history of the United States of America.

Let it be stipulated finally that none of the naturalists who have served as President of the United States of America prior to him, try as many of them did (see Not A Mention of Christ the King), prior to Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro have been as contemptuous of the security of the borders of the United States of American that he has been.

When all is said and done, however, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro is nothing other than The End Product of Americanism.

Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro remains unrepentantly righteous in his support of ObamaDeathCare as he denies any wrongdoing concerning the Fast and Furious gun running scandal or United States Attorney General Eric Holder’s coverup of it, the scandals associated with “green energy” projects such as Solyndra, his administration’s relentless efforts to force religious institutions to provide health insurance coverage for contraception and sterilization to their employees, his administration’s ongoing coverups of the impeachable offenses committed as American personnel came under attack from terrorists as they were offered no assistance by their government, whose leaders then lied about what had happened, his administration’s efforts to use the Internal Revenue Service and the United States Department of Justice as instruments to intimidate political opponents and to indemnify the wrongdoing of its own officials and their supporters, and his administration’s many and varied rank violations of the Constitution of the United States of America, including his making a “recess” appointment to a new Consumer Financial Protection Board even though the United States Senate was in session (see Hugo Chavez Ortega Obama).

The Constitution?

What’s that?

To reject the sweet yoke of the Social Reign of Christ the King is to live under the iron rule of men whose minds are not conformed to the Sacred Deposit of Faith that Our King has entrusted exclusively to His Catholic Church for Its infallible explication and eternal safekeeping.

To reject the sweet yoke of the Social Reign of Christ the King is to live under the iron rule of men whose hearts are not consecrated to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

To reject the sweet yoke of the Social Reign of Christ the King is to live under the iron rule of men who believe that they can “plan” or “will” “solutions” to domestic and international difficulties, convincing us that they need more and more of our money to do so.

To reject the sweet yoke of the Social Reign of Christ the King is to live under the iron rule of men who wind up having no regard even for the constitutions and just civil laws that they have sworn to uphold (see He Swore to Uphold the Constitution, Not the United Nations and Taking Refuge in Racism to Break the Laws of God and Man).

To reject the sweet yoke of the Social Reign of Christ the King is to live under the iron rule of men who are mad, men who never want to admit that their schemes for prosperity at home and for peace in the world are doomed to miserable failure time after time after time (see All Caesars Go Mad.)

It is in this context that one must understand the despicable “trade” negotiated by President Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro and Secretary of State John F. Kerry for the return of a deserter, Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl (U.S. Army) in exchange for five Taliban prisoners who have been held at the Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp, where they have undergone “enhanced interrogation,” as a result of the commitment of American ground troops to Afghanistan by then President George Walker Bush on October 7, 2001.

Reality for Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro is whatever he wants it to be. If he and his minions want to refer to Bowe Bergdahl as a hero and as one who served in the United States Army with “honor and distinction,” well, then, it must be so. Anyone who disagrees with caesar’s gratuitous and patently false statements must be motivated by “racism,” of course,” as they are “veritable extremists” who want to “destroy” the “good” that caesar has done for the country.

Alas, each of our presidents has been a positivist, making statements that the citizens are expected to accept because a sitting president has made them.

Obama/Soetoro’s immediate predecessor, George Walker Bush, made all kinds of false statements in the aftermath of the terrible events of Tuesday, September 11, 2001. He expected us to swallow the government line about the attacks on the twin towers of the World Trade Center in the City of New York, New York, and on the Pentagon in Alexandria, Virginia, that day, as many unanswered questions, not the least of which concern the collapse of the twin towers as though they had been imploded, remained. B

Bush the lesser expected Americans to stand by passing and accept limitations upon their legitimate liberties by means of the so-called “Patriot Act” that exploited fears about “national security” in the immediate aftermath of the tragic events of September 11, 2001.

Bush, the “compassionate statist,” wanted Americans to believe that the xenophobic President of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, was somehow involved with the events of September 11, 2001, and was part of an alleged “axis of evil” that required the armed forces of the United States of America to invade and occupy that country to destroy to Hussein’s alleged “stockpile of weapons of mass destruction” and to prevent him from getting hold of the components to build a nuclear weapon. Bush even went so far as to claim in an address before a joint session of Congress that Hussein was attempting to purchased enriched uranium from the government of the country of Niger in Africa, something that was patently false on its face.

Bush the Younger expected Americans to believe that “democracy” could built in Iraq and Afghanistan, whose forbidding mountainous terrain provided challenges for the British between 1843 and 1919 and proved to be too much for occupiers from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics from 1979-1989. We did, after all, have the “superior form” of government, right?

Some of George Walker Bush’s Catholic apologists, including some prominent traditionally-minded Catholics, sought to portray the American invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan as a veritable “crusade” against “Mohammedanism” when it was nothing of the sort.

Mohammedans were enabled by George Walker Bush’s “international coalition” on March 20, 2003, and thereafter to kill Catholics and attack and destroy Catholic churches.

Mohammedans from Iran poured into Iraq to attack Catholics and Orthodox Christians as they made strongholds for themselves to attack American military forces that were placed into harm’s way for no good purpose.

What has become of all of the blood shed, all of the destruction wrought, all of lives–American, Iraqi and Afghan–torn apart (wives and children losing fathers or mothers or both, divorces caused by infidelity at the front lines, large numbers of service personnel killed by enemy fire, wanton torture used on innocent civilians, innocent civilians targeted for destruction without a word of regret. etc)?

Well, take a look at what is happening in Iraq at this time as the Sunni Mohammedans prepare to seize control of Baghdad from the Shiite Mohammedans who have had the backing of the government of the Islamic Republic of Iraq?

BAGHDAD — Sunni militants extended their control over parts of northern and western Iraq on Wednesday as Iraqi government forces crumbled in disarray. The militants overran the city of Tikrit, seized facilities in the strategic oil refining town of Baiji, and threatened an important Shiite shrine in Samarra as they moved south toward Baghdad.

The remarkably rapid advance of the Sunni militants, who on Tuesday seized the northern city of Mosul as Iraqi forces fled or surrendered, reflects the spillover of the Sunni insurgency in Syria and the inability of Iraq’s Shiite-led government to pacify the country after American forces departed in 2011 following eight years of war and occupation.

By late Wednesday, witnesses in Samarra, 70 miles north of Baghdad, were reporting that the militants, many of them aligned with the radical Islamic State of Iraq and Syria or ISIS, were on the outskirts of the city. They said the militants demanded that forces loyal to the government leave the city or a sacred Shiite shrine there would be destroyed. Samarra is known for the shrine, the al-Askari Mosque, which was severely damaged in a 2006 bombing during the height of the American-led occupation. That event touched off sectarian mayhem between the country’s Sunni Arab minority and its Shiite majority.

Members of Shiite militias were on high alert in Baghdad, and many were reported headed north to Samarra, even though the central government declared a 10 p.m. curfew in the capital and surrounding towns. An influential Iraqi Shiite cleric, Moktada al-Sadr, called for the formation of a special force to defend religious sites in Iraq. The authorities in neighboring Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, canceled all visas and flights for pilgrims to Baghdad and intensified security on the Iran-Iraq border, Iran’s official Islamic Republic News Agency reported.

Insurgents also were holding 80 Turkish citizens seized in Mosul over the last two days, inclusing the Turkish consul general, other diplomats and at least three children, the Turkish government said. Thirty-one of the Turkish hostages were truck drivers who had been transporting fuel to a power plant in Mosul.

The hostage-taking raised the possibility that Turkey, a NATO ally that borders both Syria and Iraq, would become directly entangled in the fast-moving crisis. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey was holding an emergency meeting with top security officials, and the Turkish foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, cut short a trip to New York and was returning to Ankara. “No one should try to test the limits of Turkey’s strength,” Mr. Davutoglu said in a statement.

Turkey has long taken an interest in northern Iraq for economic reasons and because of the sizable and often restive Kurdish minority, which straddles the border and controls a region of Iraq east of Mosul.

Amid the collapse of the Iraqi army in Mosul, Tikrit and other northern cities, questions were raised about the possibility of a conspiracy in the military to deliberately surrender. Witnesses reported some remarkable scenes in Tikrit, where soldiers handed over their weapons and uniforms peacefully to militants who ordinarily would have been expected to kill government soldiers on the spot.

Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, a Shiite, suggested the possibility of disloyalty in the army when he exhorted Iraqi citizens on Tuesday to take up arms against the Sunni insurgents.

Residents of Baiji, a city of 200,000 about 110 miles south of Mosul, awoke Wednesday to find that government checkpoints had been abandoned and that insurgents, arriving in a column of 60 vehicles, were taking control of parts of the city without firing a shot, the security officials said. Peter Bouckaert, the emergency services director for Human Rights Watch, said in a post on Twitter that the militants had seized the Baiji power station, which supplies electricity to Baghdad, Kirkuk and Salahuddin Province.

In Tikrit, the home town of Saddam Hussein, residents said the militants attacked in the afternoon from three directions: east, west and north. Residents said there were brief exchanges of gunfire, and then police officers and soldiers shed their uniforms, put on civilian clothing and fled through residential areas to avoid the militants, while others gave up their weapons and uniforms willingly.

On Wednesday, the insurgents claimed to have taken control of the entire province of Nineveh, Agence France-Presse reported, and there were reports of militants executing government soldiers in the Kirkuk region. Atheel al-Nujaifi, the governor of the province, criticized the Iraqi army commanders in Mosul, saying they had misled the government about the situation in the city.

Iraq’s foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, was quoted on Wednesday as saying his country’s Kurdish minority would “work together” with Baghdad’s forces to “flush out these foreign fighters.”

At a meeting of Arab and European foreign ministers in Athens, Mr. Zebari, himself a Kurd, called the insurgents’ strike “a serious, mortal threat,” adding: “The response has to be soon. There has to be a quick response to what has happened.”

Iraqi Kurds are concentrated in the autonomous region of Kurdistan, where security is maintained by a disciplined and fiercely loyal fighting force, the pesh merga, that has not yet become involved in the latest clashes.

In a further indication of the regional dimensions of the crisis, the government of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria, facing the same jihadist adversary in its civil war against a broader array of armed foes, expressed solidarity with the Iraqi authorities and armed forces, the official SANA news agency reported.

Word of the latest militant advance came as a United Nations agency reported that 500,000 people had fled Mosul — Iraq’s second-largest city, with a population of about 2 million — after the militants, spilling over the border from Syria, captured military bases, police stations, banks and provincial headquarters.

The International Organization for Migration, based in Geneva, said the civilians had mainly fled on foot, because the militants would not let them use vehicles and had taken control of the airport. Roughly the same number were displaced from Anbar Province in western Iraq as the militants gained ground there, the organization said.

On Tuesday the insurgents, reinforced with captured weaponry abandoned by the fleeing government forces, raised their black banner over streets in Mosul littered with the bodies of soldiers, police officers and civilians. The success of the militant attack was the most stunning development in a rapidly widening insurgency straddling the porous border of Iraq and Syria.

Mr. Maliki has ordered a state of emergency for the entire country and called on friendly governments for assistance in a quickly deteriorating situation. His weak central government is struggling to mount a defense, a problem made markedly more dangerous by the defections of hundreds of trained soldiers and the loss of their vehicles, uniforms and weapons.

Security officials said the militant drive toward Baiji began late on Tuesday with brief clashes a few miles north of the town before the insurgents overran a security post, captured vehicles and set buildings on fire.

hey did not kill the soldiers or policemen who handed over their weapons, uniform and their military I.D.,” a security official in Tikrit said on Wednesday before the militants reached that city; he spoke on the condition of anonymity. “They just took these things and asked them to leave,” the official said.

The rising insurgency presented a new quandary for the Obama administration, which has faced sharp criticism for its recent swap of five Taliban officers for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl and must now answer questions about the death of five Americans by friendly fire in Afghanistan on Monday night.

Critics have long contended that America’s withdrawal of troops from Iraq, without leaving even a token force, invited an insurgent revival. (Tikrit Falls; Reports of Battle in Samarra, 70 Miles From the Capital.)

Just how long were the armed forces of the United States of America supposed to stay in Iraq to prop up a corrupt regime that is backed by the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran? Forever?

Why should we be surprised that Mohammedans in Iraq and Afghanistan and Syria and elsewhere are doing what comes naturally to them: killing, which is an integral part of the false, blasphemous “religion” founded by their false “prophet,” Mohammed?

How many more Americans should have died or have had their arms and legs blown off or have returned home to find themselves suffering from all manner of emotional disorders related to their time in battle?

How many more Americans should have returned home to overwhelm a Veteran’s Affairs hospitals to such an extent that a massive effort coverup the scandalously long waits for veterans to be examined, no less receive treatment, after having served in needless, unjust, immoral and unconstitutional wars?

It was to divert attention from his administration’s incompetence and deception in providing medical care to America’s military veterans that the administration of Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro sought to trade five Taliban prisoners captured in Afghanistan for Army deserter Bowe Bergdahl. Caesar’s efforts to divert attention from the scandals of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, however, backfired when the facts of Bergdahl’s desertion, including the revelation that six and as many as fourteen Americans may have been killed while looking for this deserter, became known.

As always, of course, caesar doubled down and stuck righteously to his story without regard for the outrage that he had caused or that the prisoners, who will live for a year in Qatar before being free to return to the battlefield in Afghanistan to kill more Americans. This is what caesars do when their plans go awry: they remain self-righteous in their defense of errors that they can never admit, perhaps not even to themselves are in fact errors.

Then again, as noted earlier in this commentary, Americans should never have been put on the ground in Afghanistan in the first place. As is the case in Iraq, the United States of America has spent over a trillion dollars (that’s right, one trillion dollars) to prop up the government of Hamid Karzai, who has pocketed much of the money himself (see Bag Man in a Karakul Hat). The total fiscal costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which has spilled over into Pakistan, totals close to four trillion dollars.

As I wrote in the January 31, 2003, issue of The Remnant six weeks before the onset of the unjust, immoral and unconstitutional American invasion and occupation of Iraq and nearly seventeen months after American military operations had begun in Afghanistan, “For what?” To what good end? For what?

In the case of George Walker Bush, the American invasion and occupation of Iraq was supposed to make the Middle East “safe for America’s only ally” in that region, the murderous State of Israel whose Zionist leaders have treated Palestinians and other Arabs, whether Christian or Mohammedan, as subhumans (believing Talmudists do believe that non-Jews are subhumans, of course).

How did that work out?

Reflexive support by one presidential regime after another for the murderous policies of the State of Israel has emboldened faithful, believing Mohammedans to attack Americans and other foreign nations whenever the opportunity strikes. These attacks have increased around the world, not decreased, as a result of “America’s War on Terror.” No Americans would have died in Iraq or Afghanistan or Pakistan if American forces had not been committed there for no good purpose and in full violation of the tenets of the Just War Theory (see Different Chief, Same War Drums).

Bush also believed that his “wars” to spread the joys of “American exceptionalism” would make the United States of America more “secure”?

How has that worked out for the innocent preborn or for those killed in Fort Hood I or Fort Hood II or the Washington Navy Yard or at the Boston Marathon or at any number of schools and universities?

Nations whose laws permit attacks on innocent human life, whether by means of chemical or surgical abortions or the execution of starvation and dehydration of innocent human beings or the cruel vivisection of human beings for their body members under the aegis of the medical industry’s manufactured, profit-making myth of “brain death,” and that permit licentiousness to the point of rank perversity to be considered a “human right” can never be made “secure” from the consequences of their daily warfare against the very laws of Christ the King Himself. Never.

Moreover, Over and over again, of course, Caesar Georgii Bushus Ignoramus and Caesar Barackus Obamus Ignoramus assured us that the United States of America was not at war with a supposed “religion of peace,” Mohammedanism:

The terrorists practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism that has been rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics — a fringe movement that perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam. The terrorists’ directive commands them to kill Christians and Jews, to kill all Americans, and make no distinction among military and civilians, including women and children. . .  .

I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. We respect your faith. It’s practiced freely by many millions of Americans, and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah. (Applause.) The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself. The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them. (Applause.)  (George Walker Bush, Address to the Nation, September 20, 2001.)

As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda – a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world’s great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda‘s base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban – a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.

Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them – an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to 0. The vote in the House was 420 to 1. For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 – the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda’s terrorist network, and to protect our common security. (Barack Hussein Obama,  Address on the War in Afghanistan, December 2, 2009.)

How have Mohammedans respond to these plaudits of their false religions?

Killing Catholics and other Christians in Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria, Kenya and, among other places, The Sudan.

Mohammedanism is a religion of death, not peace.

Mohammedanism is a religion of blasphemy, not love of the true God of Divine Revelation.

Mohammedanism is a religion of hatred of the infidel just as much as Talmudism, not a “religion of love” and “tolerance.”

Indeed, just as our statists of the false opposites of the naturalist “left” and “right” have remained self-righteous in an unrepentant defense of their numerous, blood-stained errors, so have the Zionists of Israel and Mohammedans all over the world remained completely unrepentant about the bloodletting they continue to let loose on their enemies and as they denounce infidels.

Give these monsters of the anti-Incarnational errors of Modernity credit having the courage and the integrity to defend their publicly while persisting in them without any sign of remorse. They even have the courage to defend their false religions publicly.

The Zionists made a point last month of having Jorge Mario Bergoglio do his obeisance at a shrine in honor of Jews killed by terrorist acts in Europe, and they reveled at his “making reparation” at the tomb of Theodore Herzl, the founder of International Zionism, for the “crime” of Pope Saint Pius X having spoken to him as a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter who rejected all notion of Judaism’s “enduring validity.”

Talmudism is, of course, a religion of triumphalism. Its adherents are horrified by the sight of the Sign of true triumphalism, the Sign of the Holy Cross upon which Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ wrought our salvation by the shedding of every shedding of His Most Precious Blood. This is why many believing Talmudists believe it is their duty to spit at any crucifix or cross that they see.

Zionism is a political movement based on Israeli triumphalism.

Mohammedanism is also a religion of triumphalism, believing that it has a mission to conquer the world and to crush all infidels in the process.

As noted just above, Catholicism is, of course, the true religion of triumphalism, that of Our Lord’s victory on the wood of the Holy Cross.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio, however, rejects “triumphalism” as opposed to the spirit of “encounter” and “inter-religious dialogue” and “tolerance” and “diversity” in the name of “religious liberty.”

The Zionists reject this entirely.

Mohammedans also reject this entirely, which is why the imam who prayed to his devils in the Vatican Gardens four days ago now, that is, on Pentecost Sunday, June 8, 2014, managed to work in an unscripted “prayer” from the blasphemous Koran to ask the devil named “Allah” to “give us victory over the disbelieving people” (Koran verse; see also the post at Novus Ordo Watch Wire).

You see, the Talmudists and the Mohammedans take their false religions seriously, which is something foreign to the “broad-minded” caesars of the “left” and the “right” to the apostates who comprise the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

Neither Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro or Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who is thought to be “Pope Francis” by almost everyone in the world, can understand who would be opposed to “dialogue” and “diversity,” although each of these terrible men cannot stand criticism and are constantly belittling and caricaturing their opponents, whether real or imagined.

It’s “death to the infidels” for Zionists and for Mohammedans. Indeed, both believe that is necessary to fight to the death to defend their own regimes of falsehood and blasphemy.

Such is foreign to the ears of the lords of Modernity in the world and the lords of Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, who have welcomed Mohammedans into Europe as the descendants of those who sought to conquer this formerly Catholic continent by force have taken advance of lax immigration laws that were made necessary by Europe’s depopulation as a result of contraception and abortion, both of which have been winked at by most of the conciliar authorities in various places in Europe.

Zionists are not interested in true peace.

Mohammedans are not interested in true peace.

Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soteoro is not interested in true peace.

George Walker Bush was not interested in true peace.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not interested in true peace.

True peace is that of Christ the King, Who has taught us that the path to this peace, which is not a peace of this world, runs through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. This is the essence of Our Lady’s Fatima Message, Heaven’s Peace Plan

Pope Pius XII explained this at the end of the encyclical letter, Ad Caeli Reginam, October 11, 1954, by which he instituted the Feast of the Queenship of the Blessed Virgin Mary:

51. By this Encyclical Letter We are instituting a feast so that all may recognize more clearly and venerate more devoutly the merciful and maternal sway of the Mother of God. We are convinced that this feast will help to preserve, strengthen and prolong that peace among nations which daily is almost destroyed by recurring crises. Is she not a rainbow in the clouds reaching towards God, the pledge of a covenant of peace?[62] “Look upon the rainbow, and bless Him that made it; surely it is beautiful in its brightness. It encompasses the heaven about with the circle of its glory, the hands of the Most High have displayed it.”[63] Whoever, therefore, reverences the Queen of heaven and earth — and let no one consider himself exempt from this tribute of a grateful and loving soul — let him invoke the most effective of Queens, the Mediatrix of peace; let him respect and preserve peace, which is not wickedness unpunished nor freedom without restraint, but a well-ordered harmony under the rule of the will of God; to its safeguarding and growth the gentle urgings and commands of the Virgin Mary impel us.

52. Earnestly desiring that the Queen and Mother of Christendom may hear these Our prayers, and by her peace make happy a world shaken by hate, and may, after this exile show unto us all Jesus, Who will be our eternal peace and joy, to you, Venerable Brothers, and to your flocks, as a promise of God’s divine help and a pledge of Our love, from Our heart We impart the Apostolic Benediction. (Pope Pius XII, Ad Caeli Reginam, October 11, 1954.)

Pope Pius XII’s Act of Consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary is one that we should make on a monthly basis:

Most Holy Virgin Mary, tender Mother of men, to fulfill the desires of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the request of the Vicar of Your Son on earth, we consecrate ourselves and our families to your Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, O Queen of the Most Holy Rosary, and we recommend to You, all the people of our country and all the world.

Please accept our consecration, dearest Mother, and use us as You wish to accomplish Your designs in the world.

O Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, Queen of the Most Holy Rosary, and Queen of the World, rule over us, together with the Sacred Heart of Jesus Christ, Our King. Save us from the spreading flood of modern paganism; kindle in our hearts and homes the love of purity, the practice of a virtuous life, an ardent zeal for souls, and a desire to pray the Rosary more faithfully.

We come with confidence to You, O Throne of Grace and Mother of Fair Love. Inflame us with the same Divine Fire which has inflamed Your own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart. Make our hearts and homes Your shrine, and through us, make the Heart of Jesus, together with your rule, triumph in every heart and home. Amen.

Yes, a great reward awaits us for our fidelity to the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary and to the Most Sacred Heart of her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, if we persist until our dying breaths in states of Sanctifying Grace. We must keep close to them, therefore, by the time we spend each day outside of Mass before Our Lord in His Real Presence (where we keep company with all of the angels and the saints, including Our Lady Immaculate, the Queen of All Angels and Saints), by our wearing the Brown Scapular and fulfilling the terms associated with it, by wearing the Miraculous Medal, by distributing the Green Scapular and Rosaries and instructional booklets about the Rosary to those God places in our paths on a daily basis–and, most importantly, by our assiduous, reverent and faithful recitation of the Mysteries of Our Lady’s Most Holy Rosary each and every day in our lives.

Those who believe in any other kind of path to peace are simply self-righteous defenders of error who do not realize that they will have to make an account of their rejection of Christ the King at the moment of their Particular Judgment, a moment for which we ourselves must pray every day to have the maternal intercession and protection of Our Lady, out of whose Immaculate Heart was formed the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus.

Viva 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 John of San Facundo, pray for us.

To Blot Out His Name Forever, part two

It was a little over seven years ago that a fully traditional priest, one who has great zeal for souls, said the following to me before I gave a lecture in his parish, “You have used the phrase Judeo-Masonry in your writing. You will not do so here.”

This admonition came just three months after the Christophobic Southern Poverty Law Center had issued its so-called “Dirty Dozen” list of “radical” traditional Catholic organizations that were said to be guilty of propagating “hate” (see Hating Without Distinction, Chopped Liver No More, To Advocate Christ The King, Nothing Else and Chopped Liver No More Update). The issuance of the list had a chilling effect in some fully traditional circles as any discussion of Talmudic influence in the twin, interrelated anti-Incarnational currents of Modernity in the world and Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism was deemed as “unacceptable” or “inflammatory.” Pure honesty, however, requires one to speak the truth, yes, even when doing so will “offend” those who are hellbent on making war upon Christ the King and upon those who dare to criticize them publicly for doing so.

While it is true, as Father Edward Cahill, S.J., pointed out in his series on Freemasonry in the Irish Ecclesiastical Record eighty-five years ago now, that not all those who adhere to Judaism are responsible for this warfare against the true teachings of the Catholic Church or support the prevailing evils of the day, we must remember that unbelief in the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is a sin. Those who persist in unbelief in the Catholic Faith must be reminded that their own false beliefs, whether they be religious or philosophical or both, cannot save their souls or serve as any kind of foundation for true social order within countries or peace among them.

Saint Thomas Aquinas taught us in his Summa Theologica that unbelievers do not merit anything before God for their good works and thus cannot please Him:

Objection 1. It would seem that each act of an unbeliever is a sin. Because a gloss on Romans 14:23, “All that is not of faith is sin,” says: “The whole life of unbelievers is a sin.” Now the life of unbelievers consists of their actions. Therefore every action of an unbeliever is a sin.

Objection 2. Further, faith directs the intention. Now there can be no good save what comes from a right intention. Therefore, among unbelievers, no action can be good.

Objection 3. Further, when that which precedes is corrupted, that which follows is corrupted also. Now an act of faith precedes the acts of all the virtues. Therefore, since there is no act of faith in unbelievers, they can do no good work, but sin in every action of theirs.

On the contrary, It is said of Cornelius, while yet an unbeliever (Acts 10:4-31), that his alms were acceptable to God. Therefore not every action of an unbeliever is a sin, but some of his actions are good.

I answer that, As stated above (I-II, 85, 2,4) mortal sin takes away sanctifying grace, but does not wholly corrupt the good of nature. Since therefore, unbelief is a mortal sin, unbelievers are without grace indeed, yet some good of nature remains in them. Consequently it is evident that unbelievers cannot do those good works which proceed from grace, viz. meritorious works; yet they can, to a certain extent, do those good works for which the good of nature suffices.

Hence it does not follow that they sin in everything they do; but whenever they do anything out of their unbelief, then they sin. For even as one who has the faith, can commit an actual sin, venial or even mortal, which he does not refer to the end of faith, so too, an unbeliever can do a good deed in a matter which he does not refer to the end of his unbelief.

Reply to Objection 1. The words quoted must be taken to mean either that the life of unbelievers cannot be sinless, since without faith no sin is taken away, or that whatever they do out of unbelief, is a sin. Hence the same authority adds: “Because every one that lives or acts according to his unbelief, sins grievously.”

Reply to Objection 2. Faith directs the intention with regard to the supernatural last end: but even the light of natural reason can direct the intention in respect of a connatural good.

Reply to Objection 3. Unbelief does not so wholly destroy natural reason in unbelievers, but that some knowledge of the truth remains in them, whereby they are able to do deeds that are generically good. With regard, however, to Cornelius, it is to be observed that he was not an unbeliever, else his works would not have been acceptable to God, whom none can please without faith. Now he had implicit faith, as the truth of the Gospel was not yet made manifest: hence Peter was sent to him to give him fuller instruction in the faith.  (Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Question 10, Article 4.)

Judeo-Masonry is the celebration of agnosticism and religious indifferentism as the foundation for personal happiness and social order, something that Pope Leo XIII noted very clearly in Humanum Genus, April 20, 1884:

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

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

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

If these be taken away, as the naturalists and Freemasons desire, there will immediately be no knowledge as to what constitutes justice and injustice, or upon what principle morality is founded. And, in truth, the teaching of morality which alone finds favor with the sect of Freemasons, and in which they contend that youth should be instructed, is that which they call “civil,” and “independent,” and “free,” namely, that which does not contain any religious belief. But, how insufficient such teaching is, how wanting in soundness, and how easily moved by every impulse of passion, is sufficiently proved by its sad fruits, which have already begun to appear. For, wherever, by removing Christian education, this teaching has begun more completely to rule, there goodness and integrity of morals have begun quickly to perish, monstrous and shameful opinions have grown up, and the audacity of evil deeds has risen to a high degree. All this is commonly complained of and deplored; and not a few of those who by no means wish to do so are compelled by abundant evidence to give not infrequently the same testimony. (Pope Leo XIII, Humanum Genus, April 20, 1884.)

Father Edward Cahill made the same point in the Irish Ecclesiastical Record in those series of articles that was published later as Freemasonry and the anti-Christian Movement:

We have already referred to Rationalism and Hermeticism (including Theosophy, Christian Scientism, Spiritism, etc.) as characteristic of the Masonic religion and philosophy, These, which are put forward as a substitute for real religion, are fast becoming more and more widespread in England and throughout the English-speaking world. They are the most powerful dissolvents of whatever elements of true Christianity are being attempted. This element is perhaps the most deadly and dangerous aspect of the whole Masonic movement; for it cuts deeper than anything into Christian life, whose very foundation it attacks.

The immediate aim of the practical policy of Freemasonry is to make its naturalistic principles effective in the lives of the people; and first of all to enforce them in every detail of public life. Hence its political and social programme includes:

(1) The banishment of religion from all departments of government, and from all public institutions; and as a mark of the triumph of this policy, the removal of the Crucifix and all religious emblems from the legislative assemblies, the courts of justice, the public hospitals, the schools and university colleges, etc. (Father Edward Cahill, S.J., Freemasonry and the anti-Christian Movement, Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged, published originally by M. H. Gill and Son, Ltd., in Dublin, Ireland, 1930, and republished by Kessinger Legacy Reprints, pp. 156-157.)

It is very telling that the conciliar revolutionaries have applauded these “developments” as most of their own colleges and universities have divested themselves of official control of what is purported to be the Catholic Church and have removed the Crucifix and other religious emblems from most of their classrooms. Formerly Catholic hospitals have done the same. Indeed, many of them, participating fully in the medical industry’s manufactured, money-making myth of “brain death” (see ObamaDeathCare), have merged with secular corporations. And most Catholics in public life are fully supportive of various evils under cover of the civil law, and none of them is reprobated by Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who, quite instead, praises those of them that he meets as “servants of the poor.”

To return to Father Cahill’s enumeration of the Judeo-Masonic program:

(2) The secularization of marriage.

(3) The establishment of a State system of so-called education which, at least in its primary stages, will be obligatory and conducted by the laity.

(4) Complete freedom of worship (at least for all except the true one.) (Father Edward Cahill, S.J., Freemasonry and the anti-Christian Movement, Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged, published originally by M. H. Gill and Son, Ltd., in Dublin, Ireland, 1930, and republished by Kessinger Legacy Reprints, p. 157.)

Absent the Social Reign of Christ the King as It must be exercised by His Catholic Church, men and their nations must fall into the abyss. Those who think that the perversity represented by so-called “gay marriage” has brought us to rock bottom are quite mistaken. Polygamy and “marriage” to children are the next frontiers in the path of “civil freedom” according to the logic of Judeo-Masonry. Total debauchery thus must be enshrined under cover of the civil law and promoted and celebrated throughout what passes for “popular culture.” (See Irreversible By Means Merely Human and Common Core: From Luther To Mann To Bismarck To Obama.)

As has been noted so many times on this site, public schooling has been in the control of Freemasonry from its very inception, and it is designed to eradicate all adherence to the true Faith. (See Inside the Prison Walls.)

What more can be said about “freedom of worship” that has not been said many times before on this site other than to note that Jorge and Pals, including his retired predecessor, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI believe this heresy to be the “foundation of peace”?

To the final two points of the Judeo-Masonic program as outlined by Father Edward Cahill:

(5) Unrestrained liberty of the Press even in the propagation of irreligious doctrines and of principles subversive of morality; similar freedom for the stage, the cinema, and all manner of public activities, even when injurious to the public interest, such as the operation of the betting and gambling agencies, the drink traffic, etc.

(6) The elimination of all distinction between the sexes in education and in all departments of public life and the promotion or encouragement of radical feminism.

The same programme usually includes or favours a (so-called) Democratic or Republican form of government, indiscriminate universal suffrage, and the centralization of political and administrative authority in the hands of a bureaucracy. It is opposed on the other hand to all to the national distinctions which are associated with the Christian virtue of patriotism, to the ideal of strongly organized rural communities settled permanently on the land; and finally to the organization of society in classes bound together by ties of common interest and mutual service. Hence its policy tends towards commercialism, a false internationalism and extreme individualism.

It is clear that in a social system organized according to these Masonic ideals, the masses of the people, while nominally free, and in theory the source of all authority in the State, would inevitably become degraded and enslaved. Demoralized by indulgence, deprived of the guidance and help which Christian principles give, isolated and unorganized, mostly bereft of permanent property, having a smattering of literacy, but without real education, they would have little or no power of resistance against the tyranny of bureaucracies or financial combines controlling the Press and the economic life of the country. The substantial freedom, prosperity, and true civilization which accompany or result from the Christian regime would give way to social conditions akin to those of pre-Christian Rome. (Father Edward Cahill, S.J., Freemasonry and the anti-Christian Movement, Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged, published originally by M. H. Gill and Son, Ltd., in Dublin, Ireland, 1930, and republished by Kessinger Legacy Reprints, pp. 157-159.)

Nothing that I said in college classrooms between 1974 an 2007 or in campaigns for public office or in lectures around the nation or wrote in various publications or have written on this site contains an ounce of originality concerning the state of Western civilization as it spirals into the lowest reaches of the abyss possible, making ancient Rome seem truly tame by way of comparison. We have been given the prescient insights of such giants of Catholic scholarship as Fathers Edward Cahill and Denis Fahey in Ireland and defenders of the immutable Catholic doctrine of the Social Reign of Christ the King as Louis Edouard “Cardinal” Pie, Monsignor Henri Delassus and Father Theotime de Just in France.

Also, of course, we have been given the prophetic warnings of our true popes, including those of Popes Gregory XVI and Pius IX:

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.

Here We must include that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people, which some dare to demand and promote with so great a clamor. We are horrified to see what monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors are disseminated far and wide in countless books, pamphlets, and other writings which, though small in weight, are very great in malice. We are in tears at the abuse which proceeds from them over the face of the earth. Some are so carried away that they contentiously assert that the flock of errors arising from them is sufficiently compensated by the publication of some book which defends religion and truth. Every law condemns deliberately doing evil simply because there is some hope that good may result. Is there any sane man who would say poison ought to be distributed, sold publicly, stored, and even drunk because some antidote is available and those who use it may be snatched from death again and again? (Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)

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.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes in none of this. He is just the latest of the conciliar “popes” to express his love of Modernity that is but an expression of the wreckage wrought by Protestantism, whose overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King made possible the rise of Judeo-Masonry.

Father Edward Cahill, quoting a French Jewish apologist, noted that “Progress is the true Mesiah” for Talmudists. The same, of course is true for the entirety of the conciiar revolution and its current grand master, Jorge Mario Bergoglio:

Leroy-Beulieu, a French Jewish apologist, describes thus the social ideals of modern Judaism:

Progress is the true Messiah, whose near advent she [Judaism] proclaims with all her hosannahs. . . . The [French] Revolution was its introduction, our doctrine of human rights its manifesto, and its signal was given to the world, when, at the approach of our Tricolour, the barriers of caste and the walls of the Ghetto fell to the ground. . . . The emancipated Jew takes pride in working for its realization . . . assailing superannuated hierarchies, battling with prejudices . . . struggling to pave the way for future revolution. (Father Edward Cahill, S.J., Freemasonry and the anti-Christian Movement, Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged, published originally by M. H. Gill and Son, Ltd., in Dublin, Ireland, 1930, and republished by Kessinger Legacy Reprints, p. 91.)

Yes, “progress” is the true messias of the lords of conciliarism, including, of course, Jorge Mario Bergoglio. Bergoglio and his minions are constantly extolling the “progress” that has been made in the “liturgical reform and renewal,” the “progress” that has made made in effecting “Christian unity,” the “progress” that has been made in “human rights” in the world, the “progress” that has been made in “understanding” the Jews and the “necessity” of the State of Israel, the “progress” that has been made in Scriptural exegesis, the “progress” that has been made in “pastoral outreach” to “gays” and the “transgendered,” the “progress” that has been made in “education” and in the provision of “universal health care” by the civil state, the “progress” that has been made by the “empowerment” of women in the word and the conciliar church, etc.

Pope Pius IX condemned the belief that the Roman Pontiff had to “reconciled” to “progress” in the world:


77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. — Allocution “Nemo vestrum,” July 26, 1855.

78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. — Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.

79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. — Allocution “Nunquam fore,” Dec. 15, 1856.

80. The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.- -Allocution “Jamdudum cernimus,” March 18, 1861.

The faith teaches us and human reason demonstrates that a double order of things exists, and that we must therefore distinguish between the two earthly powers, the one of natural origin which provides for secular affairs and the tranquillity of human society, the other of supernatural origin, which presides over the City of God, that is to say the Church of Christ, which has been divinely instituted for the sake of souls and of eternal salvation…. The duties of this twofold power are most wisely ordered in such a way that to God is given what is God’s (Matt. 22:21), and because of God to Caesar what is Caesar’s, who is great because he is smaller than heaven. Certainly the Church has never disobeyed this divine command, the Church which always and everywhere instructs the faithful to show the respect which they should inviolably have for the supreme authority and its secular rights….

. . . Venerable Brethren, you see clearly enough how sad and full of perils is the condition of Catholics in the regions of Europe which We have mentioned. Nor are things any better or circumstances calmer in America, where some regions are so hostile to Catholics that their governments seem to deny by their actions the Catholic faith they claim to profess. In fact, there, for the last few years, a ferocious war on the Church, its institutions and the rights of the Apostolic See has been raging…. Venerable Brothers, it is surprising that in our time such a great war is being waged against the Catholic Church. But anyone who knows the nature, desires and intentions of the sects, whether they be called masonic or bear another name, and compares them with the nature the systems and the vastness of the obstacles by which the Church has been assailed almost everywhere, cannot doubt that the present misfortune must mainly be imputed to the frauds and machinations of these sects. It is from them that the synagogue of Satan, which gathers its troops against the Church of Christ, takes its strength. In the past Our predecessors, vigilant even from the beginning in Israel, had already denounced them to the kings and the nations, and had condemned them time and time again, and even We have not failed in this duty. If those who would have been able to avert such a deadly scourge had only had more faith in the supreme Pastors of the Church! But this scourge, winding through sinuous caverns, . . . deceiving many with astute frauds, finally has arrived at the point where it comes forth impetuously from its hiding places and triumphs as a powerful master. Since the throng of its propagandists has grown enormously, these wicked groups think that they have already become masters of the world and that they have almost reached their pre-established goal. Having sometimes obtained what they desired, and that is power, in several countries, they boldly turn the help of powers and authorities which they have secured to trying to submit the Church of God to the most cruel servitude, to undermine the foundations on which it rests, to contaminate its splendid qualities; and, moreover, to strike it with frequent blows, to shake it, to overthrow it, and, if possible, to make it disappear completely from the earth. Things being thus, Venerable Brothers, make every effort to defend the faithful which are entrusted to you against the insidious contagion of these sects and to save from perdition those who unfortunately have inscribed themselves in such sects. Make known and attack those who, whether suffering from, or planning, deception, are not afraid to affirm that these shady congregations aim only at the profit of society, at progress and mutual benefit. Explain to them often and impress deeply on their souls the Papal constitutions on this subject and teach, them that the masonic associations are anathematized by them not only in Europe but also in America and wherever they may be in the whole world. (Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus of Errors, December 8, 1864.)

Pope Pius IX understood who was behind the conceits of Freemasonry to substitute the false god of “progress,” praised by none other but the soon-to-be “Blessed Paul the Sick” in Populorum Progessio, March 26, 1967:

42. What must be aimed at is complete humanism.[44] And what is that if not the fully-rounded development of the whole man and of all men? A humanism closed in on itself, and not open to the values of the spirit and to God Who is their source, could achieve apparent success. True, man can organize the world apart from God, but “without God man can organize it in the end only to man’s detriment. An isolated humanism is an inhuman humanism”.[45] There is no true humanism but that which is open to the Absolute and is conscious of a vocation which gives human life its true meaning. Far from being the ultimate measure of all things, man can only realize himself by reaching beyond himself. As Pascal has said so well: “Man infinitely surpasses man“.[46]

43. There can be no progress towards the complete development of man without the simultaneous development of all humanity in the spirit of solidarity. As We said at Bombay: ” Man must meet man, nation meet nation, as brothers and sisters, as children of God. In this mutual understanding and friendship, in this sacred communion, we must also begin to work together to build the common future of the human race“.[47] We also suggested a search for concrete and practical ways of organization and cooperation, so that all available resources be pooled and thus a true communion among all nations be achieved. (Giovanni Montini/Paul VI, Populorum Progressio, March 26, 1967.)

This is completely Judeo-Masonic as it celebrates “man” and his “humanism,” albeit with some generic reference to God without an insistence that Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order. Giovanni Eugenio Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI’s false “pontificate” was dedicated to the celebration of “man” and his “progress.” Jorge Mario Bergoglio is also one who celebrates the “joy” of the “progress” that has been made in the world and his false church since the “Second” Vatican Council.

In sum and substance, therefore, the goals of Universal Israelite Alliance, proclaimed n 1869, are identical to those adopted by the “popes” of the counterfeit church of conciliarism. Father Cahill provided of how this is so:

The national aims and ideals here attributed to-—although they belong, probably, only to a comparatively small section of — the Jewish nation, are practically identical with those of Freemasonry. Hence, an international Jewish synod held at Leipsic, 1869, passed the following resolution:

This Synod recognizes that the development and realization of modern ideas are the surest guarantee in favour of the Jewish race for the present and future.

It seems clear that the ‘modern ideas’ here referred to are those of un-Christian Liberalism, of which Freemasonry has been the protagonist for the past two centuries.

The professed objects of the Universal Israelite Alliance founded in 1860 (whose headquarters are in Paris, and which is probably the most influential and most representative body of the Jewish nation), are similar to the professed aims of Freemasonry. These objects are thus summarized by its founder, the Jew, Adolphe Cremieux, who for many years held the position of Grand Master of the Supreme Council of the Ancient Scottish Rite of Freemasonry: — –

The Universal Israelite Alliance . . . addresses itself to every type of worship. It wishes to interpenetrate all religions, as it has found access to all countries. . . . Let all men of enlightenment, without distinction of sect, find a means of union in the Universal Israelite Association, whose aims are so noble, so broad, and so highly civilizing. . . . To reach out a friendly hand to all who, although born in a different worship from ours, offer us the hand of fellowship, acknowledging that all religions which are based on morality and acknowledge God ought to be friendly towards one another: thus to destroy the barriers separating what is destined one day to be united— that is the grand and supreme object of our Alliance. … I summon to our Association our brethren of every form of worship. Let them come to us . . . Our grand mission is to put the Jewish population in touch with the authorities in every country … to make our voices heard in the cabinets of ministers and in the ears of princes, whatever be the religion that is despised, persecuted, or attacked.

The striking similarity between this programme and the religious ideals of Freemasonry (humanitarianism, cosmopolitanism, and non-sectarianism, or religious indifference) needs no elaboration. (Father Edward Cahill, S.J., Freemasonry and the anti-Christian Movement, Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged, published originally by M. H. Gill and Son, Ltd., in Dublin, Ireland, 1930, and republished by Kessinger Legacy Reprints, pp. 90-91,)

In like manner, of course, it is the case that the striking similarity of the program of the Universal Israelite Alliance and the program of the “Second” Vatican Council, both as adopted thereat and as implemented by the postconciliar “popes,” needs not much in the way of further elaboration.

Just consider, however, the words of the conciliar Vatican’s Secretary of State, Pietro Parolin, who spoke of “Pope Francis’s” upcoming trip to Jordan and Israel, which begins tomorrow, the Feast of Our Lady Help of Christians, in terms that would have warmed the hearts of the Talmudists of the Universal Israelite Alliance in 1869 just as the Fathers of the [First] Vatican Council were convening to condemn the very errors that the conciliar revolutionaries have endorsed and propagated for over five decades now:

The Vatican Secretary of State said that in its dialogue with Israelis and Palestinians, the Holy See wishes to see “the right of Israel to exist and to enjoy peace and security within internationally recognized borders; the right of the Palestinian people to have a sovereign and independent homeland,  the right to move freely, the right to live in dignity.”

Cardinal Parolin said that during the visit, Pope Francis will insist on these issues in line with Holy See policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and urge that “the sacred and universal character of the city of Jerusalem , its cultural and religious heritage” be recognized  so that it may be “a place of pilgrimage for the followers of the three monotheistic religions .” (Vatican Secretary of State expresses hopes for Jorge’s visit to Holy Land.)

Just a little something for everyone, a veritable Rodney King “Why can’t we all just get along” message that equates the one and only true religion, Catholicism, with Judaism and Mohammedanism, and that that verifies once again the nonexistent “right” of the Zionists to the territory of the Holy Land, which brave Catholic crusaders sought to rescue from the Mohammedans and their desecration of the sites made holy by the Incarnation, Nativity, Hidden Life, Public Ministry and Passion, Death, Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

While Jorge Mario Bergoglio will doubtlessly defend the rights of Palestinians to their own homeland, he will do so in the context of praising the existence of the State of Israel as a manifestation of God’s will so that the three “great monotheistic religions” can live together in peace, thus providing a model of “peace” and “tolerance” for the whole world. It will be pure Judeo-Masonry from start to finish.

Father Cahill explained that no less a figure than the adversary himself uses the Talmudic synagogue as the means to destroy that which is indestructible, the Catholic Church:

Hence Pere Deschamps writes, apropos of the present question: —

Judaism itself is a kind of Freemasonry, owing to the national solidarity of the Jews, their cosmopolitanism, which sets the Jews free from all local and patriotic ties, and finally, the opposition of the Jews to Christianity.

On the same subject M. Doinel, at one time member of the Council of the Grand Orient, who in recent years has become a Catholic, writes: —

How often have I heard the Freemasons lament the dominance of the Jews. . . . Ever since the Revolution the Jews have taken possession of the Masonic lodges more and more completely : and their dominance is now unquestioned. The Cabala rules as mistress in the inner lodges : and the Jewish spirit dominates the lower grades. . . . In the mind of Satan the synagogue has an all important part to play. . . . The great enemy counts on the Jews to govern Masonry as he counts on Masonry to destroy the Church of Jesus Christ.

It is in fact only the Cabahstic elements in Freemasonry that can account adequately for its envenomed and aggressive opposition to the true Church, and its never-flagging efforts for the undermining and destruction of the Christian organization of society.’

This intimate connexion between the two powers [Freemasonry and Cabalistic Judaism] [writes R. Lambelin] is becoming so evident that there is no longer any attempt made to deny it. The Jewish lodges of B’ne Berith, which originated in the English-speaking countries, have swarmed all over Europe, and even into Asia; and they assume the leadership of control in the whole Masonic organization. Under cover of Theosophy a new religion, which is specifically Jewish, though enveloped in a nebulous mist that obscures its character, is bidding fair to take the place of the traditional Christian belief which it flatters, and insensibly destroys.

Finally, the history of the Jews of Europe during the past three or four centuries is suggestive in this connection. The emancipation of the Jews and the unprecedented growth of the influence and power of the great Jewish financiers have synchronized with the rise and growth of the Masonic movement of the past two centuries.

Up to the sixteenth century the Jews were excluded from practically all the Christian States of Europe. With the rise of Humanism, however, in the fifteenth century, and the accentuation of the other causes that finally led to the break up of Christendom, the Jews managed to improve their position. They gradually gained readmittance, sometimes covert, sometimes openly avowed, into most of the countries from which they had been excluded. But although they were allowed to live under the protection of the laws, they were not accorded full civic rights in any of the Christian States. They engaged in trade and carried on usury, by means of which they frequently acquired immense wealth. But they were not permitted to hold public offices, and were treated as aliens. They lived usually in ghettos, apart from the Christian community.

After the Protestant revolt, and especially under the influence of the Calvinistic sections of Protestantism, such as the Huguenots in France, the Puritans in Britain, and the Dutch and Swiss Calvinists, the position of the Jews gradually improved more and more. Finally, with the rise of the Liberalism of the eighteenth century, which was fostered and promoted by Masonic influence, the Jews were accorded full rights of citizenship, first in France and then, owing to the expansion of the French Napoleonic Empire, in nearly every country of Europe and America. In France the Jews were enfranchised in 1791 at the instance of the Jacobins, the most aggressive and militant of the anti-Christian Masonic organizations of that time. Ever since that time, with the exception, perhaps, of the early Napoleonic period, the Masonic Jews and the Masonic societies have dominated the public life of France, whose anti-clericalism, secularism, and divorce-laws have mostly been inspired from that source. Roumania, where the Jews did not possess the full rights of citizenship, and were precluded from acquiring property in land was forced by Bismarck (author of the Kulturcamp, and closely identified with Freemasonry of the most extreme type) at the Congress of Berlin (1878) to grant them full civic rights. At the Peace of Paris (1918-1919) Poland was forced, in the same way, to grant such privileges to the Jews living within her borders as almost to constitute the Jewish colony a kind of State within the State. At the same Congress the Jewish leaders were accorded practical control of Palestine as a quasi-independent or incipient Jewish State under the protection of Britain. Today Jewish financial and political power is especially felt in the countries which have fallen most completely under the influence of Freemasonry and un-Christian Liberalism, such as the United States of America, England, France, Germany, Russia, Roumania, etc. (Father Edward Cahill, S.J., Freemasonry and the anti-Christian Movement, Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged, published originally by M. H. Gill and Son, Ltd., in Dublin, Ireland, 1930, and republished by Kessinger Legacy Reprints, pp. 91-95.)

This is why there has long been a kinship between Protestants, especially those who belong to evangelical or fundamentalist sects, and Zionism as Talmudism welcomed the Protestant Revolutions in the Sixteenth Century as the means to work assiduously against their mutual enemy: the Catholic Church. And this is why one of the most important litmus tests amongst the naturalists in the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist “right” is support for “America’s only friend” in the Middle East, Israel.

Who cares about the ransacking of the homes of the Palestinians in 1948 and thereafter?

Who cares about the atrocities that the Israeli Defense Force have committed against Palestinians, both Mohammedan and Christian, Syrians, the Lebanese?

Perhaps more to the point is that God Himself used the Romans to expel the Jews from the Holy Land in 70 A.D. as a punishment for their infidelity by refusing to convert to the true Faith, and they were not mean to return there to establish a “homeland.”

Who cares about this little fact?

Yes, the State of Israel exists. Its existence is an accomplished fact. However, the well-financed and heavily armed State of Israel has more than enough means to protect its own citizens from all manner of attacks, There can never be true peace in the Middle East–or anywhere else in the world for that matter–unless all there say together, “Blessed is He Who comes in the Name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest.”

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not bringing that message to the Holy Land, of course. He is bringing a false peace of “peace” founded on “mutual respect,” “tolerance” and “religious liberty.” His is a message of Judeo-Masonry, and anyone who doubts this or who says that it is “impolitic” to even state this publicly is stuck in a fantasy world that things are somehow going to get “better” when the very signs of the times point to the coming of Antichrist himself. He is content to help the Talmudists in their goal to blot out the Holy Name from everyday public life, content to do the bidding of his fellow enemies of Christ the King and His Most Blessed Mother’s Fatima Mesage, Heaven’s own Peace Plan.

Antichrist certainly will be pleased with what will transpire in Jordan and Israel in the next three days, which is why we must pray Rosaries of reparation at this time. So many people will be deceived.

So many people, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, will come to believe that some kind of “inter-religious” peace is possible.

So many people, Catholics non-Catholics alike, will be reaffirmed in the very anti-Incarnational premises of Modernity, which are so celebrated by the lords of conciliarism, that have enslaved them to the civil state and to the wiles of those in the synagogue and the lodges who have converted them to being, no matter their particular religious creed, if any, utter naturalists who shudder at any and all talk of the true Faith, the one and only foundation of personal and social order.

Modernism’s “god of progress” must be opposed as it is the exact same “god” as Judeo-Masonry, something that can be seen very clearly by the following passage from Pope Saint Pius X’s Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907:

It is thus, Venerable Brethren, that for the Modernists, whether as authors or propagandists, there is to be nothing stable, nothing immutable in the Church. Nor, indeed, are they without forerunners in their doctrines, for it was of these that Our predecessor Pius IX wrote: ‘These enemies of divine revelation extol human progress to the skies, and with rash and sacrilegious daring would have it introduced into the Catholic religion as if this religion were not the work of God but of man, or some kind of philosophical discovery susceptible of perfection by human efforts.’ On the subject of revelation and dogma in particular, the doctrine of the Modernists offers nothing new. We find it condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX, where it is enunciated in these terms: ”Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the progress of human reason’; and condemned still more solemnly in the Vatican Council: ”The doctrine of the faith which God has revealed has not been proposed to human intelligences to be perfected by them as if it were a philosophical system, but as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence also that sense of the sacred dogmas is to be perpetually retained which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared, nor is this sense ever to be abandoned on plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the truth.’ Nor is the development of our knowledge, even concerning the faith, barred by this pronouncement; on the contrary, it is supported and maintained. For the same Council continues: ‘Let intelligence and science and wisdom, therefore, increase and progress abundantly and vigorously in individuals, and in the mass, in the believer and in the whole Church, throughout the ages and the centuries — but only in its own kind, that is, according to the same dogma, the same sense, the same acceptation.’ (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

Our Lady is the great foe of all heresies, including Modernism, whose rise was made possible by Protestantism and its alliance with Judeo-Masonry.

May we ever have recourse to her, especially during the next few days under her title as Our Lady Help of Christian and through her Most Holy Rosary, to pray for he conversion of all of those who are attacking the true Faith, including Jorge Mario Bergoglio himself, and as we continue to pray each day for our own conversion away from our sins as we seek to offer up reparation for them to the throne of the Most Blessed Trinity as the consecrated slaves of her Divine Son, Christ the King, through her own most Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart.

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Alleluia! He is Risen!

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 John Baptist de Rossi, pray for us.


American Pots and Russian Kettles

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.


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.

Viscerally Speaking, part one

As has been noted many times on this site, we are living in a world where most people we meet during the course of a day are devoid of any real understanding of First and Last Things.  A world such as this is one where people react to the events in their own lives and those around them viscerally, that is, by the use of emotions, irrationality, ignorance and “gut” instincts.

While it used to be the case that those who bloviate in such a manner were confined in the expounding of their ignorance and irrationality to their circle of relatives, friends, acquaintances and coworkers, the forums provided by so-called “social media” have made it possible for bloviators to demonstrate their ignorance about First and Last Things–and just about anything and everything else in between, to the entire world. Ramblings and and emotional screeds are sent out in a matter of second as others, much to the delight of admirers and to the consternation of detractors. Some people spend their entire waking hours reacting in what they think are “witty” ways to various events that agitate them to offer their “expert” commentaries for their eager readers or “friends” or “followers.”

Obviously, there are some, such as Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, who are elected because of their ability to use demagogic use of emotion, self-pity, ignorance and outright deceit. What makes this so pitiable is that many of those of the false opposite of the naturalist “right” who oppose him are steeped in the same kind of demagogic emotionalism as he is.

As I have been explaining for nearly eight years now, one of the foremost practitioners of demagoguery and viscera among the luminaries of the false opposite of the naturalist “right” is Sarah Heath Palin, the former Governor of Alaska (a Catholic apostate  whose visceral, shoot-from-the-lip approach to politics and public policy has been examined on this site in Gradually Accepting Naturalism’s False Premises, Absolute Insanity, Facts Are Troublesome Things, It’s Still Absolute Insanity and Fratricide in the Lodge), who ctashed in on the fame she gained as the vice presidential running mate of the unreconstructed war hawk named John Sidney McCain III, who would have launched wars all around the world had he been elected on November 4, 2008 (see Different Chief, Same War Drums). This poor woman, who is ignorant of so many things, is admired even by many traditional Catholic as “telling it like it is” even though she is nothing but a mass of viscera prone to emotional outbursts that she believes constitutes rational discourse but is nothing other than what Pope Pius IX rightly termed as “injurious babbling” in Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864.

Most Americans, however, are so awash in viscera themselves that they have become “inoculated,” if you will, from even the slightest semblance of rationality, desiring the ready, “red-meat” sound bit to satiate their desire to go for the jugular of those who adhere to the whichever of the two false opposites of naturalism they despise. This is why the likes Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro can maintain the unfailing support of his claque of sycophants in the mainslime media, and it is why this support will continue even if the cover-up of his reprehensible failure to send troops to rescue the Americans in Benghazi, Libya, who were under siege from terrorists on Tuesday, September 11, 2012. The “party line”is what matters, nothing else.

The “inoculation” against rationality is not confined to the precincts of the false opposite of the naturalist “left.” Not at all.

Remember, former President George Walker Bush was a master, however artless, of demagogy and raw emotionalism that ignored facts as he made up things to justify his policies of “compassionate” statism and overspending domestically, including to subsidize the chemical assassination of the innocent preborn by means of “family planning” programs, and naked aggression abroad that destabilized a sovereign nation, Iraq, needlessly placing Americans in harm’s way and permitting hordes of Iranian-trained, armed and financed terrorists to flood that country with a wave of violence, much of which was aimed at Chaldean Rite Catholics, two-thirds of whom fled the country as a result. Bush the Lesser was just as ignorant and as demogagic as his successor, and his so-called “Patriot Act” helped to make possible Obama/Soetoro’s use of intelligence agencies, the Department of Justice the Internal Revenue Service, the Bureau of Land Management and the Department of Homeland Security into instruments of punish “enemies” and rewarding political supporters.

Ever trapped in the midst of the viscera that passes for political discourse, those who adhere to one brand of naturalism accept pretty much whatever it is that is said, no matter how offensive or stupid or simply factually wrong,  by their heroes and heroines, as what matters is having a bit of “fun” at the expense of the “enemy.” There are no bounds of propriety in a world of Judeo-Masonic naturalism, a world where most people, including many Catholics, especially those in the conciliar structures, think that it is “funny” to speak indecently or irreverently, and that there is “nothing wrong” with women dressing immodestly or in masculine attire, which equips the psyches of many to act as crudely as many men.

Well, behold the aforementioned Sarah Heath Palin, whom some in the traditional Catholic world thought was a “bright” face in American politics when she burst on the national scene as McCain’s vice presidential running mate in August of 2008 even though she quickly demonstrated her shallowness and complete unpreparedness for the vice presidency of the United States of America in short order, who received a standing ovation at the convention of the National Rifle Association on Easter Saturday, April 26, 2014, when she compared the form of torture called “waterboarding” with the administration of the Sacrament of Baptism, which she herself received shortly after her birth on February 11, 2014, the Feast of the Apparition of Our Lady of Lourdes, in Sandpoint, Idaho:

INDIANAPOLIS — Catholics and other Christians have criticized Sarah Palin’s recent comments comparing waterboarding to baptism, calling them disrespectful, irreverent and even blasphemous.

“Not all intolerant, anti-freedom, leftist liberals are hypocrites. I’m kidding; yes, they are. And they are not right policies that poke our allies in the eye and coddle adversaries, instead of putting the fear of God in our enemies. Come on! Enemies who would utterly annihilate America,” Palin said April 26 at a National Rifle Association convention in Indianapolis.

“They who’d obviously have information on plots, say to carry out jihad. Oh, but you can’t offend them, can’t make them feel uncomfortable, not even a smidgen. Well, if I were in charge, they would know that waterboarding is how we baptize terrorists.”

Edward Peters, professor of canon law at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, wrote April 29 at his blog, In the Light of the Law, that regardless of one’s political affiliation, Palin’s statement about baptism “should shock the conscience.”

He referred to Deacon Ed Kandra of the Brooklyn Diocese, who wrote April 28 at the website Patheos, “Equating torture with baptism is extremely offensive — and, in fact, blasphemous.” (Palin Rebuked For Comparing Waterboarding to Baptism.)

While it is certainly true that a multitude of pro-abortion, pro-perversity Catholics in public life, including the likes of United States Vice President Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., and House Minority Leader Nancy Patricia D’Alesandro Pelosi, regularly display their ignorance of truths, supernatural and natural, and facts as they act their own parts as unreconstructed demagogues who live in a visceral world of their very own, no amount of visceral demagoguery on the “left” can justify that employed by the visceral demagogue named Sarah Louise Heath Palin.

To compare waterboarding with the administration of the Sacrament of Baptism is reprehensible. What is even more reprehensible is that lots of people, including, presumably, a lot of Catholics, applauded her and can even think that it is possible to defend her utterly offensive remarks, which were compounded by her “doubling down” on them by calling those who took umbrage at them as “wusses.”

Let’s just put it to you this way: Sarah Louise Heath Palin knows nothing of the true femininity of Our Lady or of Saints Elizabeth of Hungary, Saint Margaret of Scotland, Saint Bridget of Sweden, Saint Hedwig of Silesia, Saint Elizabeth of Portugal, each of whom were married and took seriously the requirement to imitate the Mother of God at all times.

Sarah Louise Heath Palin is, of course, a victim of the heresy of Americanism and the conciliar revolution that was influenced in no small measure by its precepts of “freedom of religion” and “freedom of speech” and “separation of Church and State.” While the particulars as to why Mrs. Palin’s father, Charles R. Heath, decided to take his family out of the Catholic Faith in the 1970s after they had moved to Alaska, the revolutionary changes wrought by the counterfeit church of conciliarism may have played a role, especially when one considers the fact that the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service is a celebration of the errors of Modernity, including those of Protestantism, many of which have become integral parts of the conciliar ethos.

Taking nothing away the horror of Sarah Louise Heath Palin’s deplorable comparison of American sponsored torture (waterboarding) with the indwelling of the very life of the Most Blessed Trinity in a soul by means of Sanctifying Grace at Baptism as Original Sin is washed away in the Sacrament of Baptism and without for a moment taking nothing away from the many times that Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro has misused, misquoted and misrepresented the Holy Gospel to defend his statist agenda of unbridled evil as he break the laws of God and man, these pitiable naturalists are simply the byproducts of a world that is celebrated by the likes of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who, given his prominence as the universal public face of apostasy, is the greatest blasphemer on the face of this earth.

Why should Sarah Louise Heath Palin or Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro know anything about the truths of the Catholic Faith when the man who is thought to the “pope” by almost everyone in the world demonstrates his own utter contempt for those truths practically every day?

Why does it not “shock the conscience” of Catholics for a putative “pope” to speak in ways that have been condemned by the authority of Holy Mother Church and that blaspheme Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and Our Lady while fearing not to misrepresent the very nature of Holy Mother Church’s Divine Constitution.

Why were not Catholics shocked when Jorge Mario Bergoglio called the Catholic Church the “widowed church” seven months ago now?

Here is a reminder:

The Bridegroom is gone and she walks in history, hoping to find him, to meet with Him – and she will be His true bride. In the meantime she – the Church – is alone! The Lord is nowhere to be seen. She has a certain dimension of widowhood … and that makes me makes me think of the widowhood of the Church. This courageous Church, which defends her children, like the widow who went to the corrupt judge to [press her rights] and eventually won. Our Mother Church is courageous! She has the courage of a woman who knows that her children are her own, and must defend them and bring them to the meeting with her Spouse.”

The Pope reflected on some figures of widows in the Bible, in particular the courageous Maccabean widow with seven sons who are martyred for not renouncing God. The Bible, he stressed, says this woman who spoke to her sons “in the local dialect, in their first language,” and, he noted, our Mother Church speaks to us in dialect, in “that language of true orthodoxy, which we all understand, the language of catechism,” that, “gives us the strength to go forward in the fight against evil”:

“This dimension of widowhood of the Church, who is journeying through history, hoping to meet, to find her Husband… Our Mother the Church is thus! She is a Church that, when she is faithful, knows how to cry. When the Church does not cry, something is not right. She weeps for her children, and prays! A Church that goes forward and does rear her children, gives them strength and accompanies them until the final farewell in order to leave them in the hands of her Spouse, who at the end will come to encounter her. This is our Mother Church! I see her in this weeping widow. And what does the Lord say to the Church? “Do not cry. I am with you, I’ll take you, I’ll wait for you there, in the wedding, the last nuptials, those of the Lamb. Stop [your tears]: this son of yours was dead, now he lives.”

And this , he continued, “is the dialogue of the Lord with the Church.” She, “defends the children, but when she sees that the children are dead, she cries, and the Lord says to her: ‘I am with you and your son is with me.’” As he told the boy at Naim to get up from his deathbed, the Pope added, many times Jesus also tells us to get up, “when we are dead because of sin and we are going to ask for forgiveness.” And then what does Jesus “when He forgives us, when He gives us back our life?” He Returns us to our mother:

“Our reconciliation with the Lord end in the dialogue ‘You, me and the priest who gives me pardon’; it ends when He restores us to our mother. There ends reconciliation, because there is no path of life, there is no forgiveness, there is no reconciliation outside of Mother Church. So, seeing this poor widow, all these things come to me somewhat randomly – But I see in this widow the icon of the widowhood of the Church who is on a journey to find her Bridegroom. I get the urge to ask the Lord for the grace to be always confident of this “mommy” who defends us, teaches us, helps us grow and [teaches] us to speak the dialect.” (Reflecting on our Mother Church.)

Was Blessed Peter Julian Eymard, the founder of the Blessed Sacrament Fathers, wrong when he questioned as to who would now dare to call the Catholic Church “widowed” from her Divine Founder, Invisible Head and Mystical Bridegroom?

People who have never set foot inside one of her churches think she is widowed. They look upon her as a corpse, and upon her temples as places where only death and suffering are spoken of. But today the very ones who never attend her solemn festivals will see her in all her wealth and beauty, in a natural attractiveness which God, her Bridegroom, will enhance with His presence. What magnificence in the processions as they pass by! What reverence in the faithful as they kneel down! ! The Church shows to everyone her Bridegroom in the radiant monstrance. Ah! Who today will presume to say she is widowed? Her friends are in adoration and her enemies tremble. Jesus shows Himself to all men; He gives His blessing. to the good; He looks on sinners with compassion; He calls them and draws them to Himself. The Council of Trent calls this Feast the triumph of faith, and rightly so. It is also the triumph of the Church through her Divine Bridegroom. (THE REAL PRESENCE.)

No one who understands basic Catholic ecclesiology can claim, no matter how “randomly,” that the Catholic Church is widowed.

Why are so many Catholics so silent?

Are they as ignorant as Jorge Mario Bergoglio?

Do they agree with Jorge Mario Bergoglio?

Do they dismiss “off-handed” remarks made publicly by a putative “pope” to be of no consequence?

Why, then, the outrage over the comments of an ignorant naturalist who is a victim of the revolutions of Modernity and Modernism?

Why was there no outrage just five months ago when Jorge Mario Bergoglio blasphemed the Blessed Virgin Mary by stating out out that the ever Immaculate Mother of God could have uttered “Lies!”, “I was deceived” as she stood so valiantly at the foot of her Divine Son’s Holy Cross?

The Mother of Jesus was the perfect icon of silence. From the proclamation of her exceptional maternity at Calvary. The Pope said he thinks about “how many times she remained quiet and how many times she did not say that which she felt in order to guard the mystery of her relationship with her Son,” up until the most raw silence “at the foot of the cross”.

“The Gospel does not tell us anything: if she spoke a word or not… She was silent, but in her heart, how many things told the Lord! ‘You, that day, this and the other that we read, you had told me that he would be great, you had told me that you would have given him the throne of David, his forefather, that he would have reigned forever and now I see him there!’ Our Lady was human! And perhaps she even had the desire to say: ‘Lies! I was deceived!’ John Paul II would say this, speaking about Our Lady in that moment. But she, with her silence, hid the mystery that she did not understand and with this silence allowed for this mystery to grow and blossom in hope.” (Ever Talkative Apostate: Silence guards one’s relationship with God.)

Why should we expect naturalists, whether of the false opposites of the “left” or of the “right” to have more respect for the truths contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith and/or have reverence for the Sacraments of Holy Mother Church when the conciliar revolutionaries have supplanted the true Faith with a false one and have destroyed the validity of every liturgical rite save for Baptism, which is mocked when public sinners, including those who are steeped in perversity, are permitted to have public baptismal ceremonies for their “children”?

No, blame not the pitiable likes of the truly ignorant product of “freedom of speech,” Sarah Louise Heath Plain, or the reprehensibly lawless likes of Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro.

Blame the men who look askance and mock the following warnings given us by our true popes concerning the nature of Modernity and where its errors would lead the world over time, something that we can see very clearly with our own eyes today:

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.

Here We must include that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people, which some dare to demand and promote with so great a clamor. We are horrified to see what monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors are disseminated far and wide in countless books, pamphlets, and other writings which, though small in weight, are very great in malice. We are in tears at the abuse which proceeds from them over the face of the earth. Some are so carried away that they contentiously assert that the flock of errors arising from them is sufficiently compensated by the publication of some book which defends religion and truth. Every law condemns deliberately doing evil simply because there is some hope that good may result. Is there any sane man who would say poison ought to be distributed, sold publicly, stored, and even drunk because some antidote is available and those who use it may be snatched from death again and again? (Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)

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.)

The sovereignty of the people, however, and this without any reference to God, is held to reside in the multitude; which is doubtless a doctrine exceedingly well calculated to flatter and to inflame many passions, but which lacks all reasonable proof, and all power of insuring public safety and preserving order. Indeed, from the prevalence of this teaching, things have come to such a pass that may hold as an axiom of civil jurisprudence that seditions may be rightfully fostered. For the opinion prevails that princes are nothing more than delegates chosen to carry out the will of the people; whence it necessarily follows that all things are as changeable as the will of the people, so that risk of public disturbance is ever hanging over our heads.

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.

“So, too, the liberty of thinking, and of publishing, whatsoever each one likes, without any hindrance, is not in itself an advantage over which society can wisely rejoice. On the contrary, it is the fountain-head and origin of many evils. Liberty is a power perfecting man, and hence should have truth and goodness for its object. But the character of goodness and truth cannot be changed at option. These remain ever one and the same, and are no less unchangeable than nature itself. If the mind assents to false opinions, and the will chooses and follows after what is wrong, neither can attain its native fullness, but both must fall from their native dignity into an abyss of corruption. Whatever, therefore, is opposed to virtue and truth may not rightly be brought temptingly before the eye of man, much less sanctioned by the favor and protection of the law. A well-spent life is the only way to heaven, whither all are bound, and on this account the State is acting against the laws and dictates of nature whenever it permits the license of opinion and of action to lead minds astray from truth and souls away from the practice of virtue. To exclude the Church, founded by God Himself, from the business of life, from the making of laws, from the education of youth, from domestic society is a grave and fatal error. A State from which religion is banished can never be well regulated; and already perhaps more than is desirable is known of the nature and tendency of the so-called civil philosophy of life and morals. The Church of Christ is the true and sole teacher of virtue and guardian of morals. She it is who preserves in their purity the principles from which duties flow, and, by setting forth most urgent reasons for virtuous life, bids us not only to turn away from wicked deeds, but even to curb all movements of the mind that are opposed to reason, even though they be not carried out in action.” (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.) November 1, 1885.)

Every true and lasting reform has ultimately sprung from the sanctity of men who were driven by the love of God and of men. Generous, ready to stand to attention to any call from God, yet confident in themselves because confident in their vocation, they grew to the size of beacons and reformers.   . No doubt “the Spirit breatheth where he will” (John iii. 8): “of stones He is able to raise men to prepare the way to his designs” (Matt. iii. 9). He chooses the instruments of His will according to His own plans, not those of men. But the Founder of the Church, who breathed her into existence at Pentecost, cannot disown the foundations as He laid them. Whoever is moved by the spirit of God, spontaneously adopts both outwardly and inwardly, the true attitude toward the Church, this sacred fruit from the tree of the cross, this gift from the Spirit of God, bestowed on Pentecost day to an erratic world. (Pope Pius XI, Mit Brennender Sorge, March 17, 1937.)

There is no one on the face of the earth who is a bigger enemy of Christ the King and thus of the eternal and temporal good of men than Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who rejects each of these irreformable statements of Catholic truth as so much “Pharisaical” nonsense. His ignorance is thus far more dangerous than that of the likes of Sarah Louise Heath Palin or Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro as he is content to leave these lost souls alone in their errors without ever once seeking with urgency their unconditional conversion to the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order.

The second part of this two-part commentary will provide a few more examples as to the truly shocking thing about Catholics today is that so few of them are capable of being shocked by the blasphemies, sacrileges, apostasies and heresies of the conciliar revolutionaries, who love to tickle the itching ears of Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

Making reparation, as always, as the consecrated slaves of Christ the King through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary for our own sins and those of the whole world, may the Rosaries we pray during this month of May, the month of Our Lady, help us to plant a few seeds for the Triumph of her Immaculate Heart and the fulfillment of her Fatima Message by a true pope with all of the true bishops in the world.

Vivat Chistus 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.

Pope Saint Pius V, pray for us.


Michael Bloomberg Embraces Universal Salvation

The pro-abortion, pro-perversity former Mayor of the City of New York, Michael Rubens Bloomberg, would make an excellent member of the counterfeit church of conciliarisim.

Here is a look at just of Michael Rubens Bloomberg’s many qualifications to be a member in good standing of the counterfeit church of conciliarism:

Qualification Number One: Michael Rubens Bloomberg is a self-described “billionaire playboy” who supports the chemical and surgical assassination of innocent preborn children in their mothers’ wombs.

To wit, Michael Bloomberg was once sued by a female employee of his Bloomberg financial and media conglomerate for harassment when he responded as follows upon learning she was expecting a child, “Kill it! Kill it!” (See New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg Testifies in Pregnancy Discrimination Case .) This episode was even too much for the pro-abort protege of Ralph Nader, Mark Green, who brought it up in a campaign advertisement when running as the Democrat Party nominee for Mayor of the City of New York, New York, in 2001 against Bloomberg, who had the endorsement of Republican Party even though he had been a lifelong Democrat until earlier that year and declared himself in 2008 to be an “independent.” One of the first things that Michael Bloomberg attempted to do as Mayor of the City of New York in 2002 was to impose mandatory training in methods of surgical baby-killing in all of the obstetrics/gynecological residency programs in all of the city’s public hospitals, permitting no one to opt out of the program as a matter of conscience (see Kathryn Jean Lopez on Med Students and Abortion).

Proof of Qualification as a Member in the Counterfeit Church of Conciliarism: The “good standing” maintained by Vice President of the United States of America Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., United States Secretary of State John F. Kerry, outgoing United States Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, United States Ambassador to Japan Caroline Kennedy, Minority Leader of the House of Representatives of the United States of America Nancy Patricia D’Alesandro Pelosi, United States Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin (D-Illinois), United States Senators Thomas Harkin (D-Iowa), Patricia Murray (D-Washington), Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island),  Christopher Murphy (D-Connecticut), Robert Menendez (D-New Jersey), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-New York), Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland), Mary Landrieu (D-Louisiana), California Governor Edmund Gerald Brown, Jr., former California Governors Arnold Schwarzenegger and Gray Davis, New York Governor Andrew Mark Cuomo and his father, former New York Governor Mario Matthew Cuomo, former New York Governors George Elmer Pataki and David Paterson, Illinois Governor Patrick Quinn, former Wisconsin Governor James Doyle, former United States Secretary of Agriculture Thomas Vilsack, Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, former Mayor of the City of New York, New York, Rudolph William Giuliani, former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge, United States Representative Charles Bernard Rangel (who is also a Freemason and remains a Catholic in “good standing”), for United States Attorney General Janet Reno, former United States Secretary of Defense  Leon Panetta (a favorite of the now retired conciliar “bishop” of Monterey, California, Sylvester Ryan), forme United States Senator Thomas Daschle, the late United States Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the late United States Representative Geraldine Anne Ferraro-Zaccaro, the late Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America William Brennan, current Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America Anthony Kennedy and Sonya Sotomayor (non-practicing but not excommunicated, former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Tony Blair, President of Brazil Dilma Roussef, President of Argentine Christine Kirchener, President of Bolivia Evo Morales (now a pantheist he was once a conciliar “bishop”), President of France Francois Hollande (a baptized Catholic who is now an agnostic, but who has never been excommunicated) and, among so many others, President of Argentina Argentine President Christine Kirchner.

Judgment: Check. Bloomberg would be make a good fit as a member of the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

Qualification Number Two: Michael Rubens Bloomberg, who is divorced, has a “domestic partner,” a divorcee named Diana Taylor.

Proof of Qualification as a Member of the Counterfeit Church of Conciliarism: Consider the following comments of none other than Jorge Mario Bergoglio himself:

“The problem cannot be reduced to whether” these couples “are allowed to take communion or not because whoever thinks of the problem in these terms doesn’t understand the real issue at hand,” Francis said. “This is a serious problem regarding the Church’s responsibility towards families that are in this situation.” Francis reiterated what he said on the return flight from Rio to Rome after World Youth Day, saying he will be discussing the issue with the group of eight cardinals who will be meeting in the Vatican in early October. Francis added that the issue will also be discussed at the next Synod of Bishops on the Gospel’s anthropological relationship with individual people and the family, so that the whole Synod can look into this problem. “This,” Francis said “is a real existential periphery”. (Francis urges priests to give a helping hand to couples that live together.)

“The problem cannot be reduced to whether” these couples “are allowed to take communion or not because whoever thinks of the problem in these terms doesn’t understand the real issue at hand,” Francis said. “This is a serious problem regarding the Church’s responsibility towards families that are in this situation.” Francis reiterated what he said on the return flight from Rio to Rome after World Youth Day, saying he will be discussing the issue with the group of eight cardinals who will be meeting in the Vatican in early October. Francis added that the issue will also be discussed at the next Synod of Bishops on the Gospel’s anthropological relationship with individual people and the family, so that the whole Synod can look into this problem. “This,” Francis said “is a real existential periphery”. (Francis urges priests to give a helping hand to couples that live together.)

Judgment: Check. Michael Rubens Bloomberg certainly does live on the “existential peripheries.” Another perfect fit for membership in the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

Qualification Number Three: Michael Rubens Bloomberg strongly defended the building of the “Ground Zero Mosque,” which would have been a “worship center” in a building to be constructed on a site near, but not at, the site where the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center collapsed on Tuesday, September 11, 2011:

In his fiercest defense yet of the mosque proposed near Ground Zero, Mayor Bloomberg declared yesterday that it must be allowed to proceed because the government “shouldn’t be in the business of picking” one religion over another.

“I think it’s fair to say if somebody was going to try, on that piece of property, to build a church or a synagogue, nobody would be yelling and screaming,” the mayor said.

“And the fact of the matter is that Muslims have a right to do it, too.”

Placing the proposed mosque two blocks from the World Trade Center site has led to an outcry from opponents, including family members of 9/11 victims, who contend the holy place at 45 Park Place would defile the memories of those who perished in the worst terror attack in US history.

Community Board 1 approved the project Tuesday night by a 29-1 vote after a raucous four-hour hearing in which nine members abstained.

The meeting got so heated that one young girl, whose father is Muslim and mother is Jewish and who went to testify in favor, decided instead to sit silently.

The issue also continues to fuel an intense debate on the Internet. One commenter likened a mosque near Ground Zero to a convent established on the grounds of Auschwitz. Pope John Paul II ordered the nuns to move in 1993 after years of protests from Jewish leaders.

But Bloomberg argued that blocking the 13-story mosque and Islamic cultural center would violate the essence of America.

“What is great about America and particularly New York is we welcome everybody, and if we are so afraid of something like this, what does that say about us?” asked the mayor. (Bloomberg defends Ground Zero mosque as freedom-of-religion.)

Proof of Qualification as a Member of the Counterfeit Church of Conciliarism: The lords of conciliarism stumble all over themselves to praise Mohammedanism and its false teachings. Some, including “Saint John Paul II,” Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and Jorge Mario Bergoglio, have esteemed its false symbols and, in the case of Ratzinger/Benedict,  entered into its places of false worship, calling them “sacred.”

None other than Jorge Mario Bergoglio, trumping the usual handiwork of the religious syncretist named Jean-Louis Tauran, the president of the “Pontifical” Council for Inter-Religious Diaologue, directly addressed Mohemmdans following the end of their false holiday, Ramadan, last year:

To Muslims throughout the World

It gives me great pleasure to greet you as you celebrate ‘Id al-Fitr, so concluding the month of Ramadan, dedicated mainly to fasting, prayer and almsgiving.

It is a tradition by now that, on this occasion, the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue sends you a message of good wishes, together with a proposed theme for common reflection. This year, the first of my Pontificate, I have decided to sign this traditional message myself and to send it to you, dear friends, as an expression of esteem and friendship for all Muslims, especially those who are religious leaders.

As you all know, when the Cardinals elected me as Bishop of Rome and Universal Pastor of the Catholic Church, I chose the name of “Francis”, a very famous saint who loved God and every human being deeply, to the point of being called “universal brother”. He loved, helped and served the needy, the sick and the poor; he also cared greatly for creation.

I am aware that family and social dimensions enjoy a particular prominence for Muslims during this period, and it is worth noting that there are certain parallels in each of these areas with Christian faith and practice.

This year, the theme on which I would like to reflect with you and with all who will read this message is one that concerns both Muslims and Christians: Promoting Mutual Respect through Education.

This year’s theme is intended to underline the importance of education in the way we understand each other, built upon the foundation of mutual respect. “Respect” means an attitude of kindness towards people for whom we have consideration and esteem. “Mutual” means that this is not a one-way process, but something shared by both sides.

What we are called to respect in each person is first of all his life, his physical integrity, his dignity and the rights deriving from that dignity, his reputation, his property, his ethnic and cultural identity, his ideas and his political choices. We are therefore called to think, speak and write respectfully of the other, not only in his presence, but always and everywhere, avoiding unfair criticism or defamation. Families, schools, religious teaching and all forms of media have a role to play in achieving this goal.

Turning to mutual respect in interreligious relations, especially between Christians and Muslims, we are called to respect the religion of the other, its teachings, its symbols, its values. Particular respect is due to religious leaders and to places of worship. How painful are attacks on one or other of these!

It is clear that, when we show respect for the religion of our neighbours or when we offer them our good wishes on the occasion of a religious celebration, we simply seek to share their joy, without making reference to the content of their religious convictions.

Regarding the education of Muslim and Christian youth, we have to bring up our young people to think and speak respectfully of other religions and their followers, and to avoid ridiculing or denigrating their convictions and practices.

We all know that mutual respect is fundamental in any human relationship, especially among people who profess religious belief. In this way, sincere and lasting friendship can grow.

When I received the Diplomatic Corps accredited to the Holy See on 22 March 2013, I said: “It is not possible to establish true links with God, while ignoring other people. Hence it is important to intensify dialogue among the various religions, and I am thinking particularly of dialogue with Islam. At the Mass marking the beginning of my ministry, I greatly appreciated the presence of so many civil and religious leaders from the Islamic world.” With these words, I wished to emphasize once more the great importance of dialogue and cooperation among believers, in particular Christians and Muslims, and the need for it to be enhanced.

With these sentiments, I reiterate my hope that all Christians and Muslims may be true promoters of mutual respect and friendship, in particular through education.

Finally, I send you my prayerful good wishes, that your lives may glorify the Almighty and give joy to those around you. Happy Feast to you all! (Francis the Self-Caricaturist to Muslims for end of Ramadan: Promoting Mutual Respect through Education.)

The conciliar revolutionaries can even outdo Michael Rubens Bloomberg’s defense of the “worship center” as part of a Mohammedan cultural complex at 51 Park Avenue in lower Manhattan in the City of New York, York. The conciliar revolutionaries have handed over Catholic churches to the Mohammedans in order for them to be transformed into centers of false worship known as “mosques”:

Holy Trinity Catholic Church in Syracuse, New York, was sold in December to a Muslim group and will be turned into a mosque. The Muslim organization requested that six stone crosses be removed from the top of the century-old historic church, and the Syracuse Landmark Preservation Board has complied. However, as explains in an April 6, 2014 article, “Plans to turn a church into a mosque bring pain and hope to changing neighborhood,” everything evens out because the mosque will be named the Mosque of Jesus, Son of Mary “to build a bridge between the old and the new.”

So that’s all right then. Or is it? The news story is written to the theme that Islam and Catholicism share much in common—two sides of the same coin, so to speak. A diocesan spokeswoman is quoted as saying that “the building is once again being used to meet the needs of a growing population on the North Side, just as Holy Trinity did as it served the Catholic faithful.” In this telling, immigrant Muslims are just like immigrant Catholics of a hundred years ago. After all, both believe in Jesus, the son of Mary. “The Muslims could not keep the crosses on the church,” the report concludes, “But they chose the mosque’s name to build a bridge between the old and the new: The Mosque of Jesus, Son of Mary.”

Why do the crosses have to come down? The reason, as explained by one of the Muslim organizers, is that “crosses are not an appropriate representation of the religion of Islam.” Why is that? Because the Koran maintains that Jesus was never crucified and therefore never rose from the dead (4:157).

In short, there are reasons to wonder if the Jesus, son of Mary that Muslims revere is the same Jesus that Christians revere. For instance, the story reports that some of the Holy Trinity parishioners are worried that the massive stained glass windows which depict scenes from the life of Christ might be removed next. And well they might worry. Many of the scenes from the life of Christ do not pass the “appropriate representation of Islam” test. Naturally, the crucifixion scene would have to go, along with any representations of Christ’s resurrection, but so also would any depiction of Christ’s baptism or the Transfiguration. Both of these events identify Jesus not just as the son of Mary but as the Son of God, and from the Islamic point of view that is a blasphemous thought. On top of that, Islam prohibits the artistic representation of prophets. Have you ever seen a portrait of Muhammad? Probably not. And if you have any ideas about sketching one of your own, you’d be well-advised to keep it in your private collection. All things considered, the future of Holy Trinity’s rose-colored windows does not look too rosy.

The same Jesus? In places where religiously observant Muslims are in the majority and especially in places where they hold political power, there is much more emphasis on the differences between the two faiths than on the similarities. Christians are looked upon as inferiors, and they are well-advised to keep crosses, icons, and statues out of sight. When they are in power, observant Muslims seem less interested in building bridges than in desecrating churches and burning them down.

In the West, it’s a different story. When Muslims are first establishing themselves in a community, they tend to emphasize the commonalities between the two religions, and thus we get mosques named “Jesus, Son of Mary” and billboards that proclaim “Muslims Love Jesus Too.” Indeed, the supposedly shared love for Jesus is a primary recruitment tool for bringing Christians to Islam. A few years ago, Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, wrote an essay titled “Muslims and Christians: More in common than you think,” which is reprinted in many publications around Christmastime. Hooper writes: “It is well-known that Christians follow the teachings of Jesus. What is less well understood is that Muslims also love and revere Jesus as one of God’s greatest messengers to mankind” (Washington Post, 12/17/10).

Muslims love Jesus too? If so, why do Muslims [official disclaimer: not all of them, of course] display so much contempt for Christians when they gain power over them? Why are they so quick to charge Christians with blasphemy? To desecrate their churches and religious symbols? Could it be that the Jesus they believe in is not the same Jesus Christians worship?

While the Koranic portrait of Jesus borrows some elements from Christianity—the virgin birth, a handful of miracles—the differences are more striking than the similarities. The Jesus of the Koran is not a Jew or a Christian, he is a Muslim. He is not the Son of God, and to say that he is is the greatest of all blasphemies. He was not crucified. He did not rise from the dead. He is not the savior of mankind. And, although Ibrahim Hooper says that Jesus is “one of God’s greatest messengers,” his message differs markedly from that brought by Jesus of Nazareth. Other than the message that people should serve God, there is not much in common. The Muslim Jesus announces that he is a prophet sent by God; that he is not God and never claimed to be; and that he brings “news of an apostle that will come after me whose name is Ahmed [Muhammad]” (61:6). So, on the one hand you have the message, “I am the way and the truth and the life,” and on the other hand you have the message, “I am a messenger.” That’s no small difference.

Those who are looking for more from the Jesus of the Koran—more wisdom, more development of doctrine—will be disappointed. The Muslim Jesus has remarkably little to say about anything. There is nothing like the Sermon on the Mount in the Koran. In fact, that one sermon far exceeds in length the sum total of everything said by the Jesus of the Koran.

He also has remarkably little to do. When Christians hear that Jesus is in the Koran, they tend to assume that the Koran must contain some account of his life. But other than a strange and truncated account of his birth, there is nothing in the Koran that could remotely be called a life of Jesus. You will find considerably more scenes from the life of Jesus in the stained glass windows of Holy Trinity Church than you will in the Koran.

The Jesus of the Koran is nothing more than a disembodied voice. There is no information about where he lived or when he carried out his ministry or who his disciples were. In short, there is no attempt to portray him as recognizable human being. Judging by the cursory attention given to Jesus in the Koran, Muhammad seems to have had little interest in him as a person.

Nevertheless, Muhammad couldn’t afford to leave Jesus out of the picture. Why? Because if Christ is who Christians say he is, then there is no need for another prophet and another revelation. In other words, the claims made by Jesus of Nazareth, if true, would have put a major crimp in Muhammad’s prophetic career. Muhammad’s solution to this problem was to include Jesus in the Koran and recast him as a messenger, rather than as the Messiah, understood as the Son of God.

The reason Jesus is so frequently referred to as “son of Mary” in the Koran is to reinforce the point that he is not the Son of God. Likewise, whenever Jesus appears in the Koran or whenever he is mentioned by Allah, it is almost always for the purpose of denying his divinity. Take Chapter 5, verses 113 to 117. It is one of the few places in the Koran where the narrative about Jesus rises (well, almost) to the level of a scene:

“Jesus son of Mary,” said the disciples, “Can your Lord send down to us from heaven a table spread with food?”…“Lord,” said Jesus son of Mary, “send down to us from heaven a table spread with food…” (5: 113-114)

The interesting thing is what happens next. Allah agrees to send the table, but first he interrogates Jesus: “Jesus son of Mary, did you ever say to mankind: ‘Worship me and my mother as gods besides God?’” Jesus, the faithful Muslim, replies, “I could never have claimed what I have no right to. If I had ever said so, You would surely have known it” (5:117).

So, a demonstration of Jesus’ power to produce a tableful of food is used as an occasion to reject the central tenet of Christianity. As for the table of food, we are left guessing. Does Allah actually send down the meal? There is no further mention of it. Muhammad has made his point, and having made it, moves on to the next lesson.

Notice that the phrase “Jesus son of Mary” is used three times in the table scene. Was this because Muhammad had a deep Christian-like love of Jesus and his mother? Or was there another motive? Given that almost every page of the Koran contains reminders of Muhammad’s prophetic role, it seems highly likely that the Jesus-son-of-Mary motif was simply a device for enhancing his own importance by reducing the status of Christ.

The irony is that this self-serving stratagem has become the main plank for keeping Muslim-Christian dialogue afloat. One would think that Christians would be sore about Muhammad’s appropriation of Jesus and Mary for his own purposes—that is, to deny the Sonship of Jesus. Instead, this is sometimes put in positive terms that seem to overlook, for whatever reason, the problem at hand. For example, the Vatican II document Nostra Aetate says, “The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems,” and two of the five reasons given for the esteem is that Muslims “revere” Jesus and “honor Mary.”

But a close reading of the Koran suggests that its inclusion of Jesus and Mary may not be the sign of hope that many Christians take it to be. John the Baptist said of Jesus, “He must increase, but I must decrease” (Jn 3:30). Muhammad preferred it the other way around. For him to increase, it was necessary that Jesus decrease. Thus, what we find in the Koran is a diminished portrait of Jesus, who is not completely repudiated, but used to bolster Islamic claims.

Up in Syracuse, some Catholics have apparently taken the transformation of Holy Trinity Church into Jesus, Son of Mary Mosque to be a sign of continuity between Christianity and Islam. They might be less sanguine on that score if they knew the rest of the story. (Mohammedanism Gets Another Catholic Church.)

What Dr. Kilpatrick, whose analysis of the falsehoods of Mohammedanism is very accurate and extremely well done, does not understand is that his “pope” has no problem with turning Catholic church into a Mohammedan mosque as he believes that this false religion, which, quite ironically, is premised on a rejection of the doctrine of the Most Holy Trinity, is indeed one that is pleasing to God and is blasphemous and heretical of its very insidious nature.

Pope Leo XIII put it this way in Custodi di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892, and no amount of invoking the philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned “hermeneutic of continuity” can make Pope Leo’s teaching any less in perfect conformity with the precepts of the First and Second Commandments:

Everyone should avoid familiarity or friendship with anyone suspected of belonging to masonry or to affiliated groups. Know them by their fruits and avoid them. Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions, and the craving to reconcile the maxims of the Gospel with those of the revolution. These men seek to reconcile Christ and Belial, the Church of God and the state without God. (Pope Leo XIII, Custodi di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892.)

Judgment: Check. Michael Rubens Bloomberg is in better standing with Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his “bishops” than Dr. William Kilpatrick.

Qualification Number Four: Michael Rubens Bloomberg supports the “gay agenda” in its entirety, including so-called “gay marriage.”

Proof of Qualifications as a Member of the Counterfeit Church of Conciliarism: Well, Bloomberg would have no problem fitting in comfortably as a member of such parishes as Saint Francis Xavier in the Borough of Manhattan in the City of New York, New York, or Saint Brigid Church in Westbury, New York, or Saint Joan of Arc Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota, or Most Holy Redeemer Church in San Francisco, California. He’s in with them for sure.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio, of course, would also welcome Bloomberg into the conciliar fold despite his support of the agenda of perversity, including “marriage” between those of the same gender engaged in sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance, as he would say, “Who am I to judge?” Moreover, Bergoglio is very open to “civil unions,” something that he stressed again in Interview Number Six two months ago now:

Q. Many countries have regulated civil unions. Is it a path that the Church can understand? But up to what point?

Bergoglio: Holy Father: Marriage is between one man and one woman. The secular States want to justify civil unions to regulate different situations of coexistence, spurred by the need to regulate economic aspects between persons as, for instance, to ensure healthcare. Each case must be looked at and evaluated in its diversity. (March 5 interview with Corriere della Sera.)

Neither Michael Bloomberg or Jorge Mario Bergoglio have any sense of the horror of the sin of Sodom. They do not realize that is not any kind of “legal” or “economic” or “health-care” issues raised by those who are engaged in perverse sins against nature that cry out to Heaven for vengeance.  They are the living embodiment of those who approve or who denigrate the gravity of the sin of Sodom, which was described as follows by Saint Paul in his Epistle to the Romans:

Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use against which is their nature.

And in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.

And as they liked not to  have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy.

Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.  (Romans 1: 24-32)

Michael Rubens Bloomberg would thus feel right at home in the counterfeit church of conciliarism alongside such pro-perversity Catholics in public life as Vice President of the United States of America Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., United States Secretary of State John F. Kerry, outgoing United States Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, United States Ambassador to Japan Caroline Kennedy, Minority Leader of the House of Representatives of the United States of America Nancy Patricia D’Alesandro Pelosi, United States Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin (D-Illinois), United States Senators Thomas Harkin (D-Iowa), Patricia Murray (D-Washington), Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island),  Christopher Murphy (D-Connecticut), Robert Menendez (D-New Jersey), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-New York), Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland), Mary Landrieu (D-Louisiana), California Governor Edmund Gerald Brown, Jr., former California Governors Arnold Schwarzenegger and Gray Davis, New York Governor Andrew Mark Cuomo and his father, former New York Governor Mario Matthew Cuomo, former New York Governors George Elmer Pataki and David Paterson, Illinois Governor Patrick Quinn, former Wisconsin Governor James Doyle, former United States Secretary of Agriculture Thomas Vilsack, Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, former Mayor of the City of New York, New York, Rudolph William Giuliani, former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge, United States Representative Charles Bernard Rangel (who is also a Freemason and remains a Catholic in “good standing”), for United States Attorney General Janet Reno, former United States Secretary of Defense  Leon Panetta (a favorite of the now retired conciliar “bishop” of Monterey, California, Sylvester Ryan), forme United States Senator Thomas Daschle, the late United States Representative Geraldine Anne Ferraro-Zaccaro, current Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America Anthony Kennedy and Sonya Sotomayor (non-practicing but not excommunicated, former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Tony Blair, President of Brazil Dilma Rousseff, President of Argentine Christine Kirchener, President of Bolivia Evo Morales (now a pantheist he was once a conciliar “bishop”), President of France Francois Hollande (a baptized Catholic who is now an agnostic, but who has never been excommunicated) and, among so many others, President of Argentina Argentine President Christine Kirchner. (Yes, that’s pretty much the same list as earlier, and that’s precisely the point. Everyone’s welcome in the “big tent” of conciliarism except those who adhere to everything contained within the Sacred Deposit of Faith without exception.

Judgment: Check. Michael Rubens Bloomberg is in “full communion” with the lords of conciliarism when it comes to “tolerance” and “diversity.”

Qualification Number Six: Michael Rubens Bloomberg believes that he, a professed agnostic Talmudist, is going straight to Heaven because of all of the “good” that he does:

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg isn’t sure if there’s an afterlife. But if there is, he believes he’s going straight to Heaven:

“I am telling you if there is a God, when I get to Heaven I’m not stopping to be interviewed,” he told the New York Times, citing his work on gun control, obesity, and anti-smoking laws. “I am heading straight in. I have earned my place in Heaven. It’s not even close.”

The comments came in an article about Bloomberg’s new $50 million effort to counter the National Rifle Association. The new spending is Bloomberg’s “first major political investment since leaving office,” according to the Times. By comparison, the NRA spends about $20 million on political activities annually. 

The money will be spent forming a political network that organizes and motivates pro-gun control voters (and tries to punish elected officials who work against that agenda). Bloomberg said that gun control advocates have to make their opponents “afraid of us.” 

The former mayor’s new group will focus on “the often-unseen field operations that have been effective for groups like the NRA in driving single-issue, like-minded voters to the polls,” and not television ads, the Times report indicated. It’s a new strategy for the billionaire, who has already spent millions of dollars advocating gun control without any major legislative accomplishments. 

His $50 million commitment may grow over time, as well. Asked about spending more, he casually described other political donations and added, “Let’s see what happens.” (I have earned my place in Heaven.)

Proof of Qualification as a Member of the Counterfeit Church of Conciliarism: Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes all that is necessary to go to Heaven is to “do good,” something that he has stated on more than one occasion:

(Vatican Radio) “Doing good” is a principle that unites all humanity, beyond the diversity of ideologies and religions, and creates the “culture of encounter” that is the foundation of peace: this is what Pope said at Mass this morning at the Domus Santae Martae, in the presence of employees of the Governorate of Vatican City. Cardinal Bechara Boutros Rai, Patriarch of Antioch of the Maronites, concelebrated at the Mass.

Wednesday’s Gospel speaks to us about the disciples who prevented a person from outside their group from doing good. “They complain,” the Pope said in his homily, because they say, “If he is not one of us, he cannot do good. If he is not of our party, he cannot do good.” And Jesus corrects them: “Do not hinder him, he says, let him do good.” The disciples, Pope Francis explains, “were a little intolerant,” closed off by the idea of ​​possessing the truth, convinced that “those who do not have the truth, cannot do good.” “This was wrong . . . Jesus broadens the horizon.” Pope Francis said, “The root of this possibility of doing good – that we all have – is in creation”:

“The Lord created us in His image and likeness, and we are the image of the Lord, and He does good and all of us have this commandment at heart: do good and do not do evil. All of us. ‘But, Father, this is not Catholic! He cannot do good.’ Yes, he can. He must. Not can: must! Because he has this commandment within him. Instead, this ‘closing off’ that imagines that those outside, everyone, cannot do good is a wall that leads to war and also to what some people throughout history have conceived of: killing in the name of God. That we can kill in the name of God. And that, simply, is blasphemy. To say that you can kill in the name of God is blasphemy.”

“Instead,” the Pope continued, “the Lord has created us in His image and likeness, and has given us this commandment in the depths of our heart: do good and do not do evil”:

“The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone! And this Blood makes us children of God of the first class! We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all! And we all have a duty to do good. And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace. If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: we need that so much. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.

“Doing good” the Pope explained, is not a matter of faith: “It is a duty, it is an identity card that our Father has given to all of us, because He has made us in His image and likeness. And He does good, always.”

This was the final prayer of Pope Francis:

“Today is [the feast of] Santa Rita, Patron Saint of impossible things – but this seems impossible: let us ask of her this grace, this grace that all, all, all people would do good and that we would encounter one another in this work, which is a work of creation, like the creation of the Father. A work of the family, because we are all children of God, all of us, all of us! And God loves us, all of us! May Santa Rita grant us this grace, which seems almost impossible. Amen.” (Culture of encounter is the foundation of peace.)

Judgment: Check. Michael Rubens Bloomberg, the pro-abortion, pro-perversity, pro-corruption of children by means of explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments, pro-dispensing pills and devices to those children to make it “safe” for them to engage in sins against Holy Purity, quintessential Food Nazi, anti-smoking Nazi and anti-gun-ownng Nazi, pro-population control former Mayor of New York, New York, believes that he is “doing good.” That’s all that matters, right?


Catholic Reality Check to show that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is as much of a non-Catholic as is Michael Bloomberg and that, at least as it stands now in the objective order of things, both are headed for eternal perdition, not eternal life, unless they convert to the true Faith before they die and publicly abjure their support of one evil after another:

It [the Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord’s coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors. Therefore, it commands all who glory in the name of Christian, at whatever time, before or after baptism, to cease entirely from circumcision, since, whether or not one places hope in it, it cannot be observed at all without the loss of eternal salvation. Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not to be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people, but it should be conferred as soon as it can be done conveniently, but so ,that, when danger of death is imminent, they be baptized in the form of the Church, early without delay, even by a layman or woman, if a priest should be lacking, just as is contained more fully in the decree of the Armenians. . . . 

It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. (Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino, Council of Florence, February 4, 1442.)

Not looking for you, Mike and Jorge. Not looking good at all.

We have returned to the days of Arianism, the days in which those who are considered “odd” are those who, despite their own sins and failings, defect from nothing contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith. It is very fitting, therefore, that today is the feast day of the great Saint Athanasius of Alexandria, whose valiant deeds were described by Dom Prosper Gueranger. O.S.B., in The Liturgical Year in such a manner as apply the uncompromising heroism of this much-persecuted bishop and Doctor of the Holy Church, who was exiled on five different occasions from Alexandria, to our very own times of apostasy and betrayal today:

The Court of our divine King, during his grandest of seasons, is brilliant beyond measure; and to-day, it is gladdened by the arrival of one of the most glorious champions of the world of truth for his holy cause. Among the guardians of the word of truth, confided by Jesus to the earth, is there one more faithful than Athanasius? Does not his very name remind us of dauntless courage in the defense of the sacred deposit, of heroic firmness and patience in suffering, of learning, of talent, of eloquence–in a word, of everything that goes to from a Saint, a Bishop, and a Doctor of the Church? Athanasius lived for the Son of God; the cause of the Son of God was that of Athanasius; he who blessed Athanasius, blessed the eternal Word; and he who insulted Athanasius insulted the eternal Word.

Never did our holy faith go through a greater ordeal than in the sad times immediately following the peace of the Church, when the bark of Peter had to pass through the most furious storm that hell has, so far, let loose against her. Satan had vainly sought to drown the Christian race in a sea of blood; the sword of persecution had grown blunt in the hands of Diocletian and Galerius; and the Cross appeared in the heavens, proclaiming the triumph of Christianity. Scarcely had the Church become aware of her victory when she felt herself shaken to her very foundation. Hell sent upon the earth a heresy which threatened to blight the fruit of three hundred years of martyrdom. Arius began his impious doctrine, that he who had hitherto been adored as the Son of God was only a creature, though the most perfect of all creatures. Immense was the number, even of the clergy, that fell into this new error; the Emperors became its abettors; and had not God himself interposed, men would soon have set up the cry throughout the world that the only result of the victory gained by the Christian religion was to change the object of idolatry, and put a new idol, called Jesus, in place of the old ones.

But he who had promised that the gates of hell should never prevail against his Church, faithfully fulfilled his promise. The primitive faith triumphed; the Council of Nicaea proclaimed the Son to be consubstantial with the Father; but the Church stood in need of a man in whom the cause of the consubstantial Word should be, so to speak, incarnated–a man with learning enough to foil the artifices of heresy, and with courage enough to bear every persecution without flinching. This man was Athanasius; and everyone that adores and loves the Son of God, should love and honour Athanasius. Five times banished from his See of Alexandria, he fled for protection to the West, which justly appreciated the glorious confessor of Jesus’ divinity. In return for the hospitality accorded him by Rome, Athanasius gave her of his treasures. Being the admirer and friend of the great St. Antony, he was a fervent admirer of the monastic life, which, by the grace of the Holy Ghost, had flourished so wonderfully in the deserts of his vast patriarchate. He brought the precious seed to Rome, and the first monks seen there were the ones introduced by Athanasius. The heavenly plant became naturalized in its new soil; and though its growth was slow at first, it afterwards produced fruit more abundantly than it had ever done in the East.

Athanasius, who has written so admirably upon that fundamental dogma of our faith–the divinity of Christ–also has left us most eloquent treatises on the mystery of the Pasch: they are to be found in the Festal Letters which he addressed each year to the churches of his patriarchate of Alexandria. The collection of these Letters, which were once thought to be irretrievably lost, was found, a few years back, in the monastery of St. Mary of Scete in Egypt. The first, for the year 329, begins with these words, which beautifully express the sentiments we should feel at the approach of Easter: ‘Come, my beloved brethren, celebrate the feast; the season of the year invites you to do so. The Sun of justice, by pouring out his divine rays upon you that the time of the solemnity is come. At such tidings, let us keep a glad feast; let not the joy slip from us with the fleeting days, without our having tasted of its sweetness.’ During almost every year of his banishment, Athanasius continued to address a Paschal Letter to his people. The one in which he announced the Easter of 338, and which he wrote at Treves, begins thus: ‘Though separated from you, my brethren, I cannot break through the custom which I have always observed, and which I received from the tradition of the Fathers. I will not be silent; I will not omit announcing to you the time of the holy annual feast, and the day on which you must keep the solemnity. I am, as you have doubtless been told, a prey to many tribulations; I am weighed down by heavy trials; I am watched by the enemies of truth, who scrutinize everything I write, in order to rake up accusations against me and thereby add to my sufferings; yet notwithstanding, I feel that the Lord strengthens and consoles me in my afflictions. Therefore do I venture to address to you the annual celebration; and from the midst of my troubles, and despite the snares that beset me, I send you, from the furthermost part of the earth, the tidings of the Pasch, which is our salvation. Commending my fate into God’s hands, I will celebrate this feast with you; distance of place separates us, but I am not absent from you. The lord who gives us these feasts, who is himself our feast, who bestows upon us the gift of his Spirit–he unites us spiritually to one another, by the bond of concord and peace.’

How grand is the Pasch, celebrated by Athanasius, an exile on the Rhine, in union with his people who keep their Easter on the banks of the Nile! It shows us the power of the Liturgy to unite men and make them, at one and the same time, and despite the distance of countries, enjoy the same holy emotions and feel the same aspirations to virtue. Greeks or Barbarians, we have all the same mother country, the Church; but that which, after faith, unites us all into one family, is the Church’s Liturgy. Now there is nothing in the whole Liturgy so expressive of unity as the celebration of Easter. The unhappy Churches of Russia and the East, by keeping Easter on a different day from that on which it is celebrated by the rest of the Christian world, show that they are not a portion of the One Fold of which Our Risen Jesus is the One Shepherd. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year: Pascal Time, Book II, pp. 403-406.)

We must defend the Faith as we accept the rebukes that come out way in silence as we suffer in joy Christ the King as His consecrated slaves through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, thanking Our Lord abundantly for opportunity to be more perfectly conformed to His Holy Cross and as we seek to draw inspiration from this prayer of Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., to our glorious Saint of this day:

Intercede for the country over which was extended thy patriarchal jurisdiction; but forget not this Europe of ours, which gave thee hospitality and protection. Rome defended thy cause; she passed sentence in thy favour, and restored thee thy rights; make her a return, now that thou art face to face with the God of infinite goodness and power. Protect and console her Pontiff, the successor of that Julius who so nobly befriended thee fifteen hundred years ago. A fierce tempest is now raging against the Rock on which is built the Church of Christ; and our eyes have grown wearied for a sign of calm. Oh! pray that these days of trial be shortened, and that the See of Peter may triumph over the calumnies and persecutions which are now besetting her, and endangering the faith of many of her children.

Thy zeal, O Athanasius! checked the ravages of Arianism; but this heresy has again appeared, in our own times, and in almost every country of Europe. Its progress is due to that proud superficial learning which has become one of the principal perils of the age. The Eternal Son of God, consubstantial with the Father, is blasphemed by our so-called philosophers, as being only Man–the best and greatest of men, they say, but still only Man. They despise all the proofs which reason and history adduce of Jesus’ divinity; they profess a sort regard for the Christian teaching which has hitherto been held, but they have discovered (so they tell us) the fallacy of the great dogma which recognizes in the Son of Mary the Eternal Word who became incarnate for man’s salvation. O Athanasius, glorious Doctor of of holy Mother Church! humble these modern Arians; expose their proud ignorance and sophistry; undeceive their unhappy followers, by letting them see how this false doctrine leads either to the abyss of the abominations of pantheism, or to the chaos of scepticism, where all truth and morally are impossibilities.

Preserve within us, by the influence of they prayers, the precious gift of faith, wherewith our Lord has mercifully blessed us. Obtain for us that we may ever confess and adore Jesus Christ our eternal and infinite God, ‘God of God; Light of Light; True God of True God; Begotten not men; who for us men, and for our salvation, took Flesh, of the Virgin Mary.’ May we grow each day in the knowledge of this Jesus, until we join thee in the face-to-face contemplation of his perfections. Meanwhile, by means of holy faith, we will live with him on this earth that has witnessed the glory of his Resurrection. How fervent, O Athanasius, was thy love of this Son of God, our Creator and Redeemer! This love was the very life of thy soul, and the stimulus that urged thee to heroic devotedness to his cause. It supported thee in the combats thou hadst to sustain with the world, which seemed leagued together against thy single person. It gave thee strength to endless tribulations. Oh! pray that we may obtain this love–a love which is fearless of danger, because faithful to him for whom we suffer–a Brightness of his Father’s glory, and Infinite Wisdom, emptied himself, taking the form of a servant and humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the Cross. How else can we make him a return for his devotedness to us except by giving him all our love,as thou didst. O Athanasius! and by ever singing his praise in compensation for the humiliations which he endured in order to save us? (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year: Paschal Time: Book II, pp. 411-413.)

Saint Athanasius has given us marching orders, and those marching orders do not make us Pharisees, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, or “closed-minded:”

They have the premises – but you have the Apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you. Let us consider: what is more important, the place or the Faith? The true Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in the struggle – the one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith? True, the premises are good when the Apostolic Faith is preached there; they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way …

“You are the ones who are happy; you who remain within the Church by your Faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the Faith which has come down to you from Apostolic Tradition. And if an execrable jealousy has tried to shake it on a number of occasions, it has not succeeded. They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis. No one, ever, will prevail against your Faith, beloved Brothers. And we believe that God will give us our churches back some day.

“Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray. Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.” (Letter of St. Athanasius to his flock.)

Let these words continue to be our consolation in these days when it is easier for most people to believe in the mythologies of naturalists in the political realm and the Modernists in the theological realm who esteem false idols than it is to hold steadfast to the Faith.

We turn to Our Lady with every beat of our hearts, consecrated as they must be to Most Sacred Heart of her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, pledging to her in this month of May to pray the Litany of Loreto every day in addition to praying as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit. We can crown Our Lady as Queen of our hearts by making reparation for our sins and those of the whole world by enslaving ourselves to her Divine Son through her Immaculate Heart, giving unto whatever merit we earn each day so that she can dispose of that merit however she sees fit for the honor and glory of the Most Holy Trinity and for the good of souls in the Church Suffering in Purgatory and here in the Church Militant on earth.

The final victory belongs to Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart. We must consider it a privilege that we are alive in these times to plant a few seeds for the restoration of the Church Militant on earth and for the restoration of Christendom in the world.

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 Andrew the Apostle, 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 Athanasius, pray for us.

Jorge’s The One Is As Blind As A Bat

It was thirty-one days ago today, Tuesday, March 25, 2014, the Feast of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Commemoration of Tuesday in the Third Week of Lent, that the following news story was featured in Way, Way Beyond the Brave New World:

The bodies of thousands of aborted and miscarried babies were incinerated as clinical waste, with some even used to heat hospitals, an investigation has found.

Ten NHS trusts have admitted burning foetal remains alongside other rubbish while two others used the bodies in ‘waste-to-energy’ plants which generate power for heat.

Last night the Department of Health issued an instant ban on the practice which health minister Dr Dan Poulter branded ‘totally unacceptable.’

At least 15,500 foetal remains were incinerated by 27 NHS trusts over the last two years alone, Channel 4’s Dispatches discovered.

The programme, which will air tonight, found that parents who lose children in early pregnancy were often treated without compassion and were not consulted about what they wanted to happen to the remains.

One of the country’s leading hospitals, Addenbrooke’s in Cambridge, incinerated 797 babies below 13 weeks gestation at their own ‘waste to energy’ plant. The mothers were told the remains had been ‘cremated.’

Another ‘waste to energy’ facility at Ipswich Hospital, operated by a private contractor, incinerated 1,101 foetal remains between 2011 and 2013.

They were brought in from another hospital before being burned, generating energy for the hospital site. Ipswich Hospital itself disposes of remains by cremation.

“This practice is totally unacceptable,” said Dr Poulter.

“While the vast majority of hospitals are acting in the appropriate way, that must be the case for all hospitals and the Human Tissue Authority has now been asked to ensure that it acts on this issue without delay.”

Sir Bruce Keogh, NHS Medical Director, has written to all NHS trusts to tell them the practice must stop.

The Chief Medical Officer, Dame Sally Davies, has also written to the Human Tissue Authority to ask them make sure that guidance is clear.

And the Care Quality Commission said it would investigate the programme’s findings.

Prof Sir Mike Richards, Chief Inspector of Hospitals, said: “I am disappointed trusts may not be informing or consulting women and their families.

“This breaches our standard on respecting and involving people who use services and I’m keen for Dispatches to share their evidence with us.

“We scrutinise information of concern and can inspect unannounced, if required.”

A total of one in seven pregnancies ends in a miscarriage, while NHS figures show there are around 4,000 stillbirths each year in the UK, or 11 each day.

Ipswich Hospital Trust said it was concerned to discover that foetal remains from another hospital had been incinerated on its site.

A spokeswoman said: “The Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust does not incinerate foetal remains.”

She added that the trust “takes great care over foetal remains”

A spokesman for the Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust said that trained health professionals discuss the options with parents ‘both verbally and in writing.’

“The parents are given exactly the same choice on the disposal of foetal remains as for a stillborn child and their personal wishes are respected,” they added. (Aborted babies incinerated to heat UK hospitals.)

This is what I wrote at the time thirty-one days ago now:

How can God’s just chastisement not be far behind?

“Human Tissue Authority”?

This is straight out of George Orwell’s 1984 and Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World.

Upon what moral “high ground” can any Western nation, including the United States of America, stand to condemn the actions of the likes of Adolf Hitler in the past or any of the alleged “bad guys” of the present who are supposed to inhabit “other countries”

Don’t kid yourselves: such things are happening right here in the United States of America, the supposed “land of the free” and the “home of the brave.”

Millions of butchered preborn babies have been thrown out with the refuse or simply burned as so much garbage right here in the supposedly “civilized” United States of America.

Yet it is that many killing centers, including hospitals, here in the United States of America and the supposedly “free world” champion themselves as the “lovers of the poor” and the “downtrodden,” to whom their authorities  dispense chemicals, pills and devices to kill preborn babies or to prevent them from being conceived. This is “charitable,” hospital administrators believe, as it helps to “limit” the number of mouths that “the poor” have to feed and permits them to more time and money with which to “enjoy” themselves. (Way, Way Beyond the Brave New World.)

As it turns out, there is proof that such monstrous things are happening right here in the United States of America, the supposed “shining city set on a hill” and “last, best hope of mankind,” descriptions that belong alone to the Catholic Church and to no country:

SALEM, Oregon, April 24, 2014 ( – The Marion County Board of Commissioners announced late Wednesday that they are putting a stop to a waste-to-energy facility’s program that was incinerating aborted babies to produce electricity.

The B.C. Catholic’s Steve Weatherbe revealed April 21 that the British Columbia government was sending fetal remains to the Covanta Marion waste-to-energy facility to be burned along with other medical waste. The story made national news after LifeSiteNews reported on the revelation Wednesday afternoon.

“We are outraged and disgusted that this material could be included in medical waste received at the facility,” said Commissioner Janet Carlson in a Wednesday statement.

“We did not know this practice was occurring until today. We are taking immediate action and initiating discussions with Covanta Marion to make certain that this type of medical waste is not accepted in the future.”

The board says it has called an emergency meeting for Thursday morning at 9:00 a.m. to discuss the issue.

The British Columbia Ministry of Health said in an email to the B.C. Catholic that “biomedical waste” shipped to the U.S. to be incinerated includes “human tissue, such as surgically removed cancerous tissue, amputated limbs, and fetal tissue.”

“The ministry understands that some is transferred to Oregon. There it is incinerated in a waste-to-energy plant,” the email stated.

The ministry said that contractors handling the province’s “biomedical waste” follow “health and safety protocols, as well as federal, provincial, and local regulations.”

Kristan Mitchell, executive director of the Oregon Refuse and Recycling Association, told the B.C. Catholic that the “biomedical waste” likely ends up at the Covanta Marion waste-to-energy facility in Oregon since it is the only facility that uses waste to power the grid. The facility confirmed that it still receives and incinerates B.C. medical waste.

The power facility, located in Brookes just off the I-5, burns waste in two massive boilers at a temperature of about 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The heat transfers into water tubes, which creates steam to drive turbines. The turbines generate electricity.

This news came one month after the remains of more than 15,000 aborted babies were found to have been incinerated, along with other “medical waste,” to heat and generate power for British hospitals. (Oregon county puts stop to incinerating aborted babies for electricity: ‘we are outraged’.)

Mind you, this is simply one instance in which this horrific practice was discovered here in this country. There are doubtlessly more such cases.

What is very telling, however, is that Marion County Commissioner Janet Carlson says that she is “outraged” by the incineration of the remains of butchered preborn babies. Why is not Commissioner Janet Carlson outraged by the butchery itself?

Perhaps even more to the point, what is not Commissioner Janet Carlson outraged by the use of the remains of butchered babies in cosmetics and vaccines and other “consumer” products? Perhaps she is not even aware of such uses. Perhaps she does not want to be informed about them.

Here is an article from five years ago dealing with the use of the cells of butchered babies in a particular line of cosmetics:

A San Francisco cosmetics company has ignited an outcry among pro-lifers for including an unexpected ingredient in its anti-aging creams: skin-cell proteins from an aborted fetus.

Children of God for Life, a watchdog group that monitors the use of fetal material in medical products, called last week for a boycott of all treatments manufactured by Neocutis Inc., which acknowledges that the key ingredient in its product line was developed from an aborted boy.

“There’s just no excuse for using aborted babies in skin-care products,” said Debi Vinnedge, executive director of Children of God for Life, a 10-year-old organization based in Murfreesboro, Tenn. “The reaction, the shock and anger I’ve seen is incredible.”

In a statement released Friday, in response to a wave of condemnation from pro-life and religious blogs, Neocutis defended the use of its trademarked ingredient, Processed Skin Cell Proteins, or PSP, arguing that the fetal cell line was harvested in a responsible, ethical manner for use in treating severe dermatological injuries.

The company compared its situation to that of researchers who used fetal kidney cells to develop the polio vaccine.

“Our view – which is shared by most medical professionals and patients – is that the limited, prudent and responsible use of donated fetal skin tissue can continue to ease suffering, speed healing, save lives and improve the well-being of many patients around the globe,” said the statement.

The ingredient was developed at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland from proteins in the skin tissue of a 14-week-old male baby electively aborted at the university’s hospital and donated to the Swiss university. The abortion was deemed medically necessary because the baby could not survive to term, according to Neocutis.

The fetal skin cell line was taken from a piece of skin the size of a postage stamp and donated voluntarily by the parents for medical research. The donation was approved by the hospital’s medical ethics committee and in accordance with Swiss laws, said the Neocutis statement.

Neocutis also insisted that the one donation would be sufficient for the manufacture of its products. Critics argue that it’s impossible to know how long the cell line will last, but Neocutis states on its Web site that “no additional fetal biopsies will ever be required.”

“We feel we are in complete compliance with the laws of God and the laws of man,” Neocutis President Mark J. Lemko said in an e-mail response to critics, which was posted on the Children of God for Life Web site.

Ms. Vinnedge accused the company of playing up PSP’s medical applications in order to draw attention from its cosmetic uses. Although the company developed PSP for the treatment of skin ulcers, burns and scarring, Neocutis soon recognized the ingredient’s value in restoring aging skin.

Neocutis cosmetic products using the cell line include Bio-Restorative Skin Cream, Bio-Gel Bio-Restorative Hydrogel, Lumiere Bio-Restorative Eye Cream and Bio-Restorative Serum with PSP Intensive Spot Treatment. In terms of price, they’re not exactly comparable to Maybelline: A 1-ounce bottle of Journee Bio-Restorative Day Cream costs $120.

Judie Brown, president of American Life League, said that although use of aborted fetal parts is indefensible for any purpose, Neocutis’ use for a product as trivial as an anti-aging cream speaks uniquely to current trends and the desire for eternal youth.

“What’s new about this is our cultural attitude toward beautification and our sense of self … and living forever,” she said.

Ms. Vinnedge said she would object to the use of the fetal cell lines no matter what their use, medical or cosmetic, arguing that mature cells are just as effective. Indeed, other companies make high-end skin creams using proteins derived from postnatal placentas, which Mrs. Brown called completely morally acceptable to pro-lifers.

Even so, Ms. Vinnedge said, using fetal tissue in anti-wrinkle cream crosses moral and ethical boundaries.

“This is pure vanity,” Ms. Vinnedge said. “We’re talking a medical treatment versus a vanity treatment.”

She compared it to the Nazis’ use of the skin of Jews to make lampshades. Her Web site showed a clip from the 1973 science-fiction movie “Soylent Green,” in which the “secret ingredient” in a popular wafer is found to be human flesh.

The original skin sample may have been tiny, she said, but so is a 14-week unborn baby. “They say the skin sample was the size of a postage stamp – well, something that size could mean the whole back,” Ms. Vinnedge said.

Neither the Neocutis Web site nor its advertising makes any secret of the company’s use of fetal cell lines.

The firm’s online entries say the products were “inspired by fetal skin’s unique properties” and that the technology “uses cultured fetal skin cells to obtain an optimal, naturally balanced mixture of skin nutrients.”

“Neocutis means, literally, new skin. And who wouldn’t like to turn back time to create flawless baby skin again?” says one ad.

Even the company’s critics were surprised by its candor. For years, Ms. Vinnedge said, she has heard rumors that some beauty companies use aborted fetal cell lines in their products, but she’s never been able to confirm it because the Food and Drug Administration doesn’t require the listing of cosmetic ingredients.

“Usually, when people to write to us about cosmetics, we tell them it’s impossible to find out,” Ms. Vinnedge said. “That’s why I can’t believe [Neocutis] posted it.”

Mrs. Brown said the company’s statement struck her as morally and philosophically unmoored.

“We think the company has taken the position they have because they’re trying to align themselves with the Catholic identity of some of their founders,” she said. Neocutis officials “don’t seem to think there’s any complicity on their part” for using the products of the abortion.

“I think that many companies just say, ‘Is there a good to be achieved,’ and don’t care how,” she said.

Mrs. Brown said this development isn’t especially surprising to her, recalling that her group published a book in 1981 called “101 Uses for a Dead Baby,” in which author Olga Fairfax wrote that fetal tissue could be used for skin care products and even to grow new limbs.

“Now, we’re more advanced than [Ms. Fairfax] could have imagined,” Mrs. Brown said.

Ms. Vinnedge’s organization has pushed Congress for years for more detailed labeling legislation in medicine, but she says she’ll now expand her proposal to include cosmetics.

“PETA made sure we know that companies aren’t testing cosmetics on animals,” she said of the animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. “We want to make sure they’re not using fetal material.” (Aborted fetus cells used in beauty creams.)

It is also well known that the cells from butchered babies are used in vaccines:

August 22, 2013 (MercatorNet) – After decades of ignoring the issue, Nature, the world’s leading science journal, has finally acknowledged that creating life-saving vaccines from tissue from aborted foetuses is a deeply controversial ethical issue.

In 1964, an American researcher obtained cells from a Swedish foetus aborted because her mother already had enough children. He coaxed them into multiplying into a cell line which he called WI-38. Since they were normal and healthy, they were ideal for creating vaccines. Two years later, scientists in the UK obtained cells from a 14-week male fetus aborted for “psychiatric reasons” from a 27-year-old British woman. This cell line is called MRC-5.

It is undeniable that the vaccines made from WI-38 and MRC-5 cells have saved millions of lives. Scientists have made vaccines against rubella, rabies, adenovirus, polio, measles, chickenpox and shingles, as well as smallpox, chicken pox and hepatitis A.

But protests by opponents of abortion have been largely ignored by the scientific community. If you Google “vaccines” and “abortion”, only Catholic groups, right-to-life organisations and sites warning about the dangers of vaccinations mention the topic. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention barely alludes to it even though it has abundant information on vaccines. A website called Vaccine Ethics at the University of Pennsylvania Center for Bioethics fails to mention it.

The reason is clear: vaccines save lives and the abortions happened a long time ago. Get over it. Who cares? “At the time [the fetus] was obtained there was no issue in using discarded material. Retrospective ethics is easy but presumptuous,” says Stanley Plotkin, the American scientist who developed the rubella vaccine. “I am fond of saying that rubella vaccine has prevented thousands more abortions than have ever been prevented by Catholic religionists.”

But now even Nature – which supports abortion rights and reproductive technology – has expressed its misgivings. “More than 50 years after the WI-38 cell line was derived from a fetus, science and society [have] still to get to grips with the ethical issues of using human tissue in research,” its editorial declared in June.

What has changed?

If you could single out a reason, it would be the intensely moving 2010 best-seller, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, by Rebecca Skloot. This book has nothing to do with abortion, but it highlights the deep respect, almost sacredness, that the body of a human person must command, even something as insignificant as discarded tissue.

Henrietta Lacks was an African-American woman who was 31 when she died of cervical cancer in 1951. Cells from her tumour became the first human cells cultured continuously for use in research. HeLa cells have helped to make possible some of the most important medical advances of the past 60 years, including modern vaccines, cancer treatments, and IVF techniques. They are the most widely used human cell lines in existence. More than 300 scientific papers are published every month using HeLa cells.

There is no question about their usefulness – but were they obtained ethically? Is it ethical to continue using them?

The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks raises disturbing questions which transcend “usefulness”. Henrietta Lacks was poor and black. Her children, it seems, are even poorer. A doctor at Johns Hopkins removed her cells without asking her. He cultivated the cells without informing her. He distributed the cells without asking permission of her family. Companies became rich by using her cells without paying royalties. Her family only learned that their mother’s cells had been scattered around the world in 1973. Their complaints were ignored for many years – after all, they were only poor, uneducated black folks.

No one cared about the woman called Henrietta Lacks who was overdosed with radium, who died leaving five children behind, one of them an epileptic housed in a filthy, chaotic institution called The Hospital for the Negro Insane. Some people even thought that HeLa cells originated with a woman named Helen Lane. Her daughter wrote in a diary, “When that day came, and my mother died, she was Robbed of her cells and John Hopkins Hospital learned of those cells and kept it to themselfs, and gave them to who they wanted and even changed the name to HeLa cell and kept it from us for 20+ years. They say Donated. No No No Robbed Self.”

It was only earlier this year that the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) negotiated an agreement with the family. All researchers who use or generate full genomic data from HeLa cells must now include in their publications an acknowledgement and expression of gratitude to the Lacks family.

Incredibly, despite all the publicity, scientists continued to ignore the concerns of the Lacks family. Just a few months ago, German researchers published the first sequence of the full HeLa genome. This compromised not only Henrietta Lacks’s genetic privacy but also her family’s. (The researchers have removed the sequence from public view.)

The story of HeLa cells, in short, is twofold: a story of towering scientific achievement and a story of exploitation by ambitious and callous scientists.

Less famous, but even more important, says Nature, have been WI-38 cells. HeLa cells multiply prolifically, but they are cancerous. WI-38 cells are healthy and normal and have been used to develop vaccines against rubella, rabies, adenovirus, polio, measles, chickenpox and shingles. Their origin is even more controversial than the dark story of Henrietta Lacks. (Aborted fetus cells used in beauty creams.)

The fact remains that a country whose laws permit the daily slaughter of the innocent preborn by chemical, mechanical and surgical means will be unable to hold back the flood tides of further moral degradation and decay.

How many times does it need to be pointed out that Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order?

How many times is it necessary to repeat the following truth, stated so clearly by Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostlique, 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. The new Sillonists cannot pretend that they are merely working on “the ground of practical realities” where differences of belief do not matter. Their leader is so conscious of the influence which the convictions of the mind have upon the result of the action, that he invites them, whatever religion they may belong to, “to provide on the ground of practical realities, the proof of the excellence of their personal convictions.” And with good reason: indeed, all practical results reflect the nature of one’s religious convictions, just as the limbs of a man down to his finger-tips, owe their very shape to the principle of life that dwells in his body. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

How anyone can expect that the current eruption of the volcanic ash generated by  Mount Statism, which is the logical, inexorable result of the Protestant Revolution against the Social Reign of Christ the King as It must be exercised by the Catholic Church, will be stopped by purely natural means continues to astound me. It is simply not possible for there to be a “restoration” of supposed “constitutional sanity” and “limited government” when even the “pope” himself believes that it is not necessary to speak about moral issues and goes out of his way to praise and publicly embrace statists who support each of the evils that cry out to Heaven for vengeance because they are said to be for “the poor.”

Alas, Jorge has provided cover for the pro-aborts and pro-perverts in the organized crime family of the naturalist “left” while at the same time given those in the false opposite of the organize crime family of the naturalist “right” an opportunity to get rid of the “divisive” “moral issues” once and for all. This is precisely what the Republican Party of the State of Nevada has done, and others are sure to follow suit in short order:

.- Several hundred delegates of the Nevada Republican Party approved a party platform Saturday that lacks a pro-life plank and drops support for the definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman.

Nevada State Party Chairman Michael McDonald told the Las Vegas Review-Journal he thought the party platform was “about inclusion, not exclusion.”

This is where the party is going.”

Fewer than half of the original 520 party delegates were present to vote to approve the platform the evening of April 12 at the party’s annual convention, held at South Point Casino-Hotel in Las Vegas.

The platform vote took place long after the convention’s scheduled 9 a.m. start time, and the modified platform had been proposed by a committee, according to the Review-Journal.

The members of the platform committee said they had decided not to deal with the removed issues in 2014 because the U.S. Supreme Court and other courts had made decisions on them.

Platform committee member Dave Hockaday told the Review-Journal that the platform was a question of how the party can “back out of people’s personal lives.”

We need to focus on issues where we can have an impact.”

CNA contacted Nevada Right to Life to comment on the platform change, but the organization could not be reached for comment. (Nevada Republicans Drop Pro-Life Marriage Stand.)

The belief that one can realize material prosperity at home and “peace” internationally while God is offended daily under cover of the civil law is delusional. Although I have been saying and writing this for many years now, we cannot even begin to imagine the price that the so-called “civilized” nations of the Western world will have to pay for these daily offenses.

Readers of this website should, at least by now, understand that it is impossible to realize the common temporal good, which must be pursued in light 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 in Heaven, while promoting and engaging in actions that break God’s laws and thereby wound the souls of men, introducing disorder and chaos into their lives and that of their nations:

The more closely the temporal power of a nation aligns itself with the spiritual, and the more it fosters and promotes the latter, by so much the more it contributes to the conservation of the commonwealth. For it is the aim of the ecclesiastical authority by the use of spiritual means, to form good Christians in accordance with its own particular end and object; and in doing this it helps at the same time to form good citizens, and prepares them to meet their obligations as members of a civil society. This follows of necessity because in the City of God, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, a good citizen and an upright man are absolutely one and the same thing. How grave therefore is the error of those who separate things so closely united, and who think that they can produce good citizens by ways and methods other than those which make for the formation of good Christians. For, let human prudence say what it likes and reason as it pleases, it is impossible to produce true temporal peace and tranquillity by things repugnant or opposed to the peace and happiness of eternity. (Silvio Cardinal Antoniano, quoted by Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.)

Moreover, the man whom most people believe to be the “pope” believes that those who weep over their own sins and the sins that abound so freely in this lawless world of ours are akin to “bats,” blind creatures who do not know the joy of the Resurrection of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, something he made clear yet again yesterday morning during his daily lesson at the Ding Dong School of Apostasy:

Taking his cue from the gospel reading of the risen Christ appearing before his disciples, Pope Francis began by noting how instead of rejoicing over his resurrection, the disciples were struck by fear instead of joy.

“This is a Christian’s disease. We’re afraid of joy. It’s better to think: Yes, yes, God exists, but He is there. Jesus has risen and He is there. Somewhat distant. We’re afraid of being close to Jesus because this gives us joy. And this is why there are so many ‘funeral’ (mournful) Christians, isn’t it? Those whose lives seem to be a perpetual funeral. They prefer sadness to joy. They move about better in the shadows, not in the light of joy, like those animals who only come out at night, not in the light of day, who can’t see anything. Like bats. And with a little sense of humour we can say that there are Christian bats who prefer the shadows to the light of the presence of the Lord.” (There are “bat-like Christians” who prefer the shadows to the light of the Lord).

The one who is really blind as a bat is Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who does not believe that men can weep over their own sins and those of the whole world as they carry the Cross of the Divine Redeemer with joy, knowing that there is no other path to the joy of an unendng Easter Sunday in Paradise than trodden on by Our Lord Himself, the Via Dolorosa.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is as blind as a bat as he refuses to see and thus accept the simple fact the false doctrines, sacrilegious worship and “innovative” pastoral practices of his false church have let loose a floodtide of evil in the world that had been dammed up for centuries solely by the sanctifying and teaching offices of the Catholic Church. The world is now flooded with evil precisely because the lords of conciliarism, intent on “beatifying” and “canonizing” their remote and proximate predecessors, have sought to tear down the “bastions,” thus inundating souls with a torrent of pestilential evils that are without parallel in their depth, width and breadth.

God will not be mocked. He continues to send clear signs of His displeasure by means of natural disasters of various sorts, and it is indeed very possible that He is showing his displeasure with the lords of conciliarism and their numerous falsehoods by permitting various events to occur in close proximity to developments in the conciliar church.

To wit, the tragic death of a well-meaning soul, Marco Gusmini, while he was standing in front of hideous “bent” crucifix that was erected to honor the visit of the soon-to-be “Pope Saint John Paul the Great” to Brescia, Italy, in 1998 and move thereafter to Cevo, Italy, could be very well be yet another sign that God will no longer be mocked by even the hideous images erected by the conciliarists (remember that asteroid that struck the dome of the Basilica of Saint Peter on the evening of February 11, 2013, a few hours after Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict announced his resignation as the head of the conciliar church):

A 21-year old man has died after being crushed by a crucifix erected in honour of Pope John Paul II in northern Italy.

Marco Gusmini was killed instantly and one other man taken to hospital, Italian media reported.

Part of the 30m-high (100ft) sculpture collapsed at a ceremony ahead of the Pope’s canonisation. John Paul II and his predecessor, Pope John XXIII, are due to be declared saints on Sunday.

The crucifix commemorates the Pope’s visit to the area in 1998.

The installation, near the town of Cevo, was designed as a large curved cross with a statue of Jesus Christ, weighing 600kg (1,320lb), fixed to the top.

A group of children were reported to be in attendance at the time.

The cross was designed by sculptor Enrico Job and was created for John Paul II’s visit to nearby Brescia.

The two popes will be declared saints at the Vatican on Sunday.

It is not the first death caused by a falling crucifix in Italy.

In 2004, the Associated Press reported that a 72-year old woman had been crushed to death by a 7ft-tall metal crucifix in the town of Sant’Onofrio in the south of the country. (Crucifix Erected in Honor of Wojtyla/John Paul II collapses and kills a twenty-one year-old man.)

Omitted from the report above was the fact that the late Mr. Gusmini lived on “Pope John XIII” Street in Lovere, Italy:

The massive cross was unusually shaped – it bowed and bent downwards and was held in place by steel cables.

In what one Italian newspaper called “a tragedy full of disturbing coincidences”, the victim lived with his parents in a town called Lovere in Via Papa Giovanni XXIII – Pope John XXIII Street. (Man Crushed to Death by Giant Crucifix Dedicated to Wojtyla/John Paul II.)

It is perhaps the case that this is no more of a “coincidence” than the earthquake that shook the Basilica of Saint Francis of Assisi in Assisi, Italy, on September 26, 1997, just thirty-one days shy of the eleventh anniversary of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II having presided over a veritable assortment of the friends of Ba’al, who offered “worship” to their false gods, as totally unrelated to the sacrileges that had taken place there. The following photograph says volumes about the loss of all sense of the honor and glory and majesty of the Most Blessed Trinity exhibited the soon-to-be “Saint John Paul II.” 

Remember also that flooding devastated the Shrine of Our Lady of Lourdes twice in the past year.

The first wave of flooding hit Lourdes on October 21, 2012, just eight days after it had been reported shortly after it had been reported that Giovanni Montini/Paul The Sick’s cause for “beatification” was approved by the conciliar Congregation for the Causes of the Saints (see Paul VI to be beatified soon and France assesses damage of Lourdes flooding):

A massive clean-up was under way on Sunday in the French pilgrimage town of Lourdes, famed for its Catholic sanctuaries, after flash floods forced the evacuation of some 450 pilgrims and closed the main shrine.

Flooding at the Grotto of Massabielle, Round 1

A second wave of flooding devastated the Grotto of Massabielle on the very day, Tuesday, June 18, 2013, that the ANSA news service in Italy reported that Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II’s alleged second “miracle” had been approved by the conciliar congregation for the causes of making phony saints and was simply awaiting “papal” approval for their joint “canonization” (see Two For The Price Of One, part one and Two For The Price Of One, part two and Vatican-sources-say-second-miracle-approved-for-John-Paul-II):

France Flood

June 19, 2013, the day after the rains hit Lourdes, France


I do not think so.
Jorge Mario Bergoglio is simply as blind as that proverbial bat to see the hand of God a work in these catastrophic events that reflect the catastrophe that is conciliarism itself and all of the evil let loose as a result of Angelo Roncalli/John XIII’s “opening to the world” and Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II’s incessant calls for the “civilization of love.”
Keep praying your Rosaries in reparation for the many sins against the honor and glory and majesty of the Most Blessed Trinity and the devastation of souls that are being televised live for the whole world to see.
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.

Taking Refuge In Racism To Break the Laws of God and Man

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?


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:

( — 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.

Minds Made Up Wrong Must Be Remade

One of the lessons that a child must learn as he grows older is to make his own bed immediately upon arising after saying his Morning Prayers. A bed, however, that is made up incorrectly must be remade. Many children balk when told to remade a bed.

Well, the same thing is true with a mind as one grows older. A mind that is made up wrong on a matter must be remade in accord with what is true. Many adults balk when told they their minds have been made up wrong, finding all manner of rationalizations not to do so, including to admit the truth when it is put directly, squarely in front of their very eyes.

This is what so many in the “resist while recognize” are doing at this time as they ignore Pope Leo XIII’s Epistola Tua, June 17, 1885, and Est Sane Molestum, December 17, 1888, just as blithely as they ignored all of the multiple offenses that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI gave to the honor and glory of the Most Blessed Trinity between April 19, 2005, and February 28, 2013. Most of those in the insanity of the Motu world pretended as though ignoring such things as “Pope Benedict XVI’s” personally esteeming the symbols of false religions with his own priestly hands and his entering into and calling “sacred” various temples of false worship mattered in the slightest even though they had eviscerated Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II for doing the exact same things between October 16, 1978, and April 1/2, 2005 (there is some evidence that Wojtyla/John Paul II died on April 1, 2005, but did not announce his death until the next evening in order to make it appear that he had “appointed” seventeen men to be conciliar “bishops” on Friday, April 1, 2005).

No, the evidence provided by the Novus Ordo Watch Wire about the complete incompatibility of the “resist while recognize” position with Catholic teaching cannot be ignored with impunity. Pope Leo XIII’s words are very clear.

Consider a few excerpts from Epistola Tua, June 17, 1885:

To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation. Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor. In this subordination and dependence lie the order and life of the Church; in it is to be found the indispensable condition of well-being and good government. On the contrary, if it should happen that those who have no right to do so should attribute authority to themselves, if they presume to become judges and teachers, if inferiors in the government of the universal Church attempt or try to exert an influence different from that of the supreme authority, there follows a reversal of the true order, many minds are thrown into confusion, and souls leave the right path.

And to fail in this most holy duty it is not necessary to perform an action in open opposition whether to the Bishops or to the Head of the Church; it is enough for this opposition to be operating indirectly, all the more dangerous because it is the more hidden. Thus, a soul fails in this sacred duty when, at the same time that a jealous zeal for the power and the prerogatives of the Sovereign Pontiff is displayed, the Bishops united to him are not given their due respect, or sufficient account is not taken of their authority, or their actions and intentions are interpreted in a captious manner, without waiting for the judgment of the Apostolic See.

Similarly, it is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed.

On this point what must be remembered is that in the government of the Church, except for the essential duties imposed on all Pontiffs by their apostolic office, each of them can adopt the attitude which he judges best according to times and circumstances. Of this he alone is the judge. It is true that for this he has not only special lights, but still more the knowledge of the needs and conditions of the whole of Christendom, for which, it is fitting, his apostolic care must provide. He has the charge of the universal welfare of the Church, to which is subordinate any particular need, and all others who are subject to this order must second the action of the supreme director and serve the end which he has in view. Since the Church is one and her head is one, so, too, her government is one, and all must conform to this.

When these principles are forgotten there is noticed among Catholics a diminution of respect, of veneration, and of confidence in the one given them for a guide; then there is a loosening of that bond of love and submission which ought to bind all the faithful to their pastors, the faithful and the pastors to the Supreme Pastor, the bond in which is principally to be found security and common salvation.

In the same way, by forgetting or neglecting these principles, the door is opened wide to divisions and dissensions among Catholics, to the grave detriment of union which is the distinctive mark of the faithful of Christ, and which, in every age, but particularly today by reason of the combined forces of the enemy, should be of supreme and universal interest, in favor of which every feeling of personal preference or individual advantage ought to be laid aside.

That obligation, if it is generally incumbent on all, is, you may indeed say, especially pressing upon journalists. If they have not been imbued with the docile and submissive spirit so necessary to each Catholic, they would assist in spreading more widely those deplorable matters and in making them more burdensome. The task pertaining to them in all the things that concern religion and that are closely connected to the action of the Church in human society is this: to be subject completely in mind and will, just as all the other faithful are, to their own bishops and to the Roman Pontiff; to follow and make known their teachings; to be fully and willingly subservient to their influence; and to reverence their precepts and assure that they are respected. He who would act otherwise in such a way that he would serve the aims and interests of those whose spirit and intentions We have reproved in this letter would fail the noble mission he has undertaken. So doing, in vain would he boast of attending to the good of the Church and helping her cause, no less than someone who would strive to weaken or diminish Catholic truth, or indeed someone who would show himself to be her overly fearful friend. (Pope Leo XIII, Epistola Tua,  June 17, 1885.)

The writing that I did during my “conservative” and “indult” years in the 1980s and 1990s stands condemned by the words of Pope Leo XIII. I was wrong to have written an open letter, printed on the editorial page of The Wanderer ten years ago this month, rebuking Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II for the permission he gave for the use of girl altar boys. I was wrong to have used the printed pages of Christ or Chaos to point out his religious indifferentism when he was in Jerusalem in March of 2000. Similarly, I was wrong to have written Time for Plain Talk in March of 2002 to explain the soon-to-be “canonized” “Polish Pope’s” enabling of perverted “bishops” and their clergymen.

The work that I did in The Remnant from December of 2002 to May of 2006 and the work that I did in Catholic Family News from early-2004 to May of 2006 that was critical of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II an Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI was wrong. So was much of the work on this site prior to coming to accept the fact that the conciliar church is the counterfeit ape of the Catholic Church and that its alleged popes and bishops had long ago defected from the Faith and were thus disqualified from holding any ecclesiastical office in the Catholic Church legitimately.

In other words, I had a mind that had to be changed. As noted a few days ago, there are worse things than admitting that one has been wrong on a matter of substance. I simply did not accept the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church, summarized by Pope Leo XIII in Epistola Tua and Est Sane Molestum, concerning the fact that no one has the authority from God to criticize a true Sovereign Pontiff publicly. Only those who want to dismiss the binding authority of Pope Leo XIII’s apostolic letters on this subject, which were only reiterations of the truth, because they have appeared on a sedevacantist website can believe otherwise.

There is particular irony in the fact that one “resister” writer rebuked the late Michael Davies for whitewashing the then Joseph “Cardinal” Ratzinger’s many defections from the Faith, accusing Mr. Davies of not answering specific questions that had been opposed to him or seeking to deflect them with sophistries. Yet it is that the one who correctly rebuked and refuted Mr. Davies opposes sedevacantism while refusing even to publicly acknowledge the existence of the evidence that exists on the Novus Ordo Watch site, including Bishop Donald Sanborn’s response to Bishop Richard Williamson on Sedevacantism, and, of course, the latest find involving Pope Leo XIII’s two apostolic letter. Remarkable work if one can get it. Remarkable.

Sadly, the ease with which many of  those in the resist while recognize movement can dismiss the truth when presented to them is very similar to the unwillingness of secuarlists who support all manner of social evils to do the same.

Yesterday’s commentary, We Must Accept This Chalice of Suffering Without Compromise, explained the efforts on the part of homofascists to squelch all discussion of the inherent immorality of perverted acts in violation of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments. Those efforts have included, at least in some instances, making sure that various passages from Sacred Scripture, including the following passage from Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, are never read aloud in any church or in any kindof public forum:

Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use against which is their nature.

And in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.

And as they liked not to  have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy.

Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.  (Romans 1: 24-32)

Was Saint Paul the Apostle a  “homophobic hater”? Did he belong to a “hate group” while criticizing and condemned the depraved practices extant in Rome in the middle of the First Century, A.D.?

The conciliar revolutionaries who planned the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service certainly must have thought so as they, who who boasted of including almost the entirety of Holy Writ in the triennial cycle of Sunday readings and biennial cycle of weekday readings, saw fit to exclude Saint Paul’s condemnation of homosexual and lesbian behavior contained in Chapter One of his Epistle to the Romans cited just above.

In like manner, the lords of Modernity believe that anyone and everyone who opposes the daily slaughter of the innocent preborn, whether by chemical or surgical means, “hates” women and must be considered the equivalent of a “domestic terrorist.”

Behold the face of one who is considered to be such a “terrorist,” sixteen year-old Thirin Short, whose experience on the campus of University of California at Santa Barbara on March 4, 2014, was recounted on this site in Tyrants Who Speak About “Freedom” thirteen days ago now:


Yes, Thirin Short is considered to a “terrorist” by students circulating a petition on the campus of the University of California at Santa Barbara. A “terrorist.” Such is the violence against language and truth that must prevail absent the Social Reign of Christ the King as It must be exercised by His Catholic Church:

Dueling petitions involving a pro-life teen and a professor charged with attacking her are circulating at the University of California at Santa Barbara, and the student body is backing the teacher.

Students at the University of California at Santa Barbara are circulating the petitions, one in support of feminism Prof. Mireille Miller-Young, and another backing Thrin Short, the 16-year-old pro-lifer whose March 4 demonstration was allegedly broken up by Miller-Young. The one backing the professor, who has been charged with battery and vandalism, has more than 2,000 signatures, while the one in support of Short has 150, according to The College Fix.

The last thing we need are these people invading our community,” UCSB sophomore Katherine Wehler, a theater and feminist studies major, told the site.

She said pro-lifers with graphic images of aborted fetuses such as Short and her sister carried are like “domestic terrorists.”

However, another petition making its way around the student body calls for Miller-Young’s termination.

“This is about someone who violated the law in several ways, disregarded the idea of freedom of speech, and tarnished the image of the UCSB,” it reads, before emphasizing that it is not a petition in support of the pro-life movement, but one advocating freedom of speech.

“They talk about prioritizing the safety of our campus involving activists, yet it’s our professor that attacks somebody,” UCSB student Katie Devlin told The College Fix. “I think it’s just the contrast that she is a feminist professor and stands for protecting women, yet she attacks a young girl.”

Thrin told that she and her older sister Joan, 21, were holding signs and demonstrating in a free speech zone on the UCSB campus with other pro-life activists when the feminist studies professor — who teaches one course on campus titled “Black Women in Pornography” — approached the group.

“Before she grabbed the sign, she was mocking me and talking over me in front of the students, saying that she was twice as old as me and had three degrees, so they should listen to her and not me,” Thrin Short wrote in an email to earlier this month. “Then she started the chant with the students about ‘tear down the sign.’ When that died out, she grabbed the sign.”

The professor snatched the sign and then allegedly walked through two campus buildings as Short, her sister and two UCSB students followed her. Short said Miller-Young pushed her at least three times as she tried to stop the elevator door from closing and get back her sign.

Miller-Young was charged last month by the Santa Barbara County district attorney’s office with misdemeanor counts of theft, battery and vandalism. She pleaded not guilty last week. (Pro-life teen called ‘domestic terrorist’ in petition supporting feminism professor.)

Anyone who wonders why someone such as this writer, among so many others, are unemployable as college professors despite excellent letters of professional reference ought to realize that the environment at the University of California at Santa Barbara is not anomalous of what exists on most college campuses today. As I have recounted several times on this site in the past, it was in late-June of 1992 that I had learned that feminists at Morningside College in Sioux City, College, demanded that the institution’s then-president, the late Miles Tomerassen cancel my already signed contract for the upcoming 1992-1993 because they had discovered that I had run for lieutenant governor of the State of New York on the Right to Life Party line in 1986. That was enough to make me a non-person in their eyes, effectively being “aborted” for the year that I taught there before returning to New York.

Pro-life Americans are not “terrorists.”

Believing Catholics are not “terrorists.”

Do you want to see the face of a rea terrorist?

Take a look at the face of the monstrous convicted serial murderer named Kermit Gosnell (see Barack Hussein Obama, Meet Kermit Gosnell, Legal Baby-Killing Can Never Be Safe or Rare, Blood Stained From The Very Beginning, In League With Racial Engineers and Having Developed An Immunity To Truth):

Modal Trigger

Those who support the daily slaughter of the preborn by chemical and surgical means refuse to have their made-up minds changed by the simple fact that each and every deliberate, intentional attack on an innocent human being is proscribed by the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law. Willful murder is one of the four crimes that cry out to Heaven for vengeance.

Most of those who support baby-killing under cover of the civil law boast of their being “sensitive” to “diversity” and to “women’s rights.” Yet it is that they do not want anyone to see the actual effects of child-killing or to realize that butchers like Kermit Gosnell are to be found in each baby-killing center in the United States of America and elsewhere in the world.

Most pro-aborts believe that Gosnell was guilty of maintaining an “unsafe” and “unsanitary” “women’s care facility.” The truth of the matter is that every abortion, whether chemical or surgical, is deadly for the child and unsafe for the mother, both physically and spiritually.

Pro-aborts not only do not want to change their own minds that have been made up wrong. They want do not have anyone to attempt to change the minds of others, especially by use of motion pictures to show how a butcher such as Kermit Gosnell goes about his daily trade of killing the innocent preborn and causing the deaths of their mothers in some instances. This is what an effort to fund a movie about Gosnell’s house of horrors has been so very difficulty, something attested to by a man producing such a film, Phelim McAleer:

I was really, really happy when Kickstarter came on the scene. The crowd-funding Web site offered the opportunity for struggling artists and filmmakers to bypass corporate, union or not-for-profit funders and their agendas and interests.

Kickstarter was set up to allow us to put up a pitch — go directly to the public; if people liked it, they could fund it with small donations.

And it worked like a dream. For my last film, the pro-fracking documentary “FrackNation,” 3,305 people gave $212,000 to make it happen.

But now it seems that Kickstarter is turning into a bad dream for those who want to wander from the orthodox.

Now, Kickstarter has always been dominated by projects with liberal, environmental and even ultra-left-wing leanings. That’s no surprise — the arts are dominated by people with such views.

But Kickstarter promised to be different. Its founder and CEO, Yancey Strickler, was quite clear on this, for example telling viewers of CBS’ “This Morning” that the site is a center for “very diverse ideas.”

So when I had the idea of making a film about the life and crimes of Kermit Gosnell, the now-notorious Philadelphia abortion doctor, my first idea was to go to Kickstarter — since there was no point going to Hollywood or any establishment media outlet.

Gosnell was a Philadelphia abortionist who for decades took babies who’d already been born and stabbed them in the neck and cut their spinal cords. He probably killed thousands of infants during his 40-year killing spree.

In the words of ABC correspondent Terry Moran, Kermit Gosnell was “America’s most successful serial killer.”

I’ve only been in America a few years, but one thing I’ve learned is that Americans are fascinated by killers and serial killers. You see it every night on prime-time TV — “Law & Order,” “Criminal Minds,” “Dexter,” “The Following,” “CSI” and “The Mentalist.” And that’s not including the TV movies — three on Ted Bundy, four apiece for John Wayne Gacy and Jeffrey Dahmer, three on Gary Ridgway and five on the Zodiac Killer.

So a film about Gosnell seemed like an obvious idea that Hollywood was neglecting.

Of course, the reason for this neglect was pretty clear: This serial killer was an abortionist who was completely unregulated. His trial threw up ugly realities about abortion that changed the minds of several jurors, a liberal journalist at the trial and even Gosnell’s defense attorney. Hollywood, with its Planned Parenthood fund-raisers, would want to stay away from this case.

But Kickstarter was supposed to change all that. So my colleagues and I put the project up and waited.

And waited and waited.

Then Kickstarter wrote to tell us that it “couldn’t” go ahead with our posting — first, we needed to remove our (utterly factual) descriptions of “thousands of babies murdered” in order to “comply with the spirit” of the site’s “community guidelines.”

This was shocking — and even more so when I looked at which projects don’t violate those standards.

One project about a serial killer had a photograph of a dead body. There were 43 about rape, 28 with the F-word in the title or project description and one with the “C” word.  There was even one called “Fist of Jesus” (don’t ask).

It seems the Kickstarter “community guidelines” don’t respect traditional sentiments — indeed, those are the ones that raise red flags.

Appalled by the double standard, we immediately pulled our project from Kickstarter and put it up on the rival site Indiegogo. The next day, after getting media inquiries about its censorship, the Kickstarter folks sent us a non-acceptance “acceptance” that noted pointedly that they reserved the right to take our project down at any time if our updates upset them. No, thanks.

It’s clear that “community guidelines” are just a cover to allow the Kickstarter insiders to censor and ban opinions they don’t like. So much for Strickler’s “very diverse ideas” claim: The first time they actually encountered a truly different viewpoint, their instinct was to censor and threaten.

Over at Indiegogo, our Gosnell movie project is on track to becoming the site’s most successful movie project ever. Kickstarter is missing out on that excitement, and on significant revenue. Worst of all, it’s missing out on bringing its community some challenging ideas. (Gosnell abortion film too much for Kickstarter’s ‘diverse’ censors.)

Yes, there is a common trait to be found amongst those who encounter a “truly different viewpoint, and that is to “censor and threaten” as  first, second and last resort. This is why college and university classrooms are, at least for the most part, preserves of those who have a vested interest in making sure that their moral relativism and legal positivism remain unmolested by any opposition, no matter how reasoned and how well documented, whatsoever.

What applies to the daily slaughter of the preborn by chemical and surgical means applies as well to the medical industry’s manufactured, profit-making myth of “brain death” that was premised from its origins in 1968 as a means to begin the harvesting of vital human body members from living human beings. This manufactured money-making myth is accepted even by the likes of Jorge Mario Bergoglio himself, something that he made clear in Interview Number Five:

Q. Science evolves and redraws the ends of life. Does it make sense to prolong life in a vegetative state?

Bergoglio: I’m not a specialist on bioethical arguments, and I’m afraid of being mistaken in my words. The Church’s traditional doctrine states that no one is obliged to use extraordinary methods when someone is in his terminal phase. Pastorally, in these cases I have always advised palliative care. On more specific cases, should it be necessary, it’s appropriate to seek the advice of specialists. (March 5 interview with Corriere della Sera.)

As I noted at the time over a month ago now, “science” has not redrawn the “end of life.” Modern, money-making body-snatchers have done so. Numerous are the instances of people being declared “brain dead” who have awakened, sometimes just moments before they were to be vivisected alive for their vital body members in the name of “giving the gift of life.” (For a few examples, see Dispensing With The Pretense of “Brain Death”, First-Hand Evidence Of Fraud, Stories That Speak For Themselves, ObamaDeathCare, Comparison of Living Body With Those Declared Brain Dead, No Room In The Inn For Jahi McMath.)

Secondly, if Bergoglio has no business to say anything on “bioethical issues” if he is as uninformed as he claims.

The truth is, of course, that he accepts uncritically the misrepresentations made by the medical industry concerning “brain death” and the use of what he believes to be “extraordinary means” to keep human beings alive. It appears pretty clear that Bergoglio would have told the adulterous Michael Schiavo that he was morally justified to petition Judge George Greer to order the removal of the administration of food and water to his brain-damaged wife, Mrs. Theresa Marie Schindler-Schiavo (see Five Years Later.)

Palliative care? This means that Bergoglio supports the “killing them softly” industry that is called hospice. For some important links to what goes on inside most hospices, please see To Avoid Suffering In The Name Of Compassion. The modern hospice industry has taken a Catholic concept, hospice, which was used to support the life of one suffering from an illness, to “ease” a person into death by the administration of various drugs, including morphine, that are designed to stop the heart within a certain period of time. Indeed, we know of very sad instances in which people have been admitted to a hospice as their relatives were told how many days the person had to live. Hospice officials know this because they know with precision how long it takes for the drugs of death to kill a human being in the name of “ending suffering with dignity.”

Those whose minds are “made up” in favor of “brain death” and who support “vital organ donation” must turn aside the vast mountain of evidence that has proven beyond any doubt that the medical industry seeks to declare patients as “brain dead” as a first, second and last resort in order to feed the demand for vital body members that they created in the first place by inventing the term “brain death.”

Numerous are the cases, some of which have presented on this site in the past,  wherein a person who is brain-damaged but unable to speak has heard physicians planning to declare him “brain dead” in order to harvest his “spare parts,” so to speak. Such is the case of a Swedish man, who was paralyzed by a stroke and thus unable to speak, that has come to light only recently:

A Swedish man who was paralysed by a stroke is filing an official complaint against a Gothenburg hospital after he listened in horror to his doctors telling his girlfriend and relatives he was going to die and discussing transplanting his liver and kidney.

“I heard them tell my girlfriend and my relatives that there was no hope,” Jimi Fritze, 43, told The Telegraph.


“I couldn’t do anything. I could only see and hear. I couldn’t move my body.”


The former supermarket manager from Örebro suffered a stroke nearly two years ago as he and his girlfriend were dining on smoked fish and fine wine at a restaurant on the Gothenburg archipelago.


As it was too windy for a helicopter to land on the island, it took one and a half hours to get him by boat to hospital.

By that time, he was completely paralysed.


“They looked at an x-ray of my brain, and when they had done that, they told my girlfriend that it wasn’t good and that I wouldn’t live,” Mr Fritze said.


“I could hear her crying the whole time, but I couldn’t do anything.”


He drifted into unconsciousness, waking later to hear the doctors discussing his case.


“I heard them talking about donation, they wanted to do some tests on my liver and my kidney, so they could give them to some people,” he said.


Still, he could do nothing to alert anyone to the fact that he was fully conscious.


“I was scared because I thought that I was going to die then, and a hard death,” he said. “I remember I thought, what will happen if they cremate me, will I see the fire and feel the fire?”.


When his family came in to say their final farewell, the doctors discussed organ donation with them, even though Mr Fritze had yet to be declared officially brain dead, something he believes violated official guidelines.


If a more experienced doctor had not returned from holiday three days after his accident, he is in little doubt that he would not be here today.


“I think I would have been stuck in bed until my body didn’t work any more, so they could take the parts from me,” Mr Fritze said.


As it happened, when the new doctor took another look at the x-ray, she immediately realised that there was a good chance that Mr Fritze might recover. Within days, he was able to communicate by nodding his head.


After nearly two years, and constant rehabilitation therapy, Mr Fritze can now speak and move, although he remains confined to a wheelchair and reliant on an assistant.


Last month, he filed an official complaint to Gothenburg’s Sahlgrenska Hospital, where he was treated, hoping that it will help prevent the same thing happening to others.


Stefan Sarajärvi, a spokesman for the hospital, said that the hospital had begun an inquiry into Mr Fritze’s complaint, and would respond later this month.


“We take all the complaints we receive very seriously, and do everything we can to make sure it doesn’t happen in future,” he said. (Swedish stroke patient hears doctors discuss removing his body members.)

This is no anomaly. This happens all the time throughout the so-called “civilized world.”

Those who minds are “made up” wrong on the issue of the daily vivisection of living human beings ought to realize that Jimi Fritze’s experience is far, far from isolated.

As has been noted in other articles on this site, Miss Mary Therese Helmueller, R.N., wrote an article in Homiletic and Pastoral Review concerning her own personal experiences of dealing with physicians eager to declare living human beings as dead and/or to take measures to “expedite” their demise in the name of “mercy” and “compassion.”

Here is an excerpt from Miss Helmueller’s article:

I am a registered nurse in the St. Paul/ Minneapolis area with 15 years experience in emergency and critical care. My knowledge of euthanasia not only comes from my experience working in the critical care units throughout the Twin Cities, but also comes from a personal tragedy and loss in 1995. This is my true story. My hope is that you will educate others and protect yourselves and loved ones.

On Monday, February 20th, my grandmother was admitted to a local Catholic hospital with a fracture above the left knee. She was alert and orientated upon admission but became unresponsive after 48 hours and was transferred to hospice on the fourth day and died upon arrival.

I was in Mexico City conducting a pilgrimage and unable to be at her side so there were many questions upon my return. The doctors could not tell me the cause of her death so I began to search for the answers and was fortunate to obtain the hospital chart. It then became very clear that my grandmother had been targeted for euthanasia!

Carefully tracing the events it was evident that my grandmother became lethargic and unresponsive after each pain medication. She would awaken between times saying “I don’t want to die, I want to live to see Johnny ordained”; “I want to see Greta walk.” Johnny was her grandson studying in Rome to be a priest and Greta was her new great-grandchild. Even though over-sedation is one of the most common problems with the elderly she was immediately diagnosed as having a stroke. When she became comatose a completely hopeless picture of recovery was portrayed by the nurses and doctors who reported that she had a stroke, was having seizures, going in and out of a coma, and was in renal failure.

The truth however can be found in the hospital chart which indicates that everything was normal! The CAT scan was negative for stroke or obstruction, the EEG states “no seizure activity” and all blood work was normal indicating that she was not in renal failure! How were we to know that the coma was drug induced and that all the tests were normal? Why would they lie?

Looking over the chart it is clear that obtaining a “no code” status was the next essential step in executing her death. This is an order denying medical intervention in emergency situations. The “no code” was aggressively sought by the medical profession from the moment of her admission but was not granted by my family until it appeared that she was dying and there was no hope. Minutes after obtaining the “no code” a lethal dose of Dilantin (an anti-seizure medication) was administered intravenously over an 18-hour period. It put her into a deeper coma, slowing the respiratory rate and compromising the cardiovascular system leading to severe hemodynamic instability. The following day she was transferred to hospice and died upon arrival. The death certificate reads “Death by natural causes.”

My grandmother had no terminal diagnosis but the hospice admitting record indicates two doctors signed their name stating that she was terminally ill and would die within six months. How was this determined? The first doctor, who was the director of hospice, never came to evaluate her or even read the chart. More interesting is the fact that the second doctor was on vacation and returned three days after her death! Obviously these signatures were not obtained before or even upon her admission to hospice. How can this be professionally, morally or even legally acceptable? Can anyone therefore be admitted to hospice to die? It certainly seems possible especially if sedated or unresponsive. In fact, this hospice has recently been under investigation for accepting hundreds of patients who had no terminal illness.

It could happen to you

How can this happen? A serious problem lies in the definition and interpretation of “terminal illness” which permits the inclusion of chronic illnesses and disabilities. Terminal illness is defined as “an incurable or irreversible illness which produces death within six months.” The fact is that many chronic illnesses such as diabetes and high blood pressure are incurable and irreversible and without medical treatment such as insulin and other medications these illnesses would also produce death within six months. Therefore, those with chronic illnesses or disabilities can be conveniently denied medical treatment and even food and water to make them terminal. Typically it is the elderly who arrive in the hospital that are at the greatest risk. But it could be ANYONE! Especially those whose life and suffering is viewed as useless and burdensome.

Difficult to believe? Well it was for our prolife lawyer until his mother-in-law was admitted to a hospital several months later for a stroke. She became “unresponsive” and “comatose” a few days after her admission. The neurologist wrote an order to transfer her to hospice refusing an I.V. and tube feeding stating “this is the most compassionate treatment.” Remembering my story, our lawyer requested the removal of all narcotics and demanded an I.V. and tube feeding. This infuriated the neurologist. He began to accuse the family of being uncompassionate and inhumane. To prove his point he began a neurological assessment on the patient. Just then she opened her eyes and pulling the physician’s neck tie, forced his face to hers and said very clearly “Give me some water!” It was obvious that she was awake, alert and orientated. He angrily cancelled the transfer to hospice and ordered a tube feeding and intravenous. Several weeks later she was discharged and was exercising on the treadmill! She escaped the death sentence. Unfortunately many others like my grandmother have not. A stroke does not make you terminal but not receiving food and water does! (Life Matters: Are You Being Targeted for Euthanasia?).

Leaving aside the article’s reliance on the “authority” of the soon-to-be-“canonized” Karol Wotyla/John Paul II, the cases documented therein should  give those who minds are made up wrong in support of “brain death” and “organ donation” some pause for reflection before taking the word of men and women who are committed to killing before birth and who engage in deceits of all kind before before and after birth:

Yes, minds made up wrong must be remade. This is matter not only of physical life death. No, it is also a profound matter of eternal life and death.

We must make sure our own minds are made up right, made up to follow Christ the King where He is to be found in the Catholic catacombs during this time of apostasy and betrayal as we make no concessions to the nonexistent legitimacy of the conciliar revolutionaries while refusing to worship at the altar of political correctness and the alleged “expertise” of professionals in the world-at-large.

Chastisements abound in the world today. Indeed, chastisements must abound in a world awash in sin and error, a world awash in the blood of the innocent, a world where all that is indecent, impure, untrue and opposed to the temporal and eternal good of men is considered as beyond question, a world where those who oppose the prevailing evils of the day are termed as “terrorists” and “haters.”

Worse chastisements are to come. Far worse.

We must be prepared for these far worse chastisements  by praying as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits and by seeking to be in a state of Sanctifying Grace at all times.

We need Our Lady’s help in these perilous times. She, the Mediatrix of All Graces, will help us to conform to the tender mercies of the Sacred Heart of her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, if we only offer up to Him through her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart all of the sufferings and calamities of the present moment.

What are we waiting for?

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of Sorrows, 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.

We Must Accept This Chalice of Suffering Without Compromise

Today is Tuesday in Passion Week. As God’s Holy Providence would have it this year, there are no commemorations of the feast days of any saints on the unreformed General Calendar of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church this Passion Week, although the Feast of Saint Justin Martyr is commemorated on Monday of Holy Week next week.

God knew from all eternity that we would be alive during this particular Passion Week at a time when all the forces of Hell, perhaps knowing that their time is growing short, have been let loose against the remnant Catholic Faith as Holy Mother Church endures her time of mystical burial as a result of the twin, interrelated forces of Modernity in the world and Modernism in her counterfeit ape, the conciliar church, which is not the Catholic Church. We must be single-minded in our acceptance and our love of suffering as the Via Dolorosa is the path to Calvary, which which we can never know an unending Easter Sunday of glory in Paradise.

The “election” of Jorge Mario Bergoglio has removed any and all remaining obstacles, not that there were all that many left by the time Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI flew off in a helicopter on Thursday evening, February 28, 2013, as his resignation from an office he never held became effective, for the complete, unfettered persecution of anyone and everyone who dares to stand in the way of the Thought Police who are the agents of monster civil state of Modernity, itself the inevitable result of Father Martin Luther’s overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King that was institutionalized by the triumph of the forces of naturalism that can be referred to as Judeo-Masonry.

Aping what has been the case, at least on a de facto basis, throughout most of the countries of formerly Catholic Europe and in Canada to our north, the caesars and caesarettes of Modernity are tightening the noose around the necks of anyone, whether Catholic or non-Catholic, who stand in the way of homo-fascist agenda.

It was only yesterday that the Supreme Court of the United States of America refused to hear an appeal from a Protestant photographer in New Mexico who had refused to photograph what was called a “commitment ceremony” of two women who were committed to the sins of unnatural nice. The effect of this refusal means that the decision of the Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico that held against the photographer stands:

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear closely watched cases on gay rights, campaign finance and lethal injections. As is their custom, the justices gave no reasons for turning down the appeals.

The gay rights case, Elane Photography v. Willock, No. 13-585, was an appeal from a wedding photographer in New Mexico who asserted a constitutional right to refuse to provide her services to gay and lesbian couples.

The issue was broadly similar to one argued before the court last month, over whether companies may refuse to provide insurance coverage for contraception on religious grounds. But the New Mexico case was based not on a claim of religious liberty but on one of free speech.

The photographer, Elaine Huguenin, objected to a New Mexico law prohibiting businesses open to the public from discriminating against gay men and lesbians. She said that requiring her to photograph same-sex weddings violated her First Amendment rights because she was forced to say something she did not believe.

She rejected a request from Vanessa Willock and Misti Collinsworth to document their commitment ceremony. The women, who hired another photographer, filed a discrimination complaint against Ms. Huguenin’s studio, Elane Photography.

The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled for the couple, saying Ms. Huguenin’s “services can be regulated, even though those services include artistic and creative work.” Laws banning discrimination, the court said, apply to “creative or expressive professions.”

Justice Richard C. Bosson issued an ambivalent concurrence expressing sympathy for Ms. Huguenin and her husband.

“The Huguenins are not trying to prohibit anyone from marrying,” he wrote. “They only want to be left alone to conduct their photography business in a manner consistent with their moral convictions.” Instead, they “are compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives,” he added.

“Though the rule of law requires it,” Justice Bosson wrote, “the result is sobering.” (Justices Decline Cases on Gay Rights and Campaign Finance.)

This means that not even four justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, the minimum number of justices needed to docket a case presented to it on appeal from a Circuit Court of the United States of America or from a state supreme court, could be found to take this case. Not even four justices, which means that, apart from the pro-abortion Catholic Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was the decisive vote in the cases of Hollingsworth v. Perry and United States v. Windsor, June 26, 2013 (see Irreversible By Means Merely Human), one or more of the other four remaining “conservative” justices, each of whom is a Catholic (Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Associate Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito), also decided not to docket the case. Those four “conservative” justices would have been all it took for the high court to schedule a hearing. One or more of those decided to take a pass on the matter.

More and more, you see, the agenda of homo-fascism is prevailing before our very eyes, something that is the inevitable result of a world that rejects and despises any mention of Christ the King, whose social reign over men and their nations is rejected and despised even by the lords of conciliarism, including, of course, Jorge Mario Bergoglio. (See No Getting the Toothpaste Back in the Tube.)

The power of the homo-fascist lobby is such that there is now a  relentless effort on the part of its sodomite leaders to hunt down, identify and then to make unemployable and socially unacceptable anyone and everyone who has contributed to campaigns in favor of even flawed referenda, such a Proposition Eight in California in 2008 (see Do You Hear The People Sing?), or who states publicly that the sin of Sodom is opposed to the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law.  Many are the readers of this site who have written to me over the years expressing disbelief over the fact that one can become unemployable in his chosen field of work if he holds beliefs that have been proscribed by the Thought Police.

Perhaps some of these readers will have a better, more concrete understanding of the reality of what I have been facing for many years now, principally because of having been a pro-life activist in the 1980s and 1990s and now, of course, having made the “hate group” list of the Southern Poverty Law Center (see Chopped Liver No More, To Advocate Christ The King, Nothing Else and Chopped Liver No More Update) upon considering the case of Brendan Eich, who was dismissed from his position as the Chief Executive Officer of Mozilla, whose Firefox browser is an alternative to the diabolical pathway of internet viruses that populates the pro-abort Bill Gates’s Internet Explorer, after homo-fascists in a group billing itself as “OkCupid” him “outed” him as a contributor in support of Proposition Eight in 2008:

On Wednesday, I wrote about the Mozilla CEO in trouble for a five-year-old donation to Proposition Eight, the successful California ballot measure that banned gay marriage – if only until America’s robed rulers declared the will of the people to be “unconstitutional”. Brandon Eich is a tech genius: Aside from co-founding Mozilla and creating Firefox, he also invented JavaScript. Apparently, the disgusting homophobic hatey-hatey-hateful belief that marriage is a sacrament between a man and a woman is not incompatible with knowing your way around a computer.

Nevertheless, unlike Hollywood director Brett Ratner, Mr Eich declined to eat gay crow. And so yesterday he was fired. Mozilla’s chairwoman Mitchell Baker issued the usual tortured justification:

“Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech,” Baker said. “And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard.”

I heard a lot of this stuff during my free-speech battles in Canada. The country’s chief censor, the late Jennifer Lynch, QC, was willing to concede that free speech was certainly a right, but it was merely one in a whole range of competing rights – such as “equality” and “diversity” – that needed to be “balanced”. What the “balancing” boils down to is that you get fired if you are an apostate from the new progressive groupthink. Underneath the agonized prose, Mitchell Baker is a bare-knuckled thug.

~It’s the thuggishness and bullying that ought to disgust people, even those who support gay marriage. My final appearances at National Review Online were a spat with my editor, Jason Lee Steorts, over “two jokes one can no longer tell on American television” that I quoted in a column on Phil Robertson’s suspension for “homophobia”. First, Bob Hope, touring the world in the year or so after the passage of the 1975 Consenting Adult Sex Bill:

“I’ve just flown in from California, where they’ve made homosexuality legal. I thought I’d get out before they make it compulsory.”

Second, Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin on stage in Vegas throughout the Sixties and Seventies:

Frank: “How do you make a fruit cordial?”

Dino: “Be nice to him.”

Mr Steorts thought my resurrection of these ancient “slurs” was “derogatory” and “puerile”:

People who used them in different times need not be regarded as monstrous, nor must the canon be censored; we could instead feel good about having awoken to a greater civility and make generous allowances for human fallibility.

Yeah, just like Brandon Eich “awoke to a greater civility” yesterday morning. What Mr Steorts especially disliked about my column was “the slur in its borrowed concluding joke”. Which was:

How do you make a fruit cordial?

Be nice to him.

Or else.


But isn’t that what’s just happened to the Mozilla guy? Nobody’s asking him to have a genuine conversion. The gay enforcers don’t care if, somewhere deep down in his heart he still believes marriage is the union of a man and a woman; all that matters is that he’s not allowed to say so in public. Billions of people around the world believe as Mr Eich does, and they shouldn’t be allowed to say so in public, either – not if they want to keep their jobs.  (Celebrate Conformity!)

What Mark Steyn, the columnist who wrote this very interesting column (only an excerpt was provided above), does not realize is that the phenomenon of “political correctness,” which is being used with such savage force by the homo-fascists at this time, is nothing new. It is what must prevail when men reject the infallible teaching authority and sanctifying helps of the Catholic Church as they strive to create the “true” secular church, replete with its own “orthodoxy,” from which no one may dissent and stay employed or, at least in some cases, to be sent to jail for a “hate crime.”

Enforcing cultural orthodoxy against any claim of truth on the natural level is what got Socrates in trouble with the Sophists and it is something that the late Dr. Aleksandr I. Solhenitsyn noted at Harvard University on June 6, 1978, made censorship of thought the United States of America just a variation on that found in the Union of Soviet of Socialist Republics from which he had been exiled four years before.

The late philosopher Simone Weil, who converted to Catholicism before she died on August 24, 1943, at the age of thirty-four, compared the political discourse and commercial advertising with the era of Sophists, a band of relativists who constituted a majority of thought in Athens in the Fifth Century before the Nativity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Miss Weil’s description of those early relativists, quoted by the late Dr. Russell Kirk in The Roots of American Order, is a perfection description of what passes for “thought” and “commentary” in our own era of relativism and positivism:

“It is as though we had returned to the age of Protagoras and the Sophists, the age when the art of persuasion–whose modern equivalent is advertising slogans, publicity, propaganda meetings, the press, the cinema, and radio–took the place of thought and controlled the fate of cities and accomplished coups d’etat. So the ninth book of Plato’s Republic looks like a description of contemporary events.” (Simone Weil, quoted in Russell Kirk, The Roots of American Order.)

Relativists believe that there are no moral absolutes, that the morality of  individual acts is determined by a variety of variable factors, including, although from limited to, the motivation of those involved and the particular set of circumstances that exist at a given time. In believing that there are few, if any, moral absolutes, however, relativists demonstrate themselves to be quintessential absolutists as they believe absolutely that almost nothing, if anything, can be absolutely immoral in and of its nature. Most matters of morality simply “depend” upon circumstances and the “consciences” of the individuals involved.

Yet it is, of course, that relativists are quite dogmatic in their propagandizing in behalf of their relativism, condemning, sometimes with caustic smarminess, anyone who dares to oppose their “received” beliefs. It is then that relativists become openly absolutist as they dismiss opponents with bitter invectives, condemning them by making advertence to one shopworn slogan (“judgmental,” “intolerant,” “bigoted,” “racist,” “homophobic,” “patriarchal,” “haters,” “narrow-minded”) after another in order to shame them into submission to the currently prevailing beliefs of the secular magisterium that is composed of self-appointed “popes” and “popessas” such as those in OkCupid who are leading the persecution of men such as Brendan Eich.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn put the matter this way at Harvard University nearly thirty-six years ago now:

Without any censorship in the West, fashionable trends of thought and ideas are fastidiously separated from those that are not fashionable, and the latter, without ever being forbidden have little chance of finding their way into periodicals or books or being heard in colleges. Your scholars are free in the legal sense, but they are hemmed in by the idols of the prevailing fad. There is no open violence, as in the East; however, a selection dictated by fashion and the need to accommodate mass standards frequently prevents the most independent-minded persons from contributing to public life and gives rise to dangerous herd instincts that block dangerous herd development.

In America, I have received letters from highly intelligent persons – maybe a teacher in a faraway small college who could do much for the renewal and salvation of his country, but the country cannot hear him because the media will not provide him with a forum. This gives birth to strong mass prejudices, to a blindness which is perilous in our dynamic era. (Dr. Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, A World Split Apart. June 8, 1978.)

Censorship, however, has prevailed at the cultural, academic and corporate levels for a long time now. It is now being enforced by various states and localities without a word of protest from the Supreme Court of the United States of America (see Slender Threads for why this is so, although I was wrong about identifying Anthony Kennedy as the likely determinative vote on ObamaCare; that distinction was to earned by John G. Roberts).

Mr. Brendan Eich’s experience, which might prove to be career-ending in his field, is really a milder version of the persecution and harassment that others who opposed Proposition Eight, which was approved by the voters on November 4, 2008, before being overturned by the Supreme Court of the State of California, a decision ratified by the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Hollingsworth v. Perry, June 26, 2013, have experienced. A listing of such cases, compiled originally by the Heritage Foundation, has been provided on a Calvinist website that is being cited merely for purposes of this information:

The following examples are direct quotes taken from a much larger list compiled by the Heritage Foundation, which provides a considerable amount of additional documentation and links. They are categorized under four headings: vandalism, harassment/hostility, violence/threats of violence, and employment jeopardization. If you don’t read the entire list, let me especially call your attention to the violence and threats of violence section of this report. Everyone really needs to make themselves aware of the true colors of the rainbow-masked thugs.


An elderly couple who put a Yes on 8 sign in their yard had a block thrown through their window.

A senior citizen who placed a pro-Prop-8 bumper sticker on her car had her car’s rear window smashed in.

One woman with a “One Man, One Woman” bumper sticker had her car keyed and tires deflated while she was in a grocery store.

One man who placed signs in his yard and stickers on his cars and motorbike reported that someone egged and floured his home three times and egged, floured, and honeyed his car twice. Someone also pushed over the man’s motorbike and scraped the bumper stickers off the back glass windows of his cars.

Vandals spray-painted vehicles, garages, fences, and Yes on 8 signs in Yucaipa, California.

An Alta Loma resident who placed a Yes on 8 sign in her yard found the words “love for all” and “no on 8” spray-painted on her fifth-wheel trailer.

In San Jose, vandals spray painted the garage doors of two homeowners who displayed signs supporting Prop 8.

Vandals also spray-painted anti-Prop 8 messages on commercial and residential buildings in Fullerton.

One woman who placed a pro-Prop 8 sign on her balcony reported finding that her staircase leading downstairs had been covered in urine. She also found a puddle of urine at the bottom of the stairs.

Orange spray paint was used to vandalize a statue of the Virgin Mary outside one church.

Swastikas and other graffiti were scrawled on the walls of the Most Holy Redeemer Catholic Church in San Francisco.

Permit me to interject at this point as most f those at Most Holy Redeemer, a den of sodomites, opposed Proposition Eight, something that was attested to at the time by the church’s notorious pastor, Father Steven Meriweather:

.- Opponents of Proposition 8 are suspected to have vandalized Most Holy Redeemer Catholic Church in San Francisco over the weekend, spray-painting on the church black swastikas and the words “Ratzinger” and “Niederauer,” the respective last names of the Pope and the Archbishop of San Francisco.

Most Holy Redeemer parish, located in the predominantly homosexual Castro District of San Francisco, has been billed as a “gay-friendly” church. It has previously participated in the San Francisco Gay Pride Parade and reportedly leased parish space to the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, a group of homosexuals who mockingly dress as nuns.

Responding to the vandalism, Most Holy Redeemer pastor Fr. Steve Meriweather told KCBS that his parishioners also oppose Proposition 8, a successful California ballot measure that overturned a 2008 state Supreme Court decision which imposed same-sex “marriage” on the state.

I think it’s unfortunate that they selected our community to attack,” said Father Meriweather, “because it’s the wrong one.(Suspected anti-Prop. 8 vandals strike.)

Back to the list found on the Calvinist website:

In San Luis Obispo, the Assembly of God Church was egged and toilet-papered, and a Mormon church had an adhesive poured onto a doormat and keypad.

Signs supporting Prop 8 were twisted into a swastika at Our Lady of Perpetual Help Catholic Church in Riverside.

Someone used a heavy object wrapped with a Yes on 8 sign to smash the window of a pastor’s office at Messiah Lutheran Church in Downey.

According to one source, the Yes on 8 campaign estimated that approximately one-third of an estimated 25,000 signs distributed in California were stolen or vandalized before the campaign ended.

In some cases, perpetrators crossed fences and walls to steal signs or removed signs that had been securely fastened in place. One individual reported coming home late and hearing male voices outside her home.


Prop 8 supporters have reported receiving phone calls and voice mails calling them “bigot”and using vulgar language. Sometimes harassers called at work. A public relations firm hired by the Yes on 8 Campaign received so many harassing phone calls from one person that the sheriff’s office became involved.

Other Prop 8 supporters received e-mails, letters, and postcards using vulgar language and offensive labels like “gay hater.” Through the contact form on his business’s Web site, one individual received an e-mail stating “burn in hell.”

Two women painted an arrow and the words “Bigots live here” on the window of their SUV and parked the vehicle in front of a household that had supported Prop 8.

In another case, an individual who supported Prop 8 found himself the subject of a flyer distributed in his town. The flyer included a photo of him, labeled him a “Bigot,” and stated his name, the amount of his donation to Prop 8, and his association with a particular Catholic church.

At the University of California, Davis, a Yes on 8 table on the quad was reportedly attacked by a group of students throwing water balloons and shouting “you teach hate.”

One woman who stood near a street with a Yes on 8 sign reported that a man stopped his car and shouted at her, “You despicable filthy bag of [expletive deleted].” Other drivers circled the block and yelled things like “You [expletive deleted]” each time they drove by her. Once a car with several men stopped, and a man in the back seat opened the door and threw something at her. Another driver stopped her car and yelled, “Get the [expletive deleted] out of here. Who do you think you are, bringing that hate into my neighborhood?”

“According to eyewitness reports published on the Internet,” states one news source, “racial epithets have been used against African Americans at protests in California — with some even directed against blacks who are fighting to repeal Prop. 8.” One man, for example, reported he was called a particular racial slur twice and said the anti-Prop 8 protest he attended “was like being at a klan rally except the klansmen were wearing Abercrombie polos and Birkenstocks.” Another man reported that “he and his boyfriend, who are both black, were carrying NO ON PROP 8 signs and still subjected to racial abuse.” (See Mozilla CEO Latest Victim of GayStapo.)

Alas, this homo-fascism is to be found throughout the nooks and crannies of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, which Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s sloganeering in behalf of “mercy” towards those who live on the “existential peripheries” has extended itself in his own native Argentina to the baptism of a baby who is unfortunate enough to be in the custody of two lesbians, who boldly kissed each other after the ceremony, which was approved the conciliar “Archbishop” of Cordoba, Argentina, Jose Nanez, a friend of Jorge’s.

Here is a report found on the antisedevacantist Tradition in Action website (whose writers might want to read and take seriously Novus Ordo Watch’s important discovery and publication in English of Epistola Tua, June 17, 1885, and Est Sane Molestum, December 17, 1888: Pope Leo XIII Quashes Popular “Resist-And-Recognize Position):

Lesbians at Corboda Cathedral Atrgentina 01

Child of lesbians baptized at Cordoba Cathedral

Yesterday, April 5, 2014, the baptism of a girl, daughter of a lesbian couple, above. took place in the Cathedral of Cordoba, Argentina. The celebrant was Fr. Carlos Varas, who had the full authorization of the Archbishop of Cordoba, Msgr. Carlos Jose Nanez.

“We had an audience with Archbishop Nanez and he told us that there would be no problem for the baby to be baptized in the Cathedral,” affirmed one of the lesbians.

Church sources admitted to the press that “if Jorge Bergoglio were not Pope, it would have been more complicated” for this baptism to be authorized. Indeed, in 2012, the then Archbishop of Buenos Aires – today Pope Francis – called priests who do not administer baptism to any baby “hypocrites.” He was referring principally to the children of single mothers, but today that rule is also applied to children adopted by lesbian and homosexual couples. Besides, it is unlikely that Nanez would have made such a decision without an approval by the Vatican.

The lesbians asked Argentina President Cristina Kirchner to be the godmother of the baby. She accepted and sent  proxies representing her.

Below first row at right, the lesbian couple, in the center, two police commanders representing the President, at left, Fr. Varas. Second row, the couple with the godfather and godmother hold a picture of Cristina Kirchner inside the Cathedral; third row, the lesbians pose with their mothers and the baby.

Fourth row, Archbishop Nanez displays a photo of Francis on his cellphone. Fifth row, the Archbishop of Cordoba being received at the Vatican by Francis with warm smiles and a strong Masonic handshake. Sixth and seventh rows, well-known politicians giving the same handshake to fellow Freemasons.

For the a news report in English, ABLX, Boston, April 6, 2014, click here; in Spanish, El Clarin, Buenos Aires, March 28, 2014, here; Radio Cristiandad, Buenos Aires, March27, 2014, here.

Lesbians at Corboda Cathedral Atrgentina 02Lesbians at Corboda Cathedral Atrgentina 03
Please do not tell me that what happened on Passion Sunday in the desecrated cathedral in Cordoba, Argentina, is an anomaly. By no means. Jorge is authorizing public scandals such as this one to put pressure on the relatively few “restorationists” within his ranks to do the same thing. Most priests/presbyters will do so, accepting yet another “compromise” in exchange for being able to offer/stage the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition under the terms of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s Summorum Pontificum, July 7, 2007. “Conservative” priests/presbyters will swallow hard. However, they will have to follow suit, especially after Jorge Mario Bergoglio issues an “apostolic exhortation” in 2015 to make “official” the recommendations at the “extraordinary synod of ‘bishops’ on the family” that will take place six months from now.
Look at the outcry from ordinary Catholics in conciliar structures in the Diocese of Charlotte, North Carolina, when a Dominican religious sister, Sister Jane Dominic Laurel, denounced divorce homosexuality, including a description of the medical harm that sodomy causes those who practice this sin that cries out to Heaven for vengeance:

CHARLOTTE — The Dominican sister who gave a presentation on sexuality to students at Charlotte Catholic High School that sparked controversy among students and parents last month is taking a sabbatical from teaching and cancelling her other speaking engagements.

The presentation March 21 by Dominican Sister Jane Dominic Laurel of Nashville, Tenn., entitled “Masculinity and Femininity: Difference and Gift,” drew the ire of hundreds of students and parents over the past two weeks, and their emotions boiled over during a parents meeting with school and diocesan leaders Wednesday night.

Sister Jane has a doctorate in sacred theology from the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas in Rome, and her presentation at Charlotte Catholic was based on a series of instructional videos she created for Aquinas College in Nashville where she is an associate professor. She gave similar talks to youths and parents at St. Mark Church in Huntersville on March 23 and gave a related talk at Charlotte Catholic High School last fall.

In an April 4 statement, the president of Aquinas College defended the school’s curriculum and Sister Jane’s credentials as a theologian, but acknowledged that the portion of Sister Jane’s presentation of social science data about the alleged causes of same-sex attraction – which prompted many of the concerns from parents and students – was outside the scope of her academic background.

Sister Mary Sarah Galbraith’s statement reads, in full:


“The events around the recent talk by Sister Jane Dominic Laurel, O.P. in Charlotte, NC have produced a great deal of speculation from many sides. Among the commentators, there are few who were actually present to hear the talk, which was not recorded.


“It is the firm belief of Aquinas College that all men and women are created in God’s image and likeness and are made with a capacity to love and be loved. The College supports the Catholic Church’s teachings which are open to the diverse needs and desires of all, which must be considered in light of eternal truths.


We support and affirm that every man and woman, regardless of his or her state in life, deserve respect, and that the health of any culture is gauged according to the capacity of its members to uphold their own beliefs while respecting the beliefs of others. The College’s patron, St. Thomas Aquinas, was known for his ability to thoughtfully consider all things and retain what is true, regardless of the source of that truth.


“We believe it is our privilege to bring the best aspects of our faith tradition to bear on the moral and cultural questions of the present age. In her presentation, Sister Jane Dominic spoke clearly on matters of faith and morals. Her deviation into realms of sociology and anthropology was beyond the scope of her expertise. Sister is a trained theologian from a Pontifical University and has the credentials to contribute to scholarly bodies of work. This she has done in the past with distinction. The unfortunate events at Charlotte Catholic High School are not representative of the quality of Sister’s academic contributions or the positive influence that she has had on her students. The students at Charlotte Catholic were unprepared, as were their parents, for the topic that Sister was asked to deliver. The consequence was a complete misrepresentation of the school’s intention to bring a message that would enlighten and bring freedom and peace.


There are no words that are able to reverse the harm that has been caused by these comments. The community of Aquinas College is saddened by this extreme outcome and wishes to reiterate that this is not something the College condones or desires to create. There is division where there should be unity. The events and discussions that have transpired over the last two weeks reflect that there is something in this that surpasses an ordinary high school assembly.


“Sister Jane Dominic has cancelled her speaking engagements and, at her request, is preparing to begin a sabbatical from teaching at Aquinas College. It is our sincere hope that the community of Charlotte Catholic High School will soon begin a process of healing and renewal, and that all who have been affected by this event will be drawn into profound reconciliation as we approach this great season that commemorates the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.”


Among the speaking dates she has cancelled, Sister Jane has withdrawn from speaking at the 2014 Diocesan Youth Conference at the Ridgecrest Conference Center near Asheville in May. (Angry Parents condemn Charlotte Catholic Student Assembly on Sexuality.)

The conciliar “bishop” of Charlotte, North Carolina, Peter, Jungis, had maintained a studied silence on the matter until authorizing his spokesman to say that Sister Jane Dominic Laurel had done nothing wrong and that she would be welcome to return to speak in the diocese (if she gets permission from Aquinas College, that is!), who said that the “bishop” would make a further statement” about the matter soon (see Charlotte diocese backs nun who gave school talk promoting Church teaching on homosexuality). It is nevertheless true, of course, that this is yet another needless controversy in the conciliar structures, engendered solely by the entire pastoral praxis of conciliarism and, more proximately, by these five words of Jorge Mario Bergoglio: “Who am I to judge?”

The forces of Hell, both in the monster civil state of Modernity and Modernism’s own “church,” the counterfeit church of conciliarism, whose officials have long recruited, retained, promoted, protected and indemnified sodomites in the ranks of its “clergy” and “hierarchy,” are working at fever pitch now. It is easy to compromise. It is easy to “take the soup” as many Catholics in Ireland did in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries to maintain their bodily lives in exchange for apostatizing by abandoning the true Faith to become members of the Protestant “Church of Ireland.

We, however, must drink of this chalice of suffering without compromise as compromise accustoms one to making even greater compromises over the course of time to protect one’s job, income, financial security, reputation and even one’s freedom and life. This is not the path of those who suffered white martyrdom in the past, and it is not the path of Catholics who shed their blood for Christ the King, Who shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross to redeem us.

Yes, no matter what it might cost us, we must denounce evil for what it is and we must stand foursquare as believing Catholics no matter the consequences.

Remember these words of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Himself:

Behold I send you as sheep in the midst of wolves. Be ye therefore wise as serpents and simple as doves. [17] But beware of men. For they will deliver you up in councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues. [18] And you shall be brought before governors, and before kings for my sake, for a testimony to them and to the Gentiles: [19] But when they shall deliver you up, take no thought how or what to speak: for it shall be given you in that hour what to speak. [20] For it is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you.

[21] The brother also shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the son: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and shall put them to death. [22]And you shall be hated by all men for my name’s sake: but he that shall persevere unto the end, he shall be saved. [23] And when they shall persecute you in this city, flee into another. Amen I say to you, you shall not finish all the cities of Israel, till the Son of man come. [24] The disciple is not above the master, nor the servant above his lord. [25] It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the goodman of the house Beelzebub, how much more them of his household?

[26]Therefore fear them not. For nothing is covered that shall not be revealed: nor hid, that shall not be known. [27] That which I tell you in the dark, speak ye in the light: and that which you hear in the ear, preach ye upon the housetops. [28] And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell. [29] Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and not one of them shall fall on the ground without your Father. [30] But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.

[31] Fear not therefore: better are you than many sparrows. [32] Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven. (Matthew 10: 16-33.)

Although it is part of the fabric of the Americanist heresy to compromise in order to get along with others in society, compromise on matters of Faith and Morals can have no place in the life of a believing Catholic.

We must proclaim the truths of our Holy Faith without fear of the consequences as we pray for the conversion of the lords of Modernity in the world and of Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, seeking first and foremost to pray and to work for our own conversion by offering up with joy and gratitude each of the crosses of this moment as the consecrated slaves of Christ the King through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

May we cleave unto the loving protection of Our Blessed Mother and her Most Chaste Spouse, Saint Joseph, and the intercession of martyrs to persevere in the truths of the Holy Faith at all times in all circumstances as we seek to make reparation to Christ the King through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary for those times when we may have compromised in this or that situation before recognizing the error of our ways and begging Our King’s forgiveness in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance. Every Rosary we pray helps us to cooperate more fully with the Gifts and Fruits of God the Holy Ghost that we received in the Sacrament of Confirmation so that we can fulfill our baptismal duties as Catholics without regard to any fear of the forces of the world, the flesh and the devil.

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.