Another pagan memorial service has been held as the words of Holy Writ were presented by naturalists without any reference at all to the fact that we must suffer in this life because of Original Sin and the consequences of the Actual Sins of men, starting with our own. Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ took upon Himself a perfect human nature in the Virginal and Immaculate Womb of His Most Blessed Mother to pay back in His own Sacred Humanity the debt of sin that was owed to Him in His Infinity as God. His Redemptive Act on the wood of the Holy Cross has made our suffering meritorious if we offer up everything that happens to us to Him as His consecrated slaves through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary in reparation for our sins and those of the whole world. We must suffer as members of the Catholic Church in order to go home to Heaven.
What does this mean to TelePrompTer-in Chief of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro?
See for yourselves:
Scripture tells us that in our sufferings, there is glory, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. Sometimes the truths of these words are hard to see. Right now, those words test us because the people of Dallas, people across the country are suffering. (Caesar's Divisive Remarks in Dallas.)
Obviously, neither Obama nor his speechwriters know anything about redemptive suffering, something that puts them in the rarified company of Jorge Mario Bergoglio himself, who told a Filipino child in January of 2015 that there was no explanation after to why children had to suffer in wake of Typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda) in November 8, 2013:
Tearfully recounting a young life as yet spent forced to forage for food from garbage and to sleep outside on cardboard mats, 12-year-old Glyzelle Palomar had a simple but profound question for Pope Francis.
"Why did God let this happen to us?" the young Filipino asked, covering her face with her hands as she sobbed.
Speaking on a stage in front of some 30,000 young people as part of a meeting between Francis and Filipino youth Sunday, Palomar's intense query visibly affected the pontiff.
Putting aside a text he had prepared for the occasion in order to respond directly to the young woman, Francis answered her with a 40-minute reflection on the nature of suffering, love, and service.
"The nucleus of your question almost doesn't have a reply," the pontiff said at first, pain clearly etched on his face as he mentioned that he had seen her tears. (Jorge Struggles To Anwer Crying Girl's Question About Sufferings.)
I wrote a brief response about this at the time and in a bit more detail ten months later in Face the Facts: Jorge Mario Bergoglio Lives in a Doctrine and Truth Free Zone, but suffice it to say for the moment that it is entirely unsurprising for a fifty-five year-old man whose father and stepfather were both Mohammedans should have no understanding of the Holy Cross when the supposed “pope” is speechless about the purpose of suffering Neither man hath the Catholic Faith, and this why there is such a bond between these two naturalists, both of whom are products of a Marxist worldview and thus who search for “happiness” in this mortal vale of tears by the use of statist schemes of confiscatory taxation as they enable, empower and embolden hardened sinners in their lives of moral reprobation.
It is important for one and all to realize that we live in a world of manifest injustice, a world where a man who supports the slaughter of the innocent preborn can be elected to the highest office in the United States of America and then be in a position to serve as the nation’s chief secular preacher when various killings take place. No more time needs to be wasted on Obama/Soetoro’s latest effort to turn an “inter-faith” service, which is offensive to God in the first place, into a political rally where he once again equated the heat-of-the- moment killings of Plilando Castile and Alton Sterling, with the deliberate, calculated, premeditated executions of five police officers by a man whose racial hatred, which caesar yesterday finally admitted had motivated his killing spree, was fueled in large measure by the New Black Panther Party. As noted yesterday, there is no such moral equivalence.
Meanwhile, the United States Minister of Injustice, Loretta Lynch, was stonewalling as she testified before the Judiciary Committee of the United States House of Representatives, refusing to answer any questions except to recite a variation of her own version of “I will not respond” repeatedly. Here is a sampling of the exchange between House Judiciary Committee Chairman Robert Goldblatte (R-Virginia) and Attorney General Lynch:
Goodlatte: “Let me turn your attention to Director Comey’s conclusions on a variety of points. Secretary Clinton stated that she never sent or received information marked as classified on her server. Director Comey stated that was not true. Do you agree with Director Comey?” Goodlatte asked.
Lynch: “Director Comey has chosen to provide great detail into the basis of his recommendations that were ultimately provided to me. He’s chosen to provide detailed statements, and I would refer you to those statements. I, as attorney general, am not able to provide any further comment on the facts or the substance of the investigation.”
Goodlatte: “General Lynch, I think you will agree that the ultimate responsibility for a prosecutorial decision does not rest with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, but with the Department of Justice, which you head. Have you not taken a close look at the work done by Director Comey, especially given the extreme national interest in this issue to make a determination yourself whether you or those working for you agree or disagree with Director Comey?”
Lynch: “As I’ve indicated, I’ve received the recommendation of the team, and that team is composed prosecutors and agents. It was a unanimous recommendation as to how to resolve the investigation, and … what the information that they have received concluded, and I accepted that recommendation. I saw no reason not to accept it, and again I reiterate my pride and faith in their work.”
Goodlatte: “Secretary Clinton stated that she did not email any classified material, and Director Comey stated there was classified material emailed. Do you agree with Director Comey’s conclusion about that?”
Lynch: “Again, I would have to refer you to Director Comey’s statements for the basis for his recommendation.”
Goodlatte: “Director Comey stated that there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information. Do you agree with Director Comey’s statement?”
Lynch: “Again, I would refer you to Director Comey for any further explanation as to the basis for his recommendations. The recommendation that I received from the team, including Director Comey was that the investigation be resolved without charges.”
Goodlatte: “Director Comey made a recommendation, but he made the recommendation to the Department of Justice, which you head, and you would have to come to the final conclusion on whether or not to act. I would presume that before you acted you would look at his conclusions and determine whether you agreed with them or not.”
Lynch: “As I’ve indicated, I received a briefing from the team, which included not just the prosecutors but the agents and Director Comey. Their unanimous recommendation was that the matter be resolved in the way in which we’ve announced, and I accepted that recommendation.”
Goodlatte: “Let me ask you one final question that does not regard the specific facts with regard to Secretary Clinton. Director Comey said that there was not clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information. My question for you is, is intent to violate the law a requirement under 18 U.S.C Section 793 F?”
Lynch: “Congressman, I think the statutes that were considered here speak for themselves. To answer further would require a discussion of the facts and an analysis of this matter, which as I’ve indicated, I’m not in position to provide at this time. Again, I’d refer you to Director Comey’s discussion for that. As I’ve indicated, the team reviewed this matter, and it was a unanimous team decision.”
Goodlatte: “And you made a decision following their recommendation to you that you are not going to prosecute and the matter was closed. Is that correct?”
Lynch: “I made the decision some time ago that I would accept the recommendation of that team and was awaiting that recommendation. When I received it, there was no basis not to accept it, and again, I reiterate my pride and faith in them.”
Goodlatte: “I appreciate your faith in them. The concern here is regard to your sworn oath to uphold the United States Constitution and the laws thereunder, including 18 U.S.C. Section 793 F and 18 U.S.C. Section 1924, and to conclude that no prosecution would take place without examining and drawing conclusions regarding the questions that I’ve just asked does not seem to be a responsible way to uphold your constitutionally sworn oath.” (Lynch Lynches Truth.)
Our Minister of Injustice recited that same line—or variations thereof—a total of seventy-four times on Tuesday, July 12, 2016:
Congressman David Trott came to the conclusion that Loretta Lynch’s testimony was one big waste of time.
Trott’s staff counted up the number of times the attorney general said she couldn’t answer a question or refused to give an “appropriate” response, and they had added up at least 74 instances prior to Trott’s questioning, during a hearing today of the House Judiciary Committee.
“I knew you weren’t going to answer our questions today and I apologize for wasting so much time here because it’s really not been very productive,” Trott said.
“It’s one of two things: Either you’re saying that to avoid the appearance of impropriety in which case you should have recused yourself, or you’re trying to protect Hillary Clinton,” he concluded. (Lynch Gags Truth A Total Of Seventy-four Times.)
As I like to get to the root causes of problems, there is still one question that I don’t think anyone has asked, and that is who made the decision not to put Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton under oath or to record her testimony while she was being questioned by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation on Saturday, July 2, 2016, the Feast of the Visitation of the Blessed Virgin Mary?
Was it the Catholic apostate who is the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, James Comey, or could it just be that Loretta Lynch’s mostly “social visit” forced upon her by former President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton in Arizona on Tuesday, June 28, 2016, the Feast of Saint Irenaeus and the Vigil of the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul, involved discussing the terms under which Mrs. Clinton would speak to agents of the Federal Bureau Investigation. The claim that there was no “political interference” with the investigation does not mean that a directive was not given to interview Hillary Rodham Diane Clinton more or less “off the record.”
What I do know is that we should not expect justice from those who are personally unjust. Those who support deliberate, intentional attacks on the innocent preborn and who use the force of the government to intimidate Americans who reject special “rights,” including “marriage,” for those steeped in perverse acts against nature are inherently unjust. They have no interest to pursue actual justice as they fear not the moment of the Particular Judgment when they will meet Christ the King in the face.
It is clear that the Attorney General of the United States of America, Loretta Lynch, never had any intention whatsoever of pressing charges against former First Lady/United States Senator from Chappaqua, New York by way of Illinois, Wellesley College, Yale Law School, Washington, District of Columbia, and Little Rock, Arkansas/United States Secretary of State Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton, something that she signaled on Fox News Sunday when interview by Chris Wallace on Sunday, June 19, 2016, the Fifth Sunday after Pentecost:
WALLACE: I want to talk about one other subject with you. President Obama recently endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I’m with her.
I am fired up, and I cannot wait to get out there and campaign for Hillary.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: Now, you're a political appointee of the president. Does that create a conflict of interest for you? Does that make it harder for you to handle the criminal investigation into Clinton when your boss is saying he thinks she should be president?
LYNCH: Well, you know, I don't get involved on whom the president endorses and I don’t have comments, as I said before, on any of the candidates. The investigation into the State Department e-mail matter is going to be handled like any other matter. We’ve got career agents and lawyers looking at that. They will follow the facts and follow the evidence wherever it leads and come to a conclusion.
WALLACE: So, does this create a conflict of interest for you?
LYNCH: No, this is not a conflict for me and for the department or for anyone. We will continue to do all of our work in the same language we always have, with the interest of the American people first and foremost.
WALLACE: Now, the same day that Clinton was endorsed by the president, you met with the president at the White House. Did you in any way, shape or form discuss the Clinton case with the president?
LYNCH: We’ve never discussed the Clinton case. I have never spoken about it with the president or really with anyone at the White House. That's not the kind of relationship that I have with people there and it would be inappropriate to do so.
WALLACE: Attorney General Lynch, thank you. Thanks for your time today.
LYNCH: Thank you, Chris.
WALLACE: Pleasure to talk with you. Please come back.
LYNCH: Thank you. (Lynch Tips Her Hand to Chris Wallace.)
Loretta Lynch’s mind was made up when the investigation was launched, which is why Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton all along was so confident that she would never be indicted. Lynch simply did not believe that it was in the "interest" of the American people to hold her friend, Hillary Clinton, to the same standard of law as everyone else not named Clinton or Obama must obey. Lynch's job is not to do what is in the supposed "interest" of the American people, it is to enforce the laws of the land equitably without regard to persons. What a novel concept.
Adding fuel to Lynch’s aiding and abetting her friend’s chances of capturing the White House on Tuesday, November 8, 2016, is the fact that the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), has confirmed the agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation were forced to sign a special non-disclosure agreement on the Clinton investigation in violation of whistleblower protection laws:
The FBI has confirmed to a senior Republican senator that agents were sworn to secrecy -- and subject to lie detector tests -- in the Hillary Clinton email probe, an extensive measure one former agent said could have a "chilling effect."
A July 1 letter sent by a senior deputy to FBI Director James Comey to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, detailed the restrictions on agents. The letter, reviewed by Fox News, confirmed agents signed a "Case Briefing Acknowledgement" which says the disclosure of information is "strictly prohibited" without prior approval, and those who sign are subject to lie detector tests.
"The purpose of this form is to maintain an official record of persons knowledgeable of a highly sensitive Federal Bureau of Investigation counterintelligence investigation," the agreement attached to the Grassley letter reads, "....I (FBI agent) also understand that, due to the nature and sensitivity of this investigation, compliance with these restrictions may be subject to verification by polygraph examination."
The measures show the extent to which the bureau has gone to keep additional details of the politically sensitive case from going public. While Comey has provided some information on why the FBI did not opt to pursue charges, Attorney General Loretta Lynch repeatedly ducked questions on specifics of the case at a House hearing Tuesday.
A recently retired FBI agent, who declined to speak on the record, citing the sensitivity of the matter, said a "Case Briefing Acknowledgement" is reserved for "the most sensitive of sensitive cases," and can have a "chilling effect" on agents, who understand "it comes from the very top and that there has to be a tight lid on the case."
The former agent said the agreements can also contribute to "group think" because investigators cannot bounce ideas off other agents, only those within a small circle.
The latest headlines on the 2016 elections from the biggest name in politics.See Latest Coverage →
Grassley first wrote to the FBI Director February 4 after a Fox News report that agents were asked to sign additional non-disclosure agreements. In his response to the senator, the FBI's Assistant Director, Office of Congressional Affairs, Stephen D. Kelly, said “this was not a unique circumstance” and agents "may from time to time be asked to sign similar forms.”
The July letter also says that the purpose of the agreement was two-fold: "to maintain an official record of all persons knowledgeable of this highly unusual investigation, and to remind individuals of their obligations to protect classified and sensitive information." The letter states "no one refused to sign" or “raised any questions or concerns.”
Comey said last week more than 100 classified emails were sent or received by Hillary Clinton, including some at the Top Secret level, which would require agents to have the necessary clearance to review and investigate. Some of the intelligence came from the U.S. government's most closely held programs, known as Special Access Programs, or SAP and included human spying.
The "Case Briefing Acknowledgement" is more evidence that the probe was always a serious criminal investigation, and never a "security review" or "security inquiry" as described by Clinton and her campaign team.
Responding one day after the FBI director said he would not recommend criminal charges, Grassley pointed to Comey's conclusions that a limited number of emails had classified markings, thousands of work related emails were not turned over by Clinton to the State Department despite a sworn declaration to a federal court and her public assurances, as well as "potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information."
"In light of all these inconsistencies, it is even more troubling that the FBI tried to gag its agents with a non-disclosure agreement on this matter, in violation of whistleblower protection statutes," Grassley said in the strongly worded letter. "...you indicated that agents working on this case were required to sign a non-disclosure agreement that failed to exempt protected whistleblowing. Only after I wrote to you did you advise your FBI agents that they are still free to speak with Congress regarding waste, fraud, and abuse."
The "Case Briefing Acknowledgement Addendum" provided to Senator Grassley after the initial FBI response July 1 makes clear the agreement does not supersede or conflict with "communications to Congress" and "the reporting to an Inspector General of a violation, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, or….any other whistleblower protection."
Grassley also noted the timing of the FBI's response five months after his original request for information on the NDAs, with a partial response July 1, and full response on July 5 2016, the same day the FBI made a public recommendation at bureau headquarters against criminal charges.
The New York Post first reported that the "Case Briefing Acknowledgement" was signed by the Clinton email agents, citing anonymous sources, but the Grassley letter is believed to be the first public acknowledgement by the FBI, and includes a sample copy of the non-disclosure agreement.
Grassley’s letter is wide ranging, and beyond the non-disclosure agreements, requests a response by July 20 to questions including whether, after Bill Clinton and Lynch’s June 28 meeting on a Phoenix airport tarmac, there is no need for a special counsel. He also wanted to know about the FBI’s reported agreement that some questions would be off limits for Clinton’s personal attorney Cheryl Mills, and whether the FBI or Justice Department raised concerns that several of Clinton’s associates used the same attorneys to represent them in the investigation. (http://wwGag Order in Clinton Investigation Takes Precdence Over Whistleblower Laws.)
Well, well, well, what a surprise. (Not!)
Yet it is that some agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation who were not involved in the Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton investigation, believe that the “fix” was from the very beginning:
In an unusual move, FBI agents working the Hillary Clinton email case had to sign a special form reminding them not to blab about the probe to anyone unless called to testify.
Sources said they had never heard of the “Case Briefing Acknowledgment” form being used before, although all agents must initially sign nondisclosure agreements to obtain security clearance.
“This is very, very unusual. I’ve never signed one, never circulated one to others,” said one retired FBI chief.
An FBI agent currently on the job admitted, “I have never heard of such a form. Sounds strange.”
Meanwhile, FBI agents expressed their “disappointment” over FBI Director James Comey’sdecision not to recommend charges against Clinton, sources close to the matter told The Post.
“FBI agents believe there was an inside deal put in place after the Loretta Lynch/Bill Clinton tarmac meeting,” said one source.
Another source from the Justice Department was “furious” with Comey, saying he’s “managed to [anger both] right and left.” (Agents Comment on Non-Disclosure Agreement In Matters Pertaining To Clinton's Emails.)
Perhaps my initial belief about Loretta Lynch’s possible involvement in not having FBI agents record or keep a transcript of their interview with Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton was not just “wild” speculation after all.
Ah, do not expect justice from those who are personally unjust, especially those who support the daily slaughter of the innocent preborn by chemical and surgical means under the cover of the civil law.
Do not expect justice from the likes of anyone who supports a single, solitary “exception” to the Fifth Commandment’s absolute and unwavering prohibition of any direct, intentional attacks upon a single innocent human life under any circumstances for any reason.
Do not expect those who believe that each of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance (willful murder, the sin of Sodom, withholding a day laborers wage, defrauding widows) are beyond anyone’s legitimate right to challenge as accepted “facts” of the civil law and popular culture.
Do not expect those who support such manifest evils to consider themselves bound to an observance of law or ethics, whether their names be the lawless Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, Stephen Breyer, Sonya Sotomayor, Anthony McLeod Kennedy, or the hideous Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who has loudly and proudly proclaimed her support for abortion under all circumstances without any kind of restrictions. Consider this instance from 2009 as cited in a column written in 2014:
Five years ago, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the most fascinating thing in a candid interview with Sunday New York Times Magazine reporter Emily Bazelon:
Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.
Excuse me? Populations that we don’t want to have too many of? Eugenics doesn’t really sound any better — indeed, it sounds a great deal worse — when it’s coming from a media-beloved Supreme Court Justice. My favorite part of the interview was that Bazelon didn’t even pause for a second. Just went on to her next question. Bazelon later said, unconvincingly, that she thought Ginsburg was just saying that other people had wanted Roe because they were eugenicists, or something. (Ruth Bader Ginsburg Really Wants Poor People to Stop Having Babies.)
Margaret Sanger would be proud of Ginsburg, a founding lawyer of the ultimate War on Women and true femininity called “feminism, who has consistently proved her abortion bona fides, something that she did in her concurring opinion in the case of Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, June 27, 2016, the Feast of Our Lady of Perpetual Help:
The Texas law called H. B. 2 inevitably will reduce the number of clinics and doctors allowed to provide abortion services. Texas argues that H. B. 2’s restrictions are constitutional because they protect the health of women who experience complications from abortions. In truth, “complications from an abortion are both rare and rarely dangerous.” Planned Parenthood of Wis., Inc. v. Schimel, 806 F. 3d 908, 912 (CA7 2015). See Brief for American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists et al. as Amici Curiae 6–10 (collecting studies and concluding “[a]bortion is one of the safest medical procedures performed in the United States”); Brief for Social Science Researchers as Amici Curiae 5–9 (compiling studies that show “[c]omplication rates from abortion are very low”). Many medical procedures, including childbirth, are far more dangerous to patients, yet are not subject to ambulatorysurgical-center or hospital admitting-privileges requirements. See ante, at 31; Planned Parenthood of Wis., 806 F. 3d, at 921–922. See also Brief for Social Science Researchers 9–11 (comparing statistics on risks for abortion with tonsillectomy, colonoscopy, and in-office dental surgery); Brief for American Civil Liberties Union et al. as Amici Curiae 7 (all District Courts to consider admitting privileges requirements found abortion “is at least as safe as other medical procedures routinely performed in outpatient settings”). Given those realities, it is beyond rational belief that H. B. 2 could genuinely protect the health of women, and certain that the law “would simply make it more difficult for them to obtain abortions.” Planned Parenthood of Wis., 806 F. 3d, at 910. When a State severely limits access to safe and legal procedures, women in desperate circumstances may resort to unlicensed rogue practitioners, faute de mieux, at great risk to their health and safety. See Brief for Ten Pennsylvania Abortion Care Providers as Amici Curiae 17–22. So long as this Court adheres to Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833 (1992), Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers laws like H. B. 2 that “do little or nothing for health, but rather strew impediments to abortion,” Planned Parenthood of Wis., 806 F. 3d, at 921, cannot survive judicial inspection. (See Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s concurring opinion in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, June 27, 2016, Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt.)
One who has no regard for the laws of God, not that Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a Talmudist, cares about those, of course, will easily throw away any regard for the actual words of a written constitution and statute laws, including those laws passed by state legislatures that seek to “regulate” the conditions under which babies may be killed. The fact that the “best” that some state legislatures can do is to seek to regulate abortuaries is itself a monumental testament to the fallibility of governmental systems that are not founded in a due regard for—and submission to—the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law in all that pertains to the good of souls and thus to the common temporal good of nations.
Moreover, one who has no regard for the laws of God nor of men will be able to cast aside all regard for long-established norms of judicial propriety, which is what happened with Ginsburg became the first justice in the history of the Supreme Court of the United States of America to insert herself into the middle of political campaign, no less a campaign for the presidency of the United States of America, by openly, bluntly and loudly criticizing the presumptive nominee of the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist “right,” Donald John Trump:
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, jokingly nicknamed “the Notorious RBG,” has been working to earn that moniker in earnest over the last week. In a series of interviews, the 83-year-old justice and feminist icon has spoken out in stark terms about her disdain for presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump. And her commentary has drawn criticism, predictably, from Donald Trump, who has called for her to apologize to her colleagues on the Supreme Court and for her to resign.
The backlash, though, has come from nearly all corners of the political world and culminated on Wednesday morning with the Editorial Board of The New York Times declaring in a headline “Donald Trump Is Right About Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg” and scolding the octogenarian justice for engaging in “political punditry” and “name-calling.” Yes, that’s how crazy 2016 has become. One Gray Lady is chastising another gray lady for sinking to the tactics of a school-aged child.
The imbroglio started last week when Ginsburg gave an interview to The Associated Press and basically said she thought the prospect of a Trump presidency was unthinkable, then seemed to endorse presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. “I don’t want to think about that possibility, but if it should be, then everything is up for grabs,” she told the AP about a Trump victory, adding with a smile, “It’s likely that the next president, whoever she will be, will have a few appointments to make.”
On Sunday, Ginsburg’s attacks on Trump continued — and sharpened. In an interview with The New York Times, she said, “I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president.” She then joked that if her late husband were still alive he might’ve quipped, “It’s time for us to move to New Zealand.”
Ginsburg closed out the trifecta of jabs on Monday, in an interview with CNN, making clear her disapproval of Trump’s candidacy. She called Trump a “faker,” blasted the press for being too “gentle” on him for his refusal to release his tax returns, and took aim at his shape-shifting political positions. “He says whatever comes into his head at the moment,” Ginsburg said. “He really has an ego.”
Reaction from pundits and the political world to Ginsburg’s departure from traditional SCOTUS decorum built slowly with a few voices on the right, but has escalated into a full-blown chorus on both sides of the political spectrum. The Washington Post Editorial Board piled on with a column on Wednesday that denounced her comments as inappropriate, but admitted her remarks were accurate “on the merits.” The Post Editorial Board pointed out that her statements amounted to more than just a breach of tradition; they were a violation of the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges. Canon 5 A of the code states that “a judge should not … publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office.” The basic reasoning behind that aspect of the code is for judges to maintain the appearance of impartiality, a quality Ginsburg’s critics say she’s endangered by speaking so candidly about a presumptive presidential nominee.
Some of her critics have gone much further. House Speaker Paul Ryan denounced her remarks as “inherently biased.” That’s to be expected in the heat of a bitter presidential race. Others, even some on the left, have suggested that should a Trump-related case come before the Supreme Court, particularly concerning the election results, these remarks aregrounds for her to recuse herself from hearing it.
And Mark Joseph Stern, a legal columnist for Slate, went even further, describing her remarks as “unethical” and “dangerous.” He argued that speaking out in such candid terms about such an incendiary topic jeopardizes her legacy. But Stern, argued, she has an important reason for doing so. “The subtext of Ginsburg’s comments, of her willingness to comment,” Stern wrote, “is that Trump poses an unparalleled threat to this country — a threat so great that she will abandon judicial propriety in order to warn against looming disaster.” (Ginsburg Under Fire For Attacks on Trumpy)
I am sorry, Mark Joseph Stern, nothing justifies Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s attacks on Donald John Trump, who has come in for plenty of criticism on this website. More importantly, of course, nothing can justify her continued attacks upon the innocent preborn and in support of perversity and the lawless policies of the current administration. Although Justice Ginsburg disbelieves in the fact of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour’s Incarnation and of His Redemptive Act on the wood of the Holy Cross, she is going meet Him face-to-face at the moment of her Particular Judgment, at which Her Divine Judge, Christ the King, will condemn her for her unbelief as well as her active and unapologetic support for the American genocide of innocent babies:
Those who hold the reins of government should not forget that it is the duty of public authority by appropriate laws and sanctions to defend the lives of the innocent, and this all the more so since those whose lives are endangered and assailed cannot defend themselves. Among whom we must mention in the first place infants hidden in the mother's womb. And if the public magistrates not only do not defend them, but by their laws and ordinances betray them to death at the hands of doctors or of others, let them remember that God is the Judge and Avenger of innocent blood which cried from earth to Heaven. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 30, 1930.)
The likes of Ruth Bader Ginsburg scoff at the truths expressed by Pope Pius XI eighty-six and one-half years ago now, which is why she can scoff at the plain text of statutes that do not conform with her own hardened support for the daily slaughter of the innocent preborn by surgical and chemical means as a matter of “women’s right” and “settled” constitutional law.
Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, who is contemplating retirement in order to travel the country with his wife in a motor home (imagine doing that, huh; yes, we miss the motor home, but only when on relatively short daytrips lasting longer than two hours as even such trips have become harder in my mid-sixties than even a decade ago), explained that the decisive six to three majority in the case of Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt was indeed a reinterpretation of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvania v. Casey, June 29, 1992, that is whole inconsistent with its holding that states can impose reasonable restrictions on the conditions under which and the places at which babies can be killed with legal impunity. Justice Thomas also explained that the majority on the Court goes out of its way to defend abortion at every turn:
Today the Court strikes down two state statutory provisions in all of their applications, at the behest of abortion clinics and doctors. That decision exemplifies the Court’s troubling tendency “to bend the rules when any effort to limit abortion, or even to speak in opposition to abortion, is at issue.” Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U. S. 914, 954 (2000) (Scalia, J., dissenting). As JUSTICE ALITO observes, see post (dissenting opinion), today’s decision creates an abortion exception to ordinary rules of res judicata, ignores compelling evidence that Texas’ law imposes no unconstitutional burden, and disregards basic principles of the severability doctrine. I write separately to emphasize how today’s decision perpetuates the Court’s habit of applying different rules to different constitutional rights— especially the putative right to abortion.
To begin, the very existence of this suit is a jurisprudential oddity. Ordinarily, plaintiffs cannot file suits to vindicate the constitutional rights of others. But the Court employs a different approach to rights that it favors. So in this case and many others, the Court has erroneously allowed doctors and clinics to vicariously vindicate the putative constitutional right of women seeking abortions.
This case also underscores the Court’s increasingly 2 WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH v. HELLERSTEDT THOMAS, J., dissenting common practice of invoking a given level of scrutiny— here, the abortion-specific undue burden standard—while applying a different standard of review entirely. Whatever scrutiny the majority applies to Texas’ law, it bears little resemblance to the undue-burden test the Court articulated in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833 (1992), and its successors. Instead, the majority eviscerates important features of that test to return to a regime like the one that Casey repudiated.
Ultimately, this case shows why the Court never should have bent the rules for favored rights in the first place. Our law is now so riddled with special exceptions for special rights that our decisions deliver neither predictability nor the promise of a judiciary bound by the rule of law. (See Associate Justice Clarence Thomas’s dissenting opinion in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, June 27, 2016, Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt.)
This is, of course, very good. However, what Justice Thomas, a Catholic and a believer in the Natural Law, does not realize is that the Constitution of the United States of America is as utterly defenseless in the hands of jurists such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg as are the words of Holy Writ are in the hands of Protestants and Modernists. A written document that admits of no higher authority than the very words of its own text will be subject to constant efforts on the part of fallen men to “reinterpret” in light of “changed” circumstances. Legal positivism (the belief that something is true merely because it has been asserted as so) and deconstructionism (the positivist effort to empty words of their plain meaning in order to create “new” meanings that fit a particular ideological perspective and/or a predetermined outcome designed to close off all debate in the future) must triumph when men and their nations do not submit themselves to the Social Kingship of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as It must be exercised by His one true Church, the Catholic Church, in all that pertains to the good of souls.
As has been pointed out in the past on this website, it was none other than Associate Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes who justified using the Constitution to advance various causes up to and including the very sort of social engineering that Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg believes that the decisions in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973, were meant to accomplish:
Holmes believed the majority had the "right" to enforce its "will" upon the minority by "force" if necessary. He made this abundantly clear in the case of Buck v. Bell, May 2, 1927, in which he wrote a thoroughly utilitarian opinion justifying a compulsory sterilization law that has been passed by the state legislature of the Commonwealth of Virginia:
The judgment finds the facts that have been recited and that Carrie Buck 'is the probable potential parent of socially inadequate offspring, likewise afflicted, that she may be sexually sterilized without detriment to her general health and that her welfare and that of society will be promoted by her sterilization,' and thereupon makes the order. In view of the general declarations of the Legislature and the specific findings of the Court obviously we cannot say as matter of law that the grounds do not exist, and if they exist they justify the result. We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 , 25 S. Ct. 358, 3 Ann. Cas. 765. Three generations of imbeciles are enough. [274 U.S. 200, 208] But, it is said, however it might be if this reasoning were applied generally, it fails when it is confined to the small number who are in the institutions named and is not applied to the multitudes outside. It is the usual last resort of constitutional arguments to point out shortcomings of this sort. But the answer is that the law does all that is needed when it does all that it can, indicates a policy, applies it to all within the lines, and seeks to bring within the lines all similarly situated so far and so fast as its means allow. Of course so far as the operations enable those who otherwise must be kept confined to be returned to the world, and thus open the asylum to others, the equality aimed at will be more nearly reached. (See the text of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Buck v. Bell)
Oliver Wendell Holmes's view of law was indeed based on "experience" and not "logic." He used the discredited, diabolical precepts of utilitarianism (public policy must be based upon the "greatest good" for the "greatest number" even if "traditional" concepts of morality are violated in the process) and the sort of Social Darwinism that was near and dear to the heart of the woman who started the Birth Control League, Margaret Sanger (whose motto was, "More from the fit, less from the unfit; that is the chief issue of birth control"), as the foundation for his decision in the case of Buck v. Bell. Indeed, Holmes's overt rejection of the Natural Law as the foundation of jurisprudence (legal reasoning) and the civil law in favor of legal positivism extended quite explicitly to a rejection of the inviolability of innocent human life under of cover of the civil law, as Holmes made clear in a 1918 essay against the Natural Law in the Harvard Law Review:
The most fundamental of the supposed preexisting rights—the right to life—is sacrificed without a scruple not only in war, but whenever the interest of society, that is, of the predominant power in the community, is thought to demand it. Whether that interest is the interest of mankind in the long run no one can tell, and as, in any event, to those who do not think with Kant and Hegel it is only an interest, the sanctity disappears. I remember a very tender-hearted judge being of opinion that closing a hatch to stop a fire and the destruction of a cargo was justified even if it was known that doing so would stifle a man below. It is idle to illustrate further, because to those who agree with me I am uttering commonplaces and to those who disagree I am ignoring the necessary foundations of thought. The a priori men generally call the dissentients superficial. But I do agree with them in believing that one’s attitude on these matters is closely connected with one’s general attitude toward the universe. Proximately, as has been suggested, it is determined largely by early associations and temperament, coupled with the desire to have an absolute guide. Men to a great extent believe what they want to—although I see in that no basis for a philosophy that tells us what we should want to want.
Now when we come to our attitude toward the universe I do not see any rational ground for demanding the superlative—for being dissatisfied unless we are assured that our truth is cosmic truth, if there is such a thing—that the ultimates of a little creature on this little earth are the last word of the unimaginable whole. If a man sees no reason for believing that significance, consciousness and ideals are more than marks of the finite, that does not justify what has been familiar in French skeptics; getting upon a pedestal and professing to look with haughty scorn upon a world in ruins. The real conclusion is that the part cannot swallow the whole—that our categories are not, or may not be, adequate to formulate what we cannot know. If we believe that we come out of the universe, not it out of us, we must admit that we do not know what we are talking about when we speak of brute matter. We do know that a certain complex of energies can wag its tail and another can make syllogisms. These are among the powers of the unknown, and if, as may be, it has still greater powers that we cannot understand, as Fabre in his studies of instinct would have us believe, studies that gave Bergson one of the strongest strands for his philosophy and enabled Maeterlinck to make us fancy for a moment that we heard a clang from behind phenomena—if this be true, why should we not be content? Why should we employ the energy that is furnished to us by the cosmos to defy it and shake our fist at the sky? It seems to me silly. (Natural Law by Oliver Wendell Holmes)
One of the many paradoxes found in a system where a nation's constitution and civil laws, whether passed at the Federal or state levels, do not explicitly acknowledge the primacy of the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law as these have been entrusted to the infallible teaching authority of the Catholic Church, is that it spawns competing teams of naturalists and positivists to vie with each other as to whether they will be bound by a "strict constructionist" approach to the interpretation of the words of the United States Constitution or bound only by a general, Roussean sense of "experience," referred to quite specifically by the legal positivist Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro when he nominted Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court in 2009, that was described as follows by the late Father Denis Fahey in The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World:
Rousseau carries on the revolution against the order of the world begun by Luther. Luther’s revolt was that of our individuality and sense-life against the exigencies of the supernatural order instituted by God. It was an attempt to remain attached to Christ, while rejecting the order established by Christ for our return to God. Rousseau’s revolt was against the order of natural morality, by the exaltation of the primacy of our sense-life.
The little world of each one of us, our individuality, is a divine person, supremely free and sovereignly independent of all order, natural and supernatural. he state of Liberty or of sovereign independence is the primitive state of man, and the nature of man demands the restoration of that state of liberty. It is to satisfy this-called exigency that ‘Father of modern thought’ invented the famous myth of the Social Contract.
The Social Contract gives birth to a form of association in which each one, while forming a union with all the others, obeys only himself and remains as free as before. Each one is subject to the whole, but he is not subject to any man, there is no man above him. He is absorbed in the common Ego begotten in the pact, so that obeying the law, he obeys only himself. Each citizen votes in order, that by the addition of the number of votes, the general will, expressed by the vote of the majority, is, so to say, a manifestation of the ‘deity’ immanent in the multitude. The People are God (no wonder we have gotten used to writing the word with a capital letter). The law imposed by this ‘deity’ does not need to be just in order to exact obedience. In fact, the majority vote makes or creates right and justice. An adverse majority vote can not only overthrow the directions and commands of the Heads of the Mystical Body on earth, the Pope and the Bishops, but can even deprive the Ten Commandments of all binding force.
To the triumph of those ideals in the modern world, the Masonic denial of original sin and the Rousseauist dogma of the natural goodness of man have contributed not a little. The dogma of natural goodness signifies that man lived originally in a purely natural paradise of happiness and goodness and that, even in our present degraded state, all our instinctive movements are good. We do not need grace, for nature can do for what grace does. In addition, Rousseau holds that this state of happiness and goodness, of perfect justice and innocence, of exemption from servile work and suffering, is natural to man, that is, essentially demanded by our nature. Not only then is original sin nonexistent, not only do we not come into the world as fallen sons of the first Adam, bearing in us the wounds of our fallen nature, is radically anti-natural. Suffering and pain have been introduced by society, civilization and private property. Hence we must get rid of all these and set up a new form of society. We can bet back the state of the Garden of Eden by the efforts of our own nature, without the help of grace. For Rousseau, the introduction of the present form of society, and of private property constitute the real Fall. The setting up of a republic based on his principles will act as a sort of democratic grace which will restore in its entirety our lost heritage. In a world where the clear teaching of the faith of Christ about the supernatural order of the Life of Grace has become obscured, but were men are still vaguely conscious that human nature was once happy, Rousseau’s appeal acts like an urge of homesickness. We need not be astonished, then, apart from the question of Masonic-Revolutionary organization and propaganda, at the sort of delirious enthusiasm which takes possession of men at the thought of a renewal of society. Nor need we wonder that men work for the overthrow of existing government and existing order, in the belief that they are not legitimate forms of society. A State not constructed according to Rosseauist-Masonic principles is not a State ruled by laws. It is a monstrous tyranny, and must be overthrown in the name of "Progress" and of the "onward march of democracy.’ All these influences must be borne in mind as we behold, since 1789, the triumph in one country after another or Rousseauist-Masonic democracy. (Father Denis Fahey, The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World.)
Most people want to be reaffirmed in their own lives of sin and selfishness, and a whole vast array of the world’s civic and religious leaders, starting with Obama/Soetoro , the Clintons and other pro-aborts in public life, including the five on the Supreme Court of the United States of America, to say nothing of Jorge Mario Bergoglio himself.
The real loser in our farcical system is truth, especially the truth that it is impossible to realize sustained economic prosperity or national security as long as men and their nations seek to protect that which is repugnant to the peace and happiness of eternity under the cover of the civil law:
The more closely the temporal power of a nation aligns itself with the spiritual, and the more it fosters and promotes the latter, by so much the more it contributes to the conservation of the commonwealth. For it is the aim of the ecclesiastical authority by the use of spiritual means, to form good Christians in accordance with its own particular end and object; and in doing this it helps at the same time to form good citizens, and prepares them to meet their obligations as members of a civil society. This follows of necessity because in the City of God, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, a good citizen and an upright man are absolutely one and the same thing. How grave therefore is the error of those who separate things so closely united, and who think that they can produce good citizens by ways and methods other than those which make for the formation of good Christians. For, let human prudence say what it likes and reason as it pleases, it is impossible to produce true temporal peace and tranquillity by things repugnant or opposed to the peace and happiness of eternity. (Silvio Cardinal Antoniano, quoted by Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.)
Although the proximate antecedent roots to the chastisement that faces us today date back to certain elements of the Renaissance and, as mentioned earlier, the Protestant Revolution and the subsequent rise and triumph of naturalism, the rapid promotion of evil under cover of the civil law has occurred in the past fifty years in no small measure as a result of the counterfeit church of conciliarism's "reconciliation" with the principles of Modernity and as a result of its sacramentally barren liturgical rites that have predisposed so many millions of Catholics to embrace the "secular magisterium" of the world and to scoff at any residue of Catholic teaching that remains in that conciliar church.
We, though, must be reminded of the truths taught by such great apostles of Christ the King as the late Louis-Edouard-François-Desiré Cardinal Pie, whose writing had the support of Popes Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X and Benedict XV (the latter two long after Cardinal Pie's death, having studied his writings in great depth and approving of them without any complaint), wrote in the Nineteenth Century:
"If Jesus Christ," proclaims Msgr. Pie in a magnificent pastoral instruction, "if Jesus Christ Who is our light whereby we are drawn out of the seat of darkness and from the shadow of death, and Who has given to the world the treasure of truth and grace, if He has not enriched the world, I mean to say the social and political world itself, from the great evils which prevail in the heart of paganism, then it is to say that the work of Jesus Christ is not a divine work. Even more so: if the Gospel which would save men is incapable of procuring the actual progress of peoples, if the revealed light which is profitable to individuals is detrimental to society at large, if the scepter of Christ, sweet and beneficial to souls, and perhaps to families, is harmful and unacceptable for cities and empires; in other words, if Jesus Christ to whom the Prophets had promised and to Whom His Father had given the nations as a heritage, is not able to exercise His authority over them for it would be to their detriment and temporal disadvantage, it would have to be concluded that Jesus Christ is not God". . . .
"To say Jesus Christ is the God of individuals and of families, but not the God of peoples and of societies, is to say that He is not God. To say that Christianity is the law of individual man and is not the law of collective man, is to say that Christianity is not divine. To say that the Church is the judge of private morality, but has nothing to do with public and political morality, is to say that the Church is not divine."
In fine, Cardinal Pie insists:
"Christianity would not be divine if it were to have existence within individuals but not with regard to societies."
Fr. de St. Just asks, in conclusion:
"Could it be proven in clearer terms that social atheism conduces to individualistic atheism?" (Selected Writings of Cardinal Pie of Poitiers, Catholic Action Resource Center.)
Keep focused on root causes.
Do not expect justice from those who are unjust.
It is not as soothing as are supposedly “easy" solutions would have us believe.
However, there are no such "easy" solutions.
Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order, and it is because the lords of conciliarism have abandoned the Catholic Faith and exalted "Man" and his "ability" to "better" the world that we find ourselves deep in an abyss caused by the concentration of almost all philosophical errors and theological heresies that have been known in salvation history from which the only escape is through Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart as we continue to pray as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits.
Indeed, it was ninety-nine years ago yesterday, that is, 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 the lords of Modernity in the world and of Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism unless they repent of their 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 neither the supposed "pope" or the men and women in governmental positions he enables so liberally disbelieve in its entirety, which is why we cannot expect justice from the unjust, from those who rebel against the authority of Christ the King and His true Church and thus make warfare upon all truth, supernatural and natural, as a consequence. This will developed for the umpteenth thousandth time on this site in part two of this commentary in a few days.
May we pray to Saint Bonaventure, that great friend of Saint Thomas Aquinas and as equally fervent of the Angelic Doctor in his ador for the Most Blessed Sacrament and his filial devotion to Our Lady, that we may be able to strive to just in our own lives by rooting out sin and vice in cooperation with the graces that flow into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of the very same Mother of God, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces.
Pray for the restoration of a true pope on the Throne of Saint Peter!
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!
Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!
Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.
Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.
Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.
Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.
Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.
Saint Bonaventure, pray for us.