The Civil State Must Exercise a Reign of Terror When the Social Reign of Christ the King Does Not Prevail

Although we have returned to the sanctoral cycle following the end of the Octave of the Epiphany of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ on Monday, January 13, 2020, Christmastide itself will not end until the Feast of the Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary on Sunday, February 2, 2020. Throughout Advent and Christmastide—and most likely from the Season of Septuagesima until the beginning of Lent on Ash Wednesday, February 26, 2020, however, the attention of most people in the United States of America, including most Catholics, has not been on the living the liturgical year but on all the needless agitation engendered by one side of the synagogue of satan versus the other

That is, the agitation engendered by the devil’s minions in the organized crime family of the naturalist “left” against a foul-speaking, ill-mannered, self-centered, narcissistic defender of all things Talmudic who believes in his own invincibility and infallibility, Donald John Trump, has been designed by the forces of darkness to keep people in perpetual states of aggravation and anger. While, as has been noted on this site many times in the past three years, including most recently in At the Point of No Return as Captain Kangaroo Holds Court, there has been and continues to be a deep state conspiracy to overturn the results of the presidential elections on Tuesday, November 8, 2016, the simple fact remains that the ill-informed President Donald John Trump, who knows nothing of First and Last Things, true history nor even the provisions of the Constitution of the United States of America has aided the coup against him by his lack of preparation and the misplaced trust he continues to place in lowlifes such as the late Roy Cohn, Michael Cohen, Robert Stone and, at present, the hapless serial adulterer named Rudolph William Giuliani and the latter’s gaggle of Talmudist thugs who are as amoral as he, Giuliani is, and by the careless approach he, President Trump, took in choosing Cabinet officers, White House Chiefs of Staff and National Security Advisers.

A Quick Recapitulation of How Donald John Trump Has Enabled His Enemies

President Trump, as I have noted before, was too quick to believe that he could schmooze the inveterate deep state swamp creature, James Brien Comey (who might, well, maybe, finally be brought to the bar of whatever justice is still possible in this world today—see The Comey Cover-Up Unravels) by retaining him and his corrupt coup of coup plotters embedded within the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the United States Department of Justice. Trump also chose men to serve him who were either ill-equipped to handle the pressures of their duties (Jefferson Beauregard Session as Attorney General of the United States of America) or were opposed to the very policies on which he, Trump, had campaigned while working actively against those policies (James Mattis as United States Secretary of Defense, Rex Tillerson as United States Secretary of State, National Security Advisers Herbert Raymond McMaster and John Bolton. I mean, how can a man who campaigned against endless wars justify the appointment of a man such as John Bolton, who is the epitome of the neoconservative, Trotskyite commitment to endless wars to do the bidding of the Zionist State of Israel?

A Digression about John Bolton and Iraq

As a digression, would you like to have a refresher course about John Bolton?

You know what?

It does not matter to me whether you want one or not. You are going to get one as I take you back to the Droleskey Wayback Machine and the year 2010 as I quote below from a commentary about the unjust, immoral, unconstitutional American invasion, regime change, occupation and destruction of the political stability, economic viability and national security of the sovereign nation of Iraq:

American involvement in Iraq, which was begun late in the evening (Eastern time in the United States of America) on March 19, 2003, after a six month public build-up prior to the onset of hostilities, has now lasted seven years. What is called the Iraq War but should be more appropriate called the invasion and occupation of that sovereign nation has lasted longer than World War II, which began with the invasion of Poland by the armed forces of the Third Reich of Nazi Germany on September 1, 1939 (Poland was invaded from the East by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on September 17, 1939, as Josef Stalin kept his part of the Ribbentrop-Molatov Pact that had been entered into by the foreign ministers of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union on August 24, 1939), and ended with the unconditional surrender of the Empire of Japan to General Douglas Mac Arthur aboard the U.S.S. Missouri on September 2, 1945, nineteen days after the announcement of Japan announced on August 14, 1945, that it would surrender. World War II lasted for six years. American involvement in the war, which started when both Houses of the United States Congress voted to declare war on the Empire of Japan on December 8, 1941, lasted for approximately forty-five months. American involvement in Iraq has lasted eighty-four months as of this very day, Saturday, March 20, 2010.

Although many articles have been written on this site about the Iraq War (several articles on the subject were published in The Remnant between January of 2003 and March of 2006, including A Tale of Two Speeches), it is worth repeating once again several points to remind the very few readers of this site that the predicates necessary to engage in a just war were not fulfilled and that tremendous atrocities have been committed by the government of the United States of America and by the various private contractors that were hired to provide "security" in the wake of the power vacuum created by the American invasion and overthrow of the dictator Saddam Hussein and that Iraq and to "rebuild" a country whose infrastructure was eviscerated by American bombing. (For a review of the predicates of the just war theory as I attempted to apply them to the possibility of an Iraq War in late-2002, please see The Real Enemies Are Within, part 1; and The Real Enemies Are Within, part 2 .)

The push on the part of the neoconservative war hawks in the administration of then President George Walker Bush to use the attacks that took place on September 11, 2001, as the pretext to plan a war with Iraq had its roots in the "Project for the New American Century," which was cooked up by some of those who would later plan and execute the Iraq War as a means of effecting a "regime change" in Iraq that would benefit "America's only ally" in the Middle East, Israel, by creating a peaceful, democratic Arab nation that world conform to the principles of American "exceptionalism" (which contends, of course, that the American "way" is the and only model for all countries in the world in order to know true "progress" and social and economic growth and stability, that it is the "mission" of the United States of America to spread its "way" around the world).

Among the charter signatories of the "Project for the New American Century," which released its statement of principles on June 3, 1997, were Jeb Bush, Richard B. Cheney, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Norman Podhoretz, James Danforth Quayle (yes, that James Danforth Quayle), Donald Rumsfeld, the Catholic neocon war hawk and mocker of the Social Reign of Christ the King named George Weigel, and Paul Wolfowitz. Among those who made made contributions to the work of the "Project for the new American Century were Richard Armitage, John Bolton, William Kristol, and Richard Perle. Readers will surely recognize that several future officials in the administration of President George Walker Bush were very active in an organization which sought to promote "regime change" in Iraq as the means to "stabilize" the Middle East as to make the region safe for the country that persecutes Palestinians and sees fit to invade the sovereign country of Lebanon and to bomb its civilians at will, Israel. 

Richard Cheney, of course, was Vice President of the United States of America, from January 20, 2001, to January 20, 2009.

I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was the Chief of Staff for Vice President Cheney from 2001 to 2005.

Donald D. Rumsfeld was the United States Secretary of Defense from January 20, 2001, to December 18, 2006.

Richard Perle was the Chairman of the Defense Board Advisory Committee in the White House of President George Walker Bush from 2001 to 2003.

Paul Wolfowitz was the Deputy Secretary of Defense of the United States of America from January 20, 2001, to June 1, 2005.

John Bolton was the United States Ambassador to the United Nations from August 1, 2005, to December 9, 2006.

Richard Armitage was the United States Deputy Secretary of State from March 26, 2001, to February 22, 2005.

Mind you, this is only a sampling of the individuals whose neoconservative war hawk roots who served in the George Walker Bush administration who had an association with the "Project for the New American Century."

It was on January 26, 1998, that several of the participants in the "Project for the New American Century" sent an open letter then President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton to urge "regime change" in Iraq:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War.  In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat.  We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world.  That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power.  We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months.  As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections.  Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished.  Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production.  The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets.  As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.

Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East.  It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard.  As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.

Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.


Elliott Abrams    Richard L. Armitage    William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner    John Bolton    Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama    Robert Kagan    Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol    Richard Perle    Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld    William Schneider, Jr.    Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz    R. James Woolsey    Robert B. Zoellick

(See Letter to President Clinton on Iraq,) 

There was, therefore, a predisposition on the part of the neoconservative war hawks in the administration of then President George Walker Bush to use the tragic events of September 11, 2001, as the pretext to launch an immoral, unjust, unconstitutional invasion of a sovereign nation that posed no immediate or any kind of real, legitimate threat to the national security of the United States of America. This unjust war has cost the lives of nearly five thousand American citizens, including civilians, and has been responsible for the deaths of somewhere between 100,000 and 600,000 thoroughly innocent Iraqi civilians (estimates vary), some of whom have died as a result of American military actions, others of whom have died as a result of terrorist attacks launched by various warring Mohammedan factions within Iraq and by those who used the country's porous borders after the invasion as a sieve to seek to attack American forces in Iraq that they could not otherwise reach from their home countries.

The financial costs of the war have been staggering. The social costs for Americans at home have been staggering as the family lives of regular military service personnel and, most especially, of reservists in the United States National Guard have been disrupted and, in all too many instances, entirely broken, shattered. As I wrote The Remnant on early-2003 in in anticipation of these costs of the pending war, "for what?" To make Iraq safe for a "democracy" it did not want and will always be threatened by rival factions? For what?

Here is a brief synopsis of the misrepresentations that were made in the propaganda build-up to the Iraq War in 2002-2003 here in the United States of America:

1) Saddam Hussein had no "weapons of mass destruction." He destroyed his stockpile of biological weapons in the 1990s. The biological agents that he used on the Kurds in 1991 were sold to him by the United States of America in 1985 to be used in the then ongoing Iran-Iraq War. Hussein, who was certainly a brutal thug responsible for the deaths of about 1.5 million Iraqis between 1969 and 2003 (about the same number of innocent human beings put to death under cover of the civil law by means of surgical abortions each year) simply stockpiled those weapons to be used in his own country at a later date. Who was the American envoy who arranged for the sale of these biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction? Look for yourselves:



 Shaking Hands: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983.  (National Security Archive, There is an interesting, fact-based article, replete with links to national security documents, available at: Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein.)

As noted just above, Hussein stockpiled these weapons sold to him by the United Sates of America, choosing not to use them in the war against Iran, which did not end until 1988, and used them instead on the Kurds in northern Iraq following the conclusion of the Persian Gulf War in 1991, a war that was launched to expel Iraq's forces from a country, Kuwait, which Hussein believed that American Ambassador April Glaspie on July 25, 1990, had signaled to him was not of significant enough interest for the United States of America to do anything other than express a verbal condemnation in its behalf should he, Hussein, decide to reclaim Iraqi land that was taken away from it following the end of World War I.

2) The Iraqi government had no involvement in the September 11, 2001, attacks upon the World Trade Center towers in the City of New York, New York, and upon the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia.

3) The Iraqi government had no involvement with Osama bin Laden or al-Qaeda. Saddam Hussein was a thug who governed Iraq in the style of a Mafioso don. Mobsters protect their territories very carefully. Saddam Hussein, a very secular and non-observant Mohammedan and a xenophobe who had no use for foreigners of any type (saved for the Soviets when it served his purposes to have them train his military forces), never wanted a rival gang of mobsters to enter and possibly destabilize his country.

4) According to then President Bush, in an address given on October 7, 2002, Saddam Hussein's Iraq had a "growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas" (see George W. Bush: Address to the Nation on Iraq From Cincinnati, Ohio). This last point was particularly laughable. Growing fleet? How about two unmanned aerial vehicles? That's right, two. Their range? About 650 miles, which means that these unmanned aerial vehicles would had to have been transported by the nonexistent Iraqi navy undetected by satellite reconnaissance in order to get close enough to the United States to drop the nonexistent "weapons of mass destruction" that Saddam Hussein was alleged to have possessed or was in the "process" of developing. Absolute absurdity designed to frighten the American public and win international support for his scheme of "regime change" to aid the not-so-"democratic" State of Israel and American corporate interests.

5) Saddam Hussein was not attempting to purchase enriched uranium from the country of Niger to foment another attack on the United States of America, contrary to the claim made by President George Walker Bush in his State of the Union Address on January 28, 2003: 

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.

Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving. (President Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address.)

No, it was George Walker Bush and his neoconservative war hawks who were deceiving the world. Saddam Hussein, caught up in his delusional world of paranoia and thuggery, was content to rattle the cages of the United States of America. He had no credible means to attack this country whatsoever.

The unjust, immoral, unconstitutional invasion of the sovereign country of Iraq to impose upon its people the "American way" so as to make the Middle East safe for Israel has also devastated Iraq's population of Christians, including Chaldean Rite Catholics. Mohammedan violence against Catholics and members of various Orthodox sects has been relentless in the past seven years. As bad as Saddam Hussein was, and he was a brutal thug, to be sure, he was a clever politician who wanted to have the support of as many groups as possible in Iraq, which is why he protected the small Christian minority in that country. One of the consequences of Hussein's overthrow has been to make Christians "fair game" for Mohammedan murderers, who have long desired to kill off or to drive into exile the "infidels."  (See More Christians Killed in IraqChaldean bishop says U.S. accountable for death of Archbishop of Mosul, and Go Tell Iraq's Catholics--and American Babies--About The "Lesser of Two Evils".)

Neither the George Walker Bush administration nor that of his successor, Barack Hussein Obama, have cared much to stop the violence against Christians as to do so would mean angering members of warring Mohammedan factions who are deemed "necessary" to build a "democratic" Iraq. The lives of Chaldean Rite Catholics and members of the various Orthodox sects are as expendable to American policy-makers, who have, of course, sanctioned outright torture and introduced contraception into country almost immediately after the first wave of the American invasion began seven years ago today, as the lives of Palestinian Arabs and the Lebanese are to the murderous thugs in the government of Israel and in that country's defense forces. Too bad. The "better" world must be built. Too bad that so many innocent lives must be killed. Too bad.

The United States of America is as vulnerable to attack from without now as it was seven years ago today. Diligent intelligence work has thwarted several credible efforts to attack our territory once again, including an attack that was to take place within the New York City subway system. Alas, the leaders of this country do not understand that we can never make this country secure from attacks without as long as our laws sanction the deliberate assaults upon the innocent preborn day in and day out. The Rome of the Caesars fell to barbarian invaders in large measure because of the social decay found within the empire (in addition to the cost of needless foreign wars, over-regulation of the economy, bloated bureaucracies, the cult of personality of the ruling class—sound familiar?). The United States is not exempt from such a fate. (Please see We've Done This to OurselvesEmpires Come and Go--Including Ours, and No Homeland Security for the Preborn.) (Excerpted from Longer Than World War II.)

John Bolton as National Security Adviser?

President Donald John Trump has no one else to blame but himself for choosing a man with a long, long reputation of backstabbing in defense of his quest for endless wars. Bolton is a man who holds grudges just about as long as Trump himself, and he is out to settle scores with the president, which is what he is going to try to do if a majority of United States Senators vote to permit him to testify at the current impeachment trial. Bolton is one of those “experts” who believe that there is only one way to view the problems of the world, his way, and that anyone who believes that the United States of America has no business in Iraq or Afghanistan or Syria is either ignorant or unpatriotic.

Iraq has become a Shi’ite Mohammedan stronghold because of George Walker Bush’s fatal decision to help make “the Middle East safe for America’s only ally in the region, Israel” by ordering the invasion of Iraq nearly seventeen years ago, which made it possible for Iraq’s historic enemy, Iran, to exert effective control over its leadership. One of the ironies of this is that the man who was killed upon the direct order of President Donald John Trump, Qassem Soleimani, was, much like Saddam Hussein before him, willing to cooperate with the United States military when there was a reason to do so:

The American military won’t miss Major Gen. Qassem Soleimani. As the mastermind of Iran’s foreign military operations, Soleimani, who died Friday in a U.S. airstrike, was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of U.S. soldiers over a decade and a half in Iraq.

Yet, though he is owed no eulogies, Soleimani leaves a more complicated record than it might at first seem. Over the years, he proved himself again and again willing to negotiate with his American adversaries. And sometimes he was willing to make compromises that helped U.S. officials reach their goals. He was the kind of figure, not uncommon in statecraft, whom diplomats find they need to do business with, despite their qualms.

The commander of the elite Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Soleimani was a looming, though invisible, presence in many of the conflicts U.S. forces have engaged in since 9/11, including those in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. And during that time, he dealt repeatedly with one U.S. diplomat, the Mideast specialist Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, though the two never met face to face.

Not long after al Qaida’s 9/11 attacks, U.S. forces and their Afghan allies toppled the Taliban government that had provided a haven for al Qaida. Then came the job of working together with other world powers to set up a new government in Kabul. The Iranians, who had long been at odds with their eastern neighbor, opened secret talks with U.S. officials to discuss how to beat the Taliban and also how to put together a successor regime.

Crocker was the point man for those talks, held in Geneva, Paris and New York starting in late September 2001. The Iranian team included three officials, one of whom was a Quds Force member.

Crocker, who left government service in 2012, later said in an interview that the Iranian negotiators were receiving their marching orders directly from Soleimani back in Tehran.

Months later, after Crocker was dispatched to Kabul to run the newly reopened U.S. embassy, talks with the Iranians picked back up. Troops of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps were all over the country, but they never fought with CIA operators or U.S. special forces, because of a tacit agreement made with Soleimani’s blessing.

Publicly, the Tehran government continued to denounce the U.S. government, as it always had since the 1979 revolution. But privately, Crocker was getting word from Iranian officials that Soleimani was very pleased with the two countries’ collaboration, which included building a network of roads in Afghanistan.

The harmony was short-lived. On Jan. 29, 2002, President Bush denounced Iran as part of an “axis of evil” and threatened to attack its nuclear program. At their next meeting, the Iranians made clear they felt betrayed. One of the diplomats told Crocker that Soleimani was especially enraged. He had been advocating in Tehran for a continuation of the U.S.-Iranian talks, and now felt politically vulnerable.

Crocker had seen repeated signs that Soleimani was coming to the view that Iran should end its long antagonism with the United States for a better relationship. Now that hope was lost. “One word in one speech changed history,” Crocker said later.

Even after his change of heart, however, Soleimani continued to engage. In 2003, after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Crocker was dispatched to Baghdad to help organize an Iraqi advisory council that was going to try to take the first steps toward a democratic government.

Crocker understood that the Iranians were extremely influential in Iraq, and thought the council wouldn’t work without some level of their support. Getting that support meant indirect communication with Soleimani about who should be picked for the council.

Crocker would tell the Iraqi Shia leader Adel Abdul Mahdi, who is now Iraq’s prime minister, which Iraqis he was considering for the council. Abdul Mahdi would run the names past Soleimani, and Crocker would drop candidates Soleimani objected to. The formation of the governing council had become, in part, a negotiation between Tehran and Washington, Crocker said.

Crocker became involved in another indirect negotiation with Soleimani in 2007 when he served as ambassador to Iraq. By then, the struggle in Iraq between the United States and Iran had become bitter and bloody. Soleimani’s forces were training and equipping Iraqi Shia militia to attack U.S. troops and were inflicting an ever-higher death toll. Talks with Iraq on the issue went nowhere, however, and Americans continued to die because of Soleimani’s directives. (When Soleimani Aided the American Military.)

Mind you, it is not to indemnify Soleimani’s killing of American military and civilian personnel to state that the Mohammedan murderer would have no Americans to kill unless “Dubya” had put them there in the first place, and John Bolton was fully in favor of the entire operation from beginning to end (oh, it hasn’t ended, has it?). President Trump should have followed through on his campaign promise to end American involvement in the region, and it is one of the tragedies of his presidency that he has done so.

Although retired Judge Andrew Napolitano, who has been wrongheaded about supporting the president’s impeachment on the trumped up charges against him, had some good points to make about the illegal and unnecessary nature of Qassem Soleimani’s killing (see Soleimani Killing was Illegal and Deceptive), no commentator and no one in the any presidential administration has ever understood the simple truth that there will never be peace in the Middle East until and unless everyone there is converted to the true Faith and welcomes the Divine Redeemer, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, into their souls by means of Holy Communion and by having frequent recourse to the Sacred Tribunal of Penance. Our Lord Himself has told us so:

At that time, Jesus said to the Scribes and Pharisees, Therefore, behold, I send you prophets, and wise men, and scribes; and some you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from town to town; that upon you may come all the just blood that has been shed on the earth, from the blood of Abel the just unto the blood of Zacharias the son of Barachias, whom you killed between the temple and the altar. Amen I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. Jerusalem, Jerusalem! you who kill the prophets, and stone those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together, as a hen gathers her young under her wings, but you would not! Behold, your house is left to you desolate. For I say to you, you shall not see Me henceforth until you shall say, Blessed is He Who comes in the name of the Lord! (Matthew 23:34-39.)

There will never be peace in the Middle East until everyone in that region converts to the Catholic Faith and say in unison, “Blessed is He Who comes in the name of the Lord!”

(A person who recommended that I appear on Crossfire in 1987 to discuss an outbreak of Palestinian-Israeli violence then was incredulous--perhaps "mortified" is a better word—when I said that I would say just that, that everyone involved had to convert to the Catholic Church, in a live appearance on television. Guess what? I did not appear on Crossfire.)

Catholicism must inform the minds of men in civil power. That this is not the case is part of the adversary’s plan to keep everyone at odds with each other and to keep civil rulers convinced that they can build the mythical “better,” more “just” and “peaceful world without submitting themselves in all things that pertains to temporal and eternal good of souls to the true Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order.

Have you heard that before on this site?

You have?

Well, you are likely to hear it again.

Back to Trump’s Enabling of His Enemies

All right.

The digression is over, but I believe that it is important to continue to explain that President Donald John Trump has, despite all of the protestations about his brilliance and effectiveness, has unwittingly abetted the immoral and unconstitutional coup that has been and continues to be waged against him by committed statists who have now exposed themselves as being prepared to take down anyone who manages to get elected as president whose own agenda of naturalist presuppositions is opposed to their own.

To wit, Trump has  enabled and emboldened the hateful, truly repugnant likes of Nancy Patricia D’Alesandro Pelosi, Adam Schiff (see Horowitz Report exposes Adam Schiff's Lies), Jerrold Nadler (whose epic hatred of Donald John Trump stems from the days when both were liberals but on different sides of Trump’s plans to build something he envisioned as “Trump City” on the west side of the Borough of Manhattan in the City of New York, New York—see Nadler-Trump Feud to Resume With Higher Stakes), et al. by doing utterly stupid things such as deputizing Giuliani and his bunch of thugs to investigate the thoroughly corrupt Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.’s, efforts to get an Ukrainian prosecutor fired who was investigation how the inexperienced Hunter Biden’s company Burisma, was able to get a contract when the younger Biden had no experience related to energy resources.

Trump was foolish to even have mentioned such a thing to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in their now infamous phone conversation of July 25, 2019, that became the pretense by which the alleged “whistleblower,” Eric Ciaramella (see Judicial Watch Unearths Visitor Logs from Eric Ciaramella's Time at the White House), acting in concerned with former Central Intelligence Agency Director John Brennan and the shiftless United States Representative Adam Schiff, filed his “whistleblower” complaint against the president even though the latter is not part of the intelligence community and thus cannot be the subject of any such complaint filed with the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community Michael Atkinson and thus started the process leading to Articles of Impeachment against the president that go to trial before the United States Senate on Tuesday, January 21, 2020, the Feast of Saint Agnes. President Donald John Trump trusts entirely too much in his own “instincts,” which are driven not by any genuine principles rooted in the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law but by visceral reactions that all too frequently play into the hands of his obsessed and obsessive enemies.

Compounding the president’s plight is that there are swamp creatures in the utterly false opposite of the naturalist “right” otherwise known as the Republican Party who are eager to find any way possible to curry favor with the mainslime media by voting to convict President Trump of “abuse of power” even though lethal military aid to the government of Ukraine, which, by the way, the government of the United States of America has no business providing, was made available to the Ukrainians even without a formal agreement to investigate the shady dealings of the Biden Nepotism Multinational Corporation. Such candidates for future recognition by Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg as “profiles in courage” at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government include pro-abort Catholic Senators Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), the hapless, spineless flip-flopping, carpetbagging Mormon William Mitt Romney (Utah, by way of Michigan and Massachusetts), the intelligence community’s own Richard Burr (North Carolina), Cory Gardner (Colorado) and Lamar Alexander (Tennessee), who popularized the wearing of plaid shirts during his spectacularly failed effort to secure the 1996 Republican Party presidential nomination. (Remember the screaming LAMAR! Bumper stickers, banners and tee shirts?) Such a development would provide the Democrats with what they want, a “bipartisan majority in favor of removing President Donald John Trump, even though the Senate vote will fall short of the sixty-seven required for his actual removal.

In a weary word, good readers, this is a farce.

Abuse of Power?

Part of this impeachment farce involves an article of impeachment claiming that President Donald John Trump abused his presidential powers by asking Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate the activities of the Bidens in his country and the extent to which Ukrainian authorities may have cooperated in the Obama/Soetoro administration’s efforts to thwart President Donald John Trump’s election on November 8, 2016. If this is “abuse of power,” no matter how imprudent and foolish, then it is important to take a very brief look at the way in some of Trump’s forty-three predecessors (Stephen Grover Cleveland served two nonconsecutive terms, 1885-1889 and 1893 to 1897) have truly abused power:

The anti-Catholic bigot and notorious blasphemer named John Adams attempted to silence opposition voices by having Congress enact the Alien and Sedition Acts, which were passed on July 14, 1798, and  made it a crime to publish "false, scandalous, and malicious" writing against the government of the United States of America and its officials.

President Andrew Jackson, who served from March 4, 1829, to March 4, 1837, was a bloodthirsty hater of Indians, 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. While Texas is a freer state than most, there is really no hiding place from the slave drivers. No hiding place at all, especially when one considers the following anti-Catholic, anti-clerical Masons who wrote the Texas Declaration of Independence in 1836:

“When the Federal Republican Constitution of their country [Mexico], which they have sworn to support, no longer has a substantial existence, and the whole nature of their government has been forcibly changed, without their consent, from a restricted federative republic, composed of sovereign states, to a consolidated central military despotism, in which every interest is disregarded but that of the army and the priesthood, both the eternal enemies of civil liberty, the everready minions of power, and the usual instruments of tyrants.” (Texas Declaration of Independence, March 2, 1836.)

As I will never cease to remind the readership of this site, a Constitution that is based on no need to even recognize Christ the King, no less submit to His Social Kingship over men and their nations by means of the Indirect Power of His Catholic Church in all that pertains to the good of souls, will produce men who have respect neither for the laws of God or the true meaning of its own text.

The sixteenth President of the United States of America, Abraham Lincoln, did not exactly "cotton" to political opposition during the War Between the States from 1861 to 1865, as he intimidated judges, shut down newspapers, suspended the writ of habeas corpus without an Act of Congress, held opponents in prison without trial and put civilians on trial in military courts at a time when civilian courts were open. This supposedly “righteous” man unleashed a wave of terror in the South, especially in General William Tecumseh Sherman’s “March to the Sea” between November 15,   1864, and December 21, 1864 that laid waste the property of innocent Southerners and killed untold thousands of innocent human beings (see March to the Sea Begins). This atheist and statist, who used religious references to fool the masses, set the Federal government on a course of expansion that has not only increased since that time, especially after the presidencies of Theodore Roosevelt, Thomas Woodrow Wilson and, of course, the aforementioned Franklin Delano Roosevelt. And this is just a partial listing of what led John Wilkes Booth to cry out, "Sic temper tyrannis!" as he jumped onto the stage of the Ford Theater in Washington, District of Columbia, on Good Friday, April 14, 1865, from the balcony where he had just shot Lincoln in the head, a wound that would take Lincoln's life early the next morning, Holy Saturday, April 15, 1865.

Suppression of opposition to American involvement in World War I under the administration of President Thomas Woodrow Wilson was so extensive that Senator Hiram Johnson of California, who had run as former President Theodore Roosevelt's Vice Presidential running-mate on the Progressive (Bull Moose) Party ticket in 1912 when Wilson was running for his first term as President against Roosevelt and then President William Howard Taft, who had defeated Roosevelt, to say on the floor of the United States Senate: "It is now a crime for anyone to say anything or print anything against the government of the United States. The punishment for doing so is to go to jail" (quoted in Dr Paul Johnson's Modern Times). (See also my Fascists for Freedom.)

Just as an aside, President Thomas Woodrow Wilson wanted to use the unconstitutional Federal Reserve System, created in an act passed by the Congress of the United States of America and signed into law by Wilson on December 23, 1913, as the means to centralize the banking and monetary systems under the authority of the government of the United States of America in order to restrict the legitimate freedom of Americans to control their own private property and to make private industry dependent upon the "direction" provided it by governmental regulators and overseers. It was for this reason as well that Wilson saw to it that Congress enacted legislation, following the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, to create our current system of confiscatory taxation on our incomes. And it was Wilson, of course, who believed that the Masonic revolutionaries in Mexico, aping the "example" established by the French Revolutionaries, could "build" or "engineer" the "better" society in Our Lady's country by the killing of thousands upon thousands of Catholics:

Wilson replied [in 1915, to Father Francis Clement Kelley, who was a representative of James Cardinal Gibbons, the Archbishop of Baltimore, for whom Wilson had such contempt that he addressed him as Mister Gibbons]: '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 caller in 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 (Robert Leckie, American and Catholic, Doubleday, 1970, pp. 274.)

In other words, Thomas Woodrow Wilson really believed that it was "necessary" for the Freemsaonic/Communist Mexican government that ejoyed his favor to kill Catholics, whose "backward" beliefs were impediments to the institutionalization of "liberal values" that required him to suppress all opposition to his policies right here in the United States of America.

It was a scant twelve years after the stroke-disabled Wilson left office on March 4, 1921, that the thirty-third Freemason named Franklin Delano Roosevelt used the Internal Revenue Service to audit his "enemies." He contravened the law in numerous ways as he used the legislative powers illicitly given to regulatory agencies by Congress during the Great Depression and during World War II to set the stage for Barack Hussein Obama's rule by decree and presidential fiat. Roosevelt, the fifth cousin of the Republican statist and fellow thirty-third degree Freemason, Theodore Roosevelt, the uncle of Eleanor Roosevelt, even ordered his Attorney General, Robert Jackson, to engage in domestic espionage. Roosevelt’s directive took the form of a memorandum dated May 21, 1940.

Robert Jackson, who was appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States of America on July 11, 1941, did not like the directive as he believed that Franklin Roosevelt had authorized domestic surveillance on anyone suspected of being subversive. Jackson’s successor, however, Francis Biddle, who took office as the Attorney General of the United States of America on August 25, 1941, had no qualms about the directive, delegating the task of carrying it out to the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, John Edgar Hoover, who was more than happy to run with this new expansion of his authority to investigate anyone at any time for any reason. The history of the Federal government’s surveillance since that time is one of completely unchecked growth.

Jackson himself wrote about this rather extensively. Former Speaker of the United States House of Representatives Newton Leroy Gingrich provide one such example from Robert H. Jackson’s writings:

“With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him. It is in this realm in which the prosecutor picks some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass or selects some group of unpopular persons and then looks for an offense, that the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies. It is here that law enforcement becomes personal, and the real crime becomes that of being unpopular with the predominant or governing group, being attached to the wrong political views, or being personally obnoxious to or in the way of the prosecutor himself.” (Impeachment Will Bring Pelosi and House Democrats Condemnation by History).

Mind you, this was eighty years ago now! The anti-Incarnational civil state of Modernity must lead to totalitarianism over the course of time.

The Fourth Amendment?

Our minders in the Federal government of the United States of America have, in effect told us, “We don’t need no stinkin’ Fourth Commandment.

Moreover, it has been case for most of this country’s history that our minders in the Federal government of the United States of America have violated the laws of God and of men to suit their sorry purposes whenever they deemed it “necessary” to do so.

Congress after Congress abdicated its legislative authority to the Executive Branch of the Federal Government of the United States of America from the time of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s “New Deal” forward, although, as noted earlier, a lot of the spade work had been done during the administrations of Theodore Roosevelt and Thomas Woodrow Wilson. Nearly seventy independent or quasi-independent regulatory agencies within the Federal government exist to this very day, each composed of commissioners who are beyond the control of a president to remove and who chafe at the thought of true legislative oversight of their unconstitutional “rule-making” authority (deemed to be “constitutional” by the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Company, April 12, 1937).

Readers will note I claimed that independent regulatory commissions (and the quasi-independent commissions) are unconstitutional. I have taught this in my government classes over the decades. I will make this claim whenever I write about this subject (or have taught about it in my bygone days as a college professor of political science and constitutional law) no matter the fact that the Supreme Court of the United States of America has ruled that such agencies, which are staffed by commissioners who are appointed by a president for a term, usually seven years, that is longer than one presidential administration but shorter than two, and confirmed by the United States Senate are constitutional (see, for example, Humphrey's Executor v. United States of America, May 27, 1935).

My reasoning is simple: these agencies exercise each powers that are particular to each of the three branches of government as they make rules that having the binding force of law (which rules are supposed to be founded in Congressional legislation) and also enforce the very rules that they create while serving finally as the court of first instance for litigants to appeal decisions made about the enforcement of these rules. Although readers of this site, few in number though you may be, know that I am a critic of the founders of this nation, they are the individuals who crafted the Constitution in order to prevent what they believed could be a tyranny of the majority. Writing in The Federalist, Number 47, James Madison explained:

No political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value, or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty, than that on which the objection is founded. The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. Were the federal Constitution, therefore, really chargeable with the accumulation of power, or with a mixture of powers, having a dangerous tendency to such an accumulation, no further arguments would be necessary to inspire a universal reprobation of the system. I persuade myself, however, that it will be made apparent to every one, that the charge cannot be supported, and that the maxim on which it relies has been totally misconceived and misapplied. In order to form correct ideas on this important subject, it will be proper to investigate the sense in which the preservation of liberty requires that the three great departments of power should be separate and distinct. (Federalist No. 47.)

Behold a system, however, that has indeed degenerated to a point where non-elected officials have the accumulated powers of the three branches of government--legislative, executive, and judicial. This has occurred because James Madison, a virulent anti-Catholic who is considered to be the "father" of the Constitution, believed that there were sufficient safeguards contained within the Constitution to provide a check upon the consistent misuse of power by those serving in the three branches of government. (May the great French monarch come soon!)

This is not even to mention William Jefferson Blythe Clinton's aggressive promotion of the chemical and surgical execution of the innocent preborn and the role played by the late Attorney General Janet Reno, who as a Catholic, mind you, in organizing the Violence Against Abortion Providers Conspiracy (VAAPCON) Task Force under the authority of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)  to intimidate pro-life Americans, including a woman in Toledo, Ohio, who was visited by FBI agents after she had written to a baby-killer to tell her that she was praying for her conversion, an act that was deemed by the agents to have constituted a "violent threat" against the baby-killer (see FBI's VAAPCON Spies on Pro-Lifers for more information about the Clinton-Reno war against pro-lifers).

It was also during the administration of William Jefferson Blythe Clinton that the Chairman of the Federal Election Commission, a woman by the name of Lois Lerner, sought to intimidate former Illinois State Representative Al Salvi by seeking to bring charges against him that were found by a Federal judge to be without merit whatsoever.

Here is a report that was published in 2013:

CHICAGO - The IRS scandal may have its roots in Illinois politics. Specifically, the 1996 U.S. Senate race between Democrat Congressman Dick Durbin and conservative Republican State Rep. Al Salvi.

More than a decade before his 2010 letter to IRS officials urging the agency to target conservative organizations, U.S. Senator Dick Durbin's political career crossed paths with Ms. Lerner when she was head of the Enforcement Division of the Federal Election Commission (FEC), and directly involved in the 1996 Illinois U.S. Senate race.

Soon after the IRS story broke, Al Salvi told Illinois Review that it was IRS official Lois Lerner who represented the FEC in the 1996 Democrat complaint against him. According to Salvi, Lerner was, without question, politically motivated, and went so far as to make him an offer: "Promise me you will never run for office again, and we'll drop this case."

Salvi declined her offer. In fact he ran for Illinois Secretary of State in 1998.

But when he saw Lerner plead the Fifth Amendment before Congress last week, he recognized her. "That's the woman," Salvi said. "And I didn't plead the Fifth like she did."

In 2000, a federal judge dismissed the FEC case against him, clearing Salvi's name and reputation.

Now with the revelations about Lerner, the IRS, and the intriguing connection to Durbin, Salvi shared with Illinois Review his experience with Lois Lerner.

The 1996 FEC Complaint against Salvi

During the last several weeks of the 1996 Illinois U.S. Senate campaign, two FEC complaints were filed against Salvi - one by Illinois Democrats about the way he reported a loan he made to himself, and another by the Democratic Senatorial Committee about a reported business donation.

Salvi made a personal loan to his campaign for $1.1 million to fund the last campaign ads in the expensive Chicago television ad market. News of that loan and the filed FEC complaint dominated Chicago media headlines towards the end of the campaign, suffocating the life out of Salvi's threatening momentum.

"We couldn't get our message out because day after day, the media carried story after story about the FEC complaint," Salvi told Illinois Review in an exclusive interview. 

After Salvi lost to Durbin, he was left to face the FEC complaints. The Commission alleged that the Salvi committee:

  • Reported bank loans to Mr. Salvi as personal loans from the candidate, never identifying the source of the funds;
  • Failed to report debts to the candidate;
  • Failed to file 48-hour notices for personal advances from the candidate; and
  • Failed to disclose campaign-related payments by the candidate to vendors and a bank.

A federal district court dismissed the case against Salvi in 1999, and the FEC appealed it to the 7th U.S. District Court of Appeals.

The FBI was called in at one point to gather evidence on the case. According to Salvi, two FBI agents unexpectedly visited the Salvis' home, and interrogated his elderly mother about her $2,000 check to her son's campaign and where she got "that kind of money." 

Salvi says he saw the visits as nothing but intimidation, making it clear the FEC intended to use his case as a example to others.

At the same time, Salvi said, other conservative groups such as the Christian Coalition were besieged by the FEC demands. One time, representatives from several investigated conservative groups even convened on a conference call to compare notes on how the Clinton Administration was scouring their organizations' financial and activity records.

In fact, Salvi's case (and name) was highlighted as an example several times in the FEC's monthly publication until the case was finally dismissed in 2000.

It was while dealing with the FEC complaint that Salvi says he first met Lois Lerner, then the head of the FEC Enforcement Division.

During one conversation with Lerner, she offered a deal Salvi says he'll never forget, and neither will his brother and attorney, Mike Salvi.

"She said, 'If you promise to never run for office again, we'll drop this case,'" Salvi recalled.

At the time, Salvi said, he figured it was probably just Dick Durbin's way of getting him out of politics. 

Salvi said he refused Lerner's offer because he knew he had done nothing wrong and wanted to leave the door open for future campaigns. In 1998, Salvi ran for Illinois Secretary of State while the 1996 FEC case against him continued.

Nearly four years and a hundred thousand dollars in legal fees later, federal judge George Lindbergh dismissed the FEC case against him, leaving the FEC attorney Lois Lerner -- who was present and actively arguing before the judge -- shocked. 

"The judge said to Lerner, 'Let me get this straight - Mr. Salvi loaning himself money is legal, and you have no complaint against that, is that right?'" Salvi said. "Ms. Lerner agreed. Then the judge said, 'You just don't like the way his attorneys filled out the report?' Lerner agreed."

Case dismissed, the judge said shaking his head and pounding his gavel, as Lerner objected.

"We never lose!" Lerner said to Salvi afterwards.

Despite all the Democrats' efforts, Salvi never paid the FEC a dollar in fines or penalties.

Congressional Hearings On IRS Scandal 

Salvi, now 53, said when he saw Lerner on television last week, those FEC hearings all came back to his memory -- 13 years later. "I didn't plead the Fifth," Salvi said.

And the taxpayers had no choice but to pay for Lerner's legal trail that lasted for over four years.

Durbin Asks IRS For Help in 2010

After the U.S. Supreme Court decided the Citizens United case, many incumbent politicians became concerned about the activities of organizations like Crossroads GPS, which had announced it would be running issue ads against Illinois' Democrat candidate for U.S. Senate Alexi Giannoulias, who was campaigning to succeed Barack Obama in the U.S. Senate.

In October 2010, Durbin wrote IRS Commissioner Shulman about the tax exemption status of Crossroads - a job that would find its way to IRS official Lois Lerner.

I write to urge the Internal Revenue Service to examine the purpose and primary activities of several 501(c)(4) organizations that appear to be in violation of the law.

One organization whose activities appear to be inconsistent with its tax status is Crossroads GPS, organized as a (c)(4) entity in June. The group has spent nearly $20 million on television advertising specific to Senate campaigns this year. If this political activity is indeed the primary activity of the organization, it raises serious questions about the organization's compliance with the Internal Revenue Code.

Other 2010 letters to the IRS with similar requests from elected officials may be included in four Congressional investigations now scheduled to take place in the next few weeks.

Salvi says it will be interesting to see how Lois Lerner, Dick Durbin, the FEC, IRS, and Illinois politics intersect as these investigations continue. (Lerner intrigue goes back to '96 DurbinSalvi.)

Unfortunately for Mr. Salvi, however, he did knuckle under to the then Chairman of the Republican National Senatorial Campaign Committee after he had told him to quit talking about abortion or lose the committee's financial support. Oh, yes, you want the name of that individual? I will happily give it to you as it is none other than the now-former United States Senator Alfonse M. D'Amato (R-New York), against whom I ran, unsuccessfully, of course, for the senatorial nomination of the Right to Life Party of the State of New York in 1998. (See Blood Money Talks Loud And Clear, part two, for details.)

Mind you, this is not to ignore President Richard Milhous Nixon's efforts to investigate and intimidate, if not sabotage, political opponents. In his case, however, even some Republicans at the time recognized wrongdoing for what it was and refused to suborn it. Wrongdoing is enabled today, not checked.

Additionally, it should be noted that President George W. Bush has authorized more invasions of the privacy of ordinary American citizens than any of his predecessors combined. The use of the coercive power of the state has increased dramatically since the events of September 11, 2001, without any real increase in the security of this country (indeed, our border with Mexico is a sieve through which is passing countless numbers of Mohammedans intent on doing us no good at all).

There will come a time in the near future when some presidential administration is going to use the sophisticated means of data collection on ordinary citizens established under George W. Bush to question them closely about their beliefs. The Roman Emperors, who had their own system of informants, many of them Jews of the Diaspora, to persecute Catholics, to be sure, could not have dreamed of a system as comprehensive and draconian as has been developed in a supposedly "free" country by a supposedly "conservative" chief executive. Make no mistake about it, George Walker Bush paved the way for the election and the policies of his successor, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, who is still very actively working behind the scenes with his other security state apparatchiks to undermine the presidency of Donald John Trump and to diminish his chances for re-election on Tuesday, November 3, 2020.

Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro and his chief "intellectual" advisor, the well-connected Chicagoland ideologue named Valerie Jarrett, seethed with complete and utter contempt for those who criticized him, something that was apparent as early as 2008 when he made the following remarks a private fundraising event in Sodom on the Bay, California:

But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.  (Barack Hussein Obama, Obama: No Surprise That Hard-Pressed Pennsylvanians Cling to Guns and Religion; see also Obama's Communist Mentor.)

Obama/Soetoro governed in a manner completely befitting the beliefs he expressed privately in San Francisco, California, twelve years ago, and he is tied with President Trump as the most admired man in the United States of America (Trump and Obama Tie as America's Most Admired Men). Then again, what does contempt for one's opponents, misuse of the Internal Revenue Service, the busting of the Federal budget that has doubled the national debt to over twenty trillion dollars, the violation of numerous provisions of the Constitution of the United States of America and of Federal laws mean to most Americans? Nothing. Obama/Soetoro got re-elected eight years ago even though he had demonstrated himself as contemptuous of the laws of God and men as he is of those who dare to oppose his "received wisdom." The man has told lie after lie ("If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor," etc.) without putting too much of a dent in his undeserved popularity.

Intelligence Forces as Governments Unto Themselves

Ultimately, however, the misuse of the combined forces of the intelligence community against Donald John Trump is really nothing new as President Lyndon Baines Johnson used his great friendship with longtime Federal Bureau of Investigation Director John Edgar Hoover to have F.B.I. agents spy on the presidential campaign of United States Senator Barry Goldwater (R-Arizona) in 1964, and his successor, the aforementioned President Richard Milhous Nixon used the F.B.I. to keep track of political opponents and student radicals. Although the existence of “student radicals,” many of whom were financed by front organizations acting at the behest of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, is a commentary on the abyss into which the pluralist exercise of “popular democracy” will fall over the course of the time, the fact remains that the methods employed nearly fifty years ago (can 1970 be fifty years ago?) remain almost identical to those that have been used by the intelligence communities against President Donald John Trump and his associates.

Consider the following excerpt from the report issued by the United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities (known colloquially as the “Church Committee Report,” so named because the committee was chaired by United States Senator Frank Forrester Church III (D-Idaho), which was released on April 26, 1976:

The answer to each of these questions is disturbing. Too many people have been spied upon by too many Government agencies and too much information has been collected. The Government has often undertaken the secret surveillance of citizens on the basis of their political beliefs, even when those beliefs posed no threat of violence or illegal acts on behalf of a hostile foreign power. The Government, operating primarily through secret informants, but also using other intrusive techniques such as wiretaps, microphone "bugs", surreptitious mail opening, and break-ins, has swept in vast amounts of information about the personal lives, views, and associations of American citizens. Investigations of groups deemed potentially dangerous-and even of groups suspected of associating with potentially dangerous organizations-have continued for decades, despite the fact that those groups did not engage in unlawful activity. Groups and individuals have been harassed and disrupted because of their political views and their lifestyles. Investigations have been based upon vague standards whose breadth made excessive collection inevitable. Unsavory and vicious tactics have been employed-including anonymous attempts to break up marriages, disrupt meetings, ostracize persons from their professions, and provoke target groups into rivalries that might result in deaths. Intelligence agencies have served the political and personal objectives of presidents and other high officials. While the agencies often committed excesses in response to pressure from high officials in the Executive branch and Congress, they also occasionally initiated improper activities and then concealed them from officials whom they had a duty to inform.

Governmental officials-including those whose principal duty is to enforce the law-have violated or ignored the law over long periods of time and have advocated and defended their right to break the law.

The Constitutional system of checks and balances has not adequately controlled intelligence activities. Until recently the Executive branch has neither delineated the scope of permissible activities nor established procedures for supervising intelligence agencies. Congress has failed to exercise sufficient oversight, seldom questioning the use to which its apropriations were being put. Most domestic intelligence issues have not reached the courts, and in those cases when they have reached the courts, the judiciary has been reluctant to grapple with them. Each of these points is briefly illustrated below, and covered in substantially greater detail in the following sections of the report. 1. The Number of People Affected by Domestic Intelligence Activity United States intelligence agencies have investigated a vast number of American citizens and domestic organizations. FBI headquarters alone has developed over 500,000 domestic intelligence files," and these have been augmented by additional files at FBI Field Offices. The FBI opened 65,000 of these domestic intelligence files in 1972 alone.12 In fact, substantially more individuals and groups are subject to intelligence scrutiny than the number of files would appear to indicate, since typically, each domestic intelligence file contains information on more than one individual or group, and this information is readily retrievable through the FBI General Name Index. The number of Americans and domestic groups caught in the domestic intelligence net is further illustrated by the following statistics: -Nearly a quarter of a million first class letters were opened and photographed in the United States by the CIA between 1953-1973, producing a CIA computerized index of nearly one and one-half million names.1 -At least 130,000 first class letters were opened and photographed by the FBI between 1940-1966 in eight U.S. cities.'! -Some 300,000 individuals were indexed in a CIA computer system and separate files were created on approximately 7,200 Americans and over 100 domestic groups during the course of CIA's Operation CHAOS (1967-1973).15 -Millions of private telegrams sent from, to, or through the United States were obtained by the National Security Agency from 1947 to 1975 under a secret 'arrangement with three United States telegraph companies.16 -An estimated 100,000 Americans were the subjects of United States Army intelligence files created between the mid-1960's and 1971.1 -Intelligence files on more than 11,000 individuals and groups were created by the Internal Revenue Service between 1969 and 1973 and tax investigations were started on the basis of political rather than tax criteria.' -At least 26,000 individuals were at one point catalogued on an FBI list of persons to be rounded up in the event of a "national emergency".19 (Church Committee Report, April 26, 1976. Longer excerpts can be found in Appendix F below.)

One of the great tragedies of World War II was the establishment of a web of intelligence agencies that were designed to protect Americans from legitimate threats from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and its allies that evolved into a permanent underground government whose leaders view their agencies as autonomous ruling councils that have the right, as they see it, to direct American politics to their liking. This web of intelligence agencies is so deeply embedded in the very fabric of the government that its “graduates,” that is, former agents and officers, were placed strategically into almost every quarter of social life (law, journalism, especially at the long since defunct New York Herald Tribune, the very much active and insidious The New York Times and each of the three major American television news organizations, especially the Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS), university professorships, banks, investment houses and various “charitable” foundations. It is interesting, however, that, according to Carl Bernstein (even a blind mouse can find cheese now and again), the Church Committee report avoided this subject, quite possibly because it was steered away from it by the intelligence community (see The CIA and the Media).

Although the target of the intelligence community’s domestic espionage in the 1960s and 1970s was the radical elements of Soviet front organizations, it is indeed ironic that yesterday’s anti-establishment “investigated” have become today’s  establishment “investigators,” and they do not tolerate dissent. The American natural security and intelligence apparatus is now controlled, at least for the most part, by the ideological descendants of those who once loathed it, the most “progressive” elements of the false opposite of the naturalist “left.” And this is not even to mention the fact that most of those who control the "high technology" firms that demand we give them complete permission to spy on us in order to use their "applications," purchase their products or even to browse the internet are totalitarians who are trying to control the way we think, what we believe, how we act and how, for those who believe that elections mean anything, we vote. Privacy? Nothing is private any longer. See The secretive company that might end privacy as we know it.

This is why most of these "high technology" firms are so willing to do the bidding of Communist China (see Google Employees Protest Secret Work on Censored Search) and are ever ready to do the bidding of the American intelligence agencies, which, as noted just above, are in control of the descedants of those who were yestersday's "investigated."

What makes this situation is even more tragic is that Donald John Trump, despite having been the subject of abuse by the entire Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) by many within the upper echelons of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court itself, supports the completely unconstitutional nature of FISA and of the existence of a court whose chief judge, James E. Boasberg has appointed a former Assistant Attorney General in the United States Department of Justice under the administration of President Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro and Vice President Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., a man named David Kris, who personally approved the FISA Warrant application that omitted the fact that former Trump campaign aide Carter Page had worked for the Central Intelligence Agency in the past and changed the fact to read that he had no such background, to supervise the reform of the FISA Application process! 

Poor President Donald John Trump, knowing nothing about the Constitution of the United States of America, does not understand that he has been victimized by a law that is unconstitutional and thus of a secretive court that has no true authority even to exist. Yet it is that he supports FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and George Walker Bush's unconstitutional Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act, known colloquially as the Patriot Act, which is a tool every American is considered to be a potential terrorist and the reason why we are required to show prove our identity in several different ways to open bank accounts and to secure, for example, a driver's license. It is absurd to expect that such powers given security state apparatus will not be abused as the leading surveillance state leaders care only about the possible, not what is just in the eyes of Christ the King, and not even about the strtict limits imposed upon their activities by the very laws that govern their agencies. (Remember also that United States Secretary of State Michael Richard Pompeo, was Trump's first Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and is himself fully support of FISA, the FISC and the Patriot Act. See   for a refresher on this point.)

This is yet another example of the folly of the anti-Incarnational, pluralist civil state of Modernity.

All Must Fall into Ruin Absent Christ the King and His true Church

Thus, while it is certainly the case that Donald John Trump was the victim of a conspiracy to keep him from getting elected that had to be guided ultimately by Frank Marshall Davis’s protégé, Barack Hussein Obama/ Barry Soetoro, and is still the victim of a vast “left wing” conspiracy to undermine his presidency and to wound his chances for re-election on Tuesday November 3, 2020, we must never forget the simple fact that we are witnessing the logical decay into political fratricide that must occur when men are not united by one common faith, the true Faith, the Catholic Faith. A government system based on the belief that civil governments derive their authority from “the people” is luciferian and leads to endless conflict and agitation wherein people are needlessly divided in the quest for the next secular savior who will make it possible for them to enjoy material and sensual happiness as the ultimate ends of human existence. “The people” want their goodies, and they want the government to provide them with those goodies.

To be sure, the “leftist” strain of naturalism seeks to curb legitimate human liberties and to eradicate all mention of even a Judeo-Masonic concept of God by the use of “soft” totalitarianism that has now turned into open violence against dissenters from the “received faith” of their Pelagian principles of human self-redemption. To think, however, that the “rightist” strain of naturalism can serve as a bulwark against this creeping totalitarianism in our law, politics, education, healthcare, culture and economic and social life is folly as the only antidote to any and all forms of naturalism is Catholicism. Nothing else.

Why should entrenched forces of the intelligence community, the mainslime media, jurists and “entertainers” have any respect even for the physical safety of the objects of their hatred a large percentage of people in this country and around the world are at war, whether or not they realize it, with Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by means of their wanton lives of unrepentant sin.

After all, despite all the fury and agitation of the moment, the two major organized crime families of the false opposite of naturalism are as one in rejecting the necessity of acknowledging Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as the King and all nations and in rejecting the necessity of submitting humbly to the infallible teaching authority of the Catholic Church in all that appertains to the eternal and temporal good of souls. These false opposites are also as one in believing that they can produce the mystical “better” world by the use  of their own supposed ingenuity and/or force of arms as they adhere dogmatically to ideologies or economic systems that they believe will produce peace, prosperity, economic and social justice and, in some instances, an end to “man-made” climate change that “threatens” to destroy the planet. They believe that the “better world” can be produced while they themselves engage in all manner of wanton sins that they protest are simply their “human rights” and for which they have not the slightest remorse or any qualm of conscience.


Utter fools, who ignore these plain words of Sacred Scripture, including those of Our Lord, Christ the King, Himself:

[34] Justice exalteth a nation: but sin maketh nations miserable. (Proverbs 14: 34.)

I am the vine: you the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit: for without me you can do nothing.  (Jn. 15:5)

Nations cannot expect peace and unity upon the foundation of religious indifferentism, a falsehood that leads ultimately to respect and honors being accorded to actual devil-worshippers and athesits.

Nations cannot expect peace and unity as over 3,500 preborn babies are killed daily by surgical means and hundreds of thousands of others killed by chemical abortifacients.

Nations cannot expect peace and unity when physicians and other "healthcare" professionals, inclduing supposedly Catholic chaplains, are trained to target candidates for "palliative care" so that they can be killed. Yet it is there is an overwhelming and truly bipartisan consensus, border on unanimity, in both Houses of the United States Congress in favor of The Palliative Care and Hospice Education and Training Act and are full-fledged supports of the myth that is "brain death" that continues to make possible the daily vivisection of human beings for their vital bodily organs.

Nations cannot expect peace and unity when men, including public officials, blaspheme and swear openly and when ordinary citizens do so without regard for the presence of children, whose own innocence and purity has been undermined and corrupted by explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments. 

Nations cannot expect peace and unity when their governments feel free to violate legitimate human rights and when a sense of general amorality exists among the populace as to justify anything according to one's malformed conscience, which is why it is important to review the following words of Silvio Cardinal Antoniano in the Sixteenth Century and those of Pope Leo XIII on November 1, 1900:

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, as quoted by Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.)

A system of morality based exclusively on human reason robs man of his highest dignity and lowers him from the supernatural to the merely natural life. Not but that man is able by the right use of reason to know and to obey certain principles of the natural law. But though he should know them all and keep them inviolate through life-and even this is impossible without the aid of the grace of our Redeemer-still it is vain for anyone without faith to promise himself eternal salvation. "If anyone abide not in Me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up and cast him into the fire, and he burneth" john xv., 6). "He that believeth not shall be condemned" (Mark xvi., 16). We have but too much evidence of the value and result of a morality divorced from divine faith. How is it that, in spite of all the zeal for the welfare of the masses, nations are in such straits and even distress, and that the evil is daily on the increase? We are told that society is quite able to help itself; that it can flourish without the assistance of Christianity, and attain its end by its own unaided efforts. Public administrators prefer a purely secular system of government. All traces of the religion of our forefathers are daily disappearing from political life and administration. What blindness! Once the idea of the authority of God as the Judge of right and wrong is forgotten, law must necessarily lose its primary authority and justice must perish: and these are the two most powerful and most necessary bonds of society. Similarly, once the hope and expectation of eternal happiness is taken away, temporal goods will be greedily sought after. Every man will strive to secure the largest share for himself. Hence arise envy, jealousy, hatred. The consequences are conspiracy, anarchy, nihilism. There is neither peace abroad nor security at home. Public life is stained with crime.

So great is this struggle of the passions and so serious the dangers involved, that we must either anticipate ultimate ruin or seek for an efficient remedy. It is of course both right and necessary to punish malefactors, to educate the masses, and by legislation to prevent crime in every possible way: but all this is by no means sufficient. The salvation of the nations must be looked for higher. A power greater than human must be called in to teach men's hearts, awaken in them the sense of duty, and make them better. This is the power which once before saved the world from destruction when groaning under much more terrible evils. Once remove all impediments and allow the Christian spirit to revive and grow strong in a nation, and that nation will be healed. The strife between the classes and the masses will die away; mutual rights will be respected. If Christ be listened to, both rich and poor will do their duty. The former will realise that they must observe justice and charity, the latter self-restraint and moderation, if both are to be saved. Domestic life will be firmly established ( by the salutary fear of God as the Lawgiver. In the same way the precepts of the natural law, which dictates respect for lawful authority and obedience to the laws, will exercise their influence over the people. Seditions and conspiracies will cease. Wherever Christianity rules over all without let or hindrance there the order established by Divine Providence is preserved, and both security and prosperity are the happy result. The common welfare, then, urgently demands a return to Him from whom we should never have gone astray; to Him who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and this on the part not only of individuals but of society as a whole. We must restore Christ to this His own rightful possession. All elements of the national life must be made to drink in the Life which proceedeth from Him- legislation, political institutions, education, marriage and family life, capital and labour. Everyone must see that the very growth of civilisation which is so ardently desired depends greatly upon this, since it is fed and grows not so much by material wealth and prosperity, as by the spiritual qualities of morality and virtue. (Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900.)

Nations cannot expect peace and unity upon the foundation of “religious liberty” and an unfettered “freedom of speech and conscience that provides free rein for error to be spread unchecked. Are to count as irrelevant the following words of our true popes?

The necessary effect of the constitution decreed by the Assembly is to annihilate the Catholic Religion and, with her, the obedience owed to Kings. With this purpose it establishes as a right of man in society this absolute liberty that not only insures the right to be indifferent to religious opinions, but also grants full license to freely think, speak, write and even print whatever one wishes on religious matters – even the most disordered imaginings. It is a monstrous right, which the Assembly claims, however, results from equality and the natural liberties of all men.

But what could be more unwise than to establish among men this equality and this uncontrolled liberty, which stifles all reason, the most precious gift nature gave to man, the one that distinguishes him from animals?

After creating man in a place filled with delectable things, didn’t God threaten him with death should he eat the fruit of the tree of good and evil? And with this first prohibition didn’t He establish limits to his liberty? When, after man disobeyed the command and thereby incurred guilt, didn’t God impose new obligations on him through Moses? And even though he left to man’s free will the choice between good and evil, didn’t God provide him with precepts and commandments that could save him “if he would observe them”? …
Where then, is this liberty of thinking and acting that the Assembly grants to man in society as an indisputable natural right? Is this invented right not contrary to the right of the Supreme Creator to whom we owe our existence and all that we have? Can we ignore the fact that man was not created for himself alone, but to be helpful to his neighbor? …

“Man should use his reason first of all to recognize his Sovereign Maker, honoring Him and admiring Him, and submitting his entire person to Him. For, from his childhood, he should be submissive to those who are superior to him in age; he should be governed and instructed by their lessons, order his life according to their laws of reason, society and religion. This inflated equality and liberty, therefore, are for him, from the moment he is born, no more than imaginary dreams and senseless words.” (Pope Pius VI, Brief Quod aliquantum, March 10, 1791; Religious Liberty, a “Monstrous Right).

For how can We tolerate with equanimity that the Catholic religion, which France received in the first ages of the Church, which was confirmed in that very kingdom by the blood of so many most valiant martyrs, which by far the greatest part of the French race professes, and indeed bravely and constantly defended even among the most grave adversities and persecutions and dangers of recent years, and which, finally, that very dynasty to which the designated king belongs both professes and has defended with much zeal - that this Catholic, this most holy religion, We say, should not only not be declared to be the only one in the whole of France supported by the bulwark of the laws and by the authority of the Government, but should even, in the very restoration of the monarchy, be entirely passed over? But a much more grave, and indeed very bitter, sorrow increased in Our heart - a sorrow by which We confess that We were crushed, overwhelmed and torn in two - from the twenty-second article of the constitution in which We saw, not only that "liberty of religion and of conscience" (to use the same words found in the article) were permitted by the force of the constitution, but also that assistance and patronage were promised both to this liberty and also to the ministers of these different forms of "religion". There is certainly no need of many words, in addressing you, to make you fully recognize by how lethal a wound the Catholic religion in France is struck by this article. For when the liberty of all "religions" is indiscriminately asserted, by this very fact truth is confounded with error and the holy and immaculate Spouse of Christ, the Church, outside of which there can be no salvation, is set on a par with the sects of heretics and with Judaic perfidy itself. For when favour and patronage is promised even to the sects of heretics and their ministers, not only their persons, but also their very errors, are tolerated and fostered: a system of errors in which is contained that fatal and never sufficiently to be deplored HERESY which, as St. Augustine says (de Haeresibus, no.72), "asserts that all heretics proceed correctly and tell the truth: which is so absurd that it seems incredible to me." (Pope Pius VII, Post Tam Diuturnas, April 29, 1814, POST TAM DIUTURNAS)

"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.)

"But, although we have not omitted often to proscribe and reprobate the chief errors of this kind, yet the cause of the Catholic Church, and the salvation of souls entrusted to us by God, and the welfare of human society itself, altogether demand that we again stir up your pastoral solicitude to exterminate other evil opinions, which spring forth from the said errors as from a fountain. Which false and perverse opinions are on that ground the more to be detested, because they chiefly tend to this, that that salutary influence be impeded and (even) removed, which the Catholic Church, according to the institution and command of her Divine Author, should freely exercise even to the end of the world -- not only over private individuals, but over nations, peoples, and their sovereign princes; and (tend also) to take away that mutual fellowship and concord of counsels between Church and State which has ever proved itself propitious and salutary, both for religious and civil interests.

"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.)

What is the foundation of true peace and concord?

Well, it is not to be found in the views of President Donald John Trump or those of his hateful opponents.

Pope Pius XI gives us the answer, which should be known to every believing Catholic as it is simply part of what Our Lord is and who we should be as members of His true Church:

27. There is over and above the absence of peace and the evils attendant on this absence, another deeper and more profound cause for present-day conditions. This cause was even beginning to show its head before the War and the terrible calamities consequent on that cataclysm should have proven a remedy for them if mankind had only taken the trouble to understand the real meaning of those terrible events. In the Holy Scriptures we read: "They that have forsaken the Lord, shall be consumed." (Isaias i, 28) No less well known are the words of the Divine Teacher, Jesus Christ, Who said: "Without me you can do nothing" (John xv, 5) and again, "He that gathereth not with me, scattereth." (Luke xi, 23)

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 ruinIt 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. (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.)

Paragraph number twenty-eight above says it all:

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. (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.)

In other words, the impeachment circus is one gigantic distraction designed by the adversary to keep us agitated in order to forget supernatural root cases. 

Pope Pius XI explained further that:

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.


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.)

There can never be peace on earth as long as men are at war with the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Blessed Trinity, by means of their unrepentant sins.

The only world that really matters is eternity. Social order, no less than national security, can never be established while a nation’s citizens wallow in lives in unrepentant sins, which are protected and promoted both here and abroad by the civil government.

Thus it is, you see, that I am paying zero—as in zero—attention to the impeachment circus that will begin in earnest on Tuesday, January 21, 2020, the Feast of Saint Agnes. I am a little—just a little—wiser that I was in 1998 and 1999 when I wrote scores upon scores of articles for The Wanderer and the printed pages of Christ or Chaos about the impeachment of then President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton.

I refuse to be draw into the muck and mire of the details of that which is designed to distract us to no good purpose and to the point of seeking to excuse the many ways in which President Donald John Trump acts imperiously and impetuously according to instincts that are not in concert with the establishment of the common temporal good pursued as it must be in light of man’s Last End, the possession of the glory of the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost for all eternity in Heaven. To admit the malodorous stench of the swamp and its collection statists, globalists, totalitarians, pro-aborts, pro-sodomites, pro-everything bad is not and can never be an excuse to ignore the harm done to public discourse by man who considers it virtuous to use profane, lewd and obscene language publicly and who has exercised such little diligence in the selection of people to serve in his administration, many of whom mirror his own unapologetic support of much of the homosexualist agenda.

Governments must fall into the abyss of chaos and even armed civil conflict when we ignore the immutable teaching of our popes concerning the right principles that must govern their foundation and operation:

As a consequence, the State, constituted as it is, is clearly bound to act up to the manifold and weighty duties linking it to God, by the public profession of religion. Nature and reason, which command every individual devoutly to worship God in holiness, because we belong to Him and must return to Him, since from Him we came, bind also the civil community by a like law. For, men living together in society are under the power of God no less than individuals are, and society, no less than individuals, owes gratitude to God who gave it being and maintains it and whose everbounteous goodness enriches it with countless blessings. Since, then, no one is allowed to be remiss in the service due to God, and since the chief duty of all men is to cling to religion in both its teaching and practice-not such religion as they may have a preference for, but the religion which God enjoins, and which certain and most clear marks show to be the only one true religion -- it is a public crime to act as though there were no God. So, too, is it a sin for the State not to have care for religion as a something beyond its scope, or as of no practical benefit; or out of many forms of religion to adopt that one which chimes in with the fancy; for we are bound absolutely to worship God in that way which He has shown to be His will. All who rule, therefore, would hold in honor the holy name of God, and one of their chief duties must be to favor religion, to protect it, to shield it under the credit and sanction of the laws, and neither to organize nor enact any measure that may compromise its safety. This is the bounden duty of rulers to the people over whom they rule. For one and all are we destined by our birth and adoption to enjoy, when this frail and fleeting life is ended, a supreme and final good in heaven, and to the attainment of this every endeavor should be directed. Since, then, upon this depends the afull and perfect happiness of mankind, the securing of this end should be of all imaginable interests the most urgent. Hence, civil society, established for the common welfare, should not only safeguard the wellbeing of the community, but have also at heart the interests of its individual members, in such mode as not in any way to hinder, but in every manner to render as easy as may be, the possession of that highest and unchangeable good for which all should seek. Wherefore, for this purpose, care must especially be taken to preserve unharmed and unimpeded the religion whereof the practice is the link connecting man with God.

Now, it cannot be difficult to find out which is the true religion, if only it be sought with an earnest and unbiased mind; for proofs are abundant and striking. We have, for example, the fulfillment of prophecies, miracles in great numbers, the rapid spread of the faith in the midst of enemies and in face of overwhelming obstacles, the witness of the martyrs, and the like. From all these it is evident that the only true religion is the one established by Jesus Christ Himself, and which He committed to His Church to protect and to propagate. . . . 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 (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)

Again, the fact that it is impossible, in human terms, that is, to implement these principles in a world that has been ruined by “religious liberty” and “separation of Church and State, in no way lessens their veracity or their binding nature. Error has consequences that are fatal in nature to the eternal and temporal good of men and their nations.

Writing in Libertas Praestantissimum, June 20, 1888, Pope Leo XIII, while accepting the principle of the toleration of error without conceding anything to an assertion that people have an inherent right to embrace it and to profess it publicly, explained that situation to which a state is driven by the toleration of ever greater evils over the course of time:

Yet, with the discernment of a true mother, the Church weighs the great burden of human weakness, and well knows the course down which the minds and actions of men are in this our age being borne. For this reason, while not conceding any right to anything save what is true and honest, she does not forbid public authority to tolerate what is at variance with truth and justice, for the sake of avoiding some greater evil, or of obtaining or preserving some greater good. God Himself in His providence, though infinitely good and powerful, permits evil to exist in the world, partly that greater good may not be impeded, and partly that greater evil may not ensue. In the government of States it is not forbidden to imitate the Ruler of the world; and, as the authority of man is powerless to prevent every evil, it has (as St. Augustine says) to overlook and leave unpunished many things which are punished, and rightly, by Divine Providence. But if, in such circumstances, for the sake of the common good (and this is the only legitimate reason), human law may or even should tolerate evil, it may not and should not approve or desire evil for its own sake; for evil of itself, being a privation of good, is opposed to the common welfare which every legislator is bound to desire and defend to the best of his ability. In this, human law must endeavor to imitate God, who, as St. Thomas teaches, in allowing evil to exist in the world, "neither wills evil to be done, nor wills it not to be done, but wills only to permit it to be done; and this is good.'' This saying of the Angelic Doctor contains briefly the whole doctrine of the permission of evil.

But, to judge aright, we must acknowledge that, the more a State is driven to tolerate evil, the further is it from perfection; and that the tolerance of evil which is dictated by political prudence should be strictly confined to the limits which its justifying cause, the public welfare, requires. Wherefore, if such tolerance would be injurious to the public welfare, and entail greater evils on the State, it would not be lawful; for in such case the motive of good is wanting. And although in the extraordinary condition of these times the Church usually acquiesces in certain modern liberties, not because she prefers them in themselves, but because she judges it expedient to permit them, she would in happier times exercise her own liberty; and, by persuasion, exhortation, and entreaty would endeavor, as she is bound, to fulfill the duty assigned to her by God of providing for the eternal salvation of mankind. One thing, however, remains always true -- that the liberty which is claimed for all to do all things is not, as We have often said, of itself desirable, inasmuch as it is contrary to reason that error and truth should have equal rights.

And as to tolerance, it is surprising how far removed from the equity and prudence of the Church are those who profess what is called liberalism. For, in allowing that boundless license of which We have spoken, they exceed all limits, and end at last by making no apparent distinction between truth and error, honesty and dishonesty. And because the Church, the pillar and ground of truth, and the unerring teacher of morals, is forced utterly to reprobate and condemn tolerance of such an abandoned and criminal character, they calumniate her as being wanting in patience and gentleness, and thus fail to see that, in so doing, they impute to her as a fault what is in reality a matter for commendation. But, in spite of all this show of tolerance, it very often happens that, while they profess themselves ready to lavish liberty on all in the greatest profusion, they are utterly intolerant toward the Catholic Church, by refusing to allow her the liberty of being herself free. (Pope Leo XIII, Libertas Praestantissimum, June 20, 1888.)

Remember, the United States of America was established as the first country without a common pietas, that is, a common form of worship, to unite the populace as all sought to serve the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Blessed Trinity, despite their own sins and failings. One of the reasons that many Talmudists have sacralized the Constitution of the United States is because it makes no reference to Christ the King and leaves no room for the true Church, the Catholic Church, to serve as the ultimate check, used as a last resort after exhausting the maternal exercise of exhortation and admonitions, to impose sanctions upon civil leaders who insist upon advancing and then implementing policies inimical to the rights of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, His true Church and are thus inimical to the temporal and eternal good of souls upon which the entirety of a just social order must be premised.

Pope Saint Pius X explained this very clearly in Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906:

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. The same thesis also upsets the order providentially established by God in the world, which demands a harmonious agreement between the two societies. Both of them, the civil and the religious society, although each exercises in its own sphere its authority over them. It follows necessarily that there are many things belonging to them in common in which both societies must have relations with one another. Remove the agreement between Church and State, and the result will be that from these common matters will spring the seeds of disputes which will become acute on both sides; it will become more difficult to see where the truth lies, and great confusion is certain to arise. Finally, this thesis inflicts great injury on society itself, for it cannot either prosper or last long when due place is not left for religion, which is the supreme rule and the sovereign mistress in all questions touching the rights and the duties of men. Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State. (Pope Saint Pius X, Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906.)

The fact that the conditions favorable to a Catholic state do not exist at this time does nothing to detract from the immutability of the Catholic teaching explicated so clearly by Pope Saint Pius X.

Indeed, the fact that the conditions favorable to a Catholic state do not exist at this time is the result of the proliferation of a deliberate, planned attack by the adversary himself upon it by using the combined, interrelated errors of Protestantism and Judeo-Masonry to uproot the Holy Cross as the foundation of personal and social order in Europe and to make sure it was not the foundation of such order here in the United States of America. Obviously, the conciliar revolutionaries have been in the vanguard of "reconciling" themselves and their false religious sect to the very errors that are manifesting the perfection of their inherent degeneracy right before our very eyes.

Father Denis Fahey made this exact point in The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World:

By the grace of the Headship of the Mystical Body, our Lord Jesus Christ is both Priest and King of redeemed mankind and, as such, exercises a twofold influence upon us. Firstly, as a Priest, He communicates to us the supernatural life of grace by which we, while ever remaining distinct from God, can enter into the vision and love of the Blessed Trinity. We can thus become one with God, not, of course, in the order of substance or being, but in the order of operation, of the immaterial union of vision and love. The Divine Nature is the principle of the Divine Vision and Love, and by grace we are ‘made partakers of the Divine Nature.’ This pure Catholic doctrine is infinitely removed from Masonic pantheism. Secondly, as King, our Lord exercises an exterior influence on us by His government of us. As King, He guides and directs us socially and individually, in order to dispose all things for the reception of the Supernatural Life which He, as Priest, confers.

Society had been organized in the thirteenth century and even down to the sixteenth, under the banner of Christ the King. Thus, in spite of deficiencies and imperfections, man’s divinization, through the Life that comes from the sacred Humanity of Jesus, was socially favoured. Modern society, under the influence of Satan, was to be organized on the opposite principle, namely, that human nature is of itself divine, that man is God, and, therefore, subject to nobody. Accordingly, when the favourable moment had arrived, the Masonic divnization of human nature found its expression in the Declaration of the Rights of Man in 1789The French Revolution ushered in the struggle for the complete organization of the world around the new divinity–Humanity. In God’s plan, the whole organization of a country is meant to aid the development of a country is meant to aid the development of the true personality of the citizens through the Mystical Body of Christ. Accordingly, the achievement of true liberty for a country means the removal of obstacles to the organized social acceptance of the Divine Plan. Every revolution since 1789 tends, on the contrary, to the rejection of that plan, and therefore to the enthronement of man in the place of God. The freedom at which the spirit of the revolution aims is that absolute independence which refuses submission to any and every order. It is the spirit breathed by the temptation of the serpent: ‘For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened; and you shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.’ Man decided then that he would himself lay down the order of good and evil in the place of God; then and now it is the same attitude. (Father Denis Fahey, The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World, p. 27.)   

Although Holy Mother Church accommodates herself to the concrete realities in which her children live, she makes no concession to errors that have resulted in the triumph of religious indifferentism and overt hostility to the true Faith and thus produce conditions wherein sin is glorified and those who oppose it are called “intolerant” “haters” and “bigots.”

Our escape route runs not through naturalism or by wasting our time listening to the insane babblers on talk radio or watching the endless stream of naturalism of the Calvinist and Judeo-Masonic order provided by the Fox News Channel.

No, our escape route out of this mess starts with our own daily conversion away from our sins, our imperfections, our lukewarmness, our worldliness, our disordered self-love and our conceit. We must humbly accept the difficulties of the moment and realize that the world around us is going to keep getting worse and worse unless men quit their sins and seek absolution from a true priest in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance, and this starts with us, you and me, everyone.

Our Blessed Mother is our escape route out of the mess of a world in which sin is celebrated widely and protected by the civil law. It is by our total consecration to her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, to her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart that we can offer up everything we have and do, including our prayers and whatever merit we might earn from the good works we perform, in order to give honor and glory to the Most Holy Trinity and to seek to do a bit of reparation for our many sins, the enormity of which in the sight of God  would cause us mere mortals if not die, it if was given unto to us to see and accept.

In His ineffable mercy, however, Our Lord has given us His Most Blessed Mother to help us in all the events of our life, and He specifically commissioned her to beg everyone in the whole world to pray the Most Holy Rosary meditatively daily. By doing so, you see, we can plant a few seeds for the restoration of a true pope on the Throne of Saint Peter and thus of the restoration of Social Reign of Christ the King and of Our Lady, Our Immaculate Queen.

Remember these words and remember them well:

In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph.

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.

Saints Marius, Martha, Audifax and Abucham, pray for us.

Saints Fabian and Sebastian, pray for us.

Saint Wulstan, pray for us.

Appendix A

On the Second Sunday after the Epiphany

Today is the Second Sunday after the Epiphany and the Commemoration of Saints Marius, Martha Abucham and Audifax as well as the Commemoration of Saint Canute, King of Denmark, after whom the famous football coach at the University of Notre Dame from 1918 to 1930.

The Gospel read during Holy Mass today was that of the wedding feast Cana in which Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ elevated marriage to the Holy Sacrament of Matrimony and at which He, acting at the behest of His Most Blessed Mother, performed His first public miracle. This Sunday thus completes the three great manifestations of Our Lord that we celebrate in Christmastide: His manifestation as an Infant to Saints Caspar, Melchior and Balthazar, His baptism at the Jordan River by His cousin and precursor, Saint John the Baptist, and the wedding feast of Cana, which is a prefiguring of the Holy Mass and, of course, of the Holy Eucharist.

The account of this miracle provided in Venerable Mary of Agreda’s The Mystical City of God should end contains a beautiful and quite dogmatic explanation concerning why Our Lord addressed His Most Blessed Mother as “Woman” rather than Mother. Please read this account with care:

322. The evangelist St. John, who at the end of chapter one refers to the vocation of Nathanael (who was the fifth disciple of Christ), begins the second chapter of his evangelical History by saying: And the third day there was a marriage at Cana of Galilee; and the Mother of Jesus was there. And Jesus also was invited, and his disciples, to the marriage (Jn. 2:1-2). Hence it appears the heavenly Lady was in Cana before her most holy Son was invited to the wedding. I was ordered by my superiors to inquire how this harmonizes with what I have said in the preceding chapter and to ascertain what day was meant. Then I was informed that, notwithstanding the different opinions of the commentators, this History of the Queen and that of the Gospels coincide with each other, and that the course of events was as follows: Christ our Lord with his five Apostles or disciples upon entering Galilee went directly to Nazareth, preaching and teaching on the way. On this journey He tarried only a short time, but at least three days. Having arrived at Nazareth He baptized his Blessed Mother, as I have related, and thereupon immediately went forth to preach with his disciples in some of the neighboring places. In the meanwhile the heavenly Lady, being invited to the marriage mentioned by the Evangelist, went to Cana, for it was the marriage of some of her relatives in the fourth degree in the lineage of St. Anne, her mother. While the great Queen was in Cana, the news of the coming of the Redeemer into the world and of his having chosen some disciples had already spread. By the disposition of the Lord, who secretly ordained it for his own high ends, and through the management of his Mother, He was called and invited to the wedding with his disciples.

323. The third day mentioned by the Evangelist as the wedding day of Cana is the third day of the week, and though he does not say this expressly, yet likewise he does not say that it was the third day after the calling of the disciples or his entrance into Galilee. If he had meant this he certainly would have been more explicit. According to the ordinary course, it was impossible for Christ to be present at a wedding on the third day after entering Galilee from Judea at the place where He chose his first disciples, for Cana lay within the limits of the tribe of Zabulon, near the boundary of Phoenicia, far northward from Judea and adjoining the tribe of Aser, a considerable distance from the place where the Savior entered from Judea into Galilee. If the wedding at Cana had been on the third day after the calling of the first disciples, then only two days intervened, whereas the journey from Judea to Cana required three days; moreover, He would first have to be near Cana in order to receive such an invitation, which would likewise require some time. In addition to all this, in order to journey from Judea to Cana of Galilee He would first pass through Nazareth, for Cana is nearer to the Mediterranean sea and to the tribe of Aser, as I have said; hence the Savior of the world would first have visited his most holy Mother, who not being ignorant of his coming (since it is certain She would have known) would have waited for Him without leaving for the wedding while He approached. That the Evangelist does not mention the visit of the Lord to Nazareth, nor the baptism of the heavenly Lady, was not because it did not happen, but because he and the other writers confine themselves to that which pertains to their purpose. St. John himself says they omit the mention of many miracles performed by the Lord (Jn. 20:30), since it was not necessary to describe all of them. By this order of events the Evangelist is understood, and this History is confirmed by the very passage in question.

324. While therefore the Queen of the world was in Cana her most holy Son with his disciples was invited to the marriage, and since in his condescension He had brought about this invitation He accepted it. He went to this wedding in order to sanctify and confirm the state of Matrimony, and in order to begin to establish the authenticity of his doctrine by the miracle which He was to perform and of which He was to declare Himself openly as the Author. Since He had already proclaimed Himself as the Master by admitting his disciples, it was necessary to confirm their calling and give authority to his doctrine so they might receive and believe it, for though He had performed other wonders in private He had not made Himself known as the Author of them in public as on this occasion. Thus the Evangelist says: This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee (Jn. 2:11), and also that this same Lord told his most holy Mother that until then his hour had not yet come (Ib. 4). This miracle took place on the same day on which one year before had happened the Baptism of Christ our Savior. This day was also the anniversary of the adoration of the Kings, and therefore the holy Roman Church celebrates the three mysteries on one and the same day, the sixth of January. Our Lord had now completed the thirtieth year of his life and had begun his thirty-first year thirteen days before, being those from his most holy Nativity to the Epiphany.

325. The Master of life entered the house of the marriage feast, saluting those present with the words: “The peace of the Lord and his light be with thee,” literally fulfilling them by his arrival. He then gave an exhortation to the bridegroom concerning eternal life, instructing him regarding the perfection and holiness of his state of life, and the same was done by the Queen of heaven with the bride, admonishing her with most sweet and efficacious reasonings concerning her obligations. Both of them afterwards fulfilled most perfectly the duties of their state into which they were ushered and for which they were strengthened by the Sovereigns of heaven and earth. I will not detain myself in declaring that this bridegroom was not St. John the Evangelist; it is enough to know (as I have stated in the last chapter) that St. John had come with the Savior as his disciple. On this occasion the Lord did not intend to dissolve the marriage; He came to the wedding in order to authorize and accredit it, sanctifying it and constituting it a Sacrament. Hence He could not have had the intention of separating the two married people immediately after they had entered into this union, nor did the Evangelist ever have any intention of marrying. On the contrary our Savior, having exhorted the betrothed, then offered a fervent prayer and petition to the eternal Father, beseeching Him that in the new law of grace He would pour out his blessing upon human propagation, and thenceforth grant power to the state of matrimony to sanctify those who would receive it in his holy Church, instituting it as one of his Sacraments.

 326. The most blessed Virgin, cooperating in this work and in all others for the benefit of the human race, knew of the desires and prayer of her divine Son and joined Him therein; and since She took upon Herself the duty of making a proper return, which is so much neglected by other men, She broke out in canticles of praise and thanksgiving to the Lord for this benefit, and the Angels at her invitation joined Her in the praise of God. This, however, was known only to the Lord and Savior, who rejoiced in the wise behavior of his most pure Mother as much as She rejoiced in his. Then they spoke and conversed with those who came to the wedding, but always with a wisdom and gravity worthy of themselves and with the intention of enlightening the hearts of all who were present. The most prudent Lady spoke very few words and only when She was asked or when it was very necessary, for She always listened and paid attention without interruption to the doings and sayings of the Lord, treasuring them up and meditating upon them in her most chaste Heart. All the words and behavior of this great Queen during her life furnish an exquisite example of retirement and modesty, and on this occasion She was an example not only for religious, but especially for women in the secular state, if they would only keep this example before them in events such as this marriage feast, thus learning to keep silence, restrain themselves, compose their interior, and allow no levity or looseness to creep into their exterior deportment, for never is moderation more necessary than in times of danger. In women the most precious adornment and the most charming beauty is silence, restraint and modesty, by which many vices are shut out and all the virtues of a chaste and respectable woman receive their crowning grace.

327. At table the Lord and his most holy Mother ate some of the food which they were served, yet with consummate moderation and hiding their abstinence. Although when they were alone they did not eat such food as I have already recorded (187), yet these Teachers of perfection, who did not desire to disapprove of the common life of men, but rather to perfect it, accommodated themselves to all circumstances without any extremes or public singularity whenever it was possible to do so without blame and with perfection. The Lord not only inculcated this by his example, but He commanded his disciples and Apostles to eat what was placed before them on their evangelical tours of preaching (Lk. 10:8), and not to show any singularity in their way of life, such as is indulged in by the imperfect and those little versed in the paths of virtue, for the truly poor and humble must not presume to have a choice in their food. By divine arrangement, and in order to give occasion for the miracle, the wine ran out during the meal, and the merciful Queen said to her Son: They have no wine. His Majesty responded: Woman, what is that to Me and to thee? My hour is not yet come (Jn. 2:3-4). This answer of Christ was not one of reprehension, but contained a mystery, for the most prudent Queen had not asked for a miracle by mere accident but by divine light, for She knew the opportune time for the manifestation of the divine power of her Son was at hand. She was full of wisdom and knowledge concerning the works of the Redemption, and was well informed at what time and on what occasions the Lord was to perform them; hence She could not be ignorant of the proper moment for the beginning of this public manifestation of the power of Christ. It must also be remembered that His Divine Majesty did not pronounce these words with any signs of disapproval, but with a quiet and loving majesty. It is true that He did not address the Blessed Virgin by the name of Mother, but Woman; yet as I have said before, this was because He had begun to treat Her with greater reserve (249). 

328. The mysterious purpose hidden in this answer of Christ was to confirm the disciples in their faith in his divinity, and to manifest Himself to all as the true God, independent of his Mother in his divine being and power of working miracles. Also for this reason He did not call Her Mother but Woman, saying: How does this concern Thee, or what part have we, Thou and I, in this? This was as if He wanted to say: The power of performing miracles I have not received from Thee, although Thou hast given Me the human nature in which I am to perform them; my divinity alone is to perform them, and for it the hour is not yet come. By his words to Her He gave Her to understand that the time for working miracles was not to be determined by his most holy Mother but by the will of God, even though the most prudent Lady would ask for them at an opportune and appropriate time. The Lord desired to have it understood that the working of miracles depended upon a higher than human will, on a will divine and above that of his Mother and altogether beyond it; that the will of his Mother was to be subject to that which was his as the true God. Hence Christ infused into the minds of the Apostles a new light by which they understood the hypostatic union of his two natures, and the derivation of his human nature from his Mother and his divine nature by generation from his eternal Father. 

 329. The great Lady well understood this mystery, and She said with quiet modesty to the servants: Whatsoever He shall say to you, do ye (Jn. 2:5). By these words (in addition to demonstrating her wise insight into the will of her Son, which the most prudent Mother knew) She spoke as Mistress of the entire human race, teaching mortals that in order to provide for all our necessities and poverty it is necessary and sufficient on our part to do all that the Savior and those taking his place shall command. Such doctrine could not come from anyone less than such a Mother and Advocate, who is so desirous of our welfare, and who, since She knows so well what hindrances we place in the way of his great and numerous miracles for our benefit, desires to instruct us to meet properly the beneficent intentions of the Most High in which consists all our good. The Redeemer of the world ordered the servants of the tables to fill with water their jars or water pots (Ib. 7), which according to the Hebrew custom had been provided for the occasion. All having been filled, the Lord bade them draw some of the wine into which the water had been changed (Ib. 8) and bring it to the chief steward of the feast, who was at the head of the table and was one of the priests of the Law. When he tasted the miraculous wine, he called the bridegroom in surprise and said to him (Ib. 10): Every man at first setteth forth good wine, and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse. But thou hast kept the good wine until now.

330. The chief steward knew nothing of the miracle when he tasted the wine because he sat at the head of the table, while Christ and his Mother with his disciples occupied the lower end of the table, practicing the doctrine which He was afterwards to teach us, namely in being invited to a feast we should not seek to occupy the better places but be satisfied with the lowest (Lk. 14:8, 10). But then was made public the miracle our Savior had worked in changing the water into wine, and it manifested his glory, and his disciples believed in Him, as the Evangelist says (Jn. 2:11), because they believed anew and their faith in Him was more confirmed. Not only they but many of the others who were present believed that He was the true Messiah, and they followed Him to the city of Capharnaum whither the Evangelist tells us He, with his Mother and disciples, went from Cana (Ib. 12). There, according to St. Matthew (4:13, 17), He began to preach, declaring Himself the Teacher of men. When St. John says He manifested his glory by this sign or miracle it does not contradict his having wrought miracles before, but supposes them to have been wrought in secret. Nor does he assert that his glory was not shown also in other miracles, but infers merely that He did not wish to be known as their Author because the right time determined by divine Wisdom had not come. It is certain He performed many and admirable wonders in Egypt, such as the destruction of the temples and their idols (Inc. 643, 646, 665). To all these miracles most holy Mary responded with heroic acts of virtue in praise and thanksgiving to the Most High that his holy Name was thus gloriously manifested. She attended to the comfort of the new believers and to the service of her divine Son, fulfilling these duties with peerless wisdom and charity. With burning love She cried out to the eternal Father, asking Him to dispose the hearts and souls of men for the enlightening words of the incarnate Word, and to drive from them the darkness of their ignorance.   


331. My daughter, without any excuse is the forgetfulness and negligence shown by each and every one of the children of the Church in regard to the spread and manifestation of the glory of their God by making known his holy Name to all rational creatures. This negligence is much more blamable now since the eternal Word became man in my womb, taught the world, and redeemed it for this very purpose. For this reason His Majesty founded the holy Church, enriched it with spiritual goods and treasures, ministers, and other temporal goods. All these gifts must only serve to preserve the Church with the children it has, but to enlarge it and draw others to the regeneration of the Catholic faith. All must help toward this goal in order to further gather the fruits of the death of their Repairer. Some can do this by prayer and urgent desires for the exaltation of his holy Name, others by almsgiving, others by diligent preaching, and others by fervent works of charity. But if this remissness is perhaps less culpable in the ignorant and the poor, who have none to exhort them, it is very reprehensible in the rich and the powerful, and especially in the ministers and prelates of the Church, whom this obligation binds more fully. Many of them, forgetting the terrible account which they shall have to render, turn the true glory of Christ into their own vainglory. They waste the patrimony of the blood of the Redeemer in undertakings and goals not even fit to mention, and through their fault allow innumerable souls to perish who by proper exertions could have been gained for the holy Church, or at least they lose the merit of such exertions and deprive Christ of the glory of having such faithful ministers in his Church. The same responsibility rests upon the princes and the powerful of the world, who receive from the hands of God honors, riches, and temporal blessings for advancing the glory of the Divinity, and yet think less of this obligation than any other.

332. Do thou grieve for all these evils, and labor as far as thy strength will allow for the glory of the Most High to be manifested, for Him to be known in all nations, and so from the very stones may be generated sons of Abraham (Mt. 3:9), since of all this thou art capable. Beseech Him to send able workers and worthy ministers to his Church (Lk. 10:2) in order to draw men to the sweet yoke of the Gospel (Mt. 11:30), for great and plentiful is the harvest and few are the faithful laborers and zealous helpers for harvesting it. Let what I have told thee of my maternal and loving solicitude in gaining followers for my Son, and in preserving them in his doctrine and companionship, be to thee a living example for thy own conduct. Never let the flame of this charity die out in thy bosom. Let also my silence and modesty at the wedding feast be an inviolable rule for thee and thy religious, always measuring thy exterior actions, circumspection, moderation, and few words by this standard, especially in the presence of men, for these virtues are the court dress with which the spouses of Christ must adorn themselves in order to find grace in his divine eyes. (See The New English Edition of the Mystical City of God, Book Six: The Transfixion, Chapter 1.)



Today is the Feast of Saint Marius, his wife, Saint Martha, and their two sons, Saints Audifax and Abucham, who were martyred during the year 270 A.D. during the reign of Emperor Claudius II (Claudius Gothicus), after refusing to sacrifice to the idols.

Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., related the heroism of Saint Marius and his companions, the very members of his own family, in The Liturgical Year, which includes the lesson from Matins for today’s Divine Office:

Christians from all parts of the world have ever flocked to Rome as to the rock of faith and the foundation of the Church, and honoured with the greatest reverence and piety the spot hallowed by the sepulchre of the Prince of the Apostles. These words of Holy Church are exemplified in the Martyrs of to-day. Fired with ambition to have some part and fellowship in the glorious Society of the holy Apostles and Martyrs, they left all things and hastened to the Eternal City, there to receive in the fullest measure what they sought. Like the Magi of old they came from the far East. The star of faith had shone for them, and in obedience to its call they set forth in all eagerness to offer their gifts of homage and loyalty to the divine King in the person of His Vicar and his suffering members. Such generosity was not left unrewarded; our Emmanuel crowned it with the laurels of martyrdom admitting them into that cloud of witnesses that ever stand about him. Let us keep before our minds with our Lord, the author and finisher of their faith, this great and glorious band of martyrs, so that we too may ever run unwearied and with courage so that we too may ever run unwearied and with courage and patience in the fight proposed to us.

The following lesson is given in the office:

Marius was a Persian of high rank, who came to Rome in the reign of the Emperor Claudius, with his wife Martha, who was equally noble, and their two sons Audifax and Abachum, to pray at the graves of the Martyrs. Here they comforted the Christians who were in prison, and whom they relieved by their ministrations and alms, and buried the bodies of the Saints. For these acts they were all arrested, but no threats or terrors could move them to sacrifice to idols. They were accordingly mangled with clubs, and drawn with ropes, after which they were burnt by applying plates of red-hot metal to their bodies, and their flesh partly torn off with metal hooks. Lastly their hands were all cut off, and they were fastened together by the neck, in which state they were driven through the city to the thirteenth mile-stone on the Cornelian Way, a place now called Santa Ninfa, where they were to die. Martha addressed a moving exhortation to her husband and sons to hold out bravely to the last, for the love of Jesus Christ; and was then herself drowned. The other three martyrs were next beheaded in the same sand-pit. Their bodies were thrown into a fire. The lady Felicity of Rome collected the half-burnt remains, and caused them to be buried at her own estate. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year: Volume III: Christmas—Book II, pp. 337-338.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio, considers religious differences to be a matter of individual thoughts or “feelings,” leading to an obligation on the part of “believers” to respect all “religions” as pleasing to God and thus capable of promoting peace and justice.

Pope Leo XIII explained in Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885, that such practical religious indifferentism leads to the triumph of practical atheism in men and their nations:

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. See also Practical Atheism as the Lowest Common Denominatorand Not A Mention of Christ the King.)

Saints Marius, Martha, Audifax and Abucham, pray for us.


On the Feast of Saint Canute, King of Denmark  

The saint who was also commemorated today, Sunday, January 19, 2020, after Saint Marius and his Companions, Saint Canute IV, King of Denmark, was killed as a result of a scheme hatched by his own brother, Olaf, who despise the fact that Saint Canute sought to reproach sinners and to call them to conversion. In other words, Olaf is a figure of Jorge the Oaf, who believes that efforts to convert non-Catholics and those Catholics who are living dissolute lives are examples of “idolatry” and “judgmentalism.”

We turn once again to Dom Prosper Gueranger’s The Liturgical Year:

The Magi Kings as we have already observed, have been followed to the Crib of Jesus by saintly Christian monarchs on the Church’s Calendar during the season which is consecrated to the Mystery of his Birth. The eleventh century is one of the most glorious of the Christian era, and gave, both to the Church and the various states of Europe, a great number of saintly Kings. Among them Canute the Fourth of Denmark stands pre-eminent by reason of the aureole of his martyrdom. He had every quality which forms a Christian prince: he was a zealous propagator of the faith of Christ, he was a brave warrior, he was pious, and he was charitable to the poor. His zeal for the Church (and in those days her rights were counted as the rights of the people) was made the pretext for putting him to death: he died in the midst of a sedition as a victim sacrifice for his people’s sake. His offering to the new-born King was that of his blood; and in exchange for the perishable crown he lost, he received that which the Church gives to her Martyrs, and which can never be taken away. The history of Denmark in the eleventh century is scarce known by the rest of the world; but the glory of that country’s having had one of kings a Martyr is known throughout the whole Church, and the Church inhabits the whole earth. This power, possessed by the Spouse of Christ of conferring honour on the name and actions of the servants and friends of God, is one of the grandest spectacles out of heaven; for when she holds up a name as worthy of honour, that name becomes immortalized, whether he who bore it were a powerful king or the poorest peasant.

We find the following life of this holy King given in the Lessons until recently used in the Breviary:

Canute the Fourth, son of Sweyn Estrithius, King of Denmark, was conspicuous for his faith, piety, and purity of life, and even from this infancy gave proof of exceeding holiness. Having been elected by the votes of the people to the throne held by his father, he at once began zealously to promote religion, to add to the revenues of the Churches, and to provide the same with costly fittings and furnitureBeing also inflamed with zeal for the propagation of the faith, he refused not to enter into just war with barbarous nations which, when he had conquered and subdued, he subjected to the law of Christ. Having obtained several glorious victories, and increased the riches of the treasury, he laid his regal diadem at the feet of a crucifix, offering himself and his kingdom to him who is the King of kings and Lord of lords. He chastised his body by fasting, hair-shirts and disciplines. He was assiduous in prayer and contemplation, liberal in his alms to the poor, and ever kind to all, never deviating from the path of justice and the divine commandments.

By these and other such virtues the holy King made rapid strides to the summit of perfection. Now it happened that William, Duke of Normandy, invaded the kingdom of England with a formidable army, and the English sought assistance from the Danes. The King resolved to grant them his aid, and intrusted the expedition to his brother Olaf. But he, from the desire of getting possession of his throne, turned his forces against the King, and stirred up the soldiers and the people to rebellion. Neither were there wanting motives for this rebellion; the for the King had issued laws commanding the payment of ecclesiastical tithes, the observance of the commandments of God and his Church, and the infliction of penalties on defaulters; all which were made a handle of by perverse and wicked malcontents, for spreading discontent, exciting the people to revolt, and at last, to plot the death of the saintly King.

Foreknowing what was to happen, the King saw that he would soon be put to death for justice’ sake. Having foretold it, he set out to Odense, where, entering into the Church of St. Alan the Martyr, as the place of combat, he fortified himself with the Sacraments, and commended his last struggle to our Lord. He had not long been there, when a band of conspirators arrived. They endeavoured to set fire to the Church, to burst open the doors, and to force an entrance. But failing in this, they scaled the windows, and with great violence, threw a shower of stones and arrows upon the holy King, who was on his knees, praying for his enemies. Wounded by the stones and arrows, and at least pierced through with a spear, he was crowned with a glorious martyrdom, and fell before the altar with his arms stretched out. Gregory the Seventh was the reining Pontiff. God showed by many miracles how glorious was his Martyr; and Denmark was afflicted with a great famine and sundry calamities, in punishment of the sacrilegious murder which had been perpetrated. Many persons, who were afflicted with various maladies, found aid and health by praying at the tomb of the Martyr. On one occasion, when the Queen endeavoured during the night to take up his body secretly and carry it to another place, she was deterred from her design by being struck with fear at the sight of a most brilliant light, which came down from heaven.

Yes, Saint Canute IV, King of Denmark, was resented because he enjoined his people to obey God’s Commandments. Jorge Mario Bergoglio has no use for the Ten Commandments as he truly believes that their strict observance is impossible and that those who demand such strict adherence are “Pharisees.”

Dom Prosper Gueranger’s prayer to Saint Canute is one that we should make our own:

O holy king! The Sun of Justice had risen upon thy country, and all thy ambition was that they people might enjoy the fullness of its light and warmth. Like the Magi of the East, thou didst lay thy crown at the feet of the Emmanuel, and at length didst offer thy very life in his service and in that of his Church. But thy people were not worthy of thee; they shed thy blood, as the ungrateful Israel shed the Blood of the Just One who is now born unto us, and whose sweet Infancy we are now celebrating. Thou didst offer thy martyrdom for the sins of thy people offer it now also for them, that they may recover the true faith that have so long lost. Pray for the Rulers of Christian lands, that they may be faithful to their duties, zealous for justice, and may have respect for the liberty of the Church. Ask for us of the Divine Infant a devotedness in his cause like that which glowed in thy breast; and since we have not a crown to lay at his feet, pray for us that we may be generous to give our whole heart. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year: Volume III: Christmas—Book II, pp. 339-342.)

The people of Denmark preferred to remain in the darkness of their sins. They did not want to have their consciences singed with the burning torch of truth spoken by their own king, Saint Canute IV.

“Pope Francis” believes that is “merciless” to singe the consciences of hardened sinners, which is why he goes out of his way to embrace them even as they sin without demanding them to amend their lives by quitting their sins. Life is, as he has said so many times, a big “party,” right?




The Roman Martyrology today also contains the name of the great Saint Wulstan, to whom we have prayed every day for the past ten years now since we learned of his life and his example.

Saint Wulstan was a truly humble priest, monk, and prior who became the Bishop of Worcester, England, before the Norman invasion in 1066, a time of great tumult for his own Anglo-Saxon people as they came to be governed by foreigners from across the English Channel. He did not castigate the conquerors, however, as he wanted to be able to exhort them in behalf of the cause of justice and the good of souls, a zeal that won for him the respect of King William I, sometimes referred to as William the Conqueror, who sought out the counsel of this humble and pious shepherd of his flock.

Dom Prosper Guerganer’s The Liturgical Year contains his own summary of Saint Wulstan’s life and the reading in the Divine Office that are no longer to be found in the Matins for this day:

Several dioceses in England celebrate on this day the feast of Saint Wulstan, Bishop of Worcester. The last of the Anglo-Saxon saints, Wulstan was worthy to close the long line of men and women who had earned for the country the proud title of “Insula Sanctorum.” His character as sketched by a contemporary is singularly attractive. A simple man, strong in his simplicity, yet kindly and gifted with a merry wit, he held straight on his course in God’s service as a priest, monk, prior, and bishop, spending himself in the laborious offices of his ministry, much more intent on the burdens of his position than on emoluments. A love of beauty ran through his life and manifested itself in building fine churches, in his care of books, in his love for the freshness of children.

In his long life of eighty-seven years Wulstan saw the gradual passing of the old order, the reigns of Ethelebert, Canute, Edward the Confessor and of his friend King Harold down to the fateful day when power passed into Norman hands [1066]. With all his love for his own land and dynasty the Saint gave not time to useless regrets. He had warned the people that for their sins the country would fall under the dominion of strangers, and when the conquest became a fact he threw his great influence into support of the new dynasty. But he was no time-server, and had no hesitation in confronting the Conqueror to demand redress of injustice done to his See. King William learned to admit the sturdy Saxon prelate, and Wulstan, instead of sharing the fate of nearly all the native bishops who were removed and replaced by Normans, remained in his See and was made the King’s lieutenant for the Midlands.

The following are the lessons of Saint Wulstan.

Wulstan whilst a simple priest had acquired to himself a great renown for holiness. Afterwards having become a monk of Worcester Prior, he was in a short time raised to the government of the same church. Almost entirely ignorant of secular learning, he gave himself wholly to spiritual science. He was numbered among the most eloquent speakers of the English language, in proof of which, this is principally to be remembered, that by his assiduous preaching he converted the citizens of Bristol, whom neither the regal nor the pontifical power could withdraw from the infamous slave trade.

Being made bishop, he sedulously fulfilled all the duties of a good shepherd. He began to visit all parts of his diocese, to give ordinations, to dedicate churches, to reprove sinners, and to animate the souls committed to his care, both by word and example, to the desire of eternal life. It frequently happened that he fasted from sunrise till nightfall whilst he was occupied in confirming children to the number of two or three thousand who were brought from all parts. Such was his meekness and zeal for souls in hearing confessions that persons came to him from all parts of England, and by his admonitions sinners amended their crimes by worthy deeds of penance.

Neither did he whilst watching over the salvation of others neglect his own. He served God by the constant celebration of Mass, by assiduous prayer, by continued abstinence from flesh-meat and by overflowing charity to the needy. The more humbly he esteemed himself, by so much the more his virtues were proclaimed by all, so that not only the English and Normans, but the kings and rulers of foreign nations also commended themselves to his prayers. He died, a very old man, in the year from the Incarnation of our Lord, one thousand and ninety-five, and was buried in the church of Worcester. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year: Volume III: Christmas—Book II, pp. 343-345.)

Yes, each of the saints mentioned above serve as rebukes, both individually and collectively, to the religious indifferentism, the blasphemies, the heresies, and the scandalous sacrileges promoted by the conciliar "popes," including the current universal public face of apostasy, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who uses viscera and demagoguery with a diabolically-inspired ferocity. Saint Wulstan reproved sinners. Bergoglio pats them on the back while reproving those who seek their conversion as “obstinate” and idolaters.

Each of the saints discussed in this brief reflection were faithful to the See of Saint Peter, the See that can never be held by an apostate as it is indeed the Chair of Unity, not that of Disunity and Division




January 18: First Day of the Octave

Prayers for the conversion of pagans and infidels

Let us Pray.
Have mercy on us, Lord of Heaven and earth. Look upon us and send Thy fear upon the nations which have not sought Thee, or, even worse, have persecuted Thy Divine Son in His Apostles and missionaries. Grant that they may know that there is no other God than Thee, and may finally be converted to Thy Holy Catholic Church, and proclaim Thy greatness. Shorten the time, and be mindful of the end, that they may spread abroad Thy wonderful deeds and all the ends of the earth may fear Thee. V. Rejoice, all the earth. R. And serve the Lord in gladness.

Let us Pray.
Almighty, everlasting God, Who seekest not the death but the life of the sinner, receive favorably our prayer and deliver the pagans from the worship of idols and bring them into the fold of Thy One, True Church, to the praise and glory of Thy Name. Through Christ Our Lord. Amen. (300 days.)

Let us Pray.
O God, the everlasting Creator of all things, remember that the souls of unbelievers were made by Thee and formed in Thine own Image and Likeness. Remember that Jesus, Thy Son, endured a most bitter Death for their eternal salvation. Permit not, we beseech Thee, O Lord, that Thy Son should be any longer despised by unbelievers, but do Thou graciously accept the prayers of thy faithful children, and of thy One, True Church, the Immaculate Spouse of Thy most holy Son, and be mindful of Thy mercy. Grant that the infidels may renounce their pernicious idolatry and wicked unbelief, that they too may some day know Him Whom Thou hast sent, even the Lord Jesus Christ, Who is our Salvation, our Life, and Resurrection, by Whom we have been redeemed, to Whom be glory for endless ages. Amen. (500 days.)

Let us pray.
O Mary, most clement, refuge of sinners, listen to our prayers, and beg of Thy Son that God Almighty may take away iniquity from the hearts of pagans; that abandoning their idols they may turn to the living and true God, and Christ, His only Son, our Divine Lord.

V. Be all confounded, who adore graven images;
R. And who glory in their idols.

Let us pray.
O God, Whose will it is that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the Truth: we beg Thee to send laborers into Thy harvest and grant them to speak Thy word with all confidence; that Thy word may be spread and be glorified, and that all people may know Thee, the only true God, and Him Whom Thou hast sent, Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Our Lord, Who livest and reignest with Thee forever, unto ages of ages. Amen. (3 years indulgence.)

Let us pray: O Lord Jesus Christ, Who alone art the Savior of the whole human race, Who "rulest from sea to sea, and from the river to the ends of the earth," mercifully open the treasures of Thy most Sacred Heart to the wretched inhabitants of China, Mongolia, Japan, India and the other Asian countries, who still sit in darkness and the shadow of death, that through the intercession of the most Blessed Virgin Mary, Thy Immaculate Mother, and of St. Francis Xavier, they may abandon their idols, and prostrating themselves before Thee, may be united to Thy holy Church, Who livest and reignest, forever, unto ages of ages. Amen. St. Frances Xavier, Apostle to the Indies

Let us pray.
O Lord Jesus Christ, the one and only Savior of the whole human race, "Who reignest from sea to sea and from the river unto the ends of the earth," open Thy most Sacred Heart in mercy to those wretched souls in Africa, and their descendants throughout the world, who still sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, that through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Thy Immaculate Mother, and of St. Joseph, her most glorious spouse, they may abandon their idols of every form, and prostrating themselves before Thee, be admitted into Thy holy Church, Who livest and reignest with the Father and the Holy Ghost, One God, forever, unto ages of ages. Amen.

(Three Hail Marys)

January 19: Second Day of the Octave

Prayers for the conversion of the Jews

Let us pray for the unbelieving, perfidious Jews, that the Lord our God may take away the veil that blinds their hearts, and that they may acknowledge Jesus Christ Our Lord.

Let us Pray.
O God, Who dost also manifest Thy omnipotence by mercy and compassion, listen to the prayers we offer up for the enlightenment of the unbelieving, perfidious Jews, that they may acknowledge the light of Thy truth, Which is Christ, and may be saved from their blindness. Grant, we beseech Thee, all-powerful God, that the remnant of the Jewish people may walk in the way of salvation; and by following the preaching of the blessed John, Thy Precursor, they may safely come to Him Whom he foretold, Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Our Lord. Amen. (300 days.)

Let us Pray.
Most Sweet Jesus, Redeemer of the human race, turn Thine eyes of mercy toward the children of that race, once Thy chosen people. Of old they called down upon themselves the Blood of the Savior; may It now descend upon them a laver of redemption and of life. Amen. (200 days.)

Let us Pray.
God of goodness and Father of mercies, we beseech Thee, through the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and by the intercession of the Patriarchs and holy Apostles, to look with compassion upon the remnant of Israel, so that they may come to a knowledge of our only Savior, Jesus Christ, and share in the precious graces of Redemption. Amen.

(Three Hail Marys)

January 20: Third Day of the Octave

Prayers for the conversion of the Muslims

Let us pray for the diabolical Muslims, that Almighty God may remove evil from their hearts, inspiring them to give up forever their imposter prophet and their worship of the devil, and be finally converted to the One True God and His only Son, Jesus Christ Our Lord.

Let us Pray.
   O Jesus, true God and true Man, Redeemer of the whole world, we beseech Thee through the Immaculate Heart of Mary, to turn Thine eyes of mercy on those peoples who for so many centuries have been enslaved beneath the cruel yoke of Islam. Grant that they may no more scorn Thy most holy Name nor insolently persecute and enslave the Christian nations. With one ray of Thy light disperse the darkness in which they dwell, that renouncing the evil teachings of Mohammed, they may be brought to the baptism of regeneration, that in the confession of the One True Faith they may adore and glorify Thee, the eternal Word, made man for our salvation, together with the Father and the Holy Ghost. Amen.

Prayer to Mary, Help of Christians

Virgin most powerful, loving helper of the Christian people, how great thanks do we not owe thee for the assistance thou didst give our fathers, who, when they were threatened by the Turkish infidels, invoked thy maternal help by the devout recitation of Thy Rosary! From Heaven thou didst see their deadly peril; thou didst hear their voices imploring Thy compassion; and their humble prayers, enjoined by the great Pope, Saint Pius the Fifth, were acceptable unto thee, and thou camest quickly to deliver them. Grant, dear Mother, that in like manner the prolonged sighs of the holy Bride of Christ in these our days may come to thy throne and engage thy pity; do thou, moved anew to compassion for Her, rise once again to deliver Her from the many foes who encompass Her on every side.

Rise, then, O Mary, incline thyself to hear the prayers of the whole Catholic world, and beat flat to the ground the pride of those wretched men, who in their insolence blaspheme Almighty God and would destroy His Church, against which, according to the infallible words of Christ, the gates of Hell shall never prevail! Let it be seen once more that when thou dost arise to protect the Church, Her victory is sure. Amen.

(Three Hail Marys)

January 21: Fourth Day of the Octave

Prayers for the conversion of the Schismatic Orthodox Churches

Let us Pray.
O Lord, Who hast united all nations in the confession of Thy Name, we pray Thee for our formerly Catholic brethren of the East. Mindful of the eminent place they once held in Thy Church, we beg of Thee to inspire them with the desire to occupy it again, so as to form with us one single Fold, under the guidance of one and the same Shepherd. Grant that they, together with ourselves, may be penetrated with the teaching of those holy Doctors of the Eastern Church, who are also our Fathers in the Faith, and submit themselves in all humility to the voice of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, Who so dearly desires to feed the lost sheep and lambs who have wandered from the Fold. Grant that the spirit of peace and charity, which is the mark of Thy presence with the faithful, may hasten the day in which our prayers may be united with theirs, so that every people and every tongue may acknowledge and glorify Our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son. Amen. (300 days)

Let us Pray.
O Mary, Mother of mercy and Refuge of sinners, we beseech thee, be pleased to look with pitiful eyes upon miserable heretics and schismatics, especially those pitiful souls once united with us in our former community and congregation who have now separated themselves from the true Church. Thou who art the Seat of Wisdom, enlighten the minds that are miserably enfolded in the darkness of ignorance and sin, that they may clearly know that the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is the one true Church of Jesus Christ, outside of which neither holiness nor salvation can be found. Finish the work of their conversion by obtaining for them the grace to accept all the truths of our holy Faith and to submit themselves to the true Bishops of Thy Church, the successors of Thy Apostles; that so, being united with us in the sweet chains of Divine charity, there may soon be one only fold under the same one Shepherd; and may we all, O glorious Virgin, sing forever with exultation: Rejoice, O Virgin Mary, thou alone hast destroyed all heresies in the whole world. Amen. Three Aves. (500 days.)

(Three Hail Marys)

January 22: Fifth Day of the Octave

Prayers for the conversion of all Protestant Sects

Let us Pray.
 O Lord, Who wast torn by the rebellion of Thy children whom, at one time within the Ark of Salvation, ventured out into the deep having itching ears, succumbed to the false teachers of Protestant ministers who listened more to the prideful urgings of the devil to break away from the bosom of holy Mother Church and multiply worse than the first thousands of times over. We pray Thee for our formerly Catholic brethren to give them the grace to realize the error of their ways and return to the Barque of Peter. May Thy holy Mother intercede and soften the hearts of those who may not realize the tenets they have been taught are not the full truths Thou charged Thy Apostles to spread throughout the world that all may be one. Show them through Thy wondrous ways that only in the Barque Thou founded can they truly see the marks of the true Faith: one, holy, catholic and truly apostolic. Guide them to accept and cherish Thy blessed Mother and to realize her role which Thou hast chosen for her, the second Eve, as Co-redemptrix of souls. Grant thy true priests the courage to feed Thy lambs with the manna of Thy Spirit so that every people and every tongue may acknowledge and glorify Thee as Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in unity with the Triune Divinity, forever and ever. Amen.

Prayer to St. Fidelis of Sigmaringen

O Glorious St. Fidelis of Sigmaringen, who courageously withstood the vicious opposition of the enraged Protestants whom thou didst so forcefully refute, while winning thousands of former Catholics back to the one, true Fold of Christ; obtain for us an abundance of thy ardent love of the holy Catholic Faith, and thy burning zeal for souls, which led thee to embrace joyfully thy cruel martyrdom by vicious Protestant soldiers, at the command of a Calvinist minister. By the holy indignation whereby thou didst repulse their threats and demand for thy apostasy, obtain for the remnant Catholic faithful a spirit of earnest zeal in our fervent prayer for the conversion of all who have embraced the errors of the demonic sects of Protestantism. Implore the Hearts of Jesus and Mary to dispel the vicious errors which keep them from the Immaculate Heart of the great Mediatrix of All Graces, that they may quickly experience therein the abundant graces of conversion to the one true Catholic Church of Her Divine Son, and final perseverance in grace, through Jesus Christ Our Lord. Amen.

(Three Hail Marys)

January 23: Sixth Day of the Octave

Prayers for the conversion of Freemasons, Occult and New Age Sects

Let us Pray.
O Lord Jesus Christ, we implore the clemency of Thy Sacred Heart on behalf of those souls, made in the image and likeness of God, but most miserably deceived by the treacherous snares of Freemasonry and other satanic sects, and going more and more astray in the way of perdition. Let not the Church, Thy Spouse, any longer be oppressed by the domination of this Luciferian cult; but, appeased by the intercession of the Blessed Virgin, Thy Mother, and the prayers of the just, be mindful of Thy infinite mercy; and, in spite of their perversity, cause these very men to return to Thee, that they may bring consolation to the Church by a profound humility, a most abundant penance, making reparation for their wicked persecution against the Kingdom of God on earth, the Holy Catholic Church, and thus secure for themselves a glorious eternity; Who livest and reignest, forever, unto ages of ages. Amen. (100 days, once a day.)

Let us Pray.
 Omnipotent and Eternal God, Who desirest that none should perish, look upon the souls deceived by the snares of the devil that the hearts of these who have gone astray may again be restored to health. Hear the prayers which we offer for the willful blindness of these unbelievers, that recognizing the light of Thy truth, which is Christ, they may be delivered from darkness. Stretch forth Thy hand over this nation, which has embraced the wicked errors of Freemasonry, that our countrymen may finally acknowledge Thy power over them; that they may know Thee as we know Thee, for there is no God but Thee, O Lord, and no other true Religion but the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Faith, to which we submit ourselves with our entire being, imploring the conversion of our nation. Hear the prayers of Thy faithful servants, that all who inhabit our country may know that Thou only art God, Who beholdest from age to age. Amen.

V. May the peoples confess Thee, O God.
R. May all nations acknowledge Thee.

Let us pray.
Almighty and everlasting God, Whose will it is that all men should be saved and that none should perish, look upon the souls that have wickedly elevated themselves to the divinity, through the foul abomination of Freemasonic thinking and philosophy, and humble their prideful hearts, in order that they may put aside all the perverseness of heresy, and, being truly repentant, may return to the unity of Thy truth. Through Christ Our Lord, Who livest and reignest with Thee and the Holy Ghost, One God, forever, unto ages of ages. Amen.

(Three Hail Marys)

January 24: Seventh Day of the Octave

Prayers for the conversion of Vatican II Catholics and all who reject the true sacraments back to Tradition

Let us Pray.
O Mary, Mother of mercy and Refuge of sinners, we beseech thee to look with pitying eyes upon the miserable heretics and apostates who wrought and continue the Vatican II sect and all cafeterial Catholics as well as those who reject the true Sacraments Thou instituted. Do thou, who art the Seat of Wisdom, illuminate their minds, wretchedly involved in the darkness of ignorance and sin, that they may know the true one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church to be the only true Church of Jesus Christ, out of which no sanctity, or even hope of salvation can be found. Humble their proud minds and hearts, that grace may enter, for God despises the proud, and gives His grace only to the humble and to the meek. Obtain for them the grace to accept, with humble and childlike faith, every truth of the holy Catholic Faith. Confuse not their hearts and open their minds that they may save their souls for Thy divine Son's vicars have decreed dogmatically that "outside the Church there is no salvation." Abandon them not. Come to their rescue lest they be swallowed into the lies wrought by the mystery of iniquity.

(Three Hail Marys)

Let us Pray.
    O Mother of Sorrows, standing at the foot of the Cross, with trusting hearts we turn to thee, in these hostile and unbelieving tumultuous times, to implore thine intercession on behalf of those who are separated from the one true Church of Thy Divine Son, Jesus Christ, especially those who have been led by the devil into the heretical sects wrought by Vatican II. By the clear knowledge thou dost possess of the bitter sufferings of our Crucified Redeemer and the shedding of His most Precious Blood, the Price of our salvation, we offer thee our supplications to obtain the grace of the True Catholic Faith for those who are outside the one true Fold, that so the sheep who are scattered may return under the guidance of the Good Shepherd and bring us a true Pope to whom we will willingly and humbly submit to in all obedience as a true Vicar of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

(Three Hail Marys)

January 25: Eighth and Final Day of the Octave

Prayers for a greater grace of humility, obedience, charity and true unity among the Faithful in order to win more souls for Christ and His true Church.

Prayer for the Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul

O glorious St. Paul, who, from being a persecutor of the Christian name, didst become its most zealous Apostle, and who, to carry the knowledge of Jesus, our Divine Savior, to the uttermost parts of the earth, didst joyfully suffer prison, scourgings, stonings, shipwreck and all manner of persecutions, who didst finish thy course by shedding the last drop of thy blood: obtain for us the grace to accept, as favors bestowed by the mercy of God, the infirmities, sufferings and misfortunes of this life, that we may not grow slack in our service of God by reason of these vicissitudes of our exile, but that we may rather show ourselves all the more devoted, through Christ Our Lord. Amen.

V. Pray for us, St. Paul the Apostle.
R. That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.

Let us pray.

O God, Who has taught the multitudes of the Gentiles by the preaching of blessed Paul the Apostle: grant unto us, we beseech Thee, that we who keep his memory sacred, may feel the might of his intercession before Thee. Through Christ Our Lord, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee and the Holy Ghost, One God, forever and ever. Amen. (500 days - plenary if recited daily for one month.)

Prayer for Concord and Unity among the Faithful

Our Lord and our God, to Thee, united by the most strong and sincere fraternal love, we offer our hearts; we pray that Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament may be our daily food for body and soul, that Jesus may be the central object of our love, as was that of Mary and Joseph; and lastly, we pray that sin may never disturb our union in Thy Mystical Body on earth, that union which will endure with Thee, Mary, and Joseph, and all the Saints, forever in Heaven. Amen. (300 days, once a day)

Prayer for Perseverance in our Holy Faith

 Our Lord and Redeemer Jesus Christ O my Redeemer, will that terrible moment ever come, when but few Christians shall be left who are inspired by the spirit of faith, that moment when Thine indignation shall be provoked and Thy protection shall be taken from us? Have our vices and our evil lives irrevocably moved Thy justice to take vengeance, perhaps this very day, upon Thy children? O Thou Author and Finisher of our Faith, we conjure Thee, in the bitterness of our contrite and humbled hearts, not to suffer the fair light of Faith to be extinguished in us. Remember Thy mercies of old; turn Thine eyes in compassion upon the vineyard planted by Thine own right hand, and watered by the sweat of the Apostles, by the precious blood of countless Martyrs and by the tears of so many sincere penitents, and made fruitful by the prayers of so many Confessors and innocent Virgins.

 O Divine Mediator, look upon those zealous souls who raise their hearts to Thee and pray without ceasing for the maintenance of that most precious gift of Thine, the true Catholic Faith. We beseech Thee, O God of justice, to hold back the decree of our rejection, and to turn away Thine eyes from our vices and regard instead the adorable Blood shed upon the Cross, which purchased our salvation and daily intercedes for us upon the altars. Ah, keep us safe in the One, True, Holy Catholic Faith. Let sickness afflict us, vexations waste us, misfortune overwhelm us! But preserve in us Thy holy Faith; for if we are rich with this precious gift, we shall gladly endure every sorrow, and nothing shall ever be able to change our happiness. On the other hand, without this great treasure of Faith, our unhappiness would be unspeakable and without limit!

O good Jesus, Author of our Faith, preserve it pure within us; keep us safe in the Barque of Peter, though presently in eclipse. Yet keep us faithful and obedient to the Petrine Primacy and raise up a holy man to unite the flocks for the freedom and exaltation of holy Mother Church. O Jesus, Author of our Faith, humble and convert the enemies of Thy Church; grant true peace and concord to all of the remnant Catholic faithful; strengthen and preserve us in Thy holy service to the end, that we may live in Thee, and die in Thee. O Jesus, Author of our Faith, let us live for Thee, and die for Thee. Amen. (St. Clement Mary Hofbauer(500 days, once a day)









APRIL 26, 1976


The answer to each of these questions is disturbing. Too many people have been spied upon by too many Government agencies and too much information has been collected. The Government has often undertaken the secret surveillance of citizens on the basis of their political beliefs, even when those beliefs posed no threat of violence or illegal acts on behalf of a hostile foreign power. The Government, operating primarily through secret informants, but also using other intrusive techniques such as wiretaps, microphone "bugs", surreptitious mail opening, and break-ins, has swept in vast amounts of information about the personal lives, views, and associations of American citizens. Investigations of groups deemed potentially dangerous-and even of groups suspected of associating with potentially dangerous organizations-have continued for decades, despite the fact that those groups did not engage in unlawful activity. Groups and individuals have been harassed and disrupted because of their political views and their lifestyles. Investigations have been based upon vague standards whose breadth made excessive collection inevitable. Unsavory and vicious tactics have been employed-including anonymous attempts to break up marriages, disrupt meetings, ostracize persons from their professions, and provoke target groups into rivalries that might result in deaths. Intelligence agencies have served the political and personal objectives of presidents and other high officials. While the agencies often committed excesses in response to pressure from high officials in the Executive branch and Congress, they also occasionally initiated improper activities and then concealed them from officials whom they had a duty to inform.

Governmental officials-including those whose principal duty is to enforce the law-have violated or ignored the law over long periods of time and have advocated and defended their right to break the law.

The Constitutional system of checks and balances has not adequately controlled intelligence activities. Until recently the Executive branch has neither delineated the scope of permissible activities nor established procedures for supervising intelligence agencies. Congress has failed to exercise sufficient oversight, seldom questioning the use to which its apropriations were being put. Most domestic intelligence issues have not reached the courts, and in those cases when they have reached the courts, the judiciary has been reluctant to grapple with them. Each of these points is briefly illustrated below, and covered in substantially greater detail in the following sections of the report. 1. The Number of People Affected by Domestic Intelligence Activity United States intelligence agencies have investigated a vast number of American citizens and domestic organizations. FBI headquarters alone has developed over 500,000 domestic intelligence files," and these have been augmented by additional files at FBI Field Offices. The FBI opened 65,000 of these domestic intelligence files in 1972 alone.12 In fact, substantially more individuals and groups are subject to intelligence scrutiny than the number of files would appear to indicate, since typically, each domestic intelligence file contains information on more than one individual or group, and this information is readily retrievable through the FBI General Name Index. The number of Americans and domestic groups caught in the domestic intelligence net is further illustrated by the following statistics: -Nearly a quarter of a million first class letters were opened and photographed in the United States by the CIA between 1953-1973, producing a CIA computerized index of nearly one and one-half million names.1 -At least 130,000 first class letters were opened and photographed by the FBI between 1940-1966 in eight U.S. cities.'! -Some 300,000 individuals were indexed in a CIA computer system and separate files were created on approximately 7,200 Americans and over 100 domestic groups during the course of CIA's Operation CHAOS (1967-1973).15 -Millions of private telegrams sent from, to, or through the United States were obtained by the National Security Agency from 1947 to 1975 under a secret 'arrangement with three United States telegraph companies.16 -An estimated 100,000 Americans were the subjects of United States Army intelligence files created between the mid-1960's and 1971.1 -Intelligence files on more than 11,000 individuals and groups were created by the Internal Revenue Service between 1969 and 1973 and tax investigations were started on the basis of political rather than tax criteria.' -At least 26,000 individuals were at one point catalogued on an FBI list of persons to be rounded up in the event of a "national emergency".19

(e) National political leaders fell within the broad reach of intelligence investigations. For example, Army Intelligence maintained files on Senator Adlai Stevenson and Congressman Abner Mikva because of their participation in peaceful political meetings under surveillance by Army agents. 0 A letter to Richard Nixon, while he was 4 candidate for President in 1968, was intercepted under CIA's mail opening program.2 In the 1960's President Johnson asked the FBI to compare various Senators' statements on Vietnam with the Communist Party line 12 and to conduct name checks on leading antiwar Senators.3 (f) As part of their effort to collect information which "related even remotely" to people or groups "active" in communities which had "the potential" for civil disorder, Army intelligence agencies took such steps as: sending agents to a Halloween party for elementary school children in Washington, D.C., because they suspected a local "dissident" might be present; monitoring protests of welfare mothers' organizations in Milwaukee; infiltrating a coalition of church youth groups in Colorado; and sending agents to a priests' conference in Washington, D.C., held to discuss birth control measures.34 (g) In the late 1960's and early 1970's. student groups were sub- jected to intense scrutinv. In 1970 the FBT ordered investimations of every member of the Students for a Democratic Society and of "every Black Student Union and similar group regardless of their past or (b) Illegal or Improper Means.-The surveillance which we investigated was not only vastly excessive in breadth and a basis for degrading counterintelligence actions, but was also often conducted by illegal or improper means. For example: (1) For approximately 20 years the CIA carried out a program of indiscriminately opening citizens' first class mail. The Bureau also had a mail opening program, but cancelled it in 1966. The Bureau continued, however, to receive the illegal fruits of CIA's program. In 1970, the heads of both agencies signed a document for President Nixon, which correctly stated that mail opening was illegal, falsely stated that it had been discontinued, and proposed that the illegal opening of mail should be resumed because it would provide useful results. The President approved the program, but withdrew his approval five days later. The illegal opening continued nonetheless. Throughout this period CIA officials knew that mail opening was illegal, but expressed concern about the "flap potential" of exposure, not about the illegality of their activity. 7' (2) From 1947 until May 1975, NSA received from international cable companies millions of cables which had been sent by American citizens in the reasonable expectation that they would be kept private.7 2 (3) Since the early 1930's, intelligence agencies have frequently wiretapped and bugged American citizens without the benefit of judicial warrant. Recent court decisions have curtailed the use of these techniques against domestic targets. But past subjects of these surveillances have included a United States Congressman, a Congressional staff member, journalists and newsmen, and numerous individuals and groups who engaged in no criminal activity and who posed no genuine threat to the national security, such as two White House domestic affairs advisers and an anti-Vietnam War protest group. While the prior written approval of the Attorney General has been required for all warrantless wiretaps since 1940, the record is replete with instances where this requirement was ignored and the Attorney General gave only after-the-fact authorization. Until 1965, microphone surveillance by intelligence agencies was wholly unregulated in certain classes of cases. Within weeks after a 1954 Supreme Court decision denouncing the FBI's installation of a microphone in a defendant's bedroom, the Attorney General informed the Bureau that he did not believe the decision applied to national security cases and ject only to its own "intelligent restraint". 73 (4) In several cases, purely political information (such as the reaction of Congress to an Administration's legislative proposal) and purely personal information (such as coverage of the extra-marital social activities of a high-level Executive official under surveillance) was obtained from electronic surveillance and disseminated to the highest levels of the federal government.7 4 (5) Warrantless break-ins have been conducted by intelligence agencies since World War II. During the 1960's alone, the FBI and CIA conducted hundreds of break-ins, many against American citizens and domestic organizations. In some cases, these break-ins were to install microphones; in other cases, they were to steal such items as membership lists from organizations considered "subversive" by the Bureau.7 5 (6) The most pervasive surveillance technique has been the informant. In a random sample of domestic intelligence cases, 83% involved informants and 57 involved electronic surveillance.' Informants have been used against peaceful, law-abiding groups; they have collected information about personal and political views and activities." To maintain their credentials in violence-prone groups, informants have involved themselves in violent activity. This phenomenon is well illustrated by an informant in the Klan. He was present at the murder of a civil rights worker in Mississippi and subsequently helped to solve the crime and convict the perpetrators. Earlier, however, while performing duties paid for by the Government, he had previously "beaten people severely, had boarded buses and kicked people, had [gone] into restaurants and beaten them [blacks] with blackjacks, chains, pistols." 78 Although the FBI requires agents to instruct informants that they cannot be involved in violence, it was understood that in the Klan, "he couldn't be an angel and be a good informant." 7 4. Ignoring the Law Officials of the intelligence agencies occasionally recognized that certain activities were illegal, but expressed concern only for "flap potential." Even more disturbing was the frequent testimony that the law, and the Constitution were simply ignored. For example, the author of the so-called Huston plan testified: Que8tion. Was there any person who stated that the activity recommended, which you have previously identified as being illegal opening of the mail and breaking and entry or burglary-was there any single person who stated that such activity should not be done because it was unconstitutional? Answer. No. Question. Was there any single person who said such activity should not be done because it was illegal? Answer. No. 0 Similarly, the man who for ten years headed FBI's Intelligence Division testifed that: ... never once did I hear anybody, including myself, raise the question: "Is this course of action which we have agreed upon lawful, is it legal, is it ethical or moral." We never gave any thought to this line of reasoning, because we were just naturally pragmatic. 1 Although the statutory law and the Constitution were often not "[given] a thought".8 2 there was a general attitude that intelligence needs were responsive to a higher law. Thus, as one witness testified in justifying the FBI's mail opening program: It was my assumption that what we were doing was justified by what we had to do . . the greater good, the national security.8

The Committee finds that the domestic activities of the intelligence community at times violated specific statutory prohibitions and infringed the constitutional rights of American citizens.' The legal questions involved in intelligence programs were often not considered. On other occasions, they were intentionally disregarded in the belief that because the programs served the "national security" the law did not apply. While intelligence officers on occasion failed to disclose to their superiors programs which were illegal or of questionable legality, the Committee finds that.the most serious breaches of duty were those of senior officials, who were responsible for controlling intelligence activities and generally failed to assure compliance with the law. Subfinding8 (a) In its attempt to implement instructions to protect the security of the United States, the intelligence community engaged in some activities which violated statutory law and the constitutional rights of American citizens. (b) Legal issues were often overlooked by many of the intelligence officers who directed these operations. Some held a pragmatic view of intelligence activities that did not regularly attach sufficient significance to questions of legality. The question raised was usually not whether a particular program was legal or ethical, but whether it worked. (c) On some occasions when agency officials did assume, or were told, that a program was illegal, they still permitted it to continue. They justified their conduct in some cases on the ground that the failure of "the enemy" to play by the rules granted them the right to do likewise, and in other cases on the ground that the "national security" permitted programs that would otherwise be illegal. (d) Internal recognition of the illegality or the questionable legality of many of these activities frequently led to a tightening of security rather than to their termination. Partly to avoid exposure and a public "flap," knowledge of these programs was tightly held within the agencies, special filing procedures were used, and "cover stories" were devised. (e) On occasion, intelligence agencies failed to disclose candidly their programs and practices to their own General Counsels, and to Attorneys General, Presidents, and Congress. (f) The internal inspection mechanisms of the CIA and the FBI did not keep-and, in the case of the FBI, were not designed to keepthe activities of those agencies within legal bounds. Their primary concern was efficiency, not legality or propriety. (g) When senior administration officials with a duty to control domestic intelligence activities knew, or had a basis for suspecting, that questionable activities had occurred, they often responded with silence or approval. In certain cases, they were presented with a partial description of a program but did not ask for details, thereby abdicating their responsibility. In other cases, they were fully aware of the nature of the practice and implicitly or explicitly approved it. Elaboration of finding8 The elaboration which follows details the general finding of the Committee that inattention to-and disregard. of-legal issues was an all too common occurrence in the intelligence community. While this section focuses on the actions and attitudes of intelligence officials and certain high policy officials, the Committee recognizes that a pattern of lawless activity does not result from the deeds of a single stratum of the government or of a few individuals alone. The implementation and continuation of illegal and questionable programs. would not have been possible without the cooperation or tacit approval of people at all levels within and above the intelligence community, through many successive administrations. The agents in the field, for their part, rarely questioned the orders they received. Their often uncertain knowledge of the law, coupled with the natural desire to please one's superiors and with simple bureaucratic momentum, clearly contributed to their willingness to participate in illegal and questionable programs. The absence of any prosecutions for law violations by intelligence agents inevitably affected their attitudes as well. Under pressure from above to accomplish their assigned tasks, and without the realistic threat of prosecution to remind them of their legal obligations, it is understandable that these agents frequently acted without concern for issues of law and at times assumed that normal legal restraints and prohibitions did not apply to their activities. Significantly, those officials at the highest levels of government, who had a duty to control the activities of the intelligence community, sometimes set in motion the very forces that permitted lawlessness to occur-even if every act committed by intelligence agencies was not known to them. By demanding results without carefully limiting the means by which the results were achieved; by over-emphasizing the threats to national security without ensuring sensitivity to the rights of American citizens; and by propounding concepts such as the right of the "sovereign" to break the law, ultimate responsibility for the consequent climate of permissiveness should be placed at their door.2 Subfinding (a) In its attempt to implement instructions to protect the security of the United States, the intelligence community engaged in some activities which violated statutory law and the constitutional rights of American citizens. From 1940 to 1973, the CIA and the FBI engaged in twelve covert mail opening programs in violation of Sections 1701-1703 of Title 18 of the United States Code which prohibit the obstruction, interception, or opening of mail. Both of these agencies also engaged in warrantless "surreptitious entries"-break-ins-against American citizens within the United States in apparent violation of state laws prohibiting trespass and burglary. Section 605 of the Federal Communications Act of 1934 was violated by NSA's program for obtaining millions of telegrams of Americans unrelated to foreign targets and by the Army Security Agency's interception of domestic radio communications. All of these activities, as well as the FBI's use of electronic surveillance without a substantial national security predicate, also infringed the rights of countless Americans under the Fourth Amendment protection "against unreasonable searches and seizures." The abusive techniques used by the FBI in COINTELPRO from 1956 to 1971 included violations of both federal and state statutes prohibiting mail fraud, wire fraud, incitement to violence, sending obscene material through the mail, and extortion. More fundamentally, the harassment of innocent citizens engaged in lawful forms of political expression did serious injury to the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech and the right of the people to assemble peaceably and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The Bureau's maintenance of the Security Index, which targeted thousands of American citizens for detention in the event of national emergency, clearly overstepped the permissible bounds established by Congress in the Emergency Detention Act of 1950 and represented, in contravention of the Act, a potential general suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus secured by Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution. A distressing number of the programs and techniques developed by the intelligence community involved transgressions against human decency that were no less serious than any technical violations of law. Some of the most fundamental values of this society were threatened by activities such as the smear campaign against Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the testing of dangerous drugs on unsuspecting American citizens, the dissemination of information about the sex lives, drinking habits, and marital problems of electronic surveillance targets, and the COINTELPRO attempts to turn dissident organizations against one another and to destroy marriages. Subfinding (b) Legal issues were often overlooked by many of the intelligence officers who directed these operations. Some held a pragmatic view of intelligence activities that did not regularly attach sufficient significance to questions of legality. The question raised was usually not whether a particular program was legal or ethical, but whether it worked. Legal issues were clearly not a primary consideration-if they were a consideration at all-in many of the programs and techniques of the intelligence community. When the former head of the FBI's Racial Intelligence Section was asked whether anybody in the FBI at any time during the 15-year course of COINTELPRO discussed its constitutionality or legal authority, for example, he replied: "No, we never gave it a thought." 3 This attitude is echoed by other Bureau officials in connection with other programs. The former Section Chief of one of the FBI's Counterintelligence sections, and the former Assistant Director of the Bureau's Domestic Intelligence Division both testified that legal considerations were simply not raised in policy decisions concerning the FBI's mail opening programs.4 Similarly, when the FBI was presented with the opportunity to assume responsibility for the CIA's New York mail opening operation, legal factors played no role in the Bureau's refusal; rather, the opportunity was declined simply because of the attendant expense, manpower requirements, and security problems.5 One of the most abusive of all FBI programs was its attempt to discredit Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Yet former FBI Assistant Director William C. Sullivan testified that he "never heard anyone raise the question of legality or constitutionality, never." 6 Former Director of Central Intelligence Richard Helms testified publicly that he never seriously questioned the legal status of the twenty-year CIA New York mail opening project because he assumed his predecessor, Allen Dulles, had "made his legal peace with [it]." 7

.. . [F]rom time to time," he said, "the Agency got useful information out of it," I so he permitted it to continue throughout his sevenyear tenure as Director. The Huston Plan that was prepared for President Richard Nixon in June 1970 constituted a virtual charter for the use of intrusive and illegal techniques against American dissidents as well as foreign agents. Its principal author has testified, however, that during the drafting sessions with representatives of the FBI, CIA, NSA, and Defense Intelligence Agency, no one ever objected to any of the recommendations on the grounds that they involved illegal acts, nor was the legality or constitutionality of any of the recommendations ever discussed. 9 William C. Sullivan, who participated in the drafting of the Huston Plan and served on the United States Intelligence Board and as FBI Assistant Director for Intelligence for 10 years, stated that in his entire experience in the intelligence community he never heard legal issues raised at all: We never gave any thought to this realm of reasoning, because we were just naturally pragmatists. The one thing we were concerned about was this: Will this course of action work, will it get us what we want, will we reach the objective that we desire to reach? As far as legality is concerned, morals, or ethics, [it] was never raised by myself or anybody else . .. I think this suggests really in government that we are amoral. In government-I am not speaking for everybody-the general atmosphere is one of amorality.o Subfinding (c) On some occasions when agency officials did assume, or were told, that a program was illegal, they still permitted it to continue. They justified their conduct in some cases on the ground that the failure of "the enemy" to play by the rules granted them the right to do likewise, and in other cases on the ground that the "national security" permitted programs that would otherwise be illegal. Even when agency officials recognized certain programs or techniques to be illegal, they sometimes advocated their implementation or permitted them to continue nonetheless. This point is illustrated by a passage in a 1954 memorandum from an FBI Assistant Director to J. Edgar Hoover, which recommended that an electronic listening device be planted in the hotel room of a suspected Communist sympathizer: "Although such an installation will not be legal, it is believed that the intelligence information to be obtained will make such an installation necessary and desirable."" Hoover approved the installation. 2 More than -a decade later, a memorandum was sent to Director Hoover which described the current FBI policy and procedures for "black bag jobs" (warrantless break-ins for purposes other than microphone installation). This memorandum read in part:

Such a technique involves trespass and is clearly illegal; therefore, it would be impossible to obtain any legal sanction for it. Despite this, "black bag" jobs have been used because they represent an invaluable technique in combatting subversive activities . . . aimed directly at undermining and destroying our nation. 3 In other words, breaking the law, was seen as useful in combating those who threatened the legal fabric of society. Although Hoover terminated the general use of "black bag jobs" in July 1966, they were employed on a large scale before that time and have been used in isolated instances since then. Another example of disregard for the law is found in a 1969 memorandum from William C. Sullivan to Director Hoover. In June of that year, Sullivan was requested by the Director, apparently at the urging of White House officials to travel to France for the purpose of electronically monitoring the conversations of journalist Joseph Kraft. 1 With the cooperation of local authorities, Sullivan was able to have a microphone installed in Kraft's hotel room, and informed Hoover of his success. "Parenthetically," he wrote in his letter to the Director, "I might add that such a cover is regarded -as illegal." 15 The attitude that legal standards and issues of privacy can be overridden by other factors is further reflected in a memorandum written by Richard Helms in connection with the testing of dangerous drugs on unsuspecting American citizens in 1963. Mr. Helms wrote the Deputy Director of Central Intelligence: While I share your uneasiness and distaste for any program which tends to intrude on an individual's private and legal prerogatives, I believe it is necessary that the Agency maintain a central role in this activity, keep current on enemy capabilities in the manipulation of human behavior, and maintain an offensive capability. I, therefore, recommend your approval for continuation of this testimony program... sa The history of the CIA's New York mail opening program is replete with examples of conscious contravention of the law. The original proposal for large-scale mail opening in 1955, for instance, explicitly recognized that " [t]here is no overt, authorized or legal censorship or monitoring of first class mails which enter, depart or transit the United States at the present time." "I A 1962 memorandum on the project noted that its exposure could "give rise to grave charges of criminal misuse of the mails by Government agencies" and that "existing Federal statutes preclude the concoction of any legal excuse for the violation . . ." " And again in 1963, a CIA officer wrote: "There is no legal basis for monitoring postal communications in the United States except during time of war or national emergency . . Both the former Chief of the Counterintelligence Staff and the former Director of Security-who were in charge of the New York project- testified that they believed it to be illegal.19 One Inspector General who reviewed the project in 1969 also flatly stated: "[O]f course, we knew that this was illegal. . , . [E]verybody knew that it was [illegal]. . . ." 20 In spite of the general recognition of its illegality, the New York mail opening project continued for a total of 20 years and was not terminated until 1973, when the Watergate-created political climate had increased the risks .of exposure. 2 1 With the full knowledge of J. Edgar Hoover, moreover, the FBI continued to receive the fruits of this project for three years after the FBI Director informed the President of the United States that "the FBI is opposed to implementing any covert mail coverage because it is clearly illegal . . ."1 22 The Bureau's own mail opening programs had been terminated in 1966, but it continued intentionally and knowingly to benefit from the illegal acts of the CIA until 1973. The Huston Plan is another disturbing reminder of the fact that intelligence programs and techniques may be advocated and authorized with the knowledge that they are illegal. At least two of the options that were presented to President Nixon were described as unlawful on the face of the Report. Of "covert mail coverage" (mail opening) it was written that "[t] his coverage, not having the sanction of law, runs the risk of any illicit act magnified by the involvement of a Government agency." 23 The Report also noted that surreptitious entry "involves illegal entry and trespass." 24 Thus, the intelligence community presented the nation's highest executive official with the option of approving courses of action described as illegal. The fact that President Nixon did authorize them, even if only for five days, is more disquieting still.25 When President Nixon eventually revoked his approval of the Huston Plan, the intelligence community nevertheless proceeded to initiate some programs suggested in the Plan. Intelligence agencies also continued to employ techniques recommended in the Plan, such as mail opening which had been used previously without presidential ap proval.26

Similarly, former Attorneys General Nicholas Katzenbach and Ramsey Clark testified that they were familiar with the FBI's efforts to disrupt the Ku Klux Klan through regular investigative techniques but said they were unaware of the offensive tactics that occurred in COINTELPRO. Katzenbach said he did not believe it necessary to explore possible irregularities since "[i]t never occurred to me that the Bureau would engage in the sort of sustained improper activity which it apparently did." 10s Both Robert Kennedy and Nicholas Katzenbach were also aware of some aspects of the FBI's investigation of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., yet neither ascertained the full details of the Bureau's campaign to discredit the civil rights leader. Kennedy intensified the original "communist influence" investigation in October 1963 by authorizing wiretaps on King's home and office telephones.109 Kennedy requested that an evaluation of the results be submitted to him in thirty days in order to determine whether or not to maintain the taps, but the evaluation was never delivered to him and he did not insist on it."o Since he never ordered the termination of the wiretap, the Bureau could, and did, install additional wiretaps on King by invoking the original authorization.",' According to Bureau memoranda apparently initialled by Attorney General Katzenbach, Katzenbaph received after the fact notification in 1965 that three bugs had been planted in Dr. King's hotel rooms.112 A transmittal memorandum written by Katzenbach also indicates that he may have instructed the FBI to be "very cautious" in conducting these surveillances. 13 There is no indication, however, that he requested further details about any of them or prohibited the FBI from future use of this technique against Dr. King. While there is no evidence that the full extent of the FBI's campaign to discredit Dr. King was authorized by or known to anyone outside of the Bureau, there is evidence that officials responsible for supervising the FBI received indications that some such efforts were being undertaken. For example, former Attorney General Katzenbach and former Assistant Attorney General Burke Marshall both testified that in late 1964 they learned that the Bureau had offered tape recordings of Dr. King to certain newsmen in Washington, D.C. They further stated that they informed President Johnson. of the FBI's offers.1 1 4 The Committee has discovered no evidence, however, that the President or Justice Department officials made any further effort to halt the discrediting campaign at this time or at any other time; indeed, the Bureau's campaign continued for several years after this incident. On some occasions, administration officials did not request further details about intelligence programs because they simply did not want to know. Former Postmaster General J. Edward Day testified that when Allen Dulles and Richard Helms spoke to him about a CIA project in 1961, he interrupted them before they could tell him the purpose of their visit (which Helms said was to say mail was being opened). Day stated: . . . Mr. Dulles, after some preliminary visiting and so on, said that he wanted to tell me something very secret, and I said, "Do I have to know about it?" And he said, "No." I said, "My experience is that where there is something that is very secret, it is likely to leak out, and anybody that knew about it is likely to be suspected of having been part of leaking it out, so I would rather not know anything about it." What additional things were said in connection with him building up to that, I don't know. But I am sure . . . that I was not told anything about opening mail." 1 By his own account, therefore, Mr. Day did not learn the true nature of this project because he "would rather not know anything about it." Although rarely expressed in such unequivocal terms, this attitude appears to have been all too common among senior government officials. (Memoranda from J. Edgar Hoover to the Attorney General, 5/17 (Church Committee Report, April 26, 1976.)