Everyone Loses When Our King Reigneth Not Over Men and Their Nations, part one

Well, this particular commentary in the hope, perhaps furtive, that this computer’s connection to the internet will be restored before the text of this article is completed. My connection has been downgraded to the “slow lane” because I had to abandon the premium twenty gigabytes a month program (which was running close to $189 a month) to a ten gigabyte a month program that costs one hundred dollars less but that comes with the “catch” that I lose access to the internet when the traffic of premium customers is at peak levels. I am forced to wait until the privileged customers who have premium service decide to do something else with their lives than be on the internet. Oh well, this is Lent. Penance is better than ever in 2017.

Although it was my intention to complete part two of “Jerusalem Belongs to Christ the King and His True Church” today, recent news events demand a bit attention. Also, the big mouth who lives behind the walled Vatican City State has said a few things that require some commentary after this article is completed.

Obama/Soetoro’s Attempt to Undermine, Delegitimize, and Overthrow Donald John Trump

It should be fairly obvious by now that, following the example of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Lyndon Baines Johnson and Richard Milhous Nixon, former President Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro had his henchmen and henchwomen at his Ministry of Injustice plotted numerous ways to undermine his duly elected successor, President Donald John Trump, in order to thwart any of his efforts to undo what the caesar emeritus believes is “legacy.” The sheer number of leaks that have been coming out from various quarters of the Federal government indicate that a concerted plan had been laid out to be executed in a Chinese water torture (drip, drip, drip) manner after Trump’s inauguration on Friday, January 20, 2017, the Feast of Saints Fabian and Sebastian.

Readers of this site know that I carry no brief for President Trump, whose State of the Union address on Tuesday, February 28, 2017, Shrove Tuesday, was bereft of any reference to the innocent preborn. Although I will have a bit more to say about this in part two of “Jerusalem Belongs to Christ the King and His True Church” in a few days, suffice it to say that Trump’s daughter, Ivanka Trump, a convert to Talmudism and the evil that is Kabbala, played a hand in writing the speech, and this consistently immodestly dressed woman is not particularly noted for any concern for the innocent preborn.

One does not have to be in the thrall of Donald John Trump, however, to understand that the members of the organized crime family of the naturalist “left” do not believe that the laws of God and men do not apply to them. Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro and his claque of fellow admirers of Fidel Castro and other Marxists hold anyone and everyone who opposes them in complete and utter contempt. They do not believe that anyone has a right to oppose their “enlightened” policies that entrusts power solely to unelected bureaucrats. They also believe that they can rule by executive and/or administrative fiat.

Obama/Soetoro got away with almost everything he desired to do. His hapless opponents in the organized crime family of the naturalist “right” huffed and puffed, but Obama/Soetoro and his crew of lawbreakers destroyed evidence, stonewalled, committed perjury and told numerous half-truths to get away with one crime after another.

That is, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro sought to engage in “transformative” policy-making, and he did so  with an iron will as he issued unconstitutional and/or illegal executive orders and presidential directives, chose not to enforce the nation’s just immigration laws, presiding over the doubling of the national debt (see National Debt Grows By Nine Billion Dollars Under Obama), conspired with Congressional Democrats to pass the so-called Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act by means of the “reconciliation” process, thereby circumventing both the filibuster rules of the United States Senate and, more importantly, the constitutional requirement (found in Section 8 of Article I) that all bills raising revenue originate in the United States House of Representatives, used the Internal Revenue Service as a means to bludgeon political opponents with tax audits and to harass “conservative” groups applying for tax-exempt status, presided over an administration that misused the Federal government’s regulatory powers, and covered-up such major scandals as the Fast and Furious gun-running scheme, Benghazi, and the Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton’s e-mail server. Mind you, this is only a partial listing of the Caesar Obamus’s successes. A very comprehensive listing of what any reasonable human being would call scandalous violations of the Constitution—but are viewed as “successes” by Obama/Soetoro and his apologists—can be found at A Complete Guide to Obama's Scandals, Gaffes, and Power Grabs.

In other words, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro was a very successful as the most lawless man ever to have served as the nation’s Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief. He was as successful as he was because he was enabled at every turn by his co-conspirators, those who work in the mainslime media, and by his hapless opponents in the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist “right,” who refused to take any real measures to defend the country against this lawless, power-grabbing president for fear of being called “racist.” While noting that Obama/Soetoro and his first Attorney General, Eric Himpton Holder, ceaselessly used the “race card” to take refuge for their crimes against God and man, the political and moral cowardice of Congressional Republicans made it more possible for the former president to legislate as he pleased from the Oval Office in the West Wing of the White House without regard to any true Congressional oversight.

Here is an assessment from a former intelligence officer, Bill Binney, who worked for the National Security Agency until 2001:

President Donald Trump is "absolutely right" to claim he was wiretapped and monitored, a former NSA official claimed Monday, adding that the administration risks falling victim to further leaks if it continues to run afoul of the intelligence community.

"I think the president is absolutely right. His phone calls, everything he did electronically, was being monitored," Bill Binney, a 36-year veteran of the National Security Agency who resigned in protest from the organization in 2001, told Fox Business on Monday. Everyone's conversations are being monitored and stored, Binney said.

Binney resigned from NSA shortly after the U.S. approach to intelligence changed following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. He "became a whistleblower after discovering that elements of a data-monitoring program he had helped develop -- nicknamed ThinThread -- were being used to spy on Americans," PBS reported.

On Monday he came to the defense of the president, whose allegations on social media over the weekend that outgoing President Barack Obama tapped his phones during the 2016 campaign have rankled Washington.

"How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!" Trump tweeted.

"Is it legal for a sitting President to be 'wire tapping' a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!... I'd bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!," he continued.

Binney seemed to go further than the assessment of former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, a George W. Bush administration official, who offered a tacit defense of Trump to ABC on Sunday.  

"This is the difference between being correct and right," Mukasey said. "The president was not correct in saying President Obama ordered a tap on a server in Trump Tower. However, I think he's right in that there was surveillance and that it was conducted at the behest of the attorney general – at the Justice Department through the FISA court."

But Binney told Sean Hannity's radio show earlier Monday, "I think the FISA court's basically totally irrelevant."

The judges on the FISA court are "not even concerned, nor are they involved in any way with the Executive Order 12333 collection," Binney said during the radio interview. "That's all done outside of the courts. And outside of the Congress."

inney told Fox the laws that fall under the FISA court's jurisdiction are "simply out there for show" and "trying to show that the government is following the law, and being looked at and overseen by the Senate and House intelligence committees and the courts."

"That's not the main collection program for NSA," Binney said.

What Binney did not delve into, however, was if President Obama directed surveillance on Trump for political purposes during the campaign, a core accusation of Trump's. But Binney did say events such as publication of details of private calls between President Trump and the Australian prime minister, as well as with the Mexican president, are evidence the intelligence community is playing hardball with the White House.

"I think that's what happened here," Binney told Fox. "The evidence of the conversation of the president of the U.S., President Trump, and the [prime minister] of Australia and the president of Mexico. Releasing those conversations. Those are conversations that are picked up by the FAIRVIEW program, primarily, by NSA." (National Security Agency Whistleblower Bill Binney Says Trump is Absolutely Right About Wiretap Claims. Other article disucssing this matter from a purely naturalistic viewpoint include: httpThe Beltway Conspiracy to Break Trump and Trump and Democratic Smokescreens.)

It is entirely reasonable, therefore, to believe that somone in the administration of the former president, possibly the former head of Obama/Soetoro's Ministry of Injustice, Loretta Lynch, went to the super-secret Federal Intelligence and Surveillence Court of Review (FISA) to request the placement of wiretaps in Trump Tower during the campaign last year.

Created by an act of Congress in 1978 during the administration of President James Earl Carter, Jr., was designed to serve as safeguard against various abuses of intelligence agencies since end of World War II in 1945, but its powers have expanded to such an extent that it is considered to be a parallel of the Supreme Court of the United States of America with almost sole jurisdiction over intelligence agencies. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review has approved all but twelve of 35,529 surveillance requests that have submitted to it since it started hearing such requests in 1979.

Even more frightening is the fact that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review is composed of judges selected solely by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Each of the chief justices who have appointed members to this secret court (Warren Burger, William Rehnquist, John Glover Roberts) has been a firm supporter of government surveillence programs. 

The acceptance of this court, created in full violation of the provisions of the Constitution of the United States of America (see Judge Andrew Napolitano's excellent analysis of the unconstitutional nature of the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, Is FISA Court Constitutional?, for proof of this contention), has given the intelligence agencies of the Federal government of the United States of America almost total carte blanche power to search, download and maintain all of our e-mails, text messages, phone logs and bank account information. No matter the precautions one takes, the government knows everything about what we do, and this is not going to stop in the incoming Trump administration. 

Unhinged by United States Attorney General Jeff Sessions's decison to rescuse himself from a Justice Department investigation into Russian efforts to meddle in the American presidential election last year and into the attorney general's having met on two occasions--once in his Senatorial office in the presence of two military officers and another time at a reception held by the Heritage Foundation attended by over one hundred people--with the Russian Ambassador to the United States of America, Sergey Kislyak, in the Fall of 2016 when Sessions was serving as a campaign surrogate for the man who won the election on November 8, 2016, President Trump fired off a series of tweets on Saturday, March 4, 2016, the Feast of Saint Casimir and the Commemoration of Pope Saint Lucian I, that contained the following charge:

How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 4, 2017

While it appears that the former president, ever careful to give himself plausible deniability, did not directly order the wiretapping that Trump contends took place, and it will thus be very interesting to see if Congressional investigations into the president's allegation do indeed reveal that someone in the Obama/Soetoro administration went to the FISA Court despite the vociferous denials of several former administration's officials.

Here is one brief commentary that appeared on Saturday, March 4, 2017:

This is the most explosive political allegation in many years, far more explosive than Watergate. Is it true? I assume it has some basis in fact, e.g., Trump’s security people may have told him that they detected a tap on one or more of his phone lines. I have no idea how that works, or why it would only be detected now, or how the presence of a wire tap could be connected to the Obama administration. But it seems unlikely that Trump would make such a dynamite allegation without some kind of support.

I also wonder what Trump means by “turned down by court earlier.” It sounds like the Obama administration applied for a tap on Trump’s phones at some point, and was denied. Is it possible that Obama later succeeded in getting a wire tap order from a partisan judge, and that is what has now come to light? That is hard to imagine, but there are some very bad federal judges. The comment “nothing found” may support this interpretation.

At this point, it is all quite mysterious. But the claim is nuclear, and I can’t believe it is wholly without basis. Stay tuned!

UPDATE: Scott emails:

Someone in the intelligence/law enforcement bureaucracy had applied for a FISA warrant to tap the Trump people in June, It was turned down. Renewed and granted in October, I think. The details are out there. That’s what he’s talking about.

This is astonishing to me, as I have never heard a word about this story. If the Obama administration abused the FISA process to wiretap a political opponent, it is a scandal of the first order–the worst political scandal of my lifetime, easily. And the press has known about it and covered it up? Unbelievable.

But if this is a story that has been out there for a while, why does Trump say he “just found out”? Sounds like at a minimum there are new developments. We will see.  (Trump Goes Nuclear.)

Yes, we will see what happens. 

The Organized Crime Family of the False Opposite of the Naturalist Left and Its Long Affinity for Bolshevism

One of the most laughable things about all of this is that the Democrats, who are whipped up into a frenzy about alleged Russian interference in last year's presidential election, are the ideological descendants of those who enabled and apologized for the crimes of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics during the administrations of Presidents Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry Truman. Soviet agents, including Alger Hiss, whose guilt as a traitor to the United States of America has been proved beyond all guilt, ran amok (see the Appendix below).

Also, one must remember that the so-called "nuclear freeze" movement in the early-1980s whose efforts and massive rallies in the United States and Western Europe were funded by the Soviet Union through a variety of front organizations. Former Vice President Walter F. Mondale, who lost forty-nine states to the supposd "war monger" named President Ronald Wilson Reagan on Tuesday, November 6, 1984, supported the "nuclear freeze" movement. So did numerous Congressional Democrats.

The phenomenon of a feeding frenzy about Russian attempts to conduct espionage during the 2016 American presidential elections, although a very serious matter, to be sure, that is, on the part of Democrats and their comrades in the mainslime media is nothing other than a well-orchestrated and very hyprocritical effort to undermine the Trump president and to lay the groundwork for possible impeachment proceedings at some later date. The the ideological descendants of the "doves" during the Cold War have now become Russophobic hawks, not that they are in the least bit concerned about errors of Russia, which are alive and well in the United States of America as well as in the Russian Federation, that Our Lady herself warned Jacinta and Franciso Martin and their cousin, Lucia dos Santos, about in te Cova da Iria near Fatima, Portugal, one hundred years ago this year.

Nothing "Sacred" About the Dishonest Process called "Elections" in the United States of America

The concern of the "left" for the alleged "integrity" of what Trump calls, quite blasphemously, the "sacred" election process is phenomenal to behold as politicians of both political parties have engaged in vote fraud (deliberate miscounting of votes, burning of ballots, stuffing the ballot box, rigging voting machines, multiple votes cast in different places by individual voters, intimidation of political opponents and their supporters, etc.) to a greater or lesser extent in areas where they have held political dominance.

This was notoriously true of the Cook County, Illinois, political machine of the Democratic Party. The oft-quoted phrase--"Vote Early, Vote Often"--is said to have originated in Cook County, although the phrase applied (and applies) as well to many places through the course of American history up to and including today when it is easier than ever before to manufacture or ease votes by means of various software programs. As is fairly well established over fifty-six years after the fact, vote fraud in Illinois, Texas and West Virginia gave United States Senator John Fitzgerald Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) his margin of "victory" in the Electoral College over Vice President Richard Milhous Nixon on Tuesday, November 8, 1960. I was convinced that this was the case at the time (yes, I followed the election actively while in fourth grade at Saint Aloysius School in Great Neck, New York), and all but the most hard core Kennedy apologists accept that the 1960 election was stolen. Period.

Perhaps one of the most infamous and well-documented examples of vote fraud occurred in the 1948 Democratic Party primary for a seat in the United States Senate in the State of Texas between former United States Representative Lyndon Baines Johnson and former Texas Governor Coke Stevenson:

WASHINGTON, Feb. 10— A study of Lyndon B. Johnson provides new evidence that the 36th President stole his first election to the United States Senate, in 1948.

The book, ''Means of Ascent,'' by Robert A. Caro, is the second volume of a projected four-volume study, ''The Years of Lyndon Johnson.'' With a first printing of 250,000 copies, it is to be published on March 15 by Knopf, and excerpts have appeared in The New Yorker.

Mr. Caro maintains that although ballot fraud was common in the late 1940's in some parts of Texas, the Johnson campaign of 1948 raised it to a new level. Mr. Caro supports his charge with an interview with Luis Salas, an election judge in Jim Wells County who said he acknowledged his role only after all others involved in the theft had died.

Determined to Win at All Costs

It has been alleged for years that Johnson captured his Senate seat through fraud, but Mr. Caro goes into great detail to tell how the future President overcame a 20,000-vote deficit to achieve his famous 87-vote victory in the 1948 Democratic runoff primary against a former Governor, Coke Stevenson. A South Texas political boss, George Parr, had manufactured thousands of votes, Mr. Caro found. Johnson died in 1973, Stevenson and Parr in 1975. Mr. Caro says the election showed Johnson's determination to win at all costs as well as his coolness under fire and his ability to select gifted lieutenants, whom he then manipulated.

''The point is that the 1948 election shed light on Johnson's character,'' Mr. Caro said in an interview. ''People have been saying for 40 years, 'No one knows what really happened in that election,' and 'Everybody does it.' Neither of those statements is true. I don't think that this is the only election that was ever stolen, but there was never such brazen thievery.''

Some Johnson loyalists refuse to accept Mr. Caro's conclusions. For example, Horace Busby, who was a 24-year-old aide to the Johnson Senate campaign, said he agreed with the historian's factual presentation but said it should be put in a broader context.

''I don't disagree with the accuracy of anything Bob has in there,'' said Mr. Busby, now a political analyst. But he went on, ''There was a lot of stealing in that election.''

Mr. Busby said: ''The irregularity in the voting was caused in most instances by the local races - for a county commissioner, sheriff and county judge. It was just incidental that there were also votes stolen for Johnson and Stevenson.''

The Dead, the Halt, the Unaware

''I don't think that either Johnson or Stevenon were directing any of this,'' Mr. Busby said. ''But if there had been no stealing, Johnson would have won that election by 5,000 votes.''

Mr. Caro not only reviewed thousands of pages of court records, but also interviewed Mr. Salas, the election judge of Precinct 13 in Jim Wells County. Under Mr. Salas's supervision, Mr. Caro said, Johnson received the votes of the dead, the halt, the missing and those who were unaware that an election was going on.

On primary night, a Saturday, the first tallies of the Democratic primary showed Johnson trailing his opponent by 20,000 votes. Still unreported, however, were the votes from San Antonio, where Stevenson had defeated Johnson 2 to 1 in the first primary. When those votes finally came in, Johnson had won a stunning victory, carrying San Antonio by 10,000 votes.

Later that evening, the rural counties in the Rio Grande Valley further eroded the Stevenson lead, which was reduced to 854 votes.

A Precinct Is 'Discovered'

The next day, county officials ''discovered'' that the returns from one precinct had not yet been counted, Mr. Caro said, and those votes went overwhelmingly to Johnson. On Monday, there were more new returns from the Rio Grande Valley.

But on Tuesday, the state's Election Bureau announced that complete returns had given Stevenson a 349-vote victory, with 40 votes still uncounted.

There were no significant changes Wednesday, and Stevenson still led on Thursday. On Friday, the Rio Grande Valley precincts made ''corrections'' in their election returns, cutting Stevenson's lead to 157.

Also on Friday, Jim Wells County telephoned in its amended return, ''and suddenly, with virtually all the counting in the election over, Coke Stevenson was no longer ahead,'' Mr. Caro said. Johnson had won by 87 votes. Challenge and Affirmation Mr. Caro confirmed the charges made at the time by Stevenson supporters that county officials had cast the votes of absent voters and had changed the numbers on the tallies. For example, he said, Jim Wells County provided an extra 200 votes for Johnson merely by changing the 7 in ''765'' to a 9.

Johnson's victory was upheld by a 29-to-28 vote of the Texas Democratic Party's executive committee, and he went on to defeat Jack Porter, the Republican candidate, in the general election. And although a Federal District Court had ordered his name off the ballot pending an investigation, the order was voided by Associate Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black on a petition from Abe Fortas, who was Johnson's chief lawyer.

Mr. Caro's book also belies Johnson's contention that he played no role in buying and managing KTBC, a radio station purchased by his wife, Lady Bird, that flourished after the purchase. Months later, the Federal Communications Commission approved Mrs. Johnson's request to operate 24 hours a day on a more desirable frequency. Subsequently, the F.C.C. increased the station's wattage and profitability and KTBC became a CBS affiliate.

Cornerstone of an Empire

''Lyndon Johnson was always to maintain that his wife's radio interests were totally divorced from politics and that he, the politician in the family, had absolutely nothing to do either with acquiring KTBC's license or, once it was licensed, with its operations,'' Mr. Caro wrote.

He cites documents that contradict Johnson. Johnson is seen as involved in virtually every aspect of the enterprise, from payroll to frequencies to sales of commercials. The radio station formed the cornerstone of his financial empire. 

''It was a case study of political influence,'' Mr. Caro said in the interview. (How Lyndon Baines ohnson Won The Election He Lost.)

Then again, political skulduggery and thievery is part and parcel of the entirety of American history. Contrary to the words of President Donald John Trump, there has never been anything "sacred" about the American election process. Never.

As Pope Pius IX noted in 1874 when speaking to a French ambassador:

To allow the masses, invariably uninformed and impulsive, to make decisions on the most serious matters, is this not to hand oneself over to chance and deliberately run towards the abyss? Yes, it would be more appropriate to call universal suffrage universal madness and, when the secret societies have taken control of it as is all too often the case, universal falsehood." (Pope Pius IX, Statement to French pilgrims, May 5, 1874, cited by Abbe Georges de Nantes, CCR # 333, p. 24.)

To to call man the words of the late Irving Lahrheim, "Ain't it the truth? Ain't it the truth?" (Bert Lahr was a Talmudist, but Raymond Wallace Bolger and John Joseph Haley, Sr., were devout Catholics. It is very sad that they did not understand that The Wizard of Oz was a mockery of the Faith as it was the work of the Theosophist, L. Frank Baum.)

Why should men who are either assured of their salvation or utterly indifferent to it care how they obtain and retain political power? Nations shaped by the ethos of Protestantism and Judeo-Masonry are bound to wind up in a state of rival gangsters who vie for power and influence. All must fall apart absent Christ the King and His true Church. 

Although unscrupulous behavior was rampant in many kingdoms during the time of Christendom, many civil potentates who abused their powers were reconciled to Holy Mother Church by means of making a good confession. Indeed, the utterly amoral King Louis XV of France was warned by his bishop to make a public abjuration of his sins before he could go to confession and then receive the Sacrament of Extreme Unction as he was dying on May 10, 1774. There is no such thought given to First and Last Things by men who believe they they and their ambitions come first and last in every consideration of their lives Such must be the case when men and their nations are not duly submissive to Christ the King and the authority of His Catholic Church in all that pertains to the good of souls, upon which rests the right ordering of nations and of world peace itself. 

Amorality must be the order of the day in a country where men are bereft of any true knowledge of their Divine Redeemer as He has revealed Himself to us exclusively through His true Catholic Church. 

A Long History of Interfering in the Affairs and Elections of Other Nations

Time does not permit anything resembling a full recitation of the long, long history of American interference in the affairs and elections of other nations. Suffice it to say for the moment that the "leftist" and "neoconservative" Republican angst about possible Russian efforts to spy on the American election process (Russians are pretty good at spying, whether under the czars or the commissars) and/or interfere with its operation is just a little disingenuous. Indeed, the history of American meddling in the internal affairs and elections of other nations reflects a spirit of bipartisanship as it has been practiced by Republican and Democratic caesars.

The administrations of Presidents Thomas Woodrow Wilson, a statist Democrat, and John Calvin Coolidge, a "conservative" Republican, interfered in the internal affairs of Mexico, Haiti, Cuba, The Dominican Republic, Honduras, Colombia, and Nicaraugua between 1901 and 1934, admitting that American imperialism began with the needless and unjust Spanish-American War in 1898 that resulted in a veritable invasion of Protestantism and Freemasony in Catholic lands such as The Philippines (see the appendix in Public Life Is Stained With Crime) and Cuba. For a review of Wilson's and Coolidge's interventions in Mexico, please see: Then, Now and Always: Viva Cristo Rey!, part oneThen, Now and Always: Viva Cristo Rey!, part twoThen, Now and Always: Viva Cristo Rey!, part threeThen, Now And Always: Viva Cristo Rey!, part four and Then, Now And Always: Viva Cristo Rey!, part five. This series contains documentation of the first American effort to destablize newly independent Mexico by means of the introduction of Freemasonry in Our Lady's country as early as 1821 at the behest of American Ambassor Joel Poinsett.

One does not have to reach back that far into history, however, for more contemporary examples. While not minimizing the horrors of the "regime change" effected as a result of the unjust, immoral and unconstitutional invasion and occupation of Iraq on March 20, 2003, by the administration of President George Walker Bush and his "neoconservative" gangsters, one need look only to the example of the man whose administration officials may have sought to gather evidence to keep Donald John Trump out of the White House for several examples of how Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro sought to interfere in the election process of other nations.

First, tt was, if you will recall, only nine months ago now that then President Obama/Soetoro traveled to the United Kingdom to campaign for a "no" vote what in the referendum on the British exit from the statist monstrosity known as the European Union (see  .)

Second, it was the policy of President Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro his first Secretary of State, Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton, to effect "regime change" in Libya, an effort that wound up costing American lives as the former president and his subordinates simply lied about the details of the premeditated terrorist attack upon the American compound in Benghazi, Libya, on Tuesday, September 11, 2012. Obama/Soetoro and his second Secretary of State, the pro-abortion, pro-perversity Catholic named John F. Kerry, worked assiduously to effect the ouster of Syrian President Bashir Assad, a goal that was also sought under the Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton watch at Foggy Bottom, which itself has quite a Bloody Tradition all of its very own.

Third, the new Wikileaks dump reveals that the same intelligence community that is seeking to undermine President Donald John Trump at this time worked hard to prevent the election of Marie Le Pen, among others, as the President of the French Republic in 2012:

All major French political parties were targeted for infiltration by the CIA's human ("HUMINT") and electronic ("SIGINT") spies in the seven months leading up to France's 2012 presidential election. The revelations are contained within three CIA tasking orders published today by WikiLeaks as context for its forth coming CIA Vault 7 series. Named specifically as targets are the French Socialist Party (PS), the National Front (FN) and Union for a Popular Movement (UMP) together with current President Francois Hollande, then President Nicolas Sarkozy, current round one presidential front runner Marine Le Pen, and former presidential candidates Martine Aubry and Dominique Strauss-Khan.

The CIA assessed that President Sarkozy's party was not assured re-election. Specific tasking concerning his party included obtaining the "Strategic Election Plans" of the Union for a Popular Movement (UMP); schisms or alliances developing in the UMP elite; private UMP reactions to Sarkozy's campaign stratagies; discussions within the UMP on any "perceived vulnerabilities to maintaining power" after the election; efforts to change the party's ideological mission; and discussions about Sarkozy's support for the UMP and "the value he places on the continuation of the party's dominance". Specific instructions tasked CIA officers to discover Sarkozy's private deliberations "on the other candidates" as well as how he interacted with his advisors. Sarkozy's earlier self-identification as "Sarkozy the American" did not protect him from US espionage in the 2012 election or during his presidency.

The espionage order for "Non Ruling Political Parties and Candidates Strategic Election Plans" which targeted Francois Holland, Marine Le Pen and other opposition figures requires obtaining opposition parties' strategies for the election; information on internal party dynamics and rising leaders; efforts to influence and implement political decisions; support from local government officials, government elites or business elites; views of the United States; efforts to reach out to other countries, including Germany, U.K., Libya, Israel, Palestine, Syria & Cote d'Ivoire; as well as information about party and candidate funding.

Significantly, two CIA opposition espionage tasks, "What policies do they promote to help boost France's economic growth prospects?" and "What are their opinions on the German model of export-led growth?" resonate with a U.S. economic espionage order from the same year. That order requires obtaining details of every prospective French export contract or deal valued at $200m or more.

The opposition espionage order also places weight on obtaining the candidates' attitudes to the E.U's economic crisis, centering around their position on the Greek debt crisis; the role of France and Germany in the management of the Greek debt crisis; the vulnerability of French government and French banks to a Greek default; and "specific proposals and recommendations" to deal with "the euro-zone crisis".

The CIA espionage orders published today are classified and restricted to U.S. eyes only ("NOFORN") due to "Friends-on-Friends sensitivities". The orders state that the collected information is to "support" the activities of the CIA, the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA)'s E.U section, and the U.S. State Department's Intelligence and Research Branch.

The CIA operation ran for ten months from 21 Nov 2011 to 29 Sep 2012, crossing the April-May 2012 French presidential election and several months into the formation of the new government. (Wikileaks: CIA and French Elections 2012.)

Fourth, the Obama/Soetoro administration worked to defeat Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 2014, and it is not to indemnify this hater of the Holy Cross of the Divine Redeemer and racialist who has contempt for the very people who were forcibly removed from their homes in 1948 and then sent to "relocation camps" (more on this in part two of ) to note the simple fact of American interference in the Israeli election process:

According to the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI), the State Department gave $349,276 in U.S. taxpayer-funded grants to a political group in Israel to build a campaign operation, which subsequently was used to try to influence Israelis to vote against conservative Benjamin Netanyahu in the March 2015 election for prime minister.

In the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations report about the State Department’s action, Chairman Bob Portman (R-Ohio) said, “It is completely unacceptable that U.S. taxpayer dollars were used to build a political campaign infrastructure that was deployed — immediately after the grant ended — against the leader [Netanyahu] of our closest ally in the Middle East.  American resources should be used to help our allies in the region, not undermine them.” 

“The State Department ignored warning signs and funded a politically active group in a politically sensitive environment with inadequate safeguards,” said Portman in a July 12, 2016 press release.

The State Department had funded a series of grants in 2013-2014, totaling $349,276, which went to the One Voice Movement, which has Israeli and Palestinian branches: One Voice Israel and One Voice Palestine.  (The grant period ended in November 2014.) These groups support peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine, and a two-state solution based on the borders of 1967. 

The Subcommittee’s report says, “On December 2, 2014, at the urging of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Knesset voted to schedule new national parliamentary elections for March 2015.

“Within weeks, an international organization known as the OneVoice Movement absorbed and funded an Israeli group named Victory15 or ‘V15’ and launched a multimillion-dollar grassroots campaign in Israel. The campaign’s goal was to elect ‘anybody but Bibi [Netanyahu]’ by mobilizing center-left voters….

“The Subcommittee found no evidence that OneVoice spent grant funds to influence the 2015 Israeli elections. Soon after the grant period ended [November 2014], however, OneVoice used the campaign infrastructure and resources built, in part, with State Department grants funds to support V15. (Emphasis added.)

“In service of V15, OneVoice deployed its social media platform, which more than doubled during the State Department grant period; used its database of voter contact information, including email addresses, which OVI expanded during the grant period; and enlisted its network of trained activists, many of whom were recruited or trained under the grant, to support and recruit for V15.”

OneVoice even informed the State Department about its anti-Netanyahu campaign “during the federal grant period,” said Marc Thiessen, a resident fellow of the American Enterprise Institute. “But the State Department did nothing.”

As the Subcommittee reported, “This pivot to electoral politics was consistent with a strategic plan developed by OneVoice leadership and emailed to State Department officials during the grant period.”

One of the State Department diplomats “who received the plan told the Subcommittee that he never reviewed it,” reads the report. The proposal was entitled A Strategic Plan to Mobilize Centrist Israeli & Palestinian.

Part of the plan’s objective was to “strengthen the [center-left] bloc, rather than any one party, [and] in tandem weaken Netanyahu and his right wing parties,” quotes the Subcommittee report.

“Additionally, the proposal listed seven ‘Specific Israeli Tactical Objectives.’ The second objective was clear: ‘Shift support within the Knesset from a Likud-centric coalition to a center left coalition through public education and grassroots mobilization initiatives.’”

However, “OneVoice’s use of government-funded resources for political purposes was not prohibited by the grant agreement because the State Department placed no limitations on the post-grant use of those resources,” according to the Subcommittee.  (Emphasis added)  

“Despite OneVoice’s  previous political activism in the 2013 Israeli election,” said the Subcommittee, “the Department failed to take any steps to guard against the risk that One Voice could engage in political activities using State-funded grassroots campaign infrastructure after the grant period.”

In fact, “after the State Department grant period ended, OneVoice shifted its focus to influencing the electoral outcome by working to defeat incumbent Prime Minister Netanyahu,” said the Subcommittee.  “Planning for this effort began during the period when OneVoice was still a State Department grantee.” (Emphasis added.)

“OneVoice did not use State Department funds directly for political activities, or seek State Department grants in anticipation of the Israeli elections, but it did use the campaign infrastructure and resources that it had built, in part, with State Department funds to support a campaign to defeat Prime Minister Netanyahu in the 2015 elections,” said the Subcommittee. (Emphasis added.)

In conclusion, the Subcommittee stated, “Immediately after the grant period ended, OneVoice deployed those grant-funded resources as part of the V15 campaign to defeat Prime Minister Netanyahu in 2015.

“Despite the fact that influencing a foreign election is across a ‘red line’ for U.S. grantees, all of this activity was permissible under Department guidelines and the terms of the grants.” 

Benjamin Netanyahu was re-elected prime minister of Israel on Mar. 17, 2015. (Obama State Department: $350,000 to Group to to Build A Campaign Structure to be Used Against Netanyahu.)

Well, I suppose that there is "acceptable" and "unacceptable" interference in foreign elections according to the ever-sanctimonious members of the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist "left."

Criminality is of the Essence of American Public-Policy

Although I understand that the temptation might be strong to sympathize with the plight of President Donald John Trump in the midst of the "leftist" attacks upon him, the plain fact remains that a system of civil governance that rejects any public recognition of the Divine Redeemer, Christ the King, and that refuses to acknowledge the authority of His true Church as she discharges her duty to remind civil officials of their obligation to pursue the common temporal good in light of man's Last End is bound to degenerate to a point of gang warfare. No nation built on the lie of human self-redemption and religious indifferentism can have any other end.

Even in the midst of the Democratic Party and many segments of the intelligence community to effect a virtual coup d'etat against President Trump, you see, the latter is try to make nice-nice with Congressional Democrats so that his vision of what some are calling "ObamaCare 2.0" will receive enough Democratic support in the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate to retain an unconstitutional bureaucratic monster that arrogates unto the Federal government of the United States of America a power that it does not possess: to regulate and direct the purchase of health insurance and the provision of what is said to be "health care." Trump is not as blatant a statist as Obama/Soetoro, but he does believe in a somewhat similar form of statism to "help" people by means of government policies.

Yes, no matter Trump's desire to end unjust ecomonic regulations to aid private property owners and business owners who have been crushed by the welter of such Federal rules, he still believes in the power of the state to gather information about law-abiding citizens and its power to control sectors American life that are beyond its purview.

Thus it is that while the conflict at this time between Trump and his enemies, which is real enough as far as it goes, is very similar to the relationship that existed between the National Socialists of Adolph Hitler's Third Reich and the Bolshevik Communists of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. For it was in spite of their past animosities that representatives of Hitler and Joseph Stalin sought to make "peace" (which did not last, obviously) in August of 1939 order to carve up Poland between them as they plotted the beginning of what became known as World War II:

The deal with Stalin was struck the following night. It was the culmination of a series of contacts between the Soviet and German governments which went right back to the weeks following Lenin's putsch. They had been conducted, according to need, by army experts, secret policemen, diplomats or intermediaries on the fringe of the criminal world. They had been closer at some periods than others but they had never been wholly broken and they had been characterized throughout by total disregard for the ideological principles which either party ostensibly professed a contempt, indeed, for any consideration other than the most brutal mutual interest-the need of each regime to arm, to arrest and kill its opponents, and to oppress its neighbours. For two decades this evil stream of exchanges had flowed underground. Now at last it broke the surface. That night of 23-4 August there was a gruesome junket in the Kremlin. Ribbentrop reported: 'It felt like being among old party comrades.' He was as much at ease in the Kremlin, he added, 'as among my old Nazi friends'. Stalin toasted Hitler and said he 'knew how much the German people loved the Fuhrer'. There were brutal jokes about the Anti-Comintern Pact, now dead, which both sides agreed had been meant simply to impress the City of London and 'English shopkeepers'. There was sudden discovery of a community of aims, methods, manners and, above all, of morals. As the tipsy killers lurched around the room, fumblingly hugging each other, they resembled nothing so much as a congregation of rival gangsters, who had fought each other before, and might do so again, but were essentially in the same racket. (Paul Johnson, Modern Times: The World from the Twenties to the Nineties, Revised Edition, HarperCollins, 1991, p. 360.)

A perfect description of the bunch of gangsters who fight each other constantly at present even though they can come "together" when it is in their interests to do so. "A congregation of rival gangsters, who had fought each other before, and might do so again, but were essentially in the same racket."


We are only witnessing the logical demise of the facade of an "order" that has been premised upon the promotion of sin as compatible with realization of material prosperity and national security. While it is one thing to sin, it is quite another to promote sin under cover of the civil law and to celebrate it unashamedly in every aspect of what passes for "popular culture." Nations that do this will be abandoned by God as they degnerate into a near-constant state of civil war, a condition that will help to usher in the Antichrist as the "saviour" of social order. Judeo-Masonry itself will give way to Antichrist, who will then fight the final battle with Holy Mother Church.

Remember these words of Pope Pius XI, contained in his first encyclical letter, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922, and remember them well 

To these evils we must add the contests between political parties, many of which struggles do not originate in a real difference of opinion concerning the public good or in a laudable and disinterested search for what would best promote the common welfare, but in the desire for power and for the protection of some private interest which inevitably result in injury to the citizens as a wholeFrom this course there often arise robberies of what belongs rightly to the people, and even conspiracies against and attacks on the supreme authority of the state, as well as on its representatives. These political struggles also beget threats of popular action and, at times, eventuate in open rebellion and other disorders which are all the more deplorable and harmful since they come from a public to whom it has been given, in our modern democratic states, to participate in very large measure in public life and in the affairs of the government. Now, these different forms of government are not of themselves contrary to the principles of the Catholic Faith, which can easily be reconciled with any reasonable and just system of government. Such governments, however, are the most exposed to the danger of being overthrown by one faction or another. (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.)

As readers of this site know, it is impossible to pursue temporal justice while protecting heinous sins under cover of the civil law, crimes that are also promoted in every aspect of popular culture.

Sin is what caused Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to suffer once in time in His Sacred Humanity during His Passion and Death. Sin is what caused His Most Blessed Mother's Immaculate Heart to be pierced through and through with Seven Swords of Sorrow.

Sin is what wounds His Mystical Body, the Church Militant, here on earth in this passing, mortal value of tears.

No one who is an agent in the promotion of grievous sin, no less sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance, is a fit holder of the public weal.

While such a person is an object of our prayers and while his actions must prompt us to make much reparation to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, he is not deserving of anyone's "support" or "approval."

Thus it is that while we pray for the conversion of the president and his opponents, we do not permit ourselves to be swept away by sentimentality into thinking that one agent of naturalism is better than others as each is doing the work of the devil in continuing to attack the very foundation of social order, the Social Reign of Christ the King. 

Indeed, it was just yesterday that President Donald John Trump said that he would continue funding Planned Barrenhood if its centers would stop killing babies by surgical means, a statement that accepts the dispensing of contraceptive pills and devices, most of which are abortifacients, as something "good" and "helpful," no less something that must be funded by American taxpayer dollars. Indeed, some White House officials are telling those associated with Planned Barrenhood that the president would approve of increase of such funding on the condition that the oragnization's death traps stop executing babies surgically (see Trump Offers Planned Barrenhood Funds If It Stops Killing Babies). This is your hero, my friends? Please, spare me your hero worship. Talk about false opposites. 

Anyone who thinks that the true God of Divine Revelation will "bless" anyone who speaks and acts in such an ignorant manner is very, very badly deceived, especially in this instance since Planned Barrenhood is evil from its very inceptions. Ah, that and a few other related matters will be discussed in part two of this commentary.

We must nevertheless continue to fulfill Our Lady's Fatima Message in our own lives, keeping close to her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart as we hand out her Green Scapular to as many people as we can, being sure to pray "Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and at the hour of our death" for each person.

Saint Louis de Montfort, whose True Devotion to Mary should be our guide as to how to love the Mother of God and to serve her as the consecrated slaves through her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, has given us great words of wisdom for these our times: 

Predestinate souls, you who are of God, cut yourselves adrift from those who are damning themselves by their impious lives, laziness and lack of devotion--and, without delay, recite often your Rosary, with faith, with humility, with confidence and with perseverance. . . .

Dear Rosary Confraternity members, if you want to lead a fashionable life and belong to the world--by this I mean if you do not mind falling into mortal sin from time to time and then going to Confession, and if you with to avoid conspicuous sins which the world considers vile and yet at the same time commit "respectable sins"--then, of course, there is no need for you to say many prayers and Rosaries. You only need to do very little be "respectable": a tiny prayer at night and morning, an occasional Rosary which may be given to you for your penance, a few decades of Hail Marys said on your Rosary (but haphazardly and without concentration) when it suits your fancy to say them--this is quite enough. If you did less, you might be branded as a freethinker or a profligate; if you did more, you would be eccentric and a fanatic. But if you want to lead a true Christian life and genuinely want to save your soul and walk in the saints' footsteps and never, never, fall into mortal sin--if you wish to break Satan's traps and divert his flaming darts, you must always pray as Our Lord taught and commanded you to do.

If you really have this wish at heart, then you must at least say your Rosary or the equivalent, every day. I have said "at least" because probably all that you will accomplish through your Rosary will be to avoid mortal sin and to overcome temptation. This is because you are so exposed to the strong current of the world's wickedness by which many a strong soul is swept away; you are in the midst of the thick, clinging darkness which often blinds even the most enlightened souls; you are surrounded by evil spirits who being more experienced than ever and knowing that their time is short are more cunning and more effective in tempting you.

It will indeed be a marvel of grace wrought by the Most Holy Rosary if you manage to keep out of the clutches of the world, the devil and the flesh and avoid mortal sin and gain heaven! If you do not want to believe me, at least learn from your own experience. I should like to ask you, if when you were in the habit of saying no more prayers than people usually say in the world and saying them they way they usually say them, you were able to avid serious faults and sins that were grievous but which seemed nothing much to you in your blindness. Now at last you must wake up, and if you want to live and die without sin, at least mortal sin, pray unceasingly; say your Rosary every day as members always used to do in the early days of the Confraternity. . . .

Even if you suffer from dryness of soul, boredom and interior discouragement, never give up even the least little bit of your Rosary--for this would be a sure sign of pride and faithlessness. On the contrary, like a real champion of Jesus and Mary, you should say your Our Fathers and Hail Marys quite drily if you have to, without seeing, hearing or feeling any consolation whatsoever, and concentrating as best you can on the mysteries. You ought not to look for candy or jam to eat with your daily bread, as children do--but you should even say your Rosary more slowly sometimes when you particularly find it hard to say. Do this to imitate Our Lord more perfectly in His agony in the garden: "Being in agony, he prayed the longer," so that what was said of Our Lord (when He was in His agony of prayer) may be said of you too: He prayed even longer.

Pray with great confidence, with confidence based upon the goodness and infinite generosity of God and upon the promises of Jesus Christ. God is a spring of living water which flows unceasingly into the hearts of those who pray. The Eternal Father yearns for nothing so much as to share the life-giving waters of His grace and mercy with us. He is entreating us: "All you that thirst, come to the waters . . ." This means "Come and drink of My spring through prayer," and when we do not pray to Him He sorrowfully says that we are forsaking Him: "They have forsaken me, the fountain of living water." (Saint Louis de Montfort, The Secret of the Rosary,  pp. 99-101; 103)

Let us not forsake Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, especially during this season of Lent. Let us go to Him through the very instrument His Most Blessed Mother gave to Saint Dominic, the Holy Rosary. Let us take seriously the words that Our Lady told Jacinta and Francisco Marto and Lucia dos Santos in the Cova da Iria to pray many Rosaries and to do penance for the conversion of poor sinners and to save them from Hell. We are poor sinners in need of conversion! We need to be saved from the fires of Hell. We must use the spiritual weapon that Our Lord has given us through His Most Blessed Mother to defeat the enemies of our salvation at the very gates of our soul this day and every day our lives as we lift high the standard of His Most Holy Cross, which is adorned to every Rosary of His Most Blessed Mother, as we seek to spread devotion to this paramount weapon against all sin and heresy.

The world is in the state that it is because of the infidelity of men. We can beseech Our Lady to help us remain faithful to the point of our dying breaths, especially by beseeching her through her Most Holy Rosary and by making sure that we offer our daily penances and prayers to her Divine Son's Most Sacred Heart through her own Immaculate Heart. She will help us to see the world clearly through the eyes of the true Faith as we exclaim with love the great words that bespeak of our allegiance to her Divine Son, the King of our hearts, the King of the world.

Viva Cristo ReyVivat Christus Rex!

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us!

Saint Joseph, Patron of Departing Souls, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

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

Saint John of God, pray for us.


Proving the Guilt of Alger Hiss Beyond All Doubt

For nearly sixty years, Alger Hiss's defenders have mounted one campaign after another to discredit the mountain of evidence that proves he spied for the Soviet Union.

First, they tried to smear Hiss's main accuser, Whittaker Chambers, as a fantasist, liar, and spurned homosexual. When that fell short, Hiss and his defenders invented any number of Baroque theories to rebut hard evidence, including "forgery by typewriter" to explain away portions of classified documents that had been typed on a Hiss-owned machine. Finally, they argued that the case against Hiss was a nefarious conspiracy, a Salem witch trial for the 1940s, orchestrated by such congenital anti-communists as Richard Nixon and J. Edgar Hoover who had only one goal in mind: the destruction of New Deal liberalism, so as to pave the way for the cold war abroad and domestic repression at home.

The end of the cold war brought new primary sources into play, and Hiss's defenders—being true believers—raced to exploit these opportunities initially, thinking they could only redound to Hiss's benefit. In 1992, John Lowenthal, Hiss's long-time lawyer and a film-maker, prevailed upon Dmitri Volkogonov, a respected Russian general, military historian, and adviser to Russian President Yeltsin on archival policy, to help establish Hiss's innocence once and for all on humanitarian grounds. In late October Volkogonov did issue a statement, asserting that Hiss was not registered in KGB documents as a recruited agent.[1] Lowenthal promptly claimed this was tantamount to exoneration for his long-suffering client. But within a matter of weeks, Volkogonov felt compelled to issue a retraction. The general volunteered that his inquiry had not encompassed the GRU, the intelligence arm of the Soviet Ministry of Defense, and it was the GRU, not KGB, that ran Hiss.[2]

The next, unexpected twist in the case came from U.S. archives. In 1995, the NSA released one of its most closely-held secrets: the VENONA intercepts, the name given to coded messages between the Soviet Union and KGB officers stationed in the United States who ran Moscow's network of spies.[3] Only a fraction of these messages were intercepted and deciphered by what is now known as the National Security Agency (NSA). Yet the VENONA intercepts were sufficient in number and substance to make it clear that Washington had not acted rashly or without reason in internal security investigations, but in response to positive evidence of a vast espionage effort orchestrated from Moscow. And one VENONA intercept, in particular, set Hiss's shrinking band of defenders back on their heels.

Number 1822, dated 30 March 1945, was a partially decoded message from the KGB's Washington station to Moscow headquarters. The cable referred to a well-placed American agent, code-named ALES (pronounced A'-lis), who had been spying for Moscow continuously since 1935. The details conveyed in the message matched, in every particular, known or knowable facts about Hiss. Most importantly, the message noted that ALES, identified as a GRU agent, had been at the recently concluded Yalta conference and had returned to the United States via Moscow.[4] It turned out that only four State Department officials had gone from Yalta to Moscow for further consultations before coming home. One of them was Alger Hiss.

This new, seemingly damning, revelation brought to mind the old adage: be careful what you wish for. In response, some students of the case, including Victor Navasky, then editorial director of The Nation, depicted VENONA as a sinister U.S. government project "to enlarge post-cold war intelligence gathering capability at the expense of civil liberty," while the prominent radical lawyer William Kunstler insisted that the messages were forgeries.[5] When that insinuation did not fly, Hiss defenders retreated to their familiar tactics of re-imagining the evidence. In 2000, John Lowenthal abandoned the fiction that the intercepts had been forged and took them seriously—so seriously, in fact, that he now claimed VENONA 1822 actually exonerated Hiss. When read the right way, Lowenthal contended, the message proved Hiss could not be ALES.[6] In short order, Lowenthal’s outré analysis was so thoroughly demolished by two scholars that no one (including Hiss defenders, as we shall see) takes it seriously any more.[7]

There matters stood, more or less, until a day-long conference at New York University on April 5 to inaugurate the university's new Center for the United States and the Cold War. "Alger Hiss and History" was the featured topic, on the grounds that the Hiss trial was a "major moment in post-World War II American that reinforced Cold War ideology and accelerated America’s late-1940s turn to the right." Putting aside this tendentious framing, the dominant event of the conference was the presentation of a joint research paper by Kai Bird, a contributing editor for The Nation, and Svetlana Chervonnaya, a Moscow-based Russian historian.[8]The two arrived at the conference claiming to have dramatic new evidence and answers.[9]

Once upon a time, it was called McCarthyism to charge people with being Communists or spies on the basis of slim or no evidence, shaky logic, or the word of one or two informers of dubious reliability. No longer. Bird and Chervonnaya established new standards of proof, in which the absence of evidence is as good as proof. Absolving Alger Hiss of being ALES is apparently that important, even if it means recklessly slandering a long-deceased, distinguished public servant. Probably not one person out of 500 in the large crowd had the slightest idea who Wilder Foote was prior to 11:30 a.m. But after Bird/Chervonnaya finished up, Foote, who died in 1975, had suddenly acquired a new and sinister status: the spy who got away while Hiss was crucified.

Foote belonged to that generation of American diplomats who devoted themselves to the United Nations following World War II, a Stevensonian Democrat down to his marrow. The son and namesake of Henry Wilder Foote, a noted Unitarian theologian, Wilder Foote graduated from Harvard College in 1927, and joined the Associated Press in Boston the following year. From 1931 to 1941, Foote published three weekly newspapers in rural Vermont, until he entered government service as a press officer with the Office of Emergency Management.[10] From 1942 to 1944, Foote served in the same capacity with the Office of War Information—meaning that during the war’s most perilous years, Foote’s major preoccupation was to prepare the quarterly reports on the Lend-Lease Act as demanded by Congress.[11] After a stint with the Foreign Economic Administration as its chief of public relations, in January 1945 Foote was named a special assistant to the new secretary of state, Edward R. Stettinius, Jr.

The war was coming to an end and it was a heady, unprecedented period for internationalism and for those who believed only a new organization, more powerful than the old League of Nations, could stave off future world wars. Foote served as Stettinius's press attaché during the conferences in Yalta, Mexico City, San Francisco, and finally, Potsdam. In the process, Foote became so caught up in the early enthusiasm for the United Nations that he cast his lot with the new body. Foote joined the staff of the first U.S. mission to the UN, and in 1947, when the UN established its press and publications bureau, Foote became its first director.[12] He served for the next 13 years as chief spokesman for the first two secretaries general, Trygve Lie and Dag Hammarskjold, before retiring in 1960 to pursue projects to edit and publish UN documents.[13]

If this biography seems somewhat unlikely for a top Soviet spy, stranger things have happened. Indeed, a number of Americans who sought positions in the UN secretariat were later adjudged security risks, and Foote was among the most prominent Americans working for the UN.[14] Still, there is no credible evidence that Wilder Foote ever was an open or underground member of the Communist Party.[15] He is not mentioned in any memoirs or historical accounts; records of the party that are accessible in archives; or as a subject of interest by the various congressional investigating committees. The Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, in particular, scrutinized Americans working for the UN in the late 1940s and early 1950s, and subpoenaed some of them (but not Foote), while relying upon FBI investigations that indicated secret Communist Party membership or participation in Soviet espionage.[16] Most of those subpoenaed invoked the fifth amendment to avoid testifying, and Secretary General Trygve Lie either fired them, forced their resignation, or failed to renew their contracts.

Foote's career, moreover, does not fit with the salient facts about ALES as enumerated in VENONA 1822. According to the intercept, ALES had been "continuously working with the neighbors [the GRU] since 1935."[17] Until late 1941, of course, Foote was toiling away in rural Vermont, a place, as one historian of espionage dryly observed, "not normally considered a hotbed of Soviet espionage," as it was far from vital governmental or industrial activity.[18] Also according to the intercept, the GRU was pressing ALES to obtain more military information, as the GRU was less interested in diplomatic materials about "the Bank," as the State Department was called in KGB cables. This qualifier suggests that ALES had worked at the State Department for much of his 10-year-long association with Soviet intelligence, whereas at the time, Wilder Foote had only been with State for two months. Indeed, one, and only one, attribute about ALES from VENONA 1822 dovetails with Wilder Foote. And that is the fact that Foote was one of the four State Department officials who briefly went to Moscow from Yalta, the others being Secretary of State Stettinius, H. Freeman Mathews, and Alger Hiss.

How then did Bird and Chervonnaya engineer their finding that Foote, rather than Hiss, was ALES?

The answer lies in another encrypted message that was not intercepted during the VENONA program, but is widely accepted as authentic on all sides.[19] This cable was sent by Anatoly Gorsky, head of the KGB's Washington station and overall chief of all KGB operations in the United States, to Moscow on 5 March 1945. With the UN’s founding conference in San Francisco due to open on April 25, Moscow had been anxious to obtain as much knowledge as possible about American strategy and tactics, including the exact composition of the U.S. delegation. So on March 3, Moscow had ordered its U.S. spies to " . . . take all requisite steps to obtain in good time and pass on to us information about . . . the forthcoming conference in BABYLON" (the KGB’s codename for San Francisco).[20] In response, Gorsky naturally brought up ALES, since a high-ranking spy at the State Department was the most likely source for the kind of information Moscow needed. (Hiss's "Office of Special Political Affairs" was, in fact, coordinating U.S. preparations for the San Francisco conference, making him the ideal source for the information Moscow wanted). Almost in passing, Gorsky noted that ALES "was at the Yalta conference and then left for Mexico City and has not returned yet."[21]

The entirety of the Bird/Chervonnaya case—their grounds for smearing Wilder Foote—hinges on that one fragment: that ALES had gone to Mexico City after leaving the Soviet Union, and had not returned to Washington. Their logic is easy to fathom, even while their lack of scruple is astounding. 

The additional detail about ALES from Gorsky’s cable effectively meant that whereas there were once four possible ALES candidates (Stettinius, Matthews, Hiss, and Foote), now there was only three (Stettinius, Hiss, and Foote). That was because it was easy to prove that Freeman Matthews, the director of the State Department’s Office of European Affairs, did not attend the session in Mexico, known in diplomatic history as the Chapultepec conference. Bird then apparently discovered that contrary to Gorsky's March 5 cable, Alger Hiss had returned to Washington before the close of the Chapultepec meeting, which would not end until March 8.[22] The proof came in the fact that on Saturday, March 3—the same day Moscow tasked its U.S. station—Hiss participated in an NBC radio program broadcast from Washington that was part of the State Department's public relations program to gin up support among Americans for a United Nations and the "building of the peace."[23]

If Hiss could be ruled out on this basis, that left only Stettinius and Foote as ALES. The corroborative evidence that Stettinius—a deeply religious man and a former senior executive of U.S. Steel prior to becoming secretary of state—might be ALES is as strong (that is to say, dismally weak) as it is for Foote. But apparently Bird and Chervonnaya decided that the giggle factor for accusing Stettinius was too high. Only members of the John Birch Society were likely to be embrace such an allegation, because it would validate their conviction that at Yalta, America had been sold down the river by traitors. Not only was Franklin Roosevelt a naïve and dying man, but the American secretary of state was a Soviet spy.

Bird was unequivocal. His process of elimination "left one man standing: Wilder Foote," in Bird's words. ALES could only be Wilder Foote because Foote "fits the itinerary in every way, and Hiss simply does not."[24] Never mind that Foote fits none of the other unique ALES attributes.[25]

It is certainly true, as Bird and Chervonnaya found, that Hiss had already returned from Mexico City when Gorsky wrote the opposite. And it is true that Gorsky could have known that Hiss had returned. Besides Hiss's brief contribution to the radio program produced by the State Department, one newspaper, The New York Times, mentioned Hiss as having participated in the NBC broadcast. But that Gorsky "could have" known is not the same as he assuredly did know. Hiss was not a prominent figure, whose comings and goings were front page news or even necessarily the subject of gossip. The Times headline did not read, "Hiss Returns to Washington; Asks Americans Support UN." It read "Grew Says World Must Bar Anarchy," and one had to read it to find Hiss’s name. Although Hiss was a senior State Department official, he was only known within the bureaucratic hierarchy and as yet little known to the press or public.[26]

The most sensible explanation for the seeming inconsistency is that Anatoly Gorsky simply did not know that Hiss had returned earlier than expected. For Gorsky to assume that Hiss was still in Mexico would have been an easy mistake to make. The U.S. delegation headed by Stettinius was still there, making headlines virtually every day, ergo, Hiss was still there. This is a far more plausible explanation than one that recklessly turns Wilder Foote into a GRU spy without so much as a scintilla of corroboration.

Bird and Chervonnaya attribute an all-knowing efficiency to Gorsky that simply didn't exist in the real world of a KGB station chief in war-time Washington. Gorsky was someone who had to balance the demands of his cover job as a senior embassy diplomat with his other, genuine job of overseeing the KGB stations operating out of Soviet diplomatic offices in Washington, New York, and San Francisco, as well an illegal station. Moreover, Bird and Chevonnaya conveniently ignore the fact that much of the March 5 cable consisted of Gorsky explaining to Moscow how difficult it was for him to communicate with ALES, since the KGB was not running this GRU agent directly.[27]

Additionally, Gorsky, in the March 5 cable, remarked that "ALES . . . used to work in KARL's informational group, which was affiliated with the neighbors," a clear reference to Whittaker Chambers's GRU-linked espionage apparatus (KARL was Chambers's cover name).[28] Again, this fits Hiss, whom Chambers identified as part of his mid-1930s Washington ring, but does not dovetail with Foote, then in Vermont with no relationship to Whittaker Chambers.

The succinct casualness with which Bird calumniated Foote moved historian David Oshinsky, who chaired the panel, to ask Bird and Chervonnaya a series of hard questions. From VENONA 1822 it is known, for example, that ALES also directed a small group of spies "for the most part drawn from his relatives."[29] Had Bird investigated whether any of Foote’s relatives were involved in spying for the GRU, or were even in a position to commit espionage? Bird’s answer was that Foote had lot of relatives, and he weakly conceded that more research on them needed to be done.

Bird had been in contact for some months with Foote's family, including a grandson, also named Wilder Foote, who is a commercial pilot living in Belleville, Michigan. He furnished Bird information about the family, including some copies of letters. The grandson apparently told Bird, too, that his grandfather had once been investigated by the FBI, but that he had been "cleared of any suspicion" by the Bureau.[30] Shortly before the conference, Bird notified Foote via email that he was going to name his grandfather as a Soviet agent.[31] That was the context for Foote’s public comment to the Associated Press regarding Bird's accusation. "[My grandfather] was and still is innocent. I can only assume that Mr. Bird has ulterior motives to besmirch my grandfather’s name, possibly for Mr. Bird’s own celebrity. Quite convenient for him that everyone involved is dead and cannot speak in their own defense against [these] allegations," wrote young Foote.[32] Privately, Foote said he felt misled.[33]

To be fair to Bird—which is more than he was to any of the Footes—the news media blew his supposed discovery completely out of proportion, falsely claiming that if Hiss were not ALES, then Hiss was not a Soviet spy.[34] Bird (at least sometimes) parses his nonsensical finding differently. "It’s quite possible that Hiss could be guilty of what Chambers accused him of and be part of a Communist cell, and it could also be true that Hiss was not ALES," Bird told the Washington Post. But this is simply more of the pettifoggery that Hiss defenders have honed for nearly six decades. The logic of Hiss defenders now is that someone other than Hiss must be ALES, and anyone will do. So Wilder Foote was thrown under the truck to save Hiss, or more precisely, return the controversy to its pre-VENONA, pre-end-of-the-cold-war state of denial.

One could go on and on enumerating all the evidence in the Hiss case, which proves his guilt beyond any reasonable doubt.[35] But the point ought to be clear that the ALES messages, while important and interesting, are but a few more stones on a large rock pile of evidence. Remove them and little changes in re Alger Hiss. By contrast, the astonishing and grossly irresponsible charge against Wilder Foote is a perfect example of the McCarthyite techniques that Hiss’s defenders have long and hotly denounced. While it is sad, yet not surprising, that the Associated Press chose to ignore all the evidence exculpating Wilder Foote, it is outrageous that Kai Bird and Svetlana Chervonnaya, who had to be aware of how thin their case was, nevertheless went ahead and named Foote anyway. This is scholarship worthy of Emily Litella.

The substance of what Bird and Chervonnaya argued will not long be remembered, nor should it be. The risible assertion that Foote was ALES will probably not even have half the shelf-life of John Lowenthal’s mendacious and futile efforts. But the manner in which Bird and Chervonnaya presented their case will be long recalled, and it should be.[36] (Hiss Built Proven Beyond Doubt.)