Deplorably Demagogic and Blaspehmous

This is the first time in the past sixty years since I first started to follow politics at the age of five that I am not paying careful attention to every development in what I have learned is a gigantic farce designed to keep the masses agitated and at each other’s throats in the belief that one set of naturalists will be better able than another set of naturalists to “improve” whatever is said to need “improving” during a particular election. This is why I have been commenting on this farce very infrequently this year as there is really nothing "new" to write that I have not written endless numbers of times before. Indeed, is about as comprehensive an examination of the current farce that I can write.

Those who adhere to the false opposite of the naturalist “left” are firmly committed to the advance of various moral evils, and they really do believe that anyone who disagrees with them is mentally deranged and/or violence-prone “extremists.”

Lest the very few readers who remain on themselves think that this kind of contempt by one set of “naturalists” for those who disagree with them, permit me to reprise of a few historical facts that will demonstrate there is really nothing “new” under the naturalist sun. Intimidation of political opponents has been a staple of of American government and politics from its inception.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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 Attorney General Janet Reno, 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 now:

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 Durbin/ Salvi.)

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.

Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro and his chief "intellectual" advisor, the well-connected Chicagoland ideologue named Valerie Jarrett, seethe with complete and utter contempt for those who criticize 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 has governed in a manner completely befitting the beliefs he expressed privately in San Francisco, California, eight years ago, and public opinion surveys indicate that he still maintains the support of fifty percent of the American people. 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 four 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.

Raspy-voiced and seemingly always on the verge of a massive coughing fit and/or physical collapse as a result of the pneumonia that her personal physician has now disclosed she has at this time (if she is only suffering from pneumonia, that is),Madame Defarge, aka Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton, has lost nothing of her ability to denounce those for whom she has never had anything other than complete and utter contempt:

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton lashed out at many supporters of Donald Trump Friday, saying half of them hold hateful views that put them in a “basket of deplorables.”

You could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right,” Clinton said, drawing laughter and applause as she addressed about 1,000 donors at an LGBT for Hillary fundraising gala in New York City, “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it.” Adding that Trump had “given voice” to many of those elements through his campaign rhetoric and retweets, she continued that, “some of those folks—they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.”

She suggested that the second “bucket” of Trump supporters feel alienated by economic instability and government dysfunction and are desperate for any change. They don’t buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different,” she continued. “Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.”

The comments quickly drew condemnation from the Trump campaign as indicative of the “politics of division” that the GOP nominee has accused her of playing. Meanwhile even some Democrats reflected that at best it was a distraction from her campaign message, and an example of divisive political rhetoric in which a would-be president casts out a large swath of the country she hopes to lead. About 43% of likely voters in the U.S.—more than 50 million Americans—support Trump according to the latest polls, with Clinton’s math returning figures into the tens of millions.

Second only to Trump as the most historically disliked nominee in recent history, Clinton spent much of the summer focused on raising voters’ negative opinions about Trump, and just weeks ago delivered an entire campaign speech devoted to highlighting the comments of some of Trump’s most virulent supporters. In recent days she had been trying to put a more positive face to her campaign following weeks of withering attacks on Trump and controversy over her emails.

There is little doubt that Trump has drawn support from extremist elements, including the so-called ‘Alt-Right’ movement. And to an extent, her comments fall in the zone of the Kinsley gaffe—when a politician tells some truth they weren’t supposed to say. But Clinton’s comments Friday suggested that those forces make up a far larger cohort of Trump backers than she had ever suggested before. Her arithmetic, which she called “grossly generalistic,” is proving to be a political gift to the Trump campaign, which is already using it to rally their supporters.

Trump’s campaign released a statement early Saturday accusing Clinton of dishonoring the “everyday Americans” backing Trump. “Just when Hillary Clinton said she was going to start running a positive campaign, she ripped off her mask and revealed her true contempt for everyday Americans,” said Trump spokesman Jason Miller. “And what’s truly deplorable isn’t just that Hillary Clinton made an inexcusable mistake in front of wealthy donors and reporters happened to be around to catch it, it’s that Clinton revealed just how little she thinks of the hard-working men and women of America.” The candidate also took to Twitter Saturday morning to respond. “Wow, Hillary Clinton was SO INSULTING to my supporters, millions of amazing, hard working people. I think it will cost her at the Polls!” Trump tweeted.

It has become tradition for controversial remarks at fundraisers to be injected into the political bloodstream. In 2008, speaking at a fundraiser in San Francisco, then-Sen. Barack Obama tried to explain the resentment in small-town Pennsylvania amid a tumultuous economy. “It’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations,” Obama said, in remarks later provided to the Huffington Post. In 2012, Mitt Romney was secretly recorded at a fundraiser writing off 47% of of the country as Obama supporters because they receive government benefits. “There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it,” Romney said. The tape was later leaked to Mother Jones.

Clinton, breaking with the precedent set by Obama, generally does not allow reporters to cover her prepared remarks at fundraisers. Friday’s event was a rare exception. She recently concluded a month-long fundraising swing that raised more than $140 million for her campaign. Trump also does not allow reporters into his fundraisers. (Hillary Clinton Denounces Half Of Trump Supporters As A "Basket of Deplorables".)

Although Madame Defarge later expressed her "regrets" for calling Trump supporters 'deplorables', there is no question that she really believes what she had said on Friday, September 9, 2016, the Feast of Saint Peter Claver and the Commemoration of Saint Gorgonius, while raising money from those steeped in perverse sins against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments. What is very ironic about Madame Defarge's efforts to delegitimize and shame those who intend to vote for her fellow narcissistic naturalist and total creature of Talmudists, Donald John Trump, is that Trump does not oppose the agenda of the so-called "LGBTQ" deviants to whom she had addressed her fund raising remarks. Indeed, he has been outspoken in their behalf:

“49 wonderful Americans were savagely murdered by an Islamic terrorist. This time, the terrorist targeted LGBTQ community – no good and we're going to stop it.

As your President, I will do everything in my power to protect our LGBTQ citizens from the violence and oppression of a hateful foreign ideology – beleive me.” 

And as a Republican, it is so nice to hear you cheering for what I just said. Thank you. (Donald John Trump Acceptance Address, Republican National Convention, Cleveland, Ohio July 21, 2016.)

By the way, Donald John Trump made no reference in that Republican National Convention acceptance address to the daily slaughter of the innocent preborn by chemical and surgical means. He celebrated perversity and ignored willful murder while acknowledging those who practice perversity as belonging to a specific category of people deserving of "respect" because of their "choices" and "lifestyle."

It is to hate no one to call sin by its proper name or to exhort those steeped in it unrepentantly to convert.

It is to hate no one to denounce false religions as false and to exhort those adhering them to convert.

Yet it is that the use of demagoguery to denounce those who believe in the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law is a commonplace practice by the monsters of Modernity in the world and by their enablers, the monsters of Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, something that I pointed out last month in ", and United States Senator Timothy Michael Dolan (D-Virginia), Madame Defarge's vice presidential running mate, is proving himself to be a very adept demagogue in behalf of both baby-killing and perversity.

Consider what Senator Pontius Kaine (or Timothy Michael Dolan Pilate) said yesterday, Sunday, September 11, 2016, the Seventeenth Sunday after Pentecost and the Commemoration of Saints Protus and Hyacinth, about the perverse absurdity that goes by the name of "gay marriage":

Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine is predicting that the Roman Catholic Church may eventually change its opposition to gay marriage.

Kaine is a Roman Catholic as well as a U.S. senator from Virginia and a former governor of that state. He told the Human Rights Campaign during its national dinner Saturday in Washington that he had changed his mind about gay marriage and that his church may follow suit one day.

"I think it's going to change because my church also teaches me about a creator who, in the first chapter of Genesis, surveyed the entire world, including mankind, and said, 'It is very good,'" Kaine said. He then recalled Pope Francis' remark that "who am I to judge?" in reference to gay priests.

"I want to add: Who am I to challenge God for the beautiful diversity of the human family? I think we're supposed to celebrate it, not challenge it," Kaine said.

While he pledged to fight for increased rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer Americans, Kaine admitted that he had opposed gay marriage until 2005.

"For a long time while I was battling for LGBT equality, I believed that marriage was something different," he said. Virginia's lieutenant governor when state lawmakers pushed for a constitutional amendment to keep marriage between one man and one woman, he recalled speaking to amendment supporters who said they hoped LGBT people would feel so unwelcome that they would move out of Virginia. (Kaine Thinks That the Counterfeit Church of Concilarism Will Change Stance on "Marriage" for Sodomites.)

Timothy Michael Dolan Kaine knows as much about Catholic teaching in general and Catholic moral theology in particular as does Timothy Michael "Cardinal" Dolan (see Timmy's In The Well (Of Americanism, That Is), Making Everyone Happy Except God, Unhappy Is The "Happy" "Bishop", Whatever You Want, Ominous Offenders Offending Ominously, Memo To David Axelrod And Other Social Engineers, John Carroll's Caesar, Victims of Compromise, Taking A Figure Of Antichrist At His Worthless Words, Prisoners Of Their Own Apostasy, Timothy Dolan, Meet Timothy Dolan (And Friends), Still Celebrating Half A Century Of Apostasy, Candidate For Man Of The Year?, From John Carroll To James Gibbons To Timothy Dolan, To Help The Children, Fake, Phony, Sanctimonious Fraud, Happy As A Stuffed Clam With Himself, Impossible To Fight Moral Evils With Blasphemy And Error, Still Trying to Make Everyone Happy Except God Himself, Just Another Ordinary Outrage Permitted by a Conciliar "Ordinary", Forty Years of Emboldening, Appeasing, and Enabling Killers, part two, Auditioning To Be The Next Universal Face of Apostasy, Memo To Timothy Michael Dolan: Catholics Never Say "We Used To Say" and "You're Not Supposed To Do This") or Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

How much is that?


Well, that is not really accurate.

Please excuse me.

Less than nothing is the most accurate correct answer to the question about the level of theological knowledge possessed by the troika named above.

Where does one begin to eviscerate Timothy Michael Dolan Kaine’s “theological” insights? This will take just a short bit of your time. I promise you.

First, what Timothy Michael Dolan Kaine thinks is the Catholic Church is but the counterfeit ape of Holy Mother Church, which enjoys a perpetual immunity from error and heresy.

Second, the Catholic Church has no “stance” on matters of theological and moral truth as she merely teaches infallibly what she received from her Divine Founder, Invisible Head and Mystical Bridegroom, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, namely, the immutable precepts contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith.  That is, the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law, which is knowable by reason but of which Holy Mother Church is the sole infallibly authoritative explicator, are thus incapable of being changed as truth does not depend human acceptance for its binding force or validity.

Third, Timothy Michael Dolan Kaine’s rhetorical question, “Who am I to challenge God for the beautiful diversity of the human family? I think we're supposed to celebrate it not challenge it,” is further proof that this man is an idiot. A complete and total idiot.

More than that, however, Timothy Michael Dolan Kaine is a blaspheming idiot as he, a true son of the conciliar revolution, would have us believe that God Himself has created a false “diversity” whereby we are supposed to “celebrate” that which He Himself has condemned in the very words of Sacred Scripture and was condemned even by pagans of yore, who only had recourse to the use of natural reason.

Timothy Michael Kaine, you idiot, the every word of Sacred Scripture, including the following, was written under the Divine inspiration of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, and you ignore them or deconstruct them into meaninglessness at your own eternal peril, which is already in great jeopardy by means of your “public duty” to support the chemical and surgical slaughter of the innocent preborn under cover of the civil law:

[13] If any one lie with a man as with a woman, both have committed an abomination, let them be put to death: their blood be upon them. [14] If any man after marrying the daughter, marry her mother, he hath done a heinous crime: he shall be burnt alive with them: neither shall so great an abomination remain in the midst of you. [15] He that shall copulate with any beast or cattle, dying let him die, the beast also ye shall kill. (Leviticus 20: 13-15.)

For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy. Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them. (Romans 1: 18-32.)

[9] Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, [10] Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God. (1 Cor. 6: 9)

[6] And the angels who kept not their principality, but forsook their own habitation, he hath reserved under darkness in everlasting chains, unto the judgment of the great day. [7] As Sodom and Gomorrha, and the neighbouring cities, in like manner, having given themselves to fornication, and going after other flesh, were made an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire. [8] In like manner these men also defile the flesh, and despise dominion, and blaspheme majesty. [9] When Michael the archangel, disputing with the devil, contended about the body of Moses, he durst not bring against him the judgment of railing speech, but said: The Lord command thee. [10] But these men blaspheme whatever things they know not: and what things soever they naturally know, like dumb beasts, in these they are corrupted.  (Jude 1 6-10.)

These are the words of God Himself, Timothy Michael Kaine. There is no need to "imagine" what God teaches. His teaching is clear, and it has been clearly explicated and defended by Holy Mother Church and her Doctors and Confessors, and by none other than Pope Saint Pius V in these stern words that offer no room for compromise:

That horrible crime, on account of which corrupt and obscene cities were destroyed by fire through divine condemnation, causes us most bitter sorrow and shocks our mind, impelling us to repress such a crime with the greatest possible zeal.

Quite opportunely the Fifth Lateran Council [1512-1517] issued this decree: "Let any member of the clergy caught in that vice against nature . . . be removed from the clerical order or forced to do penance in a monastery" (chap. 4, X, V, 31). So that the contagion of such a grave offense may not advance with greater audacity by taking advantage of impunity, which is the greatest incitement to sin, and so as to more severely punish the clerics who are guilty of this nefarious crime and who are not frightened by the death of their souls, we determine that they should be handed over to the severity of the secular authority, which enforces civil law.

Therefore, wishing to pursue with the greatest rigor that which we have decreed since the beginning of our pontificate, we establish that any priest or member of the clergy, either secular or regular, who commits such an execrable crime, by force of the present law be deprived of every clerical privilege, of every post, dignity and ecclesiastical benefit, and having been degraded by an ecclesiastical judge, let him be immediately delivered to the secular authority to be put to death, as mandated by law as the fitting punishment for laymen who have sunk into this abyss. (Pope Saint Pius V, Horrendum illud scelus, August 30, 1568.)

Death, not "brotherhood" and "mainstreaming" for the sake of "inclusivity," was what Pope Saint Pius V, faithful to the teaching of Saint Paul the Apostle in his Epistle to the Romans cited just above believed should be imposed on the clergy as well as the laity who were caught in "such an execrable crime" that caused him "such bitter sorrow" shocked his papal mind as he sought to "repress such a crime with the greatest possible zeal."

A true pope understood the horror of such a detestable sin on the part of the clergy and sought to administer punishment to serve as a medicinal corrective for other priests and to demonstrate to the laity the horrific nature of such a moral crime.

A false "pope" seeks to appear as an agent of mercy when he is actually an apostle of eternal death, and he is happily allied with demagogic statists such as Timothy Michael Kaine who go on the rhetorical offensive against those deemed to be "homophobic" even though they are simply performing a Spiritual Work of Mercy to admonish sinners.

Mind you, I am not suggesting the revival of this penalty in a world where it would not be understood and where the offender would be made a "martyr" for the cause of perversity, only pointing out the fact that the Catholic Church teaches that clerics and others in ecclesiastical authority who are guilty of serious moral crimes are deserving of punishment, not protection, by their bishops. Such is the difference yet again between Catholicism and conciliarism.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio and others in the conciliar structures want to provide "brotherhood" and "acceptance" to those steeped in perverse sins against nature, and conciliar Catholics such as Timothy Michael Kaine are more than happy to have the Argentine Apostate enable and reaffirm them in  their own natural propensity to play Pontius Pilate as they crucify and spit upon Christ the King mystically.

Not content to to do this, however, Pilates such as Timothy Michael Kaine, once again aping Jorge Mario Bergoglio, condemn and castigate those who do hold fast to Catholic teaching despite their own sins and failings. This is quite a feat of demagoguery that has but once source: the very tempter who convinced Adam and Eve that they could be like unto God if they ate of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in direct defiance of the command that He, their very Creator, had given them.

This is a point that was made quite eloquently by Father Edward Leen in Why the Cross?

The sin of Adam was not one of sensuality, but of pride.

To understand why the consequences of Adam's act were so disastrous, it is necessary to grasp the full significance of that act. It was no mere weak yielding to the attraction of a luscious and forbidden fruit. It was not the fruit itself that was the temptation, but the prospect that Satan help out to him as a consequence of the eating of the fruit. The head of the human race aimed at being as God. He yielded to the ambition of emulating the Almighty as regards the knowledge of good and evil. This meant the proud resolve to determine for himself, by his own native power, what should be good, and what evil for him to do. He wished to be the fule of his own conduct. He would be the ultimate source, the very found and origin of what was the true and what was the good for man. That should be good for him, that was according to his own will, not what was according to the will of God. That should be true which recommended itself to his reason, not what was according to the divine ideas. “Both Satan and Adam willed to be self-dependent to the contempt of the divine ruling: and from this point of view aimed at equality with God.”

The first man, in reaching out for the forbidden fruit, yielded to the ambition to be himself the artisan of his own beatitude. He hoped that by the resources of his own nature and of the world subject to his control, he could achieve his happiness without any dependence on a superhuman power. This was the beginning of that strange aberration traceable through the whole course of human history – the aberration that manifests itself in the perverse ambition of man to attain to the 'absolute' by his own efforts.” [This folly is the germ of all the monstrous systems of Monism -pantheism included]  The Fall, in the motive that inspired it, is ever being renewed down along the ages.

Adam's act was a practical denial of the essential relation of dependence in which the creature stands to the Creator. It was a negation of his own “creaturehood.” The eating from the tree of knowledge was a gesture of fearful import: it was a solemn declaration of human independence; it was, equivalently, an unfurling of the standard of revolt against God by the head of mankind and on its behalf. The chief of the race was not unaware of the dreadful gravity of his act and of its consequences. The prohibition had been accompanied by solemn warnings and by the menace of dire consequences in case of its violation. The brief, simple, and unrhetorical narrative of Scripture gives us no insight into the tense and tragic struggle of soul that took place in the garden as Adam wrestled with a temptation proportioned to the grandeur of his endowments. It was a crisis on a scale unparalleled in history. On its issue hung the destinies of the whole human family. Adam had force and firmness of will, was endowed with penetration of intelligence, and enjoyed the intimate friendship of God. Alluring in the extreme must have been the colors of the destiny painted for him by Satan, seeing that its appeal overcame the resistance of the strongest will and the mightiest intelligence that the world had ever known, with one exception. The temptation in the garden has its parallel and its contrast in the temptation of Christ in the desert.

The fatal decision was taken, and the fair vision conjured up for Adam dissolved as an unsubstantial dream. There is no happiness unless through union with God. Man is doomed to misery when he cease to depend on his Maker. When he turns his back on goods that are imperishable and divine, he develops a fatal tendency toward such as yield a satisfaction that is transient and ephemeral. Leaving the true good, which he can attain to by the aid of God, he falls prey to a craving for the phantom good, attainable by human resources.

No injustice was done to human nature, as such, when it was stripped of its preternatural gifts as a chastisement of sin.

It is easy to understand that sanctifying grace should disappear from the souls of our first parents in consequence of their sin. Charity, the characteristic effect of sanctifying grace, means friendship with God. Mortal sin means aversion from God. It is obvious that these two, being incompatible, cannot coexist in the same soul. The preternatural gifts of integrity, immortality, and science were marks of God's friendship for man, but are not in themselves in radical opposition to sin. The good they bestow remains of the created order. True, it is only by a gift in no wise required by the exigencies of his nature that man could have his bodily life prolonged uninterruptedly. Still, unending life is not supernatural life or the life of charity. Neither integrity, nor science, nor immortality gives man any participation in the divine. The perfection given by the preternatural gifts is in one sense natural, in that it perfects man along the lines of his own nature. It is not natural in the sense that it down not spring from, not is it an exigency of, the constituent elements of human nature. In other words, the perfection given by the preternatural gifts is in no wise required by man's nature, and need not be given to it, and can be absent without human nature being itself wanting in anything that is essential to its constitution.

When punished by the withdrawal of integrity, Adam could not complain that God had taken from him anything that was his right as man. The perfect submission of the passions to reason is according to man's nature: but it is according to nature that this submission be securred only after sustained and intense moral effort and struggle. Sense has its own tendencies; reason has its tendencies. The operations of sense enter into play before those of reason. It is natural, then, that the inclinations of the sense should anticipate the inclinations of the spirit. The functioning of the faculties of the sensitive nature is more vivid than the functioning of the faculties of reason. The tangible realities affect man more forcibly than the intangible. To subordinate the appeal of the former to the appeal of the latter, naturally demands effort.

When man had deliberately forfeited the favor of God, there was no injustice in his not being dispensed from this moral struggle, which has its necessity in the very constitution of his being. It was but fitting that man, having aspired to create by his own efforts the reign of reason in himself, should be left by God to his own resources. When man fails in his endeavor, he cannot plead that he has been condemned to an unequal struggle by being deprived of the arms with which his nature, by right, should be equipped. The plea cannot be urged, because God has taken from rational nature nothing that belongs to it intrinsically. Man has only himself to blame if he finds himself prey to the experience to which utterance was given by the pagan poet: “I see what it right and I give it my approval, but I follow the evil course.” The same thought was re-echoed many years later by St. Paul, saying; “For the good which I will, I do not; but the evil which I will not, that I do . . . I am delighted with the law of God according to the inward man, but I see another law in my members fighting against the law of my mind, and captivating me in the law of sin that is in my members.” [Rom 7: 19-23] Man's ambition to be as God, knowing good and evil has been realized with tragic irony.

As there would have been solidarity between Adam and his descendants had he proved faithful, so is there solidarity between him and them in his revolt.

The crowning disaster of the first prevarication was that Adam in sinning did not sin merely as an individual. Through his act sinned and fell the human nature that existed in him as in its source. Adam and his children form a unity that is closer and more intimate than the social unity that exists between member of the same family. It must be assimilated rather to the union that binds together the members of one human body, or such as exists between the parent stock and the branches that spring from it. As mankind, in the supernatural plane, was constituted by God one Mystical Body, so in its fallen state it remains one, with Adam as its head. The first man was, as it were, an incarnation in himself of the totality of human nature. During a space he was, in himself, all humanity. The nature that was in him shared his destiny. It would ever be what it was in its principle. It was to stand or fall by him. It was to be “graced” or “dis-graced” by his decision. The latter proved to be its fate. The stream of humanity was defiled at its source. This defilement passes from generation to generation in the process by which life is transmitted.

The solidarity of mankind in the Fall is a mystery akin to the mystery of the solidarity in grace that there would have been had the chief of humanity proved faithful in his trial. By his personal act, human in him lost its supernatural and preternatural endowments. To his descendants it was only his nature he could transmit. It was passed on in that state to which it had been reduced by Original Sin, that is, stripped of original justice and reduced to its bare essentials. Adam's act did not pass to his children, but his nature, as affected by that act, was transmitted. Every child of the race, as it comes into being by the way of regeneration, inherits this nature, shorn of grace and integrity. In Adam and Eve, as being the origin of all humanity, there fell both person and nature.

It is the teaching of St. Thomas that all persons throughout all ages stand to Adam in a relation that finds its parallel only in that which exists betweeen the members and the head in the human body. The great theologian, using this analogy, points out that the different individuals of the human race particpate in the guilt of the head of the race in a way that the is to be compared to that in which the members of the body that execute a criminal act share in the eveil that has its origin in the principle of mans activities, namely the will. “The wicked glance of the eye and evil deed of the hand express, after their mannyer the sinful determination that has been formed in the spiritual faculties. The outward act of the body bears the impress of the disorder that has its origin in the will. So too, Adam's descendants bear in their nature the impress of the disorder that arose in the will of the head of the race when he fell from justice.” [De malo, q. 4, a. 1.]

Hence it is that those who came from Adam's stock, by the channel of generation, lack that proper relation to God which existed in the state of original justice. As as individual involves his whole person in his guilt, so the head of the universal human body involved all the members of that body in his sin. All men are born enemies of God, not because of any personal guilt attaching to them but because  of the nature lacking the order of justice, that they inherit. “In the chief of humanity, it was through the disorder of the person that the nature was vitiated: in the members of the race, it is through the disorder of the nature that the person is tainted. [la Vie spirituelle (March, 1930) p.217.]

The fault of Adam was an act of disobedience prompted by pride and self-love.

Because of his tainted nature, man, though redeemed, finds it difficult to pursue even a rational ideal; he experiences still greater difficulty in pursuing a superhuman ideal.

In the loss of the gift of integrity, which had preserved the sensitive and rational powers in a perfect harmony, is found the solution of the many perplexing problems presented by human conduct. Man, even in the state of grace, finds a great difficulty in resisting the vivacious appeal of sense and in giving ear to the comparatively colder appeal of reason. He finds a still greater difficulty in rising above the purely rational and in responding to the call of the divine. He can do great, and even heroic things, for human considerations, but has to overcome a stong resistance in his nature to do even a small thing out of regard for God. Indevotion to an earthly cause, men readily face danger and death, and hardships more testing than death itself. For an empty distinction, for a little applause, they can impose considerable privations of themselves. Men can do much for a corruptible crown, but are reluctant to do even a little for an incorruptible one. [I Cor 9:25] An early-twentieth-century writer contrasts, with sadness, the zeal and the self-sacrifice shown by the apostles and disciples of Communism, in pursuit of a purely earthly and material ideal, with the aversion from the spirit of renouncement and self-denial manifested by average Christians in the cause of Go. Privations imposed by the fashion of the hour will be readily submitted to and cheerfully borne: privations commanded by God and His Church in the interests of the soul invariably encounter, on the part of the majority pleas for dispensation. Whatever is human and “sub-supernatural” made an appeal to the instincts of man's tainted nature: whatever is truly reasonable and, more especially, what is divine finds little response in those instincts. If the appeal of reason  is resisted it is understandable that the appeal of faith should meet with still greater opposition. Man may consent to suffer much for a natural end; he rebels instinctively against suffering for a supernatural end. In this lies the explanation of the sullen hostility to the God of revelation and to His Christ that is ever smoldering in the heart of humanity, and that periodically flames up into open revolt. This spirit of revolt is not confined to the avowed enemies of God: it finds an echo in every soul that is but partially subjugated to the grace of Christ.

Humanity, lost in Adam, is restored in Christ. God, with divine magnanimity, Himself undertakes the cost of restoration.

In Christ alone, man finds salvation. Each child of Adam finds a return to God's friendship only through mystic incorporation in the Redeemer. Incorporated in Adam, he was lost; incorporated in Christ, he is restored. The first head of the race had the fatal power to plunge all human nature in ruin: he had not the power to rescue it from the fuin into which it had been plunged. “By one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death . . . . Therefore, as by the offense of one, unto all men to condemnation, so also by the justice of one, unto all men to justification. [Rom 5: 12,18]

Had God allowed things to follow their fatal course, the disaster that fell on the race of Adam would have been irretrievable. There were something of the finality of Satan's revolt in Adam's evil decision, because of his clear view of the consequences of his act and the resolution with which it was willed. But, fortunately for mankind, there was a difference. The angel's choice, to effect the salvation of His creatures. Though Adam had no power of himself, even when repentant for his evil act, to effect his return to God, though he had still less power to restore his children to their divine inheritance, yet a return to God was possible for all, if God were to intervene and change the course of destiny started by the Fall. God did intervene.

The Creator had been infinitely generous, in the literal sense of the words, in the gifts He had bestowed on his rational creatures at their creation. Man had, in his folly and pride, at the suggestion of the tempter, flung back his divine privileges in the face of his beneficent Lord. The Almighty showed a divine magnanimity in forgiving the insult and restoring to man the grace that he had  forfeited. The magnanimity is the more wonderful in this, that the burden of the restoration and its cost were assumed by the only-begotten Son of God.

Adam sinned by aiming at a autonomy that belongs to God alone. He aspired to this position of being able to determine what was his own good. He wished his own reason to be the ultimate source of truth. He sinned as head of the race. The Original Sin, therefore, not only affected his person but his nature  was stripped of grace and of all the preternatural gifts that had preserved it from disorder, corruption, and ignorance. It was nature thus deprived of grace and integrity that each child of Adam inherited. Hence, in this regard, sin is called the sin of nature. The whole of human nature was vitiated in Adam; each person is restored in Christ by being incorporated in Him mystically. (Father Edward Leen, S.J., Why the Cross?, originally published by Sheed & Ward in 1938, and republished in 2001 by Scepter Publishers, Princeton, New Jersey, pp. 139-141.)

Timothy Michael Kaine is one of legions of politicians, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, here in the United States of America and the rest of the world who wish their "own reason to be the ultimate source of truth," and he is both an exemplar and a product of the spirit of the heresy of Americanism that champions "respect" for all religions and the "ability" of "Americans to solve whatever it is they put their minds to solving." Such absurdity was described perfectly by Father Leen in a passage from the above citation:

The first man, in reaching out for the forbidden fruit, yielded to the ambition to be himself the artisan of his own beatitude. He hoped that by the resources of his own nature and of the world subject to his control, he could achieve his happiness without any dependence on a superhuman power. This was the beginning of that strange aberration traceable through the whole course of human history – the aberration that manifests itself in the perverse ambition of man to attain to the 'absolute' by his own efforts.” [This folly is the germ of all the monstrous systems of Monism -pantheism included]  The Fall, in the motive that inspired it, is ever being renewed down along the ages. (Father Edward Leen, S.J., Why the Cross?, originally published by Sheed & Ward in 1938, and republished in 2001 by Scepter Publishers, Princeton, New Jersey, p. 140.)

Obviously, this describes the beliefs of all naturalists, whether they belong to the false opposites of the "right" or "left," including Donald John Trump. No, I have changed nothing about my views of Donald John Trump as one "really bad" naturalist does not make a "less bad" naturalist an instrument of pursuing the true common temporal good, least of all a man who is very supportive of the lavender agenda and is clueless about First and Last Things.

Fourth, even though the Catholic Church can never change anything contained in the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law, Timothy Michael Kaine is not wrong to contend that what he thinks is the Catholic Church can change its "stance" on the sickening perversion he terms "gay marriage." Everything goes in the counterfeit church of conciliarism. Everything.

Indeed, there is a conciliar "bishop" in Australia who is directly calling for his false religious sect to endorse the sin of Sodom:

For me, one of the greatest challenges the church faces today is to be inclusive, to be a big tent church. Pope Francis urges us to be a church where everyone can feel welcomed, loved, forgiven and encouraged to live according to the Gospel. You heard me say in my Installation Homily that there can be no future for the living church without this vital sense of ecclesial inclusiveness. By that I mean there must be space for everyone, especially those who have been hurt, excluded or alienated, be they abuse victims, survivors, divorcees, gays, lesbians, women, disaffected members. The church will be less than what Christ intends it to be when issues of inclusion and equality are not fully addressed. That is why you heard me say that I am guided by the radical vision of Christ. I am committed to make the church in Parramatta the house for all peoples, a church where there is less an experience of exclusion but more an encounter of radical love, inclusiveness and solidarity.

The teachings of Jesus like the parable of the Good Samaritan challenge us to think outside the square, outside the established patterns, norms and conventions. Jesus teaches us some home truths that are truly confronting and incisive. Samaritans were considered outsiders and outcasts by ordinary Jews. Yet in the parable, it was the Samaritan who was the unlikely hero. For he showed love and compassion to the person in need. On the contrary, the priest and the Levite, who were considered the respected class of society and the custodians of tradition, were found wanting. They put tradition and law in the way of basic human love. Thus, in crafting the characters in their cultural and religious context, Jesus really upset the tulip cart. He questioned the prevailing assumptions and stereotyped attitudes. He turned the presumed order of moral goodness upside down. The holders of tradition failed the test of good neighbour while the outcast proved himself an unlikely champion of basic human decency, mercy and compassion.

We can no longer understand the parable just in terms of being kind to those in need. It is an incisive lesson that cuts our prejudices to the quick. The lawyer who posed the question to Jesus “who is my neighbour” went away with much more than he had bargained for. He was challenged to be the neighbour and to be one like the Samaritan. It would have been a profound and indeed humbling revelation: The villain had become a hero and vice versa. The meaning of goodness, humanity, moral uprightness had been redefined. The boundaries of acceptance, inclusion and love had been annulled. Jesus had presented to him a radical new way of seeing, acting and relating.

That is what Jesus consistently does. He has a habit of challenging ingrained stereotyped attitudes, subverting the tyranny of the majority, breaking social taboos, pushing the boundaries of love and redefining its meaning. “You heard it said that love your neighbour and hate your enemy. But I say to you …” His interactions with women, with tax collectors and other types of social outcast are nothing short of being revolutionary and boundary breaking. It is his radical vision of love, inclusion and human flourishing that ought to guide our pastoral response.

As the Gospel illustrates, it is the holders of the tradition who are often guilty of prejudice, discrimination and oppressive stereotype. We in the church today need to examine our own attitudes and actions towards the victims of injustice and adopt what I would call a seamless garment approach. We cannot be a strong moral force and an effective prophetic voice in society if we are simply defensive, inconsistent and divisive with regards to certain social issues. We cannot talk about the integrity of creation, the universal and inclusive love of God, while at the same time colluding with the forces of oppression in the ill-treatment of racial minorities, women and homosexual persons. It won’t wash with young people, especially when we purport to treat gay people with love and compassion and yet define their sexuality as “intrinsically disordered”. This is particularly true when the church has not been a shining beacon and a trail-blazer in the fight against inequality and intolerance. Rather, it has been driven involuntarily into a new world where many of the old stereotypes have been put to rest and the identities and rights of the marginalised are accorded justice, acceptance, affirmation and protection in our secular and egalitarian society.

In one of his interviews on a rather thorny issue of homosexuality, Pope Francis says that we must always consider the person, because – I quote, “when God looks at a gay person, does he endorse the existence of this person with love, or reject and condemn this person?” It seems to me that the Pope has more than moved away from the approach of condemnation and judgment. He has refocused on the proclamation of God’s love for the poor, the vulnerable and the marginalised; he has firmly placed the pastoral emphasis on the dignity of every person; he has committed the church to the way of engagement, affirmation and compassion which is at the heart of the Gospel. The church can only be the conduit of compassion and speak the language of hope to a broken humanity when it truly personifies powerlessness and stands where Christ once stood, that is, firmly on the side of the outcast and the most vulnerable.

The synod on the family was essentially an exercise in administering the medicine of mercy to the wounded. In the past, the results of synods were sometimes seen to be foregone conclusions. This synod, however, has seen the unleashing of the energy long locked up beneath the ice of institutional security. Pope Francis has really lived up to his vision of the Church daring to break loose from its comfort zone and self-referential mentality. It is a church attentive to the signs of the times and incarnate grace at work in the world, even among the unorthodox and the marginalised. Much emphasis has been placed on the question of communion to the divorced and remarried. Yet, through the lens of mercy, the real question is how the missionary church can accommodate and accompany those struggling to live and still falling short of the Christian ideal. This ecclesial inclusiveness was instrumental to the doubting Thomas’ journey to faith. There must be a necessary space for dialogue and growth for the doubters and dissenters like Thomas. The capacity to create and nurture that space is characteristic of a church that walks the walk with the weak.

Catholic schools are premised on the fundamental dignity of each and every person. Attention to the most vulnerable and needy is written into our DNA, our Catholic ethos. How can we be places where this sense of ecclesial inclusiveness is fully expressed? In what ways can we advance Jesus’ radical vision of love, inclusion and human flourishing in our communities? (Conciliar "Bishop" Vicent Long, OFM, Seeks To Endorse Sodomy.)

Perhaps I should start to refer to the conciliar church as the counterfeit church of sinful idiocy.

Timothy Michael Kaine, you can well see, is in the "mainstream" of conciliar teaching, and his false views about the sin of Sodom, one of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance, are perfectly in line with those of Jorge Mario Bergoglio and many of his "bishops." Vincent Long is simply one of them. There are many others around the world, especially in the Federal Republic of Germany.

Unfortunately for these enablers of a detestable sin, God has both condmned and punish the sin of Sodom:

And when the men rose up from thence, they turned their eyes towards Sodom: and Abraham walked with them, bringing them on the way. And the Lord said: Can I hide from Abraham what I am about to do: Seeing he shall become a great and mighty nation, and in him all the nations of the earth shall be blessed? For I know that he will command his children, and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord, and do judgment and justice: that for Abraham's sake the Lord may bring to effect all the things he hath spoken unto him. And the Lord said: The cry of Sodom and Gomorrha is multiplied, and their sin is become exceedingly grievous.

I will go down and see whether they have done according to the cry that is come to me: or whether it be not so, that I may know. And they turned themselves from thence, and went their way to Sodom: but Abraham as yet stood before the Lord. And drawing nigh he said: Wilt thou destroy the just with the wicked? If there be fifty just men in the city, shall they perish withal? and wilt thou not spare that place for the sake of the fifty just, if they be therein? Far be it from thee to do this thing, and to slay the just with the wicked, and for the just to be in like case as the wicked, this is not beseeming thee: thou who judgest all the earth, wilt not make this judgment.

And the Lord said to him: If I find in Sodom fifty just within the city, I will spare the whole place for their sake. And Abraham answered, and said: Seeing I have once begun, I will speak to my Lord, whereas I am dust and ashes. What if there be five less than fifty just persons? wilt thou for five and forty destroy the whole city? And he said: I will not destroy it, if I find five and forty. And again he said to him: But if forty be found there, what wilt thou do? He said: I will not destroy it for the sake of forty. Lord, saith he, be not angry, I beseech thee, if I speak: What if thirty shall be found there? He answered: I will not do it, if I find thirty there.

Seeing, saith he, I have once begun, I will speak to my Lord. What if twenty be found there? He said: I will not destroy it for the sake of twenty. I beseech thee, saith he, be not angry, Lord, if I speak yet once more: What if ten should be found there? And he said: I will not destroy it for the sake of ten. And the Lord departed, after he had left speaking to Abraham: and Abraham returned to his place. (Genesis 16: 16-33)

And he said to him: Behold also in this, I have heard thy prayers, not to destroy the city for which thou hast spoken. Make haste and be saved there, because I cannot do any thing till thou go in thither. Therefore the name of that city was called Segor. The sun was risen upon the earth, and Lot entered into Segor. And the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrha brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven. And he destroyed these cities, and all the country about, all the inhabitants of the cities, and all things that spring from the earth.

And his wife looking behind her, was turned into a statue of salt. And Abraham got up early in the morning and in the place where he had stood before with the Lord, He looked towards Sodom and Gomorrha, and the whole land of that country: and he saw the ashes rise up from the earth as the smoke of a furnace. (Genesis 19: 21-28.) 

Although apologists for all things lavender would have us believe that the sin of Sodom was that of a “lack of hospitality,” we know this is yet another Modernist myth designed to reaffirm those steeped in perverse sins against nature in their freely chosen behavior until the time that they meet Christ the King at the fearful moment of their Particular Judgment.

Moreover, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ referred to the fate of Sodom during His Public Ministry as follows:

Woe to thee, Corozain, woe to thee, Bethsaida: for if in Tyre and Sidon had been wrought the miracles that have been wrought in you, they had long ago done penance in sackcloth and ashes. [22] But I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment, than for you. [23] And thou Capharnaum, shalt thou be exalted up to heaven? thou shalt go down even unto hell. For if in Sodom had been wrought the miracles that have been wrought in thee, perhaps it had remained unto this day. [24] But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee. [25] At that time Jesus answered and said: I confess to thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to the little ones. (Matthew 10: 21-25.)

Ah, Jorge Mario Bergoglio really does not believe that anyone can go to Hell if they “encounter the Lord” and express some kind of sorrow, which is nothing other than recycled Lutheranism. This is why latter day Pontius Pilates such as Timothy Michael Kaine and the demagogue is campaigning to succeed, Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. (see Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., Demagogue Update.)

Well, it was on July 13, 1917, that Our Lady showed Jacinta and Francisco Marto and Lucia dos Santos the place that will be, most unfortunately, the future eternal home of Jorge Mario Begoglio unless he repents of his crimes against the honor and glory and majesty of the Most Blessed Trinity and the eternal and temporal good of the souls redeemed by the shedding of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's Most Precious Blood during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross, Hell:

"I want you to come here on the 13th of next month, [August] to continue to pray the Rosary every day in honour of Our Lady of the Rosary, in order to obtain peace for the world and the end of the war, because only she can help you."

"Continue to come here every month. In October, I will tell you who I am and what I want, and I will perform a miracle for all to see and believe."

Lucia made some requests for sick people, to which Mary replied that she would cure some but not others, and that all must say the rosary to obtain such graces, before continuing: "Sacrifice yourselves for sinners, and say many times, especially when you make some sacrifice: O Jesus, it is for love of You, for the conversion of sinners, and in reparation for the sins committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary."

"You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace. The war is going to end; but if people do not cease offending God, a worse one will break out during the pontificate of Pius XI. When you see a night illumined by an unknown light, know that this is the great sign given you by God that he is about to punish the world for its crimes, by means of war, famine, and persecutions of the Church and of the Holy Father.

"To prevent this, I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, and the Communion of Reparation on the First Saturdays. If my requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, various nations will be annihilated. In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me and she will be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world."

Mary specifically told Lucia not to tell anyone about the secret at this stage, apart from Francisco, before continuing: "When you pray the Rosary, say after each mystery: 'O my Jesus, forgive us, save us from the fire of hell. Lead all souls to heaven, especially those who are most in need.' "

Lucia asked if there was anything more, and after assuring her that there was nothing more, Mary disappeared off into the distance. (Our Lady's Words atFatima.)

Our Lady promised on July 13 1917, to return to request the consecration of Russia by the Holy Father. She came to visit Sister Lucia in Tuy, Spain, on June 13, 1929, to specify the terms of this consecration:

"The moment has come in which God asks the Holy Father, in union with all the Bishops in the world, to make the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, promising to save it by this means. There are so many souls whom the Justice of God condemns for sins committed against me, that I have come to ask reparation: sacrifice yourself for this intention and pray." (Our Lady's Words at Fatima.)

Our Lady herself said that “There are so many souls whom the Justice of God condemns for sins committed against” her, the Theotokos, “that I have come to ask for reparation.”

Yes, the Mother of God spoke of the Justice of God, a truth that Jorge Mario Bergoglio deny by implying that such strict justice is incompatible with God’s Mercy. Bergoglio does not believe that God condemns any sinner to Hell for all eternity, save for perhaps the “rigid,” closed-in-on-themselves” adherents of the “no church” of the past. Bergoglio, though, is being ever faithful to his false religion, whose abominable Roman Rite liturgy makes no mention of a God Who judges and the need for sinners to do penance for their sins lest their go to Hell for all eternity. In other words, Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes that the Mother of God and the Fathers of the Council of Trent, who met under the Divine guidance and infallible protection of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, were wrong. He is a blaspheming heretic who is sending himself and those, among them Timothy Michael Kaine, who follow him to Hell.

Today is the Feast of the Holy Name of Mary, which has been a universal feast in the Catholic Church since the Battle at the Gates of Vienna in 1683, although the wretched Freemason named “Archbishop” Annibale Bugnini, C.M., saw fit to remove this feast from his “renewed” liturgy with the full approval of Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI. The feast remained off of the calendar of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service until Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II restored it in 2002.

Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., the great scholarly defender of The Mystical City of God, provided the following description in The Liturgical Year of this wonderful feast day:

‘And the Virgin’s name was Mary, Let us speak a little about this name, which signifies star of the sea, and which so well befits the Virgin Mother. Rightly is she likened to a star: for as a star emits its ray without being dimmed so the Virgin brought forth her Son without receiving any injury; the ray takes nought from the brightness of the star, nor the Son from His Mother’s integrity. This is the noble star risen out of Jacob, whose ray illumines the whole world, whose splendour shines in the heavens, penetrates the abyss, and, traversing the whole earth, gives warmth rather to souls than to bodies, cherishing virtues, withering vices. Mary, I say, is that bright and incomparable star, whom we need to see raised above this vast sea, shining by her merits, and giving us light by her example.

Oh! whosoever thou art that seest thyself amid the tides of this world, tossed about by storms and tempests rather than walking on the land, turn not thine eyes away from the shining of this star if thou wouldst not by the hurricane. If squalls of temptations arise, or thou fall upon the rocks of tribulation, look to the star, call upon Mary. If thou art tossed by the waves of pride or ambition, detraction or envy, look to the star, call upon Mary. If anger or avarice or the desires of the flesh dash against the ship of thy soul, turn thine eyes toward Mary. If, troubled by the enormity of thy crimes, ashamed of thy guilty conscience, terrified by dread of the judgment, thou beginnest to sink into the gulf of sadness or the abyss of despair, think of Mary. In dangers, in anguish, in doubt, think of Mary call upon Mary. Let her be ever on thy lips ever in thy heart; and the better to obtain the help of her prayers, imitate the example of her life. Following her, thou strayest not; invoking her, thou despairest not; thinking of her thou wanderest not; upheld by her, thou failest not; shielded by her, thou fearest not; guided by her, thou growest not weary; favoured by her, thou reachest the goal. And thus does thou experience I thyself how good is that saying: And the Virgin’s name was Mary.’

Thus speaks the devout St. Bernard, in the name of the Church. But his pious explanation does not exhaust the meanings of this blessed name of Mary. St. Peter Chrysologus adds in this same night Office: ‘Mary in Hebrew signifies lady or sovereign: and truly the authority of her Son, who is the Lord of the world, constituted her Queen, both in fact and in name from her very birth.

OUR LADY: such is the title which befits her in every way, as that of OUR LORD beseems her Son; it is the doctrinal basis of that worship of hyperdulia which belongs to her alone. She is below her Son, whom she adores as we do; but above all God’s servants, both angels and men, inasmuch as she is Mother. At the name of Jesus every knee is bent; at the name of Mary every head is bowed. And although the former is the only name whereby we may be saved; yet as the Son can never be separated from His Mother, heaven unites their two names in its hymns of praise, earth in its confidence, hell in its fear and hatred.

It was well therefore in the order of divine Providence that devotion to the most holy name of Mary should spread simultaneously with the cultus of the adorable name of Jesus, of which Saint Bernardine of Siena was the apostle in the fifteenth century. In 1513 the Church of Cuenca in Spain was the first to celebrate, with the approbation of the holy See, a special feast in honor of the name of Mary, while the Franciscan Order had the privilege for the adorable name of Jesus. The reason of this is that he memory of the sacred name included in the feast of the Circumcision, seemed to the prudence of the Pontiffs to suffice. From the same motive we find that the feast of the most holy name of Mary extended to the universal Chrch in the year 1683, and that of the holy name of Jesus not until 1721.

Our Lady justifies her beautiful title by partaking in the warlike exploits of the King of kings her Son. The city of Vienna having been delivered by her, contrary to all hope, form the power of the Crescent, the venerable Innocent XI. made this feast the memorial of universal gratitude to the liberatix of the west. . . .

All the delight of heaven, all the hopes of the earth, are centred on the cradle where Mary sleeps, while her heart is watching before God. Wisdom praises her own self; by the blessed daughter of Anne and Joachim, the loving preference shown by that divine Wisdom from the beginning of the world, is already justified; for ever more it will be her delight to with the children of men. The chosen vine, the vine of the Peaceful One is before us, announcing, by its fragrant blossom, the divine grape, whose juice, pressed out in the wine-press of the cross, will give fruitfulness to every soul, and will inebriate earth and heaven. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Time After Pentecost, Book V, pp. 171-173; pp. 175-176.)

Anyone, such as Timothy Michael Kaine or the man in whom he finds great affirmation for his support of sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance, who believes that those who commit any kind of Mortal Sins, including those of perversity, do not offend God and injure their own souls has no idea of the enormity of sin and what it caused the Divine Redeemer to suffer as He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross and that caused His Most Blessed Mother, Mary, to suffer in perfect communion with Him as those Swords of Sorrow were pierced through and through her Immaculate Heart.

It is not to “hate” anyone to denounce sins while exhorting sinners to repentance and conversion, and it is not have an irrational fear of Mohammedanism to pray for it to be eliminated from the face of this earth and to be defeated in its continual efforts to attack the Cross of the Divine Redeemer and those who seek to live in the shadow of that same Holy Cross by making reparation for their sins as the consecrated slaves of Our Lord Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Yes, Our Lady has won the victory over Mohammedans on several occasions, including the aforementioned Battle at the Gates of Vienna on this very date, September 12, in the year of Our Lord 1683:

‘Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terrible as an army set in array?’ Such is thy growth, O Mary! Not the holiest life, were it even of patriarchal duration, will ever attain the degree of progress made under the influence of divine power by the soul of the most pure Virgin, in these few days elapse since her coming on earth. First, there is the progress of her intellect: not subject to the obscurity which envelopes the minds of all men at their entrance into the world, it is a faithful mirror, into which the Word of God pours floods of that light which is also life. Then the progress of love in that heart of the Virgin and the Mother, wherein the holy Spirit already delights to awake such ineffable harmonies, and to dig still deeper depths. Lastly, the progress of that victorious power, which made satan tremble at the moment of the Immaculate Conception, and which ha constituted Mary the incomparable Queen of the hosts of the Lord.

Two glorious triumphs, two victories won under the protection of our Lord, have rendered this present day illustrious in the annals of the Church and of history.

Manicheism, revived under a variety of names, had established itself in the south of France, whence it hoped to spread is shameless excess. But Dominic appeared with Mary’s rosary for the defence of the people. On September 12, 1213, Simon de Montfort and the crusaders of the faith, one against forty, crushed the Albigensian army at Muret. This was in the pontificate of Innocent III.

Nearly five centuries later, the Turks, who had more than once caused the west to tremble, again poured down upon Christendom. Vienna, worn out and dismantled, abandoned by its emperor, was surrounded by 300,000 infidels. But another great Pope, Innocent XI, again confided to Mary the defence of the baptized nations. Sobieski, mounting his charge on the feast of our Lady’s Assumption, hastened from Poland by forced marches. On Sunday within the octave of the Nativity, September 12, 1683, Vienna was delivered; and then began for the Osmanlis that series of defeats that ended in the treatise of Carlowitz and Passarowitz, and the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire. The feast of the most holy name of Mary inscribed on the calendar of the universal Church, was the homage of the world’s gratitude to Mary, our Lady and Queen. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Time After Pentecost, Book V, pp. 191-192.)

Hillary Rodham Diane Clinton and Timothy Michael Kaine consider any sort of criticism of Mohammedanism to be indicative of “Islamophobia.”

Well, here is some news to this sad sap pair of power hungry demagogues of the false opposite of the naturalist “left”: the Blessed Virgin Mary hates what her Divine Son hates—namely, sin, error, falsehood, blasphemy, and each and every false religion, including Mohammedanism. Then again, this pair of ignorant naturalists support precisely what Our Lady has vanquished, making them perfect partners with Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his band of conciliar revolutionaries in the completion of Antichrist’s own One World Order.

As we pray the fifteen decades of Our Lady’s Most Holy Rosary on this Feast of the Holy Name of Mary, may we recite the name of the Mother of God with reverence as we pray for the conversion of all those who support evil in this world and, of course, as we pray for our own daily conversion away from our own sins, including any and all sins of disbelief that Our Lady’s graces, not the results of any farce called an election, will vanquish the forces of hell on earth and restore the Cross of her Divine Son, Christ the King, to Its rightful place as all men and all nations give due honor and praise to her own most holy name.


Ave Maria! Ave Maria! Salve Regina! Salve Regina!

We must never waver in our trust in the Holy Name of Mary as we place our hope in her, she who is our life, our sweetness, and, of course, our hope.

Ave Maria! Salve Regina! Vivat Maria Regina! Vivat Christus Rex!

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us, especially on your feast day today!

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

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



Litany of the Most Holy Name of Mary

Lord, have mercy.
Lord, have mercy.
Christ, have mercy.
Christ, have mercy.
Lord, have mercy.
Lord, have mercy.
Son of Mary, hear us.
Son of Mary, graciously hear us.

Heavenly Father, of Whom Mary is the Daughter, have mercy on us.
Eternal Word, of Whom Mary is the Mother, have mercy on us.
Holy Spirit, of Whom Mary is the spouse, have mercy on us.
Divine Trinity, of Whom Mary is the Handmaid, have mercy on us.
Mary , Mother of the Living God, pray for us.
Mary, daughter of the Light Eternal, pray for us.
Mary, our light, pray for us.
Mary, our sister, pray for us.
Mary, flower of Jesse, pray for us.
Mary , issue of kings, pray for us.
Mary, chief work of God, pray for us.
Mary, the beloved of God, pray for us.
Mary, Immaculate Virgin, pray for us.
Mary, all fair, pray for us, pray for us.
Mary, light in darkness, pray for us.
Mary, our sure rest, pray for us.
Mary, house of God, pray for us.
Mary, sanctuary of the Lord, pray for us.
Mary, altar of the Divinity, pray for us.
Mary, Virgin Mother, pray for us.
Mary, embracing thy Infant God, pray for us.
Mary, reposing with Eternal Wisdom, pray for us.
Mary, ocean of bitterness, pray for us.
Mary, Star of the Sea, pray for us.
Mary, suffering with thine only Son, pray for us.
Mary, pierced with a sword of sorrow, pray for us.
Mary, torn with a cruel wound, pray for us.
Mary, sorrowful even to death, pray for us.
Mary, bereft of all consolation, pray for us.
Mary, submissive to the law of God, pray for us.
Mary, standing by the Cross of Jesus, pray for us.
Mary, Our Lady, pray for us.
Mary, Our Queen, pray for us.
Mary, Queen of glory, pray for us.
Mary, glory of the Church Triumphant, pray for us.
Mary, Blessed Queen, pray for us.
Mary, advocate of the Church Militant, pray for us.
Mary, Queen of Mercy, pray for us.
Mary, consoler of the Church Suffering, pray for us.
Mary, exalted above the Angels, pray for us.
Mary, crowned with twelve stars, pray for us.
Mary, fair as the moon, pray for us.
Mary, bright as the sun, pray for us.
Mary, distinguished above all, pray for us.
Mary, seated at the right hand of Jesus, pray for us.
Mary, our hope, pray for us.
Mary, our sweetness, pray for us.
Mary, glory of Jerusalem, pray for us.
Mary, joy of Israel, pray for us.
Mary, honor of our people, pray for us.
Mary, Our Lady of the Immaculate Conception, pray for us.
Mary, Our Lady of the Assumption, pray for us.
Mary, Our Lady of Loreto, pray for us.
Mary, Our Lady of Lourdes, pray for us.
Mary, Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.
Mary, Our Lady of Czestochowa, pray for us.
Mary, Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal, pray for us.
Mary, Our Lady of Mount Carmel, pray for us.
Mary, Our Lady of the Angels, pray for us.
Mary, Our Lady of Dolors, pray for us.
Mary, Our Lady of Mercy, pray for us.
Mary, Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.
Mary, Our Lady of Victory, pray for us.
Mary, Our Lady of La Trappe, pray for us.
Mary, Our Lady of Divine Providence, pray for us.

Lamb of God, Who takest away the sins of the world, spare us, O Lord Jesus.
Lamb of God, Who takest away the sins of the world, graciously hear us, O Lord Jesus.
Lamb of God, Who takest away the sins of the world, have mercy on us, O Lord Jesus.
Son of Mary , hear us.
Son of Mary, graciously hear us.
V. I will declare thy name unto my brethren.
R. I will praise thee in the assembly of the faithful.

Let Us Pray.

O Almighty God, Who beholdest Thy servants earnestly desirous
of placing themselves under the shadow of the name and protection
of the Most Holy Virgin Mary, vouchsafe, we beseech Thee,
that by her charitable intercession, we may be delivered from all
evil on earth, and may arrive at everlasting joys in Heaven,
through Jesus Christ Our Lord. R. Amen.