James Brien Comey: Arbiter of What Constitutes "Moral Fitness"

The two organized crime families of naturalism in the United States of America operate in manner almost exactly similar to that of the infamous Mafiosi gangs.

Loyalty to the “boss” of a given territory counts above else. Loyalty to the “boss” and to the organization is the determining factor whether a certain “soldier” on the street lives or dies. The binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law do not bind the deadened consciences of those who kill for a living and prey on human weaknesses to aggrandize their own power, wealth and worldly influence.

Curiously, “honor” is considered important in organized crime circles. The boss gives his word of “honor” and he expects those under him to remember that he will keep his word to them and that betrayals of trust is dishonorable and punishable by vicious executions. Especially important in this “code of honor” silence and non-cooperation with law enforcement authorities and non-interference in the organization’s hierarchical structure and its operations. Omerta, I believe, is the word that is used to describe this silence.

Human ambition untethered from any regard for even natural concepts of right and wrong is not the best soil for the Mafia’s “code of honor” to flourish. There is, of course, no honor among thieve and murderers. Those who desire to “advance” and are not averse to risking their lives will do whatever it is to take to undermine even the capo di tutti capi (the boss of all boses).

As I have noted so many time on this site—and during my over three decades as a college professor of political science (yes, I know that my days as a classroom teacher are behind me), the two major American political parties really operate like organized crime families, nothing the exception that there is absolutely no code of honor among the petty men who care about their careers, campaign contributions and political influence. The only thing that matters to most career politicians is to retain their political positions.

Remove the safeguards provided by the Social Reign of Christ the King, ladies and gentlemen, and the way is left open for the rise of open banditry in the form of the confiscatory taxation policies of the civil state, whether of the "democratic" or "totalitarian" variety, both of which are simply two sides of the same Judeo-Masonic, naturalist coin, which must be re-minted every now and again as Caesar becomes more bloated with increased governmental expenditures and the increased taxation necessary to fund such expenditures.

Indeed, the rise of permanently established political parties in the 1790s produced what many observers call one of the chief curses of Modernity: the professional, career politician, a creature who believes that we exist to enable his career by having him pick our pockets of our money and then telling us how much better off we are now that he has acquired it and is in its control. Government bureaucracies grew in the Nineteenth Century at the state and local levels, first by means of the patronage system, which sought to provide political workers with employment to make them and their families dependent upon the party leaders for their employment.

Government employment was seen in the era of unbridled patronage as a reward for political loyalty, thereby engendering sloth and incompetence as contracts were given to private sector contractors to build government buildings or roads or canals with the understanding that a certain portion of contract must be "kicked back" to the party leaders in power in that jurisdiction. The Democratic political party machine, Tammany Hall, that predominated in the City of New York from 1854 until the overthrow of leader Carmine DeSapio in 1961 (which was engineered in part by former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, former New York Governor and United States Senator Herbert Lehman, future U.S. Representative and New York City Mayor Edward Irving Koch and attorney Edward Costikyan) was just one of many such organizations that thrived on the use of taxpayer dollars to keep itself in power.

Career politicians, especially at the local level, have long operated on a model that closely resembles actual organized crime families. Noncompetitive bids for government projects are common and campaign contributions to local political clubs are de facto requirement for “doing business” in many areas of the United States of America.

This is particularly the case in  Cook County, Illinois, where business is done “the Chicago Way” and in certain parts of my native Nassau County, New York (all right, all right, I was born in Jamaica Hospital in the Borough of Queens and spent the first four years of my life living above my father’s Queens Village Dog and Cat Hospital Creedmor Civic Association, page six, but I am lived over half of my life in Nassau County and consider myself an Oyster Bay boy), where it part of the price of “doing business” is to provide favors to elected officials.

Indeed, I was saddened to learn recently that the then Town Attorney of the Town of Oyster Bay, New York, John Venditto, against whom I ran on the Right to Life Party line for the position of Supervisor of the Town of Oyster Bay in 1997 (Dal Lamagna, the “Tweezer Man” magnate, and pro-abortion Catholic, was the nominee of the Democratic Party) and the former County Executive of Nassau County, New York, are now on trial in United States District Court for bribery, kickback and wire fraud charges that stem from their relationship with a restauranteur, Harendra Singh, whose company got contracts to run the concession stands at town’s beaches and parks in exchange, it is charged, for all manner of favors and benefits (see Mangano-Venditto Corruption Trial). This is hardly unique in American politics as corruption at the state and municipal level is endemic throughout the history of this country.

Leaving aside the guilt or innocence of Messrs. Venditto and Mangano, which will be determined by a jury (one wonders why Warren Wilhelm/ “Bill deBlasio,” the hideous thug who is the Mayor of the City of New York, New York, has not been charged for his own dirty relationship with the man who is called “Harry” Singh), though, I am reminded of the fact that the the payrolls of many municipalities are bloated by entirely unnecessary positions designed to reward a political party’s foot soldiers with jobs.

I did, for example, a line-item analysis of the budget of the Town of Oyster Bay twenty-one years ago, discovering one unnecessary position after another. I made the point in a pamphlet produced for the campaign that those who work only for the advance of their own careers—or for advancement of the careers of those who hired them and upon whom their future livelihood depends—will not work in most instances for the honor and glory of God. (My expertise in this area is not only academic, having taught courses in State and Local Government, one of my major fields of study for the doctorate in political science, but from personal experience gained during a brief period as a government employee in 1987-1988.) A student of mine at the C. W. Post Campus of Long Island University during the Fall 1997 Semester had worked for the Town of Oyster Bay’s Public Works Department for several summers and related to me what a supervisor had told him, “Just drive around [in the yellow and white town dump trucks) for eight hours and make it look good.” In other words, the taxpayers exist to subsidize the party in power.

It is no wonder, therefore, that basic services are provided on a minimal level, so much so that what should be a rather basic service in this day of technological advances in the field of traffic planning and engineering, the synchronization of traffic lights on heavily traveled local thoroughfares, is not even considered to be important to improve the quality of daily living and thus to advance the common temporal good. Those who do not think supernaturally at all times, you see, become steeped in the morbidity of careerism and sloth, both of which place fallen men in a stupor of materialism and self-indulgence from which it is impossible to escape, barring the working of the graces won for us on Calvary by the shedding of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's Most Precious Blood and that flow into our hearts and souls by the working of the Holy Ghost in the sacraments through the loving hands of Our Lady, the Mediatrix of All Graces.

There is all manner of waste at the state and local levels of government, replete with political appointees, many of whom are paid hefty salaries, whose positions are totally unnecessary and advance the common good not one whit. The average citizen has been convinced, however, that the bloat of government at all levels, including those closest to him, is irreversible and might even think that the bloat does him such good, although he would be hard-pressed in most instances to name some of the elected officials in his own community. No, the average citizen is too diverted by the bread and circuses to see how the property and sales and income taxes and various "user-fees" imposed at the state and local levels is unjust and goes to enable the political careers of the thieves they have put into office quite willingly.

Pope Leo XIII explained how excessive taxation can drain the resources of individual citizens, thus enslaving them to the civil state:

These three important benefits, however, can be reckoned on only provided that a man's means be not drained and exhausted by excessive taxation. The right to possess private property is derived from nature, not from man; and the State has the right to control its use in the interests of the public good alone, but by no means to absorb it altogether. The State would therefore be unjust and cruel if under the name of taxation it were to deprive the private owner of more than is fair. (Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum, May 15, 1891.)

Although the abuse of political power is a product of fallen human nature, it is nevertheless the case that men who live according to the dictates of this passing world without giving any thought to how their actions look in light of eternity become amoral monsters whose only goal is personal self-aggrandizement. This is as true of the permanent political establishment as it is of political party bosses and their lobbyists/contractors with whom they enjoy quite a symbiotic relationship.

The past two years have provided very direct evidence to what anyone who has studied political science or has followed the internecine battles between elected officials and the permanent governing class already knew, namely, that the unelected apparatchiks who administer government policy and/or exercise legislative powers by issuing thousands upon thousands of regulations designed to further enslave and harass ordinary citizens believe that they are laws unto themselves who are answerable to no higher authority, including Christ the King. This is because many of these apparatchiks are areligious pagans who have contempt for the “little minds” who believe in the “superstition” of even the concept of religion and who seethe with a particular hatred for the true religion, Catholicism.

We have seen the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist “left” within the administration of Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro bend and twist the United States Code to protect a woman, Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton, who broke who broke various parts of that code with impunity, believing herself to be above the law and that there was no “higher authority” on earth that had any right to hold her accountable for actions that would cause lesser mortals to spend time in a Federal penitentiary.

The collusion to obstruct justice to protect Madame Defarge involved, as appears eminently clear now, Obama/Soetoro, former President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton (whose “moral fitness” to serve in public life will be examined shortly), and former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who was the successor of the notorious lawbreaker and indemnifier of Lois Lerner and his own failed Fast and Furious program, the race-baiting Eric Himpton Holder. Even the self-seeking, omniscient judge of one’s moral fitness to serve as the President of the United States of America, James Brien Comey, is hinting that there might be some bad news for Lynch contained in Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s upcoming report on the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s and Department of Justice carefully calculated efforts to transfer top secret and other confidential material to her own home-brewed sever in Chappaqua, New York (Comey Friend Hints of Forthcoming Damning Report About Loretta Lynch). Oh, don’t worry. I will get to the apostate Comey, who, though a baptized Catholic, is now a member of the United Methodist Church, himself in just a little while.

Meanwhile, the former Deputy Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Andrew McCabe, may be headed for a multiple-count perjury indictment after Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s criminal referral of him to the Department of Justice (Inspecto General Issues Criminal Referral of Andrew McCabe). This could pit the self-proclaimed “man of honor,” Apostate Comey, against his former trusted deputy as McCabe’s attorney says that Comey authorized his client to leak the news in the Fall of 2016 that the Department of Justice had opened an investigation into the Clinton Foundation’s activities. Comey denies that he did any such thing. Ah, yes, the honor among supposed “morally fit” men is extraordinary, isn’t it? Yet another ongoing investigation will tell if the “Andy” in the Peter Stzork-Lisa Page text messages is the same Andrew McCabe and if he was part of the “secret society” to thwart Trump’s election in 2016 and to sabotage his presidency thereafter.

Not to be outdone in all of this is sinister-looking Robert Mueller, whose history of bungling investigations, including investigating the wrong people, and allowing his trusted deputy, Andrew Weissman, to use all manner of scare tactics, has been documented in great detail by Molly Hemingway (see Robert Mueller's FBI Repeatedly Abused Prosecutorial Discretion). It is clear that the “special counsel,” Robert Mueller, is out to get Donald John Trump on whatever charges he can, include anything and everything that have nothing to do with the alleged exist of a Federal crime that does not exist, namely, “collusion,” with the Russians to “fix” the 2016 election. Mueller is a man on a mission to force Trump out of office, and to that end even the attorney-client privilege must be violated (see Andrew Napolitano: Trump and the Attorney-Client Privilege).

Those in the established political class are just a higher brow version of the dime-a-dozen political bosses at the state and municipal level. They still operate the same way, including protecting their own, which is exactly what James Brien Comey did in the investigation of Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton’s e-mail scandal. Comey believed Madame Defarge be “morally fit” for the presidency as compared to the “morally unfit” Donald John Trump, for whom he, Comey had such contempt and distrust that he believed that it was necessary to keep detailed memoranda of his meeting with president. Unfortunately, for Apostate Comey, though, the fifteen redacted memoranda of his that were finally sent to Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee that the current star of his own traveling circus and self-promotional sideshow, Comey, did not feel obstructed by the president and prove that the latter wanted to see if any of his subordinates had “colluded” with Russia (Comey's Memos Prove Trump Wanted FBI to make the Russian investigation public. Oh well, Comey can’t let that interfere with the “morally unfit” narrative, can he?

Comey’s belief in his own moral superiority is belied by the fact that he informed then President-elect Donald John Trump about the infamous “Steele Dossier” without informing him that it had been funded by the campaign of Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton through the front organization, GPS Global. He wanted Trump to be worried.

It is very clear that the smug, sanctimonious James Brien Comey, far from being moral superior to inferior beings, is little more than a leaker and a liar with what passes in the world of the elites of naturalism as an “impressive” resume (Comey Has Leakend and Liedand the aforementioned Mollie Hemingway’s latest commentary on how Comey set up Trump in their meeting at Trump Tower fifteen months ago, Comey's Memos Indicate Dossier Briefing of Trump Was a Set-Up.) Comey believed that the outcome of the naturalist farce called an election in a land of pluralism and relativism was unacceptable, and he—joined by the likes of Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr, Loretta Lynch, James Clapper, John Brennan and the capo di tutti capi himself, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetro—had a “duty” to the country to sabotage the administration of a man who had been duly elected to the office of the President of the United States of America.

A naturalist commentator by the name of Byron York believes that it is possible the slimy, smarmy egotist names James Brien Comey was even trying to blackmail President-elect Trump when the two met at Trump Tower on January 6, 2017, the Feast of the Epiphany of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ:

Not long after the Comey-Trump one-on-one meeting, news organizations reported that the intelligence community had briefed the president-elect on allegations of misconduct. Almost immediately after those reports, BuzzFeed published the entire dossier, "golden showers" and all.

Comey's memo of the meeting -- released in the midst of Comey's publicity tour -- does not mention that Trump asked for loyalty. In fact, it notes that Trump said a number of complimentary things about Comey. "He said he thought very highly of me and looked forward to working with me," Comey wrote. But no talk of loyalty, at least as far as Comey noted.

At Comey's next meeting with the president, however, on January 28, Trump brought up loyalty, according to the Comey memos. The two men were discussing leaks and how damaging they could be. Comey explained to the president that "the entire government leaks like crazy." Then Comey wrote that, "[Trump] replied that he needed loyalty and expected loyalty."

The news of that exchange -- leaked by Comey after Trump fired him -- spurred widespread outrage over Trump's mention of loyalty. But the context of Trump's statement -- not known until now -- adds to our understanding of the president's talk.

Why would Trump wonder about the FBI director's loyalty? Perhaps because in their first meeting, the FBI director dropped the Moscow sex allegation on Trump, followed immediately by its publication in the media. It seems entirely reasonable for a president to wonder what was going on and whether the FBI director was loyal, not to the president personally, but to the confidentiality that is required in his role as head of the nation's chief investigative agency.

A few more things. We had known earlier that Comey briefed Trump about the dossier one-on-one on January 6, 2017. But it was not until an interview Thursday with CNN's Jake Tapper that Comey revealed the conversation was only about the Moscow sex allegation. The other parts of the dossier -- about Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen, allegations of collusion -- Comey did not mention to the president-elect. No wonder Trump associated the dossier with the Moscow sex story.

We also know, from the new book Russian Roulette, by Michael Isikoff and David Corn, that immediately after the first Comey meeting, Trump thought the FBI was blackmailing him:

"Trump had seen this sort of thing before," they write. "Certainly, his old mentor Roy Cohn -- the notorious fixer for mobsters and crooked pols -- knew how this worked. So too did Comey's famous predecessor J. Edgar Hoover, who had quietly let it be known to politicians and celebrities that he possessed information that could destroy their careers in a New York minute."

Now, some journalists are suggesting that Trump was "obsessed with one particular passage in the dossier" -- that is, the "golden showers" scene. Well, why would that be? Could it be that, of all the elements of the dossier, the sex scene was the only one the FBI director chose to tell Trump about in their first meeting?

By the way, we know from Isikoff and Corn and other sources that the dossier's compilers themselves -- former British spy Christopher Steele and the opposition research group Fusion GPS -- had little faith in the veracity of the Moscow sex story. Steele once reportedly said there was perhaps a 50-50 chance of the story being true, and Fusion GPS head Glenn Simpson considered the Russia source of the story a "big talker" who might have made it up to impress Steele.

But that is the story that the FBI director chose to tell the president on January 6, 2017. It is the story that was leaked and ended up in full public view not long after. And after all that happened, Trump began to question the FBI director's loyalty. How could he not?  (New Revelations Shed Light on Trump's Loyalty Demand.)

Gee, isn’t James Brien Comey the man who told Congress last year that there was no surveillance on President Donald John Trump at Trump Tower in the Borough of Manhattan of the City of New York, New York, even though he personally applied for a Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant to do precisely that?

Trump was under investigation and Comey to lied to the president about it, and then he manipulated his own firing, which, as I have noted, was imprudent at the time it occurred and should have been done during the transition period between the November 8, 2016, election and the inauguration on January 20, 2017. Comey lied and then leaked details of his memos after the firing in order that his friend and fellow prosecutorial bully, Robert Mueller, could be appointed as “special counsel” after Mueller’s protégé, Rod Rosenstein took over supervision of the “Russia collusion” case following Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions’s unnecessary recusal. The whole “Russian collusion” scandal was as cooked up as one of Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s “synods” at which the public proceedings are just window dressing to divert attention from the fact that their outcomes had been predetermined by the false “pontiff” and his chosen Jacobin/Bolshevik conciliar revolutionaries.

So, James Comey is ultimate judge of what constitutes moral fitness. It is important to examine this petty little schemer’s contention about Donald John Trump as it implies rather strongly that the scheming by the Obama/Soetoro White House, the National Security Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, the United States Department of State and the United States Department of Justice, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation therein, was to assure the election of the “morally fit” candidate, Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton/Madame Defarge.

Thus it is that I ask readers to bear with me for a little while (which is a displaced New Yorker’s sardonic euphemism for a lengthy discourse) as I take you down memory lane to examine the “moral fitness” of William Jefferson Blythe Clinton and his wife.

Former President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton remains a respected public figure despite the fact that he entered into a "consent agreement" with Independent Counsel Robert Ray on January 19, 2001, in which he admitted making "misleading" statements in testimony he gave to attorneys representing Paula Corbin Jones on January 17, 1998.


What's the big deal?

Well, there is no “big deal” about Bill Clinton’s perjury because he was “morally fit” to be president, right?

Ah, poor Lieutenant General Michael Flynn was forced to sell his home to finance the unnecessary legal expenses caused by the perjury charge that was brought against him by “special counsel” Robert Mueller.

There are, it would appear (my tongue is planted in cheek), two standards of “moral fitness” within the twisted, self-centered mind of the apostate named James Brien Comey.

The “morally fit” William Jefferson Blythe Clinton continues to milk his Clinton Foundation, whose chief executive officer is none other than the pro-abortion Maronite Rite Catholic named Donna Shalala (who served as the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services from January 22, 1993, to January 20, 2001), for millions upon millions of dollars from the same sort shady international “financiers” to whom overnight visits at the White House Lincoln Room were exchanged for campaign contributions twenty-two years ago.

Indeed, what is even more telling now, twenty-six years after the then Governor of Arkansas won the Democratic Party presidential nomination against United States Senator Paul Tsongas (D-Massachusetts) and former—and future—Governor of California Edmund Gerald Brown, Jr., is that Hillary Rodham Diane Clinton, is even more respected than her husband despite the fact that her entire public career has been characterized by a pattern of deceit and corruption, which are exemplified by her decision to circumvent public accountability for her actions as United States Secretary of State by treating classified and confidential government documents as though they were spam e-mails that could be stored on that home-brewed server without any political or legal consequence whatsoever:

Here is a summary of State Department’s Inspector General’s May 25, 2016, report about Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton’s “morally fit” actions as found in an editorial in the New York Post:

A devastating report by the State Department’s inspector general Wednesday shows just why Americans are right to distrust Hillary Clinton.

The 78-page document (by an Obama appointee, no less) concludes that Clinton’s server and email practices as secretary of state violated department policy — and she and her team lied about it repeatedly.

It says she and her inner circle defiantly stonewalled the investigation, despite Hillary’s repeated assurances that she’d “talk to anybody, anytime.” It also says:

  • Clinton never sought an OK from State’s legal staff to use a private server, as required, and as her aides claimed. If she had, permission would’ve been denied.
  • Instead, her IT aides were warned “never to speak of the Secretary’s personal email system” — and neither her server nor her Blackberry “met [even] minimum security requirements.”
  • Despite her repeated denials, there were at least two attempts to hack into her system. Neither was ever reported to State’s security personnel, as required.
  • Clinton claimed she used a private system strictly for convenience. But when urged to also use an official email address, she refused, citing the risk that personal emails might become publicly accessible.

Tellingly, Clinton and top aides Huma Abedin, Jake Sullivan and Cheryl Mills refused to be interviewed by the IG.

Here’s the bottom line: Virtually everything Clinton has said about her emails has been a lie. And no longer can supporters laugh off Emailgate so easily.

Hillary’s culpability and her flouting of the law now seem clear. But that leaves one more shoe to drop: Will Attorney General Loretta Lynch indict the Democrats’ presumptive presidential nominee? If she doesn’t, she’ll need a good excuse why. (Damning Report on E-Mailgate Shows that Hillary Cannot Be Trusted.)

James Brien Comey, the judge of “moral fitness,” saw to it that Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton faced no legal consequences for her actions, arrogating unto himself a decision that belonged to career prosecutors and the United States Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, who had cooked the books on the Clinton “matter,” thus making the entire investigation a sham.

The “morally fit” Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton?


Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton, among other things for which she gained such well-deserved infamy (the appendix below for a partial and entirely incomplete list of the lies told by the Clintons over the years), the former First Lady/United States Senator/Secretary of State has served as the enabler of her husband’s serial promiscuity and adultery and—along with others, most notably Bestey Wright—has sought to demean, harass, intimidate, bully and defame the numberless women who have been exploited by her husband, including his brutal assault upon Juanita Brodderick. She did so because she used her husband's supposed "likeability" as the means to get a foothold in the White House, which she believed was her right to take over once Bill had been elected and served his eight years in office.

Here is an account, written by an admirer of the Clintons and of liberalism that explains how Betsey Wright and Madame Defarge defended William Jeffeson Blythe Clinton and bullied his accusers twenty-six years ago:

The thirty-two-year-old Clinton had won election in 1978, only to lose two years later, becoming America’s youngest ex-governor. The loss devastated both Clintons. After engineering Bill Clinton’s comeback victory two years later, Wright became his chief of staff:

This title couldn’t capture this loving but explosive relationship’s intensity, its intimacy. In his memoirs Bill Clinton describes Wright as “brilliant, intense, loyal, and conscientious almost to a fault…. the only person I had ever met who was more fascinated by and consumed with politics than I was.” Now, Hillary and Betsey reunited in their mutual devotion to Bill. The brainy, stiff, cautious Arkansas First Lady relished policy debates, especially concerning education and children. The tough, chain-smoking, garbage-mouthed chief of staff micromanaged the politics. And both tried limiting Bill’s philandering – then controlling the damage.

As keeper of the Clintons’ institutional and political memory, Betsey Wright listed all of Bill Clinton’s potential personal vulnerabilities in 1987 – then advised him not to run for president in 1988. Hillary Clinton disagreed, although Wright had a better sense of how many women there were. What stopped Bill Clinton, just hours before he launched a campaign, was Wright’s warning that Hillary and their daughter Chelsea risked humiliation.

That misfire set the stage for 1992, with Hillary Clinton and Betsey Wright determined not to let Bill Clinton’s promiscuity harm his White House bid. Wright, who monitored each piece of gossip – and frequently bullied Bill’s “exes” – coined the crude phrase “bimbo eruptions.” The term mocked the accusers and the reporters who believed them. Just a few years ago, Americans were more censorious about affairs but more forgiving about such sexist dismissals of victimized women.

The word “bimbo” originally meant stupid men not idiotic women. Taken from the Italian word “bambino,” baby, only in the 1920s did the word start applying to women – as with the song My Little Bimbo Down on the Bamboo Isle. In the 1930s, the word “blonde” increasingly preceded the word. Half a century later, in 1987, the year Bill Clinton shrewdly bailed, the woman caught in the Evangelist Jim Bakker’s scandal, Jessica Hahn, told Playboy “I am not a bimbo.” Her denial and the way another blonde, Donna Rice, ruined Gary Hart’s presidential chances, had the Wall Street Journal declaring 1987 “the year of the Bimbo.” Wright’s take-no-prisoners approach to protecting Bill Clinton and trashing his accusers became iconic in 1998, with Kathy Bates’s flamboyant, Academy Award-nominated portrayal of a Wright-like character in the movie based on the ’92 campaign, Primary Colors.

By the time Clinton became president, Wright was too burned out – and her scorched earth tactics had burned too many women -- to serve in the White House. When the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke, Wright wrote in the Arkansas Times: “It hurts. I'm so angry. I cry. I wonder why, why, why? It's sad, infuriating, tragic, puzzling…. if Bill Clinton were in my reach I would be mightily tempted to bash him on his head and kick him in the shins.” Clearly, Clinton, like many other politicians, was a serial seducer, craving the adulation of women and crowds. Just as clearly, the Clintons had obsessive enemies, who treated false steps as premeditated felonies. And, confusingly, many of these enemies were pro-life opponents of the pro-choice Clinton, leading many feminists to excuse Clinton’s infidelities to protect cherished policies.

The ironies abound. Betsey Wright the feminist boosting a sexist slander. Hillary Clinton, the betrayed wife, not just standing by her man but trashing his accusers – no matter how true their story. Wright’s odd contribution to history, then, is sharpening the Clinton conundrum: how can a couple so committed to doing good behave so badly so often? Wright’s tale highlights the moral blind spot of the Clintons and their enablers. Their idealism, their liberalism, their faith in the good they hope to do, makes them excuse all kinds of lapses, from libeling innocent women to following their own rules regarding emails and government secrecy. The Clintons are not criminals; but they can be self-righteous slobs, imperious, indulgent, and inconsistent – and often bailed out by loyalists like Betsey Wright. (The Feminist Who Used Sexism to Defend Bill Clinton)

Mind, the above text was written by a man who was a supporter of the “idealism” and “liberalism” of the Clintons, who were committed, the author contends, to “doing good.” Quite to the contrary of what Dr. Gil Troy believe, the Clintons are criminals who have gone unpunished for the violations of the civil law. Much more importantly, of course, they have been and remain now moral criminals for their support of the daily slaughter of the innocent preborn by chemical and surgical means.

Moral fitness, James Comey?

Oh, I forgot.

James Brien Comey now goes to the pro-abortion, pro-sodomite United Methodist Church. How silly of me.

While we are on the “matter” of moral fitness, though, perhaps it is good to examine the “moral fitness” of the serial liar and abuser of power named Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro.

Let’s a look at how this man of “integrity,” il capo di tutti capi, lied repeatedly about the unconstitutional and immoral statist exercise known ObamaCare, its provisions and its cost:

 White House Web page: "Linda Douglass of the White House Office of Health Reform debunks the myth that reform will force you out of your current insurance plan or force you to change doctors. To the contrary, reform will expand your choices, not eliminate them. " (Spanish-language version.)

 White House Web page: "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan."

 President’s weekly address, June 6, 2009: "If you like the plan you have, you can keep it.  If you like the doctor you have, you can keep your doctor, too.  The only change you’ll see are falling costs as our reforms take hold."

 Town hall in Green Bay, Wis., June 11, 2009: "No matter how we reform health care, I intend to keep this promise:  If you like your doctor, you'll be able to keep your doctor; if you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan."

 Remarks at the American Medical Association, June 15, 2009: "I know that there are millions of Americans who are content with their health care coverage — they like their plan and, most importantly, they value their relationship with their doctor. They trust you. And that means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what."

 Presidential press conference, June 23, 2009. "If you like your plan and you like your doctor, you won't have to do a thing. You keep your plan. You keep your doctor."

 Rose Garden remarks, July 15, 2009. "If you like your doctor or health care provider, you can keep them. If you like your health care plan, you can keep that too."

 Remarks at a rally for New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine, July 16, 2009: "if you've got health insurance, you like your doctor, you like your plan — you can keep your doctor, you can keep your plan.  Nobody is talking about taking that away from you."

 Presidential weekly address, July 18, 2009: "Michelle and I don’t want anyone telling us who our family’s doctor should be – and no one should decide that for you either. Under our proposals, if you like your doctor, you keep your doctor. If you like your current insurance, you keep that insurance. Period, end of story."

 Rose Garden remarks, July 21, 2009: "If you like your current plan, you will be able to keep it.  Let me repeat that: If you like your plan, you'll be able to keep it."

 Remarks in Shaker Heights, Ohio, July 23, 2009: "Reform will keep the government out of your health care decisions, giving you the option to keep your coverage if you're happy with it."

 Town hall in Raleigh, N.C., July 29, 2009: "I have been as clear as I can be. Under the reform I've proposed, if you like your doctor, you keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you keep your health care plan. These folks need to stop scaring everybody. Nobody is talking about you forcing … to change your plans."

 Presidential weekly address, Aug. 8, 2009: "Under the reforms we seek, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan."

 Town hall in Portsmouth, N.H., Aug. 11, 2009: "Under the reform we're proposing, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan."

 Town hall in Belgrade, Mont., Aug. 14, 2009: "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan. This is not some government takeover. If you like your doctor, you can keep seeing your doctor. This is important."

 Presidential weekly address, Aug. 15, 2009: "No matter what you’ve heard, if you like your doctor or health care plan, you can keep it."

 Town hall in Grand Junction, Colo., Aug. 15, 2009: "I just want to be completely clear about this. I keep on saying this but somehow folks aren't listening — if you like your health care plan, you keep your health care plan.  Nobody is going to force you to leave your health care plan.  If you like your doctor, you keep seeing your doctor."

 Remarks to Organizing for America, Aug. 20, 2009: "No matter what you've heard, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor under the reform proposals that we've put forward.  If you like your private health insurance plan, you can keep it."

 Presidential weekly address, Aug. 22, 2009: "Under the reform we seek, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your private health insurance plan, you can keep your plan. Period."

 Remarks on health care reform, March 3, 2010: "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.  Because I can tell you that as the father of two young girls, I wouldn’t want any plan that interferes with the relationship between a family and their doctor."

 Presidential weekly address, March 6, 2010: "What won’t change when this bill is signed is this: If you like the insurance plan you have now, you can keep it. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Because nothing should get in the way of the relationship between a family and their doctor."

 Remarks in Glenside, Pa., March 8, 2010: "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.  If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."

 Remarks in St. Charles, Mo., March 10, 2010: " If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.  If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."

 Remarks in St. Louis, Mo., March 10, 2010: "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.  If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. I’m the father of two young girls –- I don’t want anybody interfering between my family and their doctor."

 Remarks in Strongsville, Ohio, March 15, 2010: "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.  If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.  I don't want to interfere with people’s relationships between them and their doctors."

 Remarks in Fairfax, Va., March 19, 2010: "If you like your doctor, you’re going to be able to keep your doctor. If you like your plan, keep your plan. I don’t believe we should give government or the insurance companies more control over health care in America. I think it’s time to give you, the American people, more control over your health."

Obama’s comments between the law’s signing and the release of the HHS regulations

 White House web page: "For those Americans who already have health insurance, the only changes you will see under the law are new benefits, better protections from insurance company abuses, and more value for every dollar you spend on health care. If you like your plan you can keep it and you don’t have to change a thing due to the health care law."

 Remarks in Iowa City, Iowa, March 25, 2010: "You like your plan? You’ll be keeping your plan. No one is taking that away from you."

 Remarks in Portland, Maine, April 1, 2010: The critics will "see that if Americans like their doctor, they will keep their doctor.  And if you like your insurance plan, you will keep it.  No one will be able to take that away from you.  It hasn’t happened yet.  It won’t happen in the future."

 White House blog post by Stephanie Cutter, May 18, 2010: "A key point to remember is that while the Act makes many changes to the individual market, it specifically allows those who want to keep their current insurance to do so.  Most of the Act’s protections apply only to new policies, allowing people to stick with their current plan if they prefer."

After the release of the HHS regulations

 Kathleen Sebelius blog post, June 14, 2010: "The bottom line is that under the Affordable Care Act, if you like your doctor and plan, you can keep them."

 White House blog post by Stephanie Cutter. "Another important step we’ve taken is to fulfill President Obama’s promise that ‘if you like your health plan, you can keep it.’ Last week, Secretary Sebelius and Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis announced a new rule that protects the ability of individuals and businesses to keep their current plan.  It outlines conditions under which current plans can be ‘grandfathered’ into the system, minimizing market disruption and putting us all on the path toward the competitive, patient-centered market of the future."

 Remarks on the Affordable Care Act Supreme Court ruling, June 28, 2012: "If you’re one of the more than 250 million Americans who already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance — this law will only make it more secure and more affordable."

 Campaign event in Pittsburgh, July 6, 2012: "If you have health insurance, the only thing that changes for you is you’re more secure because insurance companies can't drop you when you get sick."

 Campaign event in Virginia Beach, Va., July 13, 2012: "If you already have health care, the only thing this bill does is make sure that it’s even more secure and insurance companies can't jerk you around."

 First presidential debate in Denver, Oct. 3, 2012: "If you've got health insurance, it doesn't mean a government takeover. You keep your own insurance. You keep your own doctor. But it does say insurance companies can't jerk you around."

• Remarks in Largo, Md., Sept. 26, 2013: "Now, let’s start with the fact that even before the Affordable Care Act fully takes effect, about 85 percent of Americans already have health insurance — either through their job, or through Medicare, or through the individual market. So if you’re one of these folks, it’s reasonable that you might worry whether health care reform is going to create changes that are a problem for you — especially when you’re bombarded with all sorts of fear-mongering. So the first thing you need to know is this: If you already have health care, you don’t have to do anything." ('If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan.')

Falling costs?

No fear of changes creating a problem for Americans?

Those last set of remarks, given on the Feast of the North American Martyrs in 201, came five days before the launch and the crash of the ObamaCare website that was supposed to fuel a "pent up" demand for coverage. The website was hard to navigate, asked for personal information, not properly secured, and did not permit taxpayers to browse various plans on the statist health care exchanges and wound up being taken down by the administration given its very celebrated ability to function after untold sums of money had been spent to design and launch it.

Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro is what he has been from the very beginning of his public career as Barry Soetoro morphed into Barack Hussein Obama, a man whose autobiography contained as many misrepresentations of fact as those found in my late mother's adoptive father's memoirs, The Memoirs of Chief Red Fox (see Chief Red Fox, by George Farias): a liar.

Obama/Soetoro's lies on other matters (using the Internal Revenue Service to intimidate, harass and hound various "conservative" organizations, the Fast and Furious gun-running scheme by which sophisticated high-powered weaponry found their way into the hands of the ruthless Mexican drug cartels, the continued cover-up of the attack that took place on the American compound in Benghazi, Libya, on Tuesday, September 11, 2012, and the National Security Agency program that has collected data about each one of us) make him “morally it,” it would see, as opposed to the morally “unfit” Donald John Trump in the eyes of James Brien Comey. Comey is league with those who believe that it is a "criminal" act punishable by the civil state for anyone, no matter how ill-informed about history he is and how captive he may be to the interests of the Zioinist State of Israel, of the false opposite of the naturalist "right" to win the presidency of the United States of America.

It is also interesting to examine the fact that the self-serving narcissist, Comey, who may be facing his own criminal referral from Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz (see Comey Under Investigation by Justice Department Inspector Geneal Horowitz), made his “morally unfit” comment about President Donald John Trump to George Stephanopoulos, who was one of the prime movers and shakers in William Jefferson Blythe Clinton’s 1992 campaign, thus being privy to the intimidation tactics of Betsey Wright and Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton.

Yes, yes, yes.

There’s moral fitness and then, of course, there is moral fitness.

Mind you, this does not mean that Donald John Trump is not a moral reprobate or has not been as much of a serial philanderer and adultery as William Jefferson Blythe Clinton. Trump is as untethered from any concept of the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law as have been any of his predecessors, many of whom have been adulterers in their own right (e.g., Thomas Woodrow Wilson, Warren Gamaliel Harding, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Dwight David Eisenhower, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Lyndon Baines Johnson, Gerald Rudolph Ford/Leslie Lynch King, Jr., George Herbert Walker Bush). He is no more no less “morally unfit” than these others, and it is not up to the likes of the smug James Brien Comey to serve as the arbiter of a president’s character, especially since his own character is vile enough to set up a president-elect for whom he has no respect and then to maneuver his way into seeing his buddy appointed as a “special counsel” to remove the president from office.

How far removed the world has come from any concept of just governance according the mind of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as He has discharged it exclusively to the Catholic Church as the sole and infallible explicator of all that is contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith. The petty caesars of the false opposites of the naturalist “left” and “right” know nothing about just principles of governance. Each is a product of a world, Modernity, that has emerged from the falsehoods of Protestantism and Judeo-Masonic naturalism.

No matter their differences nor the multifarious ways they engage in death matches with each other, the naturalists of the false opposites of “left” and of the right” are in total agreement one thing, namely, that is not necessary for men and for their nations to recognize the Social Reign of Christ the King nor to be subordinate to the teaching and governing authority of His Catholic Church in all that pertains to the good of souls. Perhaps even sadder still is the fact that none of the naturalists of the false opposites of the “right” and of the “left” believe that it is necessary for men to have belief in, access to and cooperation with Sanctifying Grace to be virtuous and to grow in holiness in this life as members of the Catholic Church so as to enjoy eternal glory after death.

The Catholic Church teaches us that the only just purpose of governance is to pursue the common temporal good in light of man’s Last End, which is the possession of the glory of the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost for all eternity in Heaven.

Here is a reminder of this teaching in the event that there are readers who are new to this site:

That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man's eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man's supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it. The same thesis also upsets the order providentially established by God in the world, which demands a harmonious agreement between the two societies. Both of them, the civil and the religious society, although each exercises in its own sphere its authority over them. It follows necessarily that there are many things belonging to them in common in which both societies must have relations with one another. Remove the agreement between Church and State, and the result will be that from these common matters will spring the seeds of disputes which will become acute on both sides; it will become more difficult to see where the truth lies, and great confusion is certain to arise. Finally, this thesis inflicts great injury on society itself, for it cannot either prosper or last long when due place is not left for religion, which is the supreme rule and the sovereign mistress in all questions touching the rights and the duties of men. Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State. (Pope Saint Pius X, Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906. By the way, one of the correlative proofs of how the conciliar "popes" have defected from the Catholic Faith is that they have done what our true Roman Pontiffs have never ceased to do, to "refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State. To refresh your memories on this point, please see Mocking Pope Saint Pius X and Our Lady of Fatima.)

The men and women who rule us are governed by sin. Their passions go unchecked. Their lust for power and personal vindication nurses and feeds upon every injustice, whether real or imagined, that they must suffer in this passing, mortal vale of tears.

It was as the Primate of Venice that Giuseppe Melchiorre Cardinal Sarto explained what happens when the passions of men run amok and then seek government assistance to solve their every problem:


In August 1896 in Padua, the second Congress of the Catholic Union for Social Studies took place. We have already seen that this organization had been created seven years before by Professor Giuseppe Toniolo, in the presence of the Bishop of Mantua [Giuseppe Melchiorre Sarto]. This time, eight bishops were present and several directors of the Opera del Congressi took part. All the eminent representatives of the Italian Catholic Movement were present (Medolago Pagnuzzi, Alessi and others). Cardinal Sarto's address attracted considerable notice. Faced with "ardent enemies" (unbelief and revolution) "...menacing and trying to destroy the social fabric," the Patriarch of Venice invited the participants to make Jesus Christ the foundation of the their work: "the only peace treaty is the Gospel." He warned them against what is now called the "welfare state," the state which provides everything and provides all socialization: "substituting public almsgiving for private almsgiving involves the complete destruction of Christianity and it is a terrible attack on the principle of ownership. Christianity cannot exist without charity, and the difference between charity and justice is that justice may have recourse to laws and even to force, depending on the circumstances, whereas charity can only be imposed by the tribunal of God and of conscience." If public assistance and the redistribution of wealth are institutionalized, "poverty becomes a function, a way of life, a public trade..." (Yves Chiron, Saint Pius X: Restorer of the Church. Translated by Graham Harrison. Angelus Press, 2002, p. 100)

Even though it is, quite admittedly, good to see the schemes of those have plotted and are still plotting to question the legitimacy of Donald John Trump’s presidency and have sought to undermine from its outset expose, it is nevertheless true that the agitation of these times is simply a distraction from the adversary so that we will forget these words of Silvio “Cardinal” Antoniano and Pope Saint Pius X:

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.)

Here we have, founded by Catholics, an inter-denominational association that is to work for the reform of civilization, an undertaking which is above all religious in character; for there is no true civilization without a moral civilization, and no true moral civilization without the true religion: it is a proven truth, a historical fact. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

No, Venerable Brethren, We must repeat with the utmost energy in these times of social and intellectual anarchy when everyone takes it upon himself to teach as a teacher and lawmaker - the City cannot be built otherwise than as God has built it; society cannot be setup unless the Church lays the foundations and supervises the work; no, civilization is not something yet to be found, nor is the New City to be built on hazy notions; it has been in existence and still is: it is Christian civilization, it is the Catholic City. It has only to be set up and restored continually against the unremitting attacks of insane dreamers, rebels and miscreants. omnia instaurare in Christo. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

Those who live lives in rebellion against the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law cannot help but let their sins influence their decisions in public life. Innocent blood must flow as a result. Other innocent human beings must be forced to pay dearly in terms of having large portions of their income confiscated by means of Federal, state and local taxes. Statism must increase while legitimate human liberties decrease. Those who believe that some brand of "conservatism" will win the day are sadly mistaken. Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order.

Indeed, how does anyone expect to combat the insanity of the lords of Modernity when the men whom most believe are officials of the Catholic Church are themselves insane?

The rise of the monster civil state of Modernity uses whatever crisis of the moment to provide statists of the false opposite of the naturalist "left" and the false opposite of the naturalist "right" further excuses to increase the size and the scope of the power of all levels of government (Federal, state, local). Only a handful of people recognize every personal and social problem we face is the result of Original Sin and our own Actual Sins, and that all of the problems we are experiencing are just a down payment on what the "developed" world owes to God for its promotion of the very thing--sin--that caused Him to suffer in His Sacred Humanity during His Passion and Death and caused His Most Blessed Mother's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart to be pierced through and through with Seven Swords of Sorrow.

This is a time of suffering, my friends, suffering, and we must suffer as bravely as our martyrs have done in the past.

No, we must not fear the caesars of the moment. And we must not fear the lords of Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism who do not believe that it is opportune to spit and revile the images of false religions, each of which they praise as worthy in and of themselves because to do otherwise would be to offend he sensibilities of their adherents, and who have embraced the statism of their counterparts in the world of Modernity with exceptional enthusiasm and zeal.

Indeed, we have nothing to fear at all save dying in a state of Mortal Sin, a state of final impenitence.

Although it may yet be a few years in offing, the time is coming soon when those who oppose the schemes our statists, whether they be of false opposites of the naturalist "right" or of the naturalist "left," will be faced with an abjuration of their "sins" against the "government." Those who are Catholics and who compound their "sins" against the government by opposing moral evils will be faced with an abjuration of the Holy Faith.

Remember, faithful Catholics are as much under siege in private sector employment as they are in public sector employment to keep quiet about the Holy Faith, which means that they cannot speak about It, cannot wear a Crucifix or other Miraculous Medals if these are visible externally and cannot speak in opposite to baby-killing or perversity. This is a white martyrdom, to be sure.

We must be willing to suffer all kinds of martyrdom with joy as even the death of one's career or reputation before others suffers because of one's adherence to the true Faith without making any compromises with the anti-Incarnational lies of Modernity or the heresies, apostasies, blasphemies and sacrileges of the conciliar revolutionaries, who are adherents of Modernism principally by means of the so-called "New Theology" that was condemned by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.

We must pray, however, that Catholics who remain faithful by means of the graces sent to them by Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces, will not sell out their fellow Catholics in the catacombs in order to demonstrate how superior they are to others and/or to is save their own lives as they seek to do away with those who have been "their enemies" or about whom they have harbored "suspicions" for one reason or another.

This has happened many times in the past, including in England during the Protestant Revolution there and in Japan during the period of the Japanese Martyrs between 1586 and 1634 and in the Soviet Union after the Bolshevik Revolution (and in Warsaw Pact nations during the Cold War) and in Red China and Cuba, among many other places. It even happened now and again in Mexico during the Cristeros War from 1926 to 1929. Despite the many differences that exist both within and among the multiplicity of warring camps across the vast expanse of the ecclesiastical divide at this time, we must pray never to do the bidding of the statists with respect to our fellow Catholics even if only by inadvertence.

It is enough us for, however, to think first, last and always about eternity, accepting whatever kind of suffering God has ordained for us with love, joy, serenity and total gratitude to Him for His generous in helping us erring sinners to make reparation for our sins and thus better save our souls despite our own best efforts, mine included, to go to Hell for all eternity.

May it please Christ the King to permit us to suffer the loss of our very lives for Him and for His Holy Church. We must have no fear. We must live in peace in these times that God has chosen for us to live and in which we must serve Him as His consecrated slaves through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of His Most Blessed Mother.

Devotion to Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary will help us to be better prepared for eternity and to bear with the crosses of the present time.

Yes, my friends, it is the Rosary that is, after Holy Mass and Eucharistic piety, the chief means by which the evils of the present day will be retarded and the seeds planted for the Triumph of Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart.

Instead of babbling on about one naturalistic "solution" after another in alleged "debates" over the issues of the day, we ought to be to be promoting Our Lady's Holy Rosary, which speaks more powerfully of our total reliance upon Christ the King and upon her, Our Immaculate Queen, than all of the meaningless verbiage that passes out like so much gas from the mouth and is typed into computers before it is then lost in the fogs of the minds of men.

Pope Leo XIII, writing in Laetitiae Sanctae, September 8, 1893, noted:

The third evil for which a remedy is needed is one which is chiefly characteristic of the times in which we live. Men in former ages, although they loved the world, and loved it far too well, did not usually aggravate their sinful attachment to the things of earth by a contempt of the things of heaven. Even the right-thinking portion of the pagan world recognized that this life was not a home but a dwelling-place, not our destination, but a stage in the journey. But men of our day, albeit they have had the advantages of Christian instruction, pursue the false goods of this world in such wise that the thought of their true Fatherland of enduring happiness is not only set aside, but, to their shame be it said, banished and entirely erased from their memory, notwithstanding the warning of St. Paul, "We have not here a lasting city, but we seek one which is to come" (Heb. xiii., 4).

When We seek out the causes of this forgetfulness, We are met in the first place by the fact that many allow themselves to believe that the thought of a future life goes in some way to sap the love of our country, and thus militates against the prosperity of the commonwealth. No illusion could be more foolish or hateful. Our future hope is not of a kind which so monopolizes the minds of men as to withdraw their attention from the interests of this life. Christ commands us, it is true, to seek the Kingdom of God, and in the first place, but not in such a manner as to neglect all things else. For, the use of the goods of the present life, and the righteous enjoyment which they furnish, may serve both to strengthen virtue and to reward it. The splendor and beauty of our earthly habitation, by which human society is ennobled, may mirror the splendor and beauty of our dwelling which is above. Therein we see nothing that is not worthy of the reason of man and of the wisdom of God. For the same God who is the Author of Nature is the Author of Grace, and He willed not that one should collide or conflict with the other, but that they should act in friendly alliance, so that under the leadership of both we may the more easily arrive at that immortal happiness for which we mortal men were created.

But men of carnal mind, who love nothing but themselves, allow their thoughts to grovel upon things of earth until they are unable to lift them to that which is higher. For, far from using the goods of time as a help towards securing those which are eternal, they lose sight altogether of the world which is to come, and sink to the lowest depths of degradation. We may doubt if God could inflict upon man a more terrible punishment than to allow him to waste his whole life in the pursuit of earthly pleasures, and in forgetfulness of the happiness which alone lasts for ever.

It is from this danger that they will be happily rescued, who, in the pious practice of the Rosary, are wont, by frequent and fervent prayer, to keep before their minds the glorious mysteries. These mysteries are the means by which in the soul of a Christian a most clear light is shed upon the good things, hidden to sense, but visible to faith, "which God has prepared for those who love Him." From them we learn that death is not an annihilation which ends all things, but merely a migration and passage from life to life. By them we are taught that the path to Heaven lies open to all men, and as we behold Christ ascending thither, we recall the sweet words of His promise, "I go to prepare a place for you." By them we are reminded that a time will come when "God will wipe away every tear from our eyes," and that "neither mourning, nor crying, nor sorrow, shall be any more," and that "We shall be always with the Lord," and "like to the Lord, for we shall see Him as He is," and "drink of the torrent of His delight," as "fellow-citizens of the saints," in the blessed companionship of our glorious Queen and Mother. Dwelling upon such a prospect, our hearts are kindled with desire, and we exclaim, in the words of a great saint, "How vile grows the earth when I look up to heaven!" Then, too, shall we feel the solace of the assurance "that which is at present momentary and light of our tribulation worketh for us above measure exceedingly an eternal weight of glory" (2 Cor. iv., 17).

Here alone we discover the true relation between time and eternity, between our life on earth and our life in heaven; and it is thus alone that are formed strong and noble characters. When such characters can be counted in large numbers, the dignity and well-being of society are assured. All that is beautiful, good, and true will flourish in the measure of its conformity to Him who is of all beauty, goodness, and truth the first Principle and the Eternal Source. (Pope Leo XIII, Laetitiae Sanctae, September 8, 1893.) 

I will never tire of reminding the readers of this site that Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order.

I will never tire of opposing the lies of naturalism and of documenting the various ways in which the naturalists of the false opposites of the "right" and of the "left" agree on the same basic anti-Incarnational and semi-Pelagian principles upon which the Modern state is based and with which conciliar revolutionaries have made their "official reconciliation" and even help to propagate by means of the "new evangelization," which is why the lords of Modernity and those of Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism are partners in lies and lawlessness.

And I will never tire of reminding readers of this site that we must, as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, use the shield of the Brown Scapular and the weapon of the Most Holy Rosary to combat the forces of the world, the flesh and the devil in our own lives so that we might be able to plant a few seeds for the glorious day when all men and all women everywhere will exclaim:

Viva Cristo ReyVivat 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 Anselm, pray for us.

Appendix A

Reviewing A Partial Record of the "Morally Fit" Clintons

1. Bill and Hillary Clinton lied in 1992 about Gennifer Flowers. Mrs. Clinton called Flowers's accusations against her husband to be nothing other than "trash for cash," although her husband admitted in their famous 60 Minutes interview with Ed Bradley that he had caused "pain" in their marriage. Hillary Clinton did this repeatedly throughout the White House years, thereby demonstrating that she, the "woman of change," would crush any woman who had been used and/or abused by her husband in order to have her own chance to serve as President of the United States of America.

2. Travelgate and Vince Foster.

3. Filegate.

4. Whitewatergate.

5. Billing records-gate. Does anyone not believe that Mrs. Clinton did not leave the billing records from the Rose Law Firm in the White House reading room?

6. Monicagate, which resulted ultimately in Bill Clinton's copping that plea agreement with Independent Counsel Robert Ray on January 19, 2001, just before he left office. It should also be noted that the Clintons were ruthless in attempting to destroy the reputation of anyone and everyone who sought to criticize them or to investigate them, making Richard Nixon's "Plumbers' Unit" seem like a band of amateurs. Take a look at a very partial list of some of the names of Clinton "enemies" who were "exposed" as having their own personal problems during the midst of Monicagate: United States Representatives Bob Barr, Henry Hyde, Dan Burton, and Bob Livingston. Ah, yes, the compassionate Clintons? Just don't get in their way. They take no prisoners.

7. Serbiagate: the bombardment of the Serbs to favor the Kosovo Mohammedans in the former Yugoslavia, a bombardment that Clinton directed despite the fact that he had no authorization from the Congress of the United States of America to do so. Thousands of innocent Serbians were killed as a result of the bombing, conducted under the auspices of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (N.A.T.O.)

8. Chinagate. How many nefarious arms merchants and drug dealers and other low life figures slept in the Lincoln Bedroom of the White House and/or had "coffees" with the Clintons in the 1996 election cycle?

Perhaps it is good to revisit a few details of Chinagate as there have been so many Clinton and Obama scandals in the past nineteen years that most of them tend to blur one into the other.

Even though President Richard Nixon authorized all manner of criminality in the misguided effort to protect national security, Bill Clinton, aided by his wife, engaged in illegal campaign fund-raising in 1996 by inviting Red Chinese arms merchants, among others, to the White House for "sleep overs" and coffees" in order to help him get reelected while at the same time realizing his policy of "leveling" the playing field internationally in a "global" world. Translation: weakening the defense, sovereignty and legitimate national security of a sovereign nation, the United States of America.

Consider this May 27, 2003, Newsmax.com article on the matter:

China will likely replace the USA as world leader, said Bill Clinton in a recent Washington Post interview. It is just a matter of time. Clinton should know. He has personally done more to build China’s military strength than any man on earth.

Most Americans have heard of the so-called "Chinagate" scandal. Few understand its deadly import, however. Web sites such as "Chinagate for Dummies" and its companion "More Chinagate for Dummies" offer some assistance.

Unfortunately, with a combined total of nearly 8,000 words, these two sites – like so many others of the genre – offer more detail than most of us "dummies" can absorb.

For that reason, in the 600 words left in this column, I will try to craft my own "Idiot’s Guide to Chinagate," dedicated to all those busy folks like you and me whose attention span tends to peter out after about 750 words.

Here goes.

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, China presented no threat to the United States. Chinese missiles "couldn’t hit the side of a barn," notes Timothy W. Maier of Insight magazine. Few could reach North America and those that made it would likely miss their targets.

Thanks to Bill Clinton, China can now hit any city in the USA, using state-of-the-art solid-fueled missiles with dead-accurate, computerized guidance systems and multiple warheads.

China probably has suitcase nukes as well. These enable China to strike by proxy – equipping nuclear-armed terrorists to do its dirty work while the Chinese play innocent. Some intelligence sources claim that China maintains secret stockpiles of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons on U.S. soil, for just such contingencies.

In 1997, Clinton allowed China to take over the Panama Canal. The Chinese company Hutchison Whampoa leased the ports of Cristobal and Balboa, on the east and west openings of the canal, respectively, thus controlling access both ways.

A public outcry stopped Clinton in 1998 from leasing California's Long Beach Naval Yard to the Chinese firm COSCO. Even so, China can now strike U.S. targets easily from its bases in Panama, Vancouver and the Bahamas.

How did the Chinese catch up so fast? Easy. We sold them all the technology they needed – or handed it over for free. Neither neglect nor carelessness is to blame. Bill Clinton did it on purpose.

As a globalist, Clinton promotes "multipolarity" – the doctrine that no country (such as the USA) should be allowed to gain decisive advantage over others.

To this end, Clinton appointed anti-nuclear activist Hazel O'Leary to head the Department of Energy. O'Leary set to work "leveling the playing field," as she put it, by giving away our nuclear secrets. She declassified 11 million pages of data on U.S. nuclear weapons and loosened up security at weapons labs.

Federal investigators later concluded that China made off with the "crown jewels" of our nuclear weapons research under Clinton’s open-door policy – probably including design specifications for suitcase nukes.

Meanwhile, Clinton and his corporate cronies raked in millions.

In his book "The China Threat," Washington Times correspondent Bill Gertz describes how the system worked.

Defense contractors eager to sell technology to China poured millions of dollars into Clinton's campaign. In return, Clinton called off the dogs.

Janet Reno and other counterintelligence officials stood down while Lockheed Martin, Hughes Electronics, Loral Space & Communications and other U.S. companies helped China modernize its nuclear strike force.

"We like your president. We want to see him re-elected," former Chinese intelligence chief Gen. Ji Shengde told Chinagate bagman Johnny Chung.

Indeed, Chinese intelligence organized a massive covert operation aimed at tilting the 1996 election Clinton's way.

Clinton's top campaign contributors for 1992 were Chinese agents; his top donors in 1996 were U.S. defense contractors selling missile technology to China.

Clinton received funding directly from known or suspected Chinese intelligence agents, among them James and Mochtar Riady, who own the Indonesian Lippo Group; John Huang; Charlie Trie; Ted Sioeng; Maria Hsia; Wang Jun and others.

Commerce Secretary Ron Brown served as Clinton's front man in many Chinagate deals. When investigators began probing Brown's Lippo Group and Chinagate connections, Brown died suddenly in a suspicious April 1996 plane crash.

Needless to say, China does not share Clinton's enthusiasm for globalism or multipolarity. The Chinese look out for No. 1.

"War [with the United States] is inevitable; we cannot avoid it," said Chinese Defense Minister Gen. Chi Haotian in 2000. "The issue is that the Chinese armed forces must control the initiative in this war."

Bill Clinton has given them a good start. (Richard Poe, The Idiot's Guide to Chinagate.)

9. Bill Clinton claimed in 1995 that Congressional Republicans wanted to "cut spending" on various domestic entitlement programs, deliberately misrepresenting the truth that his hapless adversaries, whom he could not have conjured up more perfectly than if he had asked Barbara Eden of I Dream of Jeannie to have done so for him ("Jeannie, I want a group of opponents who will be so hapless and so spineless that they will surrender to me the moment I begin to lie about them:"), wanted to cut the projected rate of growth in Federal spending on such programs. Actual spending was going to increase no matter whose budget program, Clinton's or the Republicans', wound up being enacted. Clinton represented the Republican plan as a "cut" in actual spending when it was simply a slower rate of increase in spending that the one he was proposing. In other words, Bill Clinton just out-and-out lied.

10.Bill Clinton said in a radio address on June 8, 1996, that "I have vivid and painful memories of black churches being burned in my own state when I was a child." No such burnings took place during his childhood.

11. Hillary Clinton has claimed that her parents named her after the man who conquered Mount Everest on May 29, 1953, the late Edmund Hillary. Mrs. Clinton's parents were quite prophetic. She was born on October 26, 1947.

The story is always the same for the Clintons. Always. They are the 1990s show that never ends. Never. And ya know what? Despite all of the recent news stories about the former Secretary of State's private server and having retained classified intelligence on it, she is still the favorite to win the presidential nomination of the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist "left" this year [2016]. What a country. [2018 note: Thanks to the "blue states" on the East and West Coasts and Illinois in the Midwest, Madame Defarge won the national popular vote.]

The saddest part of all, of course, is that the Clintons are both adamant supporters of the unrestricted chemical assassination of the innocent preborn and have served as complete apologists for the baby-killing industry for a very long time now.

Although many believe that the current administration of President Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro and Vice President Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., has been the most pro-abortion regime in the history of the United States of America, It is important to remember once again that some of the very first things that William Jefferson Blythe Clinton did as President of the United States of America on January 22, 1993, was to sign Executive Orders permitting the testing of RU-486, the human pesticide, which Federal testing prompted, according to a report in The New York Times in the summer of 1995, some women to get pregnant deliberately in order to kill their babies with the French abortion pill, and permitting the Federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research, something that was supported at the time by Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., who would run against Clinton in 1996, and by one John Sidney McCain III.

It was President Bill Clinton who signed the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Bill into law, and who authorized then Attorney General Janet "See No Chinagate Evil" Reno, a pro-abortion Catholic, to use a special Federal Bureau of Investigation VAAPCON "task force" to intimidate a woman in Toledo, Ohio, in 1995 into never writing again to a baby-killing to whom she had written a letter stating that she, the letter-writer, was praying for her conversion. Oh please, they don't come more pro-abortion--or more fascistically pro-abortion--than Bill Clinton.

Want more facts?

Why not?

President Bill Clinton also lied repeatedly about the number of babies killed by means of crushed skull abortion (partial-birth abortion), stating in 1995 when he vetoed, for the first time, the conditional, partial ban on this form of killing innocent babies that "only" around 1,500 babies a year were killed by this method. The Record of Hackensack, New Jersey, to its credit, reported at the time that an abortuary in northern New Jersey killed at least that number every year by means of the procedure known medically as "intact dilation and extraction."

Want even more facts?

All right.

Here come just a few more.

Who did William Jefferson Blythe Clinton put on the Supreme Court of the United States of America?

Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, both of whom were committed pro-aborts.

William Jefferson Blythe Clinton's Cabinet included pro-abortion Catholics such as the aforementioned Attorney General Janet Reno and Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala and each of his two Secretaries of Housing and Urban Development, former Mayor of San Antonio, Texas, Henry Cisneros and the future Governor of the State of New York, Andrew Mark Cuomo, and Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson, who served as the Governor of New Mexico from January 1, 2003, to January 1, 2011. The pro-abortion Catholic from Carmel Valley, California, Leon Panetta, served as Clinton’s Director of the Office of Management and the Budget from January 21, 1993, to July 17, 1994, the date on which he became White House Chief of Staff, a position he held until the end of Clinton’s first term on January 20, 1997. Panetta, by the way, just happened to have served as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and as Secretary of Defense in the current administration, and he was praised upon his retirement in 2013 by a “pope” who did not believe that support for baby-killing was a disqualification for the holding of public office, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI.

Furthermore, of course, each of William Jefferson Blythe Clinton's two Secretaries of State, the dour Warren Christopher and the feminist Madeline Albright, used the State Department as a vehicle to promote "international family planning," including efforts to convince formerly Catholic nations in Latin America that did not permit surgical baby-killing on demand in most instance to "change" their laws to reflect a "respect" for "women's reproductive freedom rights."

Moreover, the scions of Modernity have been in the forefront of pushing the sin of Sodom, something that has become much easier for them to now since Jorge Mario Bergoglio uttered those five little words—“Who am I to judge”—on July 29, 2013, while giving one of his endless interviews when flying back from the travesty that was “World Youth Day” in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The likes of Obama and Biden and Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton know that they will face no opposition from what they think is the Catholic Church.

The gates of Hell have been let loose, and Madame Clinton’s recklessly self-centered disregard for the protection of American national security and classified intelligence information pales into insignificance when one considers the guilt she bears for her many years of supporting the willful murder of the innocent preborn, including her recent unqualified defense of Planned Barrenhood’s Aztec-like savagery, and her full-throated embrace of the agenda of what Mrs. Randy Engel rightly calls the homosexual collective.

These are the real scandals of Modernity, of which the Clintons and Obama and Biden, et al. are prime exemplars. How sad it is that what will decide the 2016 election will be what decides the state of almost every presidential election in the United States of America: the money, the money, the money, the money, and the money. Unlike the Clintons and Obama/Soetoro, who are guided by statism and a committment to the obliteration of national borders as every manner of moral perversity is protected under the cover of the civil law, Donald John Trump has no true core principles.  And although he might prevail on November 8, 2016, those who think that the coming election will be a "landslide" for Trump, the fact that remains that between two-fifths and one-half of Americans support statism and the decadence that it has helped to engender, protect, and promote. 

[2018 note: Perhaps some reader could send this list about the "morally fit" Clintons to James Brien Comey.

Appendix B

On the Feast of Saint Anselm

From the Divine Office 

Anselm was born of noble and Catholic parents, named Gundulph and Hermenberga, at Aosta, in Piedmont, about the year of our Lord 1033. From his tenderest years his diligence in study, and his aspirations to a more perfect state of life, gave no indistinct foreshadowing of the holiness and learning to which he afterwards attained. The heat of youth drew him for a while into the snares of the world, but he soon returned to his first courses, and, forsaking his country and his goods, betook himself in 1060. to the monastery of Bee, under the rule of St. Benedict. There he made his profession as a monk, and under the rigid discipline of Herluin, the Abbot, and the learned instruction of the profound Lanfranc, with great zeal of spirit and eager obedience to the Rule, he made such progress in learning and godliness, that he shone before all others as an example of holiness of life, and power of doctrine.

Certification and purity were his marked characteristics, and by constant fasting all taste for food seemed to have died in him. He spent the day in the monastic work, in teaching, and in answering hard questions upon religion, and he took away from sleep during what remained to him of the night, that he might refresh his soul by thoughts of God, wherein he was alway comforted by an unceasing flow of tears. When he was chosen Prior of the monastery, he so won over, by his charity, lowliness, and wisdom, some brethren who looked ill upon him, that from enviers, as he had found them, he turned them into lovers of God and of himself likewise, with exceeding gain to the strictness of observance in that Abbey. After the death of the Abbot, in 1078, Anselm, though against his own will, was chosen to succeed him. In this high place the light of his learning and holiness so shone all round about, that he was reverenced not only by Kings and Bishops, but was taken up by the holy Pope Gregory VII., who, amid the great persecutions which were then trying him, wrote with words of great love to Anselm to recommend himself and the Catholic Church to his prayers.


After the death of Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury, in 1089, Anselm, whose teacher Lanfranc had formerly been, was driven by William II., King of England, supported by the entreaties of the clergy and people, though sorely against his own wishes to take upon him the government of that Church. Raised to that See upon the 4th day of December, in the year 1093, he straightway set himself to reform the corrupt manners of the people, and, first by his word and example, and then by his writings and the Councils which he held, succeeded in restoring the ancient godliness and discipline of the Church. But when the aforesaid King William tried by force and threats to seize on the rights of the Church, Anselm withstood him as beseemed a Priest, and after that he had suffered the plundering of all his goods and been sent into banishment, he betook himself to Rome to Urban II. There he was received with great worship, and won high praise for that in the Council of Bari, in 1098, he maintained by countless proofs from Scripture and the holy Fathers, against the error of the Greeks, that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Son also. When William lived no more, his brother Henry I., King of England, in the year 1100, called back Anselm thither, and there he fell asleep in the Lord, upon the 21st day of April,1109. His is a name illustrious not for miracles only, nor for holiness, and indeed he had a wondrous love for his Lord Who had suffered for him, and for the blessed Maiden Mother of the Same our Lord, but also for the deep learning which he used for the defence of the Christian Religion and the good of souls. That wonderful knowledge of theology which he had, and which is shown in all the books which he wrote, seemeth to have been given him from heaven for the teaching of all writers on the same subject, who have used what is called the Scholastic method. (Matins, The Divine Office, Feast of Saint Anselm.)