Naturally Absurd, part six: Welcome to East Germany

Although this website is forever consigned to being almost completely unknown to all but a relative handful of those who need no further convincing about the state of the Church Militant in this time of apostasy and betrayal and who understand the state of the world clearly as they see it through the eyes of the true Faith and thus do not live in states of constant agitation about this or that development, I continue this work because there might be someone, whether now or in the future,  who is not yet convinced that the See of Peter has been vacant since the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958, and/or who still thinks that the battles that take place in Congress actually solve various issues. Additionally, there might be a few regular or semi-regular readers who do permit themselves to get wrapped up in and worked up about the news of the day who need a reminder about the futility of expecting anything that “we are going to get somewhere” if a nefarious piece of legislation is blocked and/or if a supposedly “good” piece of legislation is passed and signed into law.

Thus, this particular commentary is an attempt to provide those who are interested with a perspective on several current issues in the hope that those who agitated at present will simply trust in Our Lord and His Most Blessed Mother more firmly than ever before.

Stipulating Key Points That Have Been Made a Gazillion Times Before: First Principles First

As both the entirety of my long-lost career as a college professor of political science and my writing career have been devoted to the discussion of root causes, it is important for present purposes to put the current issues that are causing such agitation in their proper perspective.

A nation founded on principles that admit of no higher law other than the falsehood of the “sovereignty of man” will be reduced to a pile of rubble under the weight of errors that lead men into becoming rebels whose only god is their belly and whose glory is their shame.

The remote cause for all human problems, both personal and social, is Original Sin. The proximate cause of human problems, both personal and social, is Actual Sin. Human beings are wounded by Original Sin. Those of us who are baptized suffer from the vestigial after-effects of Original Sin (the darkened intellect, the weakened will, a disordering of the balance between our higher rational faculties and lower sensual passions). Those who are unbaptized suffer all of the ravages of Original Sin in their immortal souls that are captive to the devil and his minions. There is no legal, political, constitutional, electoral, interdenominational, nondenominational, secular, philosophical, ideological, naturalistic way to solve problems that are caused by the sin of Adam and the sins of us all.

Thus, as most Catholics alive today are very susceptible to be drawn into the agitation of the moment, it is important to reiterate several key points before entering into a discussion of some of the ways in which the United States of America is suffering from the logical, inevitable and inexorable consequences of the false, naturalistic, Calvinist/Judeo-Masonic and Pelagian principles.

First, we do not organize nations around the false principles of Protestantism and the naturalism of Judeo-Masonry.

Second, we do not restore "order" in nations by the false principles of Protestantism and Judeo-Masonic naturalism.

Third, Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order.

Fourth, the Modern civil state was born of Martin Luther's diabolical revolution against the Divine Plan that God Himself instituted to effect man's return to Him through His Catholic Church, which is why Protestantism has not been, is not now nor can ever be any kind of means of personal sanctification or salvation, no less a foundation of true social order.

To wit, the hideous lecher, drunk and theological revolutionary, Father Martin Luther, O.S.A., rejected these truths because he could not live in accord with the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law an the Natural Law, preferring a life of wanton sin and debauchery to a simple cooperation with the graces won for us on the wood of the Holy Cross by Our King, Christ the King, on Good Friday and that flow into the hearts of souls of human beings through the loving hands of Our Lady, Mary our Immaculate Queen, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces. Martin Luther projected his own abject refusal to reform his life onto the entirety of the Catholic Faith, refusing to accept the fact that he was solely responsible for his wanton life of sin and debauchery and for refusing to undertake the hard work to root out his sins in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance to scale the heights of personal sanctity.

To reaffirm himself in his life of sin, therefore, Martin Luther, the revolutionary tool of the devil, had to invent an entire theology designed to make it appear as though it was not necessary for man to humble himself before the true God of Divine Revelation by reforming one's life in cooperation with Sanctifying Grace, by undertaking penances to make reparation for one's sins, by being willing at all times and in all places to subordinate one's mind and will to that of the Divine Redeemer, Christ the King, in all that pertains to the good of his immortal soul.

Martin Luther thus dispensed with the truth that Christ the King established a visible, hierarchical community that is the Catholic Church.

Martin Luther thus dispensed with Sacred (or Apostolic) Tradition as one of the two sources of Divine Revelation.

Martin Luther thus helped to deify man by making him the sole interpreter of Sacred Scripture, meaning that men could come to mutually contradictory conclusions concerning the meaning of what was contained in Holy Writ, thus making a mockery of the work of God the Holy Ghost, Who inspired the writing of Sacred Scripture and Who has always guided the Catholic Church with the charism of infallibility as she has pronounced what books are indeed inspired (and thus part of the Bible) and the meaning of various passages.

Martin Luther's radical egalitarianism had to dispense with the concept of the Social Reign of Christ the King as there could be no visible, external check on the abuse of governmental authority if Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ did not establish His Holy Catholic Church as a visible, hierarchical community with the authority to intervene with civil officials as a last resort after discharging her Indirect Power of teaching, preaching and exhortation when the good of souls demands her motherly intervention. This is why some princes of German states gave the hideous, lecherous drunk Martin Luther their protection. They wanted to be free to govern in a purely Machiavellian manner without the "interference" of the Sovereign Pontiff in Rome or his duly appointed bishops.

Martin Luther told us in his own words that there must be a "separation of Church and State," that leaders may be Christians but it is not as Christians that they are to rule: 

"Assuredly," said Luther, "a prince can be a Christian, but it is not as a Christian that he ought to govern. As a ruler, he is not called a Christian, but a prince. The man is Christian, but his function does not concern his religion."  (as quoted in Father Denis Fahey in The Mystical City of Christ in the Modern World.)

Martin Luther is thus the one who thus set the world on a course of the utter madness in which we find ourselves at the present time, a world in which most Catholics froth at the mouth when they hear that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is meant to reign as the King of both men and their nations.

Luther's endorsement of "separation of Church and State" that Pope Saint Pius X termed a "thesis absolutely false" in Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906, made possible the rise of and the ultimate triumph of the anti-Incarnational civil state of Modernity.

Fifth, the modern world is thus based on lies and, as a consequence, it must produce liars who lie all the time.

Indeed, Mrs. Randy Engel, whose spirited defense of right principles concerning the inviolability of all innocent human life—including her unwavering opposition to “natural family planning,” “brain death”/vital organ vivisection, starvation and dehydration of patients said to be brain damaged and “palliative care”/hospice—and whose courageous exposes of the clerical criminals and of the nefarious Opus Dei have helped so many thousands upon thousands of souls, has explained how a galaxy of nefarious forces, each of which have been shaped by the lies of Modernity, turned governmental lying into a science during World War I and thereafter:

The danger of government lies, and the implications of official deception of whole peoples and nations, could not be more relevant than it is today when our God given natural rights and our Constitutional freedoms are systematically being ground into the dust under the guise of protecting the “public health” from Covid-19. 

In his 1928 classic Propaganda, Sigmund Freud’s nephew, Edward L. Bernays [1] explains approvingly of how governments, powerful corporations, and foundations are capable of manipulating and regimenting the public mind in all areas of life including war, politics, business, education, and medical science.

According to Professor Mark Crispin Miller,[2] who wrote a new introduction to the Bernays masterpiece in 2004:

“Bernays (1891-1995) pioneered the scientific techniques of shaping and manipulating public opinion, which is called ‘engineering of consent.’ During World War I, he was an integral part – along with Walter Lippmann – of the U.S. Committee on Public Information (CPI), a powerful propaganda machine that advertised and sold the war to the American people as one that would ‘Make the World Safe for Democracy.’ The marketing strategies for all future wars would be based on the CPI model.”[3]   

The Existence of an Invisible Government

Writing in the 1920s, Bernays, an Austrian-American Jew, “the father of public relations,” gleefully acknowledged the reality of “invisible governors,” who rule the world and bring organization out of chaos to society:[4]

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. 

We are governed, our minds molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. …

Our invisible governors are, in many cases, unaware of the identity of their fellow members in the inner cabinet. 

They govern us by their qualities of natural leadership. Their ability to supply needed ideas, and by their key position in the social structure. …[5]

Of course, the most important factor Bernays initially leaves out is MONEY. After all, today’s contenders for domination in the New World Order – like Bill Gates or George Soros or Mark Zuckerberg – would be just another Tom, Dick, or Harry without their billions.

Later, however, Bernays does admit that “the invisible government tends to be concentrated in the hands of the few because of the expense of manipulating the social machinery which controls the opinions and habits of the masses.”[6]

WWI Created New Propaganda Techniques 

Bernays claims that: 

It was, of course, the astounding success of propaganda during the war that opened the eyes of the intelligent few in all departments of life to the possibilities of regimenting the public mind. The American government and numerous patriotic agencies developed a technique which, to most persons accustomed to bidding for public acceptance, was new. They not only appealed to the individual by means of every approach – visual, graphic, and auditory – to support the national endeavor, but they also secured the cooperation of the key men in every group – persons whose mere word carried authority to hundreds or thousands or hundreds of thousands of followers. They thus automatically gained the support of fraternal, religious, commercial, patriotic, social, and local groups whose members took their opinions from their accustomed leaders and spokesmen, or from the periodical publications which they were accustomed to read and believe. At the same time, the manipulators of patriotic opinion made use of the mental clichés and the emotional habits of the public to produce mass reactions against the alleged atrocities, the terror, and the tyranny of the enemy. IT WAS ONLY NATURAL, AFTER THE WAR ENDED, THAT INTELLIGENT PERSONS SHOULD ASK THEMSELVES WHETHER IT WAS POSSIBLE TO APPLY A SIMILAR TECHNIQUE TO THE PROBLEMS OF PEACE (emphasis added).[7]

Interestingly, Bernays states that the new dictatorship is not limited to government matters but embraces dictators in all fields of life including that of fashion. For example, he notes that Paris fashion leaders set the mode of the short skirt [worn by bob-haired flappers] for which, twenty years ago, any woman would simply be arrested and thrown into jail by the New York City police, and the entire women’s clothing industry, capitalized at hundreds of millions of dollars, must be reorganized to conform to their dictum.[8] (Mrs. Randy Engel, Covid-19 and the Art of Brainwashing – Part I | AKA Catholic. Mrs. Engel has also published Covid-19 and the Art of Brainwashing – Part II, which contains a truly engrossing history of the propaganda involved in the marketing of polio vaccines from the 1930s to the 1950s.)

Mrs. Engel’s point, which will be elaborated upon and documented thoroughly in part two of her current series, is that the entire fabric of what I call the CCP/China/Chinese/Wuhan/Covid-19/Coronavirus plandemic is sewn together using propaganda designed to instill hysteria into the hearts of the masses to make them malleable to the statists’ plans for their dehumanization and enslavement to whatever whim suits their utilitarian fancies. Although I have discussed this in the twelve-part “Sin: More Deadly Than the Coronavirus” series and in Revised and Expanded: Do Not Be Agitated by the Fearmongers: Pray to Our Lady to See the World Clearly Through the Supernatural Eyes of the True Faith recently, the background provided by Mrs. Engel is crucial to understand as the entirety of Modernity is based upon lies spun by the adversary himself and the human minions who, whether wittingly or unwittingly, seek to create chaos to make themselves masters of the universe.

To wit, we should not be surprised that the administration of the criminally corrupt, morally decadent, profane, blaspheming and cognitively challenged apologist for statism/globalism/medical-technological authoritarianism and socialism named Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., lies all the time. Lying comes naturally to him because he has lied his entire life.

Consider the following:

Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., fighting to salvage his Presidential campaign, today acknowledged ''a mistake'' in his youth, when he plagiarized a law review article for a paper he wrote in his first year at law school.

Mr. Biden insisted, however, that he had done nothing ''malevolent,'' that he had simply misunderstood the need to cite sources carefully. And he asserted that another controversy, concerning recent reports of his using material from others' speeches without attribution, was ''much ado about nothing.''

Mr. Biden, the 44-year-old Delaware Democrat who heads the Senate Judiciary Committee, addressed these issues at the Capitol in a morning news conference he had called expressly for that purpose. The news conference was held just before he presided over the third day of hearings on the nomination of Judge Robert H. Bork to the Supreme Court.

To buttress his assertions of sincerity and openness, Mr. Biden released a 65-page file, obtained by the Senator from the Syracuse University College of Law, that he said contained all the records of his years there. It disclosed relatively poor grades in college and law school, mixed evaluations from teachers and details of the plagiarism. (Biden Admits Plagiarism in School But Says It Was Not 'Malevolent'; see also Joseph Biden's Plagiarism)

This revelation took place in September of 1987 after John Sasso, then the campaign manager for Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis's campaign to secure the 1988 presidential nomination of the Democratic Party, had aired an "attack video" that placed side-by-side, split-screen footage of speeches given by Neil Kinnock, the Trotskyite leader of the Labour Party in the United Kingdom, and the then Senator Biden on foreign policy that were identical. Kinnock was then the leader of the Labour Party, which was out of power in the United Kingdom from May 4, 1979, to May 2, 1997, at which point the party, then led by Tony Blair, defeated the Conservative (or Tory) Party in the general elections, ousting Margaret Thatcher's successor, John Major, as prime minister. Biden and Kinnock were soulmates on matters of foreign policy.

Why not steal Kinnock's speech?

After all, it was "much ado about nothing."

Well, despite Biden's willingness to let his fellow pro-abortion Catholic, Edward Moore Kennedy (D-Massachusetts), to his bidding for him by demonizing United States Judge of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Judge Robert Bork during the latter's confirmation hearings in 1987 to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, he had to fold up his presidential aspirations for 1988 soon after the plagiarism became known, following the departure of former United States Senator Gary Hart (D-South Dakota), whose "monkey business" forced him out of the race on May 8, 1987 (he reentered seven months later principally to become eligible for Federal matching funds to pay off his campaign debt). The gaffe-prone Biden thought that he could win that presidential nomination he so coveted if he only waited a little while, having to settle for the vice presidency under Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, a first-class demagogue in his own right, after in 2008 campaign fizzled out after receiving four percent of the vote in the Iowa caucuses on January 3, 2008.

The loose-mouthed, foul-mouthed (see When "Boys Will Be Boys" They Grow Up to Be Men Like Joe Biden) was a walking demagogue throughout the course of his eight years as the nation's forty-seventh vice president. It was in 2011 that Biden accused House Republicans associated with the loosely organized Taxed Enough Already movement (TEA Party) of being "terrorists" for seeking to achieve significant cuts in Federal spending in exchange for the raising of the national debt ceiling. True to his lying self, Biden denied that he used the word terrorism:

Vice President Joe Biden joined House Democrats in lashing tea party Republicans Monday, accusing them of having “acted like terrorists” in the fight over raising the nation’s debt limit, according to several sources in the room.

Biden was agreeing with a line of argument made by Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) at a two-hour, closed-door Democratic Caucus meeting.

“We have negotiated with terrorists,” an angry Doyle said, according to sources in the room. “This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.”

Biden, driven by his Democratic allies’ misgivings about the debt-limit deal, responded: “They have acted like terrorists.”

Biden’s office initially declined to comment about what the vice president said inside the closed-door session, but after POLITICO published the remarks, spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff said: “The word was used by several members of Congress. The vice president does not believe it’s an appropriate term in political discourse.”

Biden later denied he used that term in an interview with CBS.

“I did not use the terrorism word,” Biden told CBS Evening News anchor and managing editor Scott Pelley.

Earlier in the day, Biden told Senate Democrats that Republican leaders have “guns to their heads” in trying to negotiate deals. (Joe Biden likened tea partiers to terrorists.)

Biden lies.

Biden denies that he lies.

He has used this same pattern of demagoguery and deceit throughout his entire life, including his repeatedly blaming a deceased truck driver for the death of his first wife and infant daughter in a traffic accident in 1972 even though she was at fault and the driver was never ticketed by the police or charged with any crime:

The worst moment of Joseph R. Biden’s life — the 1972 car crash that killed his wife and baby daughter — has drawn renewed attention over a falsehood that the former vice president repeated for years: that the other driver was drunk.

From 2001-07, Mr. Biden indicated at least twice that the tractor-trailer driver who hit his wife’s car had been drinking, even though the state official who oversaw the investigation and the driver’s daughter said that wasn’t true.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Pamela Hamill, the daughter of driver Curtis C. Dunn, called on Mr. Biden to apologize publicly after he told a crowd that her father “drank his lunch” before the accident, according to a 2008 article in the Newark [Delaware] Post.

“A tractor-trailer, a guy who allegedly — and I never pursued it — drank his lunch instead of eating his lunch, broadsided my family and killed my wife instantly and killed my daughter instantly and hospitalized my two sons,” Mr. Biden said in 2007.

In a 2001 speech at the University of Delaware, he referred to an “errant driver who stopped to drink instead of drive” and “hit my children and my wife and killed them,” according to a 2008 report in NewsBusters, citing a 2001 “Inside Edition” report.

Mr. Biden apparently stopped making the claim after a burst of media attention.

In a January article in Politico, Ms. Hamill said that Mr. Biden called her to apologize following a 2009 CBS report on the discrepancy.

“He apologized for hurting my family in any way,” she said. “So we accepted that — and kind of end of story from there.”

Mr. Dunn, who died in 1999, hit the station wagon driven by 30-year-old Neilia Biden as she drove to buy a Christmas tree with the Bidens’ three young children: Beau, 4; Hunter, 3, and Naomi, 13 months.

The rig overturned as Mr. Dunn swerved to avoid the collision, but he “ran to the wrecked car and was the first to offer assistance,” the Post reported.

Now-retired Delaware Superior Court Judge Jerome O. Herlihy, who oversaw the investigation as chief deputy attorney general, told Politico, “She had a stop sign. The truck driver did not.

In 2008, he told the Post that rumors about alcohol playing a role in the accident were “incorrect.”

This is awful. Did you know for years @JoeBiden told people his wife and 13-month-old daughter were killed by a drunk driver, when in fact the accident was tragically her fault. The truck driver was haunted by the accident until he died. — Rosie memos (@almostjingo) October 16, 2019

Townhall’s Guy Benson called the vice president’s inaccurate references to drinking, which first appeared in 2001, “bizarre and disturbing.”

“The whole situation is sad enough, why embellish it with what amounts to be an unsupported smear of a man who — according to the authorities — was not drunk, did not cause the accident, and immediately sought to ‘render assistance’ to the victims?” asked Mr. Benson in a Thursday op-ed.

An extremely difficult and sensitive topic to cover.

Whoa: Did Joe Biden Falsely Smear the Truck Driver Involved in the Car Crash That Killed His First Wife and Daughter? — (@townhallcom) October 17, 2019

Joe Biden Lied for Years about the Car Accident that Claimed the Life of his Wife and Daughter — RedState (@RedState) October 17, 2019

Mr. Biden, a 2020 Democratic presidential primary front-runner, has been criticized for embellishing his speeches with exaggerations and inaccuracies, such as his claim that he met with Parkland students at the White House after the 2018 shooting, even though he left office in January 2017.

RedState’s Elizabeth Vaughn said Mr. Biden’s “mischaracterization of this accident doesn’t surprise me.”

“It’s part of a pattern of behavior that we’ve come to associate with Biden,” she said in a Thursday post. “He has a history of embellishing events which have occurred and occasionally inventing entire stories out of whole cloth if it serves his purpose. Put another way, this man’s word is not to be trusted.”

The Biden boys recovered from injuries sustained in the crash, which happened six weeks after Mr. Biden was elected to his first term in the Senate. Beau Biden died in 2015 of cancer.

In the 2008 article, Ms. Hamill said she worried that without a Biden rebuttal, the “drunk driver” angle could eventually take root in the public narrative. The claim had already appeared in several articles about Mr. Biden leading up to the election.

“Suppose he becomes the next vice president,” she told the Post. “Movies could be made about him and books could be written about him, all falsely portraying my father as a drunk driver. We need to set the record straight and clear my father’s name right now before this goes any further.” (Joe Biden's false claim about drunken driver draws renewed scrutiny.)

I, for one, am amazed that anyone finds the pro-abort, pro-perversity, pro-open border, pro-everything bad grafter Biden’s mendacious behavior in the White House to be in any way extraordinary. The man has lived his entire life lying with impunity, and he is also a greedy, slimy, transparent crook as well:

overnment Accountability Institute President and host of The Drill Down podcast Peter Schweizer, on Wednesday’s edition  Fox News Channel’s “The Ingraham Angle” said the finances of President Joe Biden and his son Hunter are “intertwined,” which is not legal.

Ingraham said, “One of the scandals the media laughs off is the secretive selling of Hunter Biden’s lousy artwork. We know at some point in the coming weeks, hundreds of thousands of dollars as written in The Atlantic will be funneled to the son of a sitting president, and none of us will know anything about who sent the money or where it originally came. From.”

She asked, “Peter, how likely is it that foreign buyers are going to be using this obvious opportunity to shove more money into Hunter’s pockets or other family members, mainly the president?”

Schweizer said, “I think it is very likely and if you go through the Hunter Biden emails, as I have been doing with the team for close to a year, scouring them. What you find out very quickly is that Hunter Biden and Joe Biden’s finances are intertwined. They are not separate entities. There are numerous examples of Hunter Biden is paying bills for his father. Which, by the way, is not legal. Politicians can get occasional gifts from family members, but you cannot subsidize the lifestyle of a politician. That is what Hunter Biden is doing.”

He added, “When Hunter Biden is doing foreign deals, whether they are these deals in Beijing where he gets checks for $5 million and there’s no evidence he really did anything, or whether he’s putting together a painting and putting that up for sale, at the end of the day the way the business model works in the Biden family is that the finances are intertwined. Joe Biden will benefit one way or another from what they are doing. Let’s be clear, Hunter Biden’s friend, this gallery owner that is going to be selling his artwork, has spoken in the past about the desire to have ambitious plans to seek and find buyers in China.” (Hunter Biden, Joe Biden Finances Are Illegally 'Intertwined'.)

Crooks lie.

Crooks lie all the time.

Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., is a thief, a crook, a bum, a deranged demagogue, a thug, and an enabler of George Soros-sponsored harassment of Democratic Party opponents, including United States Senator Kyrsten Sinema (D-Arizona) and Joseph Manchin (D-West Virginia), of his $3.5 trillion budget and $1.2 trillion “infrastructure” bill (see George Soros-Linked Group Behind Public Harassment of Kyrsten Sinema).

Consider the following examples of the demented and desperate Biden’s documented lies as President in Name Only of the United States of America (who is told by his handlers not to answer questions from reporters and/or to take questions only from certain reporters), starting with the lies he told about his decision to leave Americans in harm’s way in Afghanistan by going against the advice of his own military leaders, most of which are very sympathetic to his policies overall:

Biden lied, they died. 

That’s no longer just an accusation. It’s now a fact, with Tuesday’s Senate testimony shredding President Biden’s nonsensical fictions about Afghanistan and confirming that he alone made the fateful decisions that created the chaotic and deadly withdrawal. 

We now know for certain what was suspected all along — that the president rejected the advice of his top military aides about how to reduce the troop numbers while keeping the Taliban in check. He also falsely claimed to the public that al Qaeda was no longer in Afghanistan and declared the withdrawal a ringing success.

Reluctantly, but clearly, his commanders begged to differ. One by one, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley and head of U.S. Central Command Gen. Kenneth McKenzie said they advised the president either to keep 2,500 troops in Kabul or supported the proposal. 

All three also said al Qaeda remains in Afghanistan and, as Milley put, is still at war with us. And none dared call the conclusion a success. 

“The war is lost,” Milley said. “The enemy is in control in Kabul.”

The tone of the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing belied the bombshell testimony. There were no political histrionics and, for a welcome change, Democrats and Republicans followed similar lines of questioning, with the result that the devastating answers were mostly delivered in clipped, matter-of-fact style. 

Although a Dem here and there tried to blame former President Donald Trump for his original agreement with the Taliban, there was no serious effort to sugarcoat Biden’s blunder.

Clearly, the president’s attempts to deceive the public were part of the events that put our vaunted military in the weak, vulnerable position of protecting a mass evacuation from a civilian airport in a city overrun by the Taliban. 

Although a Dem here and there tried to blame former President Donald Trump for his original agreement with the Taliban, there was no serious effort to sugarcoat Biden’s blunder.

Clearly, the president’s attempts to deceive the public were part of the events that put our vaunted military in the weak, vulnerable position of protecting a mass evacuation from a civilian airport in a city overrun by the Taliban. 

As with most political lies, the truth always makes them look absurd, and so it does here. The president had insisted to ABC News on Aug. 19, as the disaster unfolded at the Kabul airport, that no military adviser told him to keep a limited number of troops to continue the strategic stalemate. 

When George Stephanopoulos said to Biden, “But your top military advisers warned against withdrawing on this timeline. They wanted you to keep about 2,500 troops,” the president answered: “No, they didn’t. It was split. Tha- that wasn’t true. That wasn’t true.”

Stephanopoulos was skeptical, and according to the ABC transcript, tried again. “So no one told — your military advisers did not tell you, ‘No, we should just keep 2,500 troops. It’s been a stable situation for the last several years. We can do that. We can continue to do that’?”

Biden repeated his denial, but added a caveat: “No. No one said that to me that I can recall.”

Oh, good, he’s hiding behind his declining mental faculties. The president is either a fool or a half-wit. How comforting.

The immediate impact of his fateful decision for a complete withdrawal by Aug. 31 included the deaths of 13 service members in the airport suicide bomb attack. Had the US kept hold of Bagram Air Base, it almost certainly would have been able to impose better security in the surrounding area and evacuate more Americans and those Afghans we promised to get out. 

But once it gave up Bagram, then surrendered the embassy and retreated to the Kabul airport, it was forced to count on the Taliban to police the perimeter. The result was the suicide attack and the fact that scores, if not hundreds, of American citizens were left behind.  (Tragic cost of Biden’s Afghanistan lies.)

President in Name Only Biden, whose chief puppeteer is White House Chief of Staff Ronald Klain, has lied about the CCP/Red China/Chinese/Wuhan/Covid-19/Coronavirus, the human tragedy caused by, in effect, opening the southern borders to people violating the just immigration laws of the United States of America, and by stating that his $3.5 trillion dollar budget would cost “zero taxpayer dollars:

“5 million Americans infected with COVID-19,” Biden said. “More than 170,000 Americans have died. By far the worst performance of any nation on Earth.”

While there have been 5 million COVID-19 infections, there’s a detail that Biden deliberately omitted from his speech: The United States is testing more than any other country. Greater testing capabilities mean more infections detected. Our testing capabilities ought to be celebrated, but instead, it’s being exploited as a talking point for Democrats.

South Korea’s record on testing was celebrated in the early weeks of the pandemic, but they haven’t been anywhere near the United State’s level of testing in raw numbers or per capita since March.

Unfortunately, our incredible testing resulted in a huge misconception: that there was a huge spike in infections. But what happens when you adjust our infection level for the level of testing? The chart below is very illuminating:

As for COVID-19 deaths, once adjusted for population, here’s how the United States measures up compared to all countries (with a population of a million people or more):

  1. Belgium (873.4 deaths per million)
  2. Peru (838.84)
  3. United Kingdom (622.7)
  4. Spain (616.67)
  5. Italy (586.09)
  6. Sweden (570.06)
  7. Chile (569.75)
  8. Brazil (536.14)
  9. USA (531.53)
  10. Mexico (468.39)

Does that look like “the worst performance of any nation on Earth”? Nope.

But, there’s another caveat. New York State, specifically the New York City area (where the COVID-19 response was horribly botched by Governor Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio, resulting in New York becoming the COVID-19 hotspot of the entire world) skews America’s numbers. If we treat New York as its own country, here’s what happens to the numbers:

  1. New York (1674.62 deaths per million people)
  2. Belgium (873.4)
  3. Peru (838.84)
  4. United Kingdom (622.7)
  5. Spain (616.67)
  6. Italy (586.09)
  7. Sweden (570.06)
  8. Chile (569.75)
  9. Brazil (536.14)
  10. Mexico (468.39)
  11. France (452.56)
  12. Panama (441.48)
  13. USA minus New York (405.96)

When you take the worst-hit states of the Northeast (New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and D.C.) and treat them as their own country, the rest of the United States drops down to 18th place.

Biden then promised that if President Trump is reelected that cases and deaths will remain far too high, even though they are both way down from the peak. But what Biden is trying to suggest here is that he has a magic wand that will end the pandemic. But, as Biden’s record shows, the pandemic would have been much worse had he been president.

Infections did experience a bump, but it wasn’t the spike that the media made it out to be. And the number of COVID-19 infections still pales in comparison to the 60.8 million H1N1 infections during the 2009 pandemic while Biden was vice president.

The H1N1 outbreak originated in Mexico, but the Obama-Biden administration refused to restrict travel with Mexico or close the border, arguing that there was no justification for doing so, and that it would have “no impact or very little” in stopping or slowing the spread of the virus.

Trump proved this theory wrong when he took the bold step of banning travel from China back in January. Biden criticized him for it, calling it racist and xenophobic, but a month later WHO experts conceded that it worked and it saved lives. While countries like Italy and Iran were experiencing catastrophic outbreaks, the United States was not. It wasn’t until April that Joe Biden flip-flopped on the travel ban. It’s easy to figure that, had Joe Biden been president during the pandemic, a travel ban with China (or any country) would have come far too late, if at all.

The H1N1 pandemic was also plagued by vaccine shortages.

The New York Times reported in January 2010 that the Obama administration “predicted in early summer [2009] that it would have 160 million vaccine doses by late October,” but that “it ended up with less than 30 million,” leading to a public outcry and congressional investigations.

This failure undoubtedly cost lives. A study by Purdue University scholars published on October 15, 2009, (before Obama declared the national emergency) determined that the H1N1 vaccine would arrive “too late to help most Americans who will be infected during this flu season.” The study determined that the CDC’s planned vaccination campaign would “likely not have a large effect on the total number of people ultimately infected by the pandemic H1N1 influenza virus.”

Ron Klain, who was Biden’s chief of staff at the time of the pandemic, says it was mere luck that H1N1 wasn’t more deadly.

“It is purely a fortuity that this isn’t one of the great mass casualty events in American history,” Klain said of H1N1 in 2019. “It had nothing to do with us doing anything right. It just had to do with luck. If anyone thinks that this can’t happen again, they don’t have to go back to 1918, they just have to go back to 2009, 2010, and imagine a virus with a different lethality, and you can just do the math on that.” (Hoo Wee. Biden Told Some COVID-19 Whoppers During His DNC Speech.)

President Biden has gotten away his entire career with bending the truth and taking people for fools. Now the habit has infected his entire administration. 

So many lies are pumped out these days that it is impossible to keep up. 

They aren’t just the silly, self-aggrandizing exaggerations that used to send the Trump-hating media into paroxysms of outrage during the last administration. 

They often are matters of life and death that have a profound impact on the future of this country. 

 Lie 1: The southern border is closed. 

No, it’s wide open, by design, and yet Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and Vice President Kamala Harris keep telling us, “The border is closed.” 

We can see with our own eyes, mainly thanks to Fox News, that illegal immigrants from all over the world are flooding in from Mexico, under the watchful gaze of Border Patrol agents who have been ordered to stand down. 

“The borders are not open,” Mayorkas said last week. “If you come to the United States illegally, you will be returned. Your journey will not succeed.” 

Oh yeah, Pinocchio? 

After a week of stonewalling by DHS and the White House press office, Mayorkas admitted to Fox News on Sunday that most of the 17,400 illegal immigrants who were cleared out from under the Del Rio bridge in Texas will stay in America. 

He said 10,000 to 12,000 already have been released into the US to melt into the shadows, and another 5,000 are currently being processed by DHS, some of whom also will be released. 

So that is an 80 percent to 97 percent success rate for the first 12,400 — good odds for the golden ticket of living in America. 

Mayorkas is facilitating what can only be seen as a deliberate invasion. His job is to expedite the secret movement of migrants out of sight and out of mind. 

In Orwellian fashion, he covers up this defiance of the law by changing the language: “We don’t use the term illegal immigrants,” he told CNN on Sunday. “I actually issued a policy … we use the term noncitizen.” 

 Lie 2: Border Patrol agents on horseback “whipped” Haitian migrants. 

After trying to stop Fox News’ drone from filming the makeshift refugee camp under the Del Rio bridge, the Biden administration realized it had an optics problem. So Border Patrol was given permission to stop the flood of migrants who were crossing the Rio Grande. 

They used horses as crowd control on the rocky riverbank. If they had not done so, it is unlikely Mayorkas would have been able to clear the migrant camp by Friday, as Biden had instructed. 

Twitter activists seized on an image of the operation to falsely accuse the agents of strapping the migrants with horse whips. What they said were whips were reins. 

The administration’s rush to judgment was shameful. The agents were taken off active duty pending an investigation and horse patrols were suspended, thus removing one of the last remaining tools to secure the border. 

The VP likened the agents’ actions to “the worst moments of our history … during times of slavery.” Mayorkas implied they were racist. 

The president piled on, using all the authority of his office to threaten the agents with dire consequences for merely doing their jobs. 

“It was horrible to see what you saw, to see people treated like they did,” Biden said. “Horses running them over, people being strapped. It’s outrageous. I promise you those people will pay.” 

Mayorkas denied that the president’s false and inflammatory claim that migrants were “strapped” would influence the investigation of the horseback agents. 

But when he was asked at Friday’s White House press briefing about the use of “horse whips,” he called it “horrifying” and did not even attempt to correct the reporter’s erroneous description of reins. 

Lie 3: We will not leave Afghanistan until every American is evacuated. 

So said Joe Biden 13 days before his self-imposed deadline of Aug. 31.

“If there’s American citizens left, we’re gonna stay to get them all out,” he told ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos. 

At least 100 Americans were abandoned, along with many more Afghan allies, and now the FBI is reportedly paying visits to the homes of veterans who are trying to keep the president’s word for him. 

Lie 4: The drone attack on Aug. 29 in Kabul was a “righteous strike” on ISIS-K terrorists. 

Wrong. Ten innocent civilians, including seven children, were killed

The Pentagon lied and obfuscated for two weeks and only came clean after the New York Times published incontrovertible video footage and eyewitness reporting of the tragic reality. 

We still haven’t been told the identities of the victims of an earlier drone strike on Aug. 27. We are supposed to accept the word of the Pentagon that bad guys were killed, just as we are supposed to believe Biden when he tells us the bungled withdrawal from Afghanistan was an “extraordinary success.” 

 Lie 5: Hunter Biden’s laptop is “Russian disinformation.” 

White House press secretary Jen Psaki was at it again on Friday with this cock and bull story. 

Asked by Fox News’ Peter Doocy if the White House still stood by its claim that incriminating material on the president’s son’s abandoned laptop was planted by the Russians, Psaki maintained the fiction. 

“I think it’s broadly known … that there was a broad range of Russian disinformation back in 2020.” 

Accurate stories of Biden family wrongdoing based on files from the laptop — which The Post has been publishing consistently since October — never had anything to do with Russians. That was just the Biden campaign’s way of discrediting them, with the help of former CIA head John Brennan and 50 other shameful former intelligence operatives whose false claims of a Russian plot served as a fig leaf to censor and traduce The Post reporting. 

Lie 6: The cost of the Democrats’ $3.5 trillion social welfare bill is “zero” dollars. 

Biden said this on Friday, when talking about slaying imaginary “trillionaires” with a mystery-box bill no one has a clue about. “It is a zero price tag on the debt … It’s going to be zero, zero,” he said. 

The math doesn’t need elaborating. $3.5 trillion is not zero. 

With so many lies, is it any wonder that Biden’s approval level has plummeted from 61 percent in January to 37 percent in September among independent voters, according to a Gallup poll. 

Gaslighting only goes so far. This is a lesson many a politician has learned the hard way. Underestimate the intelligence of the electorate at your peril. (Biden White House's lies a matter of life and death. Also see Ten Biden whoppers: Afghanistan, COVID-19, national debt and the border.)

Mind you, this is to say nothing about President In Name Only Biden’s soft spots for Red Chinese and Russian spies (see Team Biden’s curious mercy for Russian, Chinese cyber threats) or one of his nominees for an administrative post to regulation the nation’s banks who had received the Lenin Personal Academic Scholarship (Biden’s pick to regulate national banks received ‘Lenin’ award, praised USSR for gender equality). There is nothing redeeming about the Biden administration, whose very exercise of power was enabled by the sort of the election fraud in various states (see, for example, Arizona Audit Finds Potentially Election-Shifting Numbers Of Illegal Ballots) that will only increase in upcoming elections as the Biden’s “invitees” coming across the southern border in waves are resettled in traditionally “red states” or “red-leaning” Congressional and state legislative districts in “blue states” and, even though here illegally, will be permitted to vote in the name of “protecting democracy,” which means whatever the “left” wants it to mean to further institutionalize their nefarious policies and to augment their power over the masses.

As I have noted so many times before, the whole governing and electoral systems of the United States of America is fraudulent as it is based on the lie of “popular sovereignty” that denies the Sovereignty of Christ the King over men and their nations and makes that which is inarguable—the binding precepts of the Divine Law and the Natural Law—subject to endless debate and defiance according to the dictates of the “people” or their representatives.

The “Left” is More Committed to Evil than the “Right” is in its Alleged Opposition

In this regard, of course, it should be remembered that the denizens of the organized crime family of the naturalist “left” are, unlike their hapless nominal opponents within the organized crime family of the naturalist “right,” doggedly consistent in pursuit of their policies. The “left” is always more consistent in their aggressive pursuit and institutionalization of that which is evil in the objective order of thing than is the “right” in its rhetorical efforts to oppose said evil, which becomes so institutionalized over time that most of those on the so-called “right” retreat and come to accept the evil lest they offend various constituency groups immersed in it.

After all, this how Republican made peace with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ObamaDeathCare), with the absurdity known as “gay marriage” after the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Obergefell v. Hodgins, June 26, 2015, and it will be how they make their peace with the “goodies” that enshrined in Nancy Patricia D’Alesandro Pelosi’s $3.5 trillion budget and Biden’s $1.2 trillion “infrastructure” bill if they secure, despite massive infighting within the House Democratic Caucus, passage and are signed into law.

Remember, the late United States Senator John Sidney McCain III campaigned against “universal health care’ when running for the presidency against Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro in 2008, and for the repeal of ObamaDeathCare when running for re-election to the United States Senate in 2010 only to wind up being the decisive vote to preserve ObamaDeathCare on July 27, 2017 (Health Care Debate: Obamacare Repeal Fails as McCain Casts Decisive No Vote) after then President Donald John Trump’s effort to repeal part of it and then replace it with the equally objectionable RyanCare (see  There Is Nothing "Pro-Life" About RyanCareEveryone Loses When Our King Reigneth Not Over Men and Their Nations, part three and Trying to Hold Back the Gates of Hell By Natural Means Never Succeeds).

To wit, even though their efforts, of dubious constitutionality, to limit the ability of state legislatures to restrict the surgical execution of the innocent preborn by means of the so-called “Women’s Health Protection Act might not secure the requisite number of Senate votes to pass, the “left” tolerates no opposition to their support to all abortion, all the time, no exceptions, no reservations and no qualifications as they continue deny either the true science of the preborn child’s humanity or declare it to be of no relevance whatsoever:

WASHINGTON (LifeSiteNews) — Driven by fears that the Supreme Court may be on the verge of overturning the landmark pro-abortion ruling Roe v. Wade, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 218-211 Friday to pass legislation that would enshrine abortion on demand in federal law. 

In December, the nation’s highest court will begin hearing oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which concerns Mississippi’s HB 1510 law banning abortions from being committed past 15 weeks for any reason other than physical medical emergencies or severe fetal abnormalities. Abortion defenders argue it violates the judicially-created “right” to pre-viability abortions; pro-lifers hope the case will finally lead to the reversal of Roe.

In May, House Democrats reintroduced the so-called Women’s Health Protection Act (WHPA), purportedly to prepare for such a future, though it would go much further than granting the tenets of Roe statutory legitimacy.

The legislation, which has been repeatedly introduced over the past several years without being acted upon, establishes a federal statutory right to perform and obtain abortions, including after fetal viability (under the broad cover of “health”), and specifically forbids states from subjecting abortion to ultrasound requirements, mandatory waiting periods, informed-consent requirements, and other health and safety regulations, such as admitting privileges.

The WHPA also protects so-called “webcam” abortions (i.e., dispensing abortion pills without an in-person doctor’s visit), forbids banning abortions on the basis of a baby’s race, sex, or disability, and forbids banning particular techniques such as dilation and evacuation (D&E) procedures, better known as “dismemberment” abortions because they entail literally ripping unborn babies apart in the womb, then removing them from the uterus limb by limb.

Earlier in September, Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi framed the measure as a response to the Texas Heartbeat Act, as well, which forbids abortions on the basis of a detectable fetal heartbeat, and, thanks to its unique enforcement mechanism of private civil suits against violators, has yet to be blocked by the courts. 

“S.B. 8 delivers catastrophe to women in Texas, particularly women of color and women from low-income communities,” Pelosi declared, calling it “the most extreme, dangerous abortion ban in half a century, and its purpose is to destroy Roe v. Wade, and even refuses to make exceptions for cases of rape and incest. This ban necessitates codifying Roe v. Wade.”

“What the Democrats are bringing before us, it’s really a radical bill,” Republican House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said this week. “It goes beyond Roe v. Wade. It allows abortion on demand up until birth. It shows how far left Democrats have become. Regardless of how you feel about the situation, that is not the place I believe Americans are at. But they are going to spend their time pushing that onto the floor.”

While President Joe Biden is in favor of codifying Roe, and today’s vote is sure to please the Democrats’ pro-abortion base, practically the WHPA is not expected to become law anytime soon. The bill currently has 47 co-sponsors in the evenly-divided Senate, and would need at least ten Republicans to join every Democrat to pass under current rules. Abolishing the legislative filibuster would enable the bill to pass with a simple majority, but Democrat Sens. Kyrsten Sinema and Mark Kelly of Arizona, and Joe Machin of West Virginia, are not in favor of going that far, to the frustration of left-wing activists.

That means that, for now, the future of abortion law remains in the Supreme Court’s hands. Many pro-lifers see the upcoming Mississippi case as the greatest test yet of the current justices, a majority of whom were appointed by Republican presidents yet have still disappointed pro-lifers and conservatives on various occasions. 

Only Justice Clarence Thomas is explicitly on the record as anti-Roe, and only he and Justice Samuel Alito have established consistently conservative records over a significant period of time. While those two joined with former President Donald Trump’s three appointees to form a majority willing to let the Texas law temporarily stand on procedural grounds, the latter have disappointed conservatives in other cases, so how they will rule on the substance of abortion law remains to be seen. (House Democrats vote to codify Roe v. Wade, legalize abortion on demand.

A few corrections are in order.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy is ill-informed as the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, do permit the announced her opposition killing of babies up to and including the day of birth. Roe only “permits” states to regulate the conditions under which babies can be killed after the first trimester, and even the case of Gonzales v. Carhart, April 17, 2007, that upheld the partial ban on crushed skull abortions premised its finding on the “legality” of baby-killing in the latter stages of his development in mother’s womb on the availability of other methods (hysterotomy, dilation and evacuation):

Dr. Haskell’s approach is not the only method of killing the fetus once its head lodges in the cervix, and “the process has evolved” since his presentation. Planned Parenthood, 320 F. Supp. 2d, at 965. Another doctor, for example, squeezes the skull after it has been pierced “so that enough brain tissue exudes to allow the head to pass through.” App. in No. 05-380, at 41; see also Carhart, supra, at 866-867, 874. Still other physicians reach into the cervix with their forceps and crush the fetus’ skull. Carhart, supra, at 858, 881. Others continue to pull the fetus out of the woman until it disarticulates at the neck, in effect decapitating it. These doctors then grasp the head with forceps, crush it, and remove it. Id., at 864, 878; see also Planned Parenthood, supra, at 965.

Some doctors performing an intact D&E attempt to remove the fetus without collapsing the skull. See Carhart, supra, at 866, 869. Yet one doctor would not allow delivery of a live fetus younger than 24 weeks because “the objective of [his] procedure is to perform an abortion,” not a birth. App. in No. 05-1382, at 408-409. The doctor thus answered in the affirmative when asked whether he would “hold the fetus’ head on the internal side of the [cervix] in order to collapse the skull” and kill the fetus before it is born. Id., at 409; see also Carhart, supra, at 862, 878. Another doctor testified he crushes a fetus’ skull not only to reduce its size but also to ensure the fetus is dead before it is removed. For the staff to have to deal with a fetus that has “some viability to it, some movement of limbs,” according to this doctor, “[is] always a difficult situation.” App. in No. 05-380, at 94; see Carhart, supra, at 858.

D&E and intact D&E are not the only second-trimester abortion methods. Doctors also may abort a fetus through medical induction. The doctor medicates the woman to induce labor, and contractions occur to deliver the fetus. Induction, which unlike D&E should occur in a hospital, can last as little as 6 hours but can take longer than 48. It accounts for about five percent of second-trimester abortions before 20 weeks of gestation and 15 percent of those after 20 weeks. Doctors turn to two other methods of second-trimester abortion, hysterotomy and hysterectomy, only in emergency situations because they carry increased risk of complications. In a hysterotomy, as in a cesarean section, the doctor removes the fetus by making an incision through the abdomen and uterine wall to gain access to the uterine cavity. A hysterectomy requires the removal of the entire uterus. These two procedures represent about .07% of second-trimester abortions. Nat. Abortion Federation, 330 F. Supp. 2d, at 467; Planned Parenthood, supra, at 962-963. (Gonzales v. Carhart, April 19, 2007.)

In other words, Justice Samuel Alito, and Anthony Kennedy both reasoned their way to conclusions that well-meaning pro-life Americans at the time believed would save babies by pointing out quite explicitly that those who felt “burdened” by the laws in question had other means available to kill their babies and, in the present instance, to obtain health insurance coverage for the abortifacients to do so.

Representative Kevin McCarthy is very ill-informed. Baby-killing is permissible under cover of the civil law in those states where no restrictions on baby-killing have been enacted and are even being killed up to and including the day of birth in most states where restrictions of one kind or another do exist because of “exceptions” that have no standing before the bar of the Divine Judge, Christ the King.

A second correction concerns the LifeSiteNews report’s rather naïve belief that the fact that six of the current justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America have been appointed by Republican presidents (George Walker Bush and Donald John Trump) means something can be dispelled very easily by reading Beyond the Headlines: Making Catholic Sense of New Efforts to End Surgical Baby-Killing and Supreme Masters of Sophistry. Thank you.

Now, as to the “Women’s Health Protection Act,” H.R. 8, which is more aptly called the “Child Killing Protection Act,” it should be noted clearly that this bill is mostly about political theatre more than anything else even though it has the full backing of the pro-abortion, pro-perversity, pro-everything bad congenital liar named Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., and the pro-abortion, pro-perversity, pro-everything bad congenital liar named Nancy Patricia D’Alesandro Pelosi. This egregious effort, however, is nothing new as the “Women’s Health Protection Act” is almost identical to the so-called “Freedom of Choice Act” that Pelosi and other pro-aborts had introduced in 2007 and 2008 and then again at the beginning of the One Hundred Eleventh Congress on January 3, 2009:

A BILL to protect, consistent with Roe v. Wade, a woman's freedom to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


This Act may be cited as the `Freedom of Choice Act'.


Congress finds the following:

(1) The United States was founded on core principles, such as liberty, personal privacy, and equality, which ensure that individuals are free to make their most intimate decisions without governmental interference and discrimination.

(2) One of the most private and difficult decisions an individual makes is whether to begin, prevent, continue, or terminate a pregnancy. Those reproductive health decisions are best made by women, in consultation with their loved ones and health care providers.

(3) In 1965, in Griswold v. Connecticut (381 U.S. 479), and in 1973, in Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113) and Doe v. Bolton (410 U.S. 179), the Supreme Court recognized that the right to privacy protected by the Constitution encompasses the right of every woman to weigh the personal, moral, and religious considerations involved in deciding whether to begin, prevent, continue, or terminate a pregnancy.

(4) The Roe v. Wade decision carefully balances the rights of women to make important reproductive decisions with the State's interest in potential life. Under Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, the right to privacy protects a woman's decision to choose to terminate her pregnancy prior to fetal viability, with the State permitted to ban abortion after fetal viability except when necessary to protect a woman's life or health.

(5) These decisions have protected the health and lives of women in the United States. Prior to the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, an estimated 1,200,000 women each year were forced to resort to illegal abortions, despite the risk of unsanitary conditions, incompetent treatment, infection, hemorrhage, disfiguration, and death. Before Roe, it is estimated that thousands of women died annually in the United States as a result of illegal abortions.

(6) In countries in which abortion remains illegal, the risk of maternal mortality is high. According to the World Health Organization, of the approximately 600,000 pregnancy-related deaths occurring annually around the world, 80,000 are associated with unsafe abortions.

(7) The Roe v. Wade decision also expanded the opportunities for women to participate equally in society. In 1992, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (505 U.S. 833), the Supreme Court observed that, `[t]he ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.'.

(8) Even though the Roe v. Wade decision has stood for more than 34 years, there are increasing threats to reproductive health and freedom emerging from all branches and levels of government. In 2006, South Dakota became the first State in more than 15 years to enact a ban on abortion in nearly all circumstances. Supporters of this ban have admitted it is an attempt to directly challenge Roe in the courts. Other States are considering similar bans.

(9) Further threatening Roe, the Supreme Court recently upheld the first-ever Federal ban on an abortion procedure, which has no exception to protect a woman's health. The majority decision in Gonzales v. Carhart (05-380, slip op. April 18, 2007) and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America fails to protect a woman's health, a core tenet of Roe v. Wade. Dissenting in that case, Justice Ginsburg called the majority's opinion `alarming', and stated that, `[f]or the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman's health'. Further, she said, the Federal ban `and the Court's defense of it cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this Court'.

(10) Legal and practical barriers to the full range of reproductive services endanger women's health and lives. Incremental restrictions on the right to choose imposed by Congress and State legislatures have made access to reproductive care extremely difficult, if not impossible, for many women across the country. Currently, 87 percent of the counties in the United States have no abortion provider.

(11) While abortion should remain safe and legal, women should also have more meaningful access to family planning services that prevent unintended pregnancies, thereby reducing the need for abortion.

(12) To guarantee the protections of Roe v. Wade, Federal legislation is necessary.

(13) Although Congress may not create constitutional rights without amending the Constitution, Congress may, where authorized by its enumerated powers and not prohibited by the Constitution, enact legislation to create and secure statutory rights in areas of legitimate national concern.

(14) Congress has the affirmative power under section 8 of article I of the Constitution and section 5 of the 14th amendment to the Constitution to enact legislation to facilitate interstate commerce and to prevent State interference with interstate commerce, liberty, or equal protection of the laws.

(15) Federal protection of a woman's right to choose to prevent or terminate a pregnancy falls within this affirmative power of Congress, in part, because--

(A) many women cross State lines to obtain abortions and many more would be forced to do so absent a constitutional right or Federal protection;

(B) reproductive health clinics are commercial actors that regularly purchase medicine, medical equipment, and other necessary supplies from out-of-State suppliers; and

(C) reproductive health clinics employ doctors, nurses, and other personnel who travel across State lines in order to provide reproductive health services to patients.

In this Act:

(1) GOVERNMENT- The term `government' includes a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, or official (or other individual acting under color of law) of the United States, a State, or a subdivision of a State.

(2) STATE- The term `State' means each of the States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each territory or possession of the United States. (of America.).

(3) VIABILITY- The term `viability' means that stage of pregnancy when, in the best medical judgment of the attending physician based on the particular medical facts of the case before the physician, there is a reasonable likelihood of the sustained survival of the fetus outside of the woman.


(a) Statement of Policy- It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.

(b) Prohibition of Interference- A government may not--

(1) deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose--

(A) to bear a child;

(B) to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or

(C) to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; or

(2) discriminate against the exercise of the rights set forth in paragraph (1) in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.

(c) Civil Action- An individual aggrieved by a violation of this section may obtain appropriate relief (including relief against a government) in a civil action.


If any provision of this Act, or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, or the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which the provision is held to be unconstitutional, shall not be affected thereby.


This Act applies to every Federal, State, and local statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action enacted, adopted, or implemented before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act. (Full Text of S. 1173, 110th Congress.)

Although the current effort, of course, has the full support of President in Name Only Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., it will likely fail in the Senate of the United States of America as there are two Democrats, Mark Kelly (D-Arizona) and Joseph “Talk Tough but Cave to Biden” Manchin (D-West Virginia), who have indicated that they would not vote for H.R. 8, and even one pro-abortion Catholic Republican senator, Susan Collins (R-Maine), has expressed her opposition because of its revocation of conscientious objection to participating in the killing of babies by doctors, nurses, and other healthcare professionals, not on the inherent evil that is the killing of an innocent human life.

The new effort, however, demonstrates yet again that, quite unlike supposedly “pro-life” Republicans, who have made various “exceptions” to the inviolability of innocent human life as matters of principle and not of legislative expediency ever since the Supreme Court of the United States of America announced its decisions in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973, pro-aborts make no compromises. They are adamant and inflexible in their support of child killing. Most Congressional “pro-life” Republicans are more than content to let the entire matter, which not subject to any kind of human debate or discussion at all, of course, announced her opposition continued to be “settled” by the courts. Such must ever be the farce of a system of governance and elections that is based on one anti-Incarnational lie after another.

Requring Young Women to Register for the Military Draft: Egalitarianism and Sentimentality Rule the Day

Speaking of the hapless bunch known as Republicans, who will be as useless in 2023 if they reclaim a majority of both Houses of Congress in the 2022 midterm elections as they were in 2015 when they controlled both Houses during Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro’s final two years of rule by executive fiat, many of them are supporting an “open-ended” amendment to the Military Selective Service Act contained within the National Defense Authorization Act to require women to register for the military draft.

The prolific Mrs. Randy Engel sent out an alert about this on the Feast of Our Lady of Ransom, Friday, September 24, 2021:

The enemies of God, family and country never sleep.

While Americans are preoccupied and distracted by the Covid-19 Plandemic, Congressional bills HR 4350 and S. 4049 – the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) – are heading for a full vote in the House and Senate.  

Both the House and Senate bills carry a dangerous, open-ended amendment to the Military Selective Service Act to require young women to register for the Selective Service System (SSS) Draft.

As written, there are no exemptions for married women, pregnant women, or mothers, even those who are nursing.

Incredibly, this measure has attracted much bipartisan support. 

Like the proverbial camel’s nose under the tent, if this measure is allowed to pass, the way is open for drafting women into combat roles.

Proponents of the NDAA/Defense Budget bill argue that the current Selective Service ruling that legally requires only men (males) ages 18 to 25, to registered for the draft is “discriminatory,” and “unconstitutional.”  All references to men or males have been stricken in the amended version of the House and Senate bills and replaced with androgenous terms, aka, “persons,” “citizens,” “enlisted members, etc.

Republican Chip Roy of Texas, a member of the House Armed Services Committee who has a little girl, blasted his colleagues after they passed a mandate to require women to register for the draft. “All of D.C. – all of it- can go straight to hell!” 

The DOD ordered the Armed Services to lift the ban on women serving in combat roles in January 2013. In December 2015 the DOD announced that the military would be opening all “remaining occupations and positions to women,” with “no exceptions,” effective January 2016. Joe Biden supports the draft mandate for women. If Congress approves the draft for women, that will be the last nail in the American coffin.

You Need to act now! PLEASE contact your Congressman and Senators, especially if they are Democrats, at their district/state offices or their Washington. D.C. office to express your opposition to any bill/amendment, including H.R. 4350 and S. 4049, that requires women to register for Selective Service. 

Be exact – NO DRAFT for WOMEN – NOT NOW – NOT TOMORROW – NEVER! (URGENT: Stop Mandatory Draft Registration of Women.)

There is no military justification to require young women to register for with the Selective Service System. The armed forces of the United States of America are staffed with all-volunteer personnel and there are more than enough young men to select in a military draft in the event of a genuine—rather than manufactured—threat of military invasion to the territory of the United States of America in response to a Congressional declaration of war.

By the way, in case you are keeping score at home, as the late Lindsey Nelson would say during Mets’ telecasts and broadcasts from 1962 to 1978, the last Congressional declarations of war were passed on Declarations of War were passed on December 8, 1941 (Japan), December 11, 1941 (Germany and Italy), and June 4, 1942 (Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania). The Korean War was undertaken as a United Nations “police action” at a time when representatives of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics had walked out of the world Masonic body in protest of the United States’ veto of membership for Red China in the United Nations. No subsequent “wars” (Vietnam, Persian Gulf, Iran, Afghanistan, etc.) or American military intervention was duly authorized and were thus unconstitutional.

The current effort to require women to register for the military draft is not about any justifiable need. It is simply one in a long series of incremental measures that the adversary has inspired his minions who hold elected office to undertake to eradicate all remaining distinctions between men and women in the name of “equality” and “women’s rights,” which is why so many mindless denizens within the organized crime family of the naturalist “right” are supporting the amendment. After all, isn’t it “patriotic” to want women to serve alongside men in the military?

True patriotism wills the good of one’s nation, the ultimate expression of which is her Catholicization in every aspect of her social life, and part of Catholicizing a nation means respecting and encouraging Christian femininity after the model of all authentic femininity, the Holy Mother of God, Our Lady.

Rightly ordered nations need women who have the maternal heart of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and who exhibit the virtues of modesty, purity, and innocence in all their undertakings.

Disordered nations want women who have become masculine in appearance and temperament and who are aggressive, immodest in speech and appearance, impure, and worldly in all their undertakings.

It does not take one with an earned doctorate to understand that the so-called “civilized nations” of the world, built and sustained as they are on a fabric of interwoven and synergistic lies, are completely disordered to the extent that even grandmothers sport tattoos, spew forth blasphemies and profanities in public places in front of their grandchildren, and who are concerned only about worldly pleasures to the exclusion of all else.

The push to require women to register with the Selective Service System comes only eight years after the Department of Defense under Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro permitted women to engage in combat. This is what I wrote in 2013 when the effort to de-feminize and thus to dehumanize women had progressed to the point of authorizing women to engage in ground combat after some had engaged in aerial combat flights during the unjust, immoral and unconstitutional invasion, occupation and shoddy, corruption-filled reconstruction of Iraq undertaken by President George Walker Bush under false premises on March 19, 2003 (American time):

I present for your consideration a new composition on the subject of outgoing Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta's proposal to remove the remaining de jure restrictions on women serving in combat roles in the armed forces of the United States of America even though they have been doing so on a de facto basis in Iraq and Afghanistan since former President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton permitted women to serve in some combat roles in 1994.

Here is a story about this entirely unsurprising development in our brave new world that has been formed as a result of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King wrought by the Protestant Revolution and the subsequent rise of the nationalistic ideologies and "philosophies" that comprise Judeo-Masonry, a brave new world that is now in its final stages of perfecting Antichrist's totalitarian rule as the wellsprings of grace have dried up in the aftermath of the sacramentally barren liturgical rites of conciliarism: 

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta is lifting the military’s official ban on women in combat, which will open up hundreds of thousands of additional front-line jobs to them, senior defense officials said Wednesday.

The groundbreaking decision overturns a 1994 Pentagon rule that restricts women from artillery, armor, infantry and other such combat roles, even though in reality women have frequently found themselves in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan; according to the Pentagon, hundreds of thousands of women have deployed in those conflicts. As of last year, more than 800 women had been wounded in the two wars and more than 130 had died.

Defense officials offered few details about Mr. Panetta’s decision but described it as the beginning of a process to allow the branches of the military to put the change into effect. Defense officials said Mr. Panetta had made the decision on the recommendation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Women have long chafed under the combat restrictions and have increasingly pressured the Pentagon to catch up with the reality on the battlefield. The move comes as Mr. Panetta is about to step down from his post and would leave him with a major legacy after only 18 months in the job.

The decision clearly fits into the broad and ambitious liberal agenda, especially around matters of equal opportunity, that President Obama laid out this week in his Inaugural Address. But while it had to have been approved by him, and does not require action by Congress, it appeared Wednesday that it was in large part driven by the military itself. Some midlevel White House staff members were caught by surprise by the decision, indicating that it had not gone through an extensive review there.

Mr. Panetta’s decision came after he received a Jan. 9 letter from Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who stated in strong terms that the armed service chiefs all agreed that “the time has come to rescind the direct combat exclusion rule for women and to eliminate all unnecessary gender-based barriers to service.”

A military official said the change would be implemented “as quickly as possible,” although the Pentagon is allowing three years, until January 2016, for final decisions from the services.

Each branch of the military will have to come up with an implementation plan in the next several months, the official said. If a branch of the military decides that a specific job should not be opened to a woman, representatives of that branch will have to ask the defense secretary for an exception.

“To implement these initiatives successfully and without sacrificing our war-fighting capability or the trust of the American people, we will need time to get it right,” General Dempsey wrote.

It will be carried out during what the administration describes as the end of the American combat role in Afghanistan, the nation’s longest war.

A copy of General Dempsey’s letter was provided by a Pentagon official under the condition of anonymity.

The letter noted that this action was meant to ensure that women as well as men “are given the opportunity to succeed.”

It was unclear why the Joint Chiefs acted now after examining the issue for years, although in recent months there has been building pressure from high-profile lawsuits.

In November 2012 the American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit challenging the ban on behalf of four service women and the Service Women’s Action Network, a group that works for equality in the military. The A.C.L.U. said that one of the plaintiffs, Maj. Mary Jennings Hegar, an Air National Guard helicopter pilot, was shot down, returned fire and was wounded while on the ground in Afghanistan, but could not seek combat leadership positions because the Defense Department did not officially acknowledge her experience as combat.

In the military, serving in combat positions like the infantry remains crucial to career advancement. Women have long said that by not recognizing their real service, the military has unfairly held them back.

The A.C.L.U. embraced Mr. Panetta’s decision with cautious optimism. Ariela Migdal, an attorney with the A.C.L.U.'s Women’s Rights Project, said in a statement that the organization was “thrilled” by the decision, but added that she hoped it would be implemented “fairly and quickly.”

By law Mr. Panetta is able to lift the ban as a regulatory decision, although he must give Congress a 30-day notice of his intent. Congress does not need to approve the decision before it goes into effect. If Congress disagrees with the action, members would have to pass new legislation prohibiting the change, which appeared highly unlikely.

Although in the past some Republican members of the House have balked at allowing women in combat, on Wednesday there appeared to be bipartisan endorsement for the decision, which was first reported by The Associated Press and CNN in midafternoon.

“It reflects the reality of 21st century military operations,” Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement.

Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington and the chairwoman of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, called it a “historic step for recognizing the role women have, and will continue to play, in the defense of our nation.”

Senator Kelly Ayotte, a New Hampshire Republican and a member of the Armed Services Committee, said in a statement that she was pleased by the decision and said that it “reflects the increasing role that female service members play in securing our country.”

Representative Loretta Sanchez, the California Democrat who has long pressed to have women’s role in combat recognized, said that she was pleased that Mr. Panetta was removing what she called “the archaic combat exclusion policy.”

Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand, a New York Democrat who has pushed for lifting the ban, called it “a proud day for our country” and an important step in recognizing “the brave women who are already fighting and dying.”

But the leadership of a conservative Christian group, the Family Research Council, immediately weighed in with its opposition, sending out a statement from Jerry Boykin, a retired three-star general with a long career in Special Operations Forces.

General Boykin said that “the people making this decision are doing so as part of another social experiment.” He especially criticized the concept of placing women into Special Forces units where “living conditions are primal in many situations with no privacy for personal hygiene or normal functions.” It remains unclear if women will be permitted to fight in Special Forces and other commando units.

Public opinion polls show that Americans generally agree with lifting the ban. A nationwide Quinnipiac University poll conducted a year ago found that three-quarters of voters surveyed favored allowing military women to serve in units that engaged in close combat, if the women wanted to.

Policy experts who have pushed the military to lift the ban said that it was striking that much of the impetus appeared to come from Joint Chiefs, indicating that the top military leadership saw that the time had come to open up to women.

“It’s significant that the change came from the uniformed side, rather than being forced on the uniformed side by the civilian leadership,” said Greg Jacob, the policy director of the Service Women’s Action Network.

Under current rules, a number of military positions are closed to women — and to open them, the services have to change the rules.

Under Mr. Panetta’s new initiative, the situation is the opposite: Those combat positions would be open to women, and they could only be closed through specific action.

Capt. Emily Naslund, a Marine officer who saw ground combat in Afghanistan in 2010, said Wednesday that she embraced the decision. “This is awesome,” she said. (Pentagon Is Set to Lift Combat Ban for Women.)


Yes, this is "awesome," all right.

This is “awesome” when one considers how complete the feminism brought to rebirth as a result of the French and Bolshevik Revolutions has become. Yes, we are eyewitnesses to a socialist revolution taking place under the direction of a "pro-life" "conservative" presidential administration.

This is “awesome” when one considers how women, noting celebrated exceptions made by God Himself in the case of Saint Joan of Arc and others as circumstances and Catholic prudence have required, have been transformed by the twin, interrelated revolutions of Modernity and Modernism into the very anthesis of the the humility and tender, nurturing, maternal love of Our Lady, she who is the model of true femininity, as they have desired "equality" with men.

So many women in the world have been transformed into mutations of men as they dress in a masculine manner, act and speak aggressively, if not profanely, and as they seek positions of "power" in the world of business, banking, law, politics, education, commerce, entertainment and sports, all to "prove" that there is no "glass ceiling," that they are "as good as men."

Lost in all this prideful egalitarian self-seeking is the simple fact that the most "empowered" women who ever lived is the fairest flower of our race, Our Lady, she who was conceived without any stain of Original or Actual Sin, she who was filled with grace from the first moment of her Immaculate Conception in the womb of mother, our Good Saint Anne.

Our Lady did not vie for "equality" with her father, Saint Joachim.

Our Lady did not vie for "equality" with her humble, Most Chaste Spouse, our Good Saint Joseph, the Patron of the Universal Church and the Protector of the Faithful. Although his superior in the Order of Redemption (Order of Grace), Our Lady was his inferior in the Order of Creation (Order of Nature). She willingly submitted to him as the head of the Holy Family.

Not so the "modern" women of contemporary feminism.

The "modern" women of contemporary feminism have been taught to "fulfill" themselves.

The "modern" women of contemporary feminism have been taught that they are not and cannot be "fulfilled" unless the hold the same positions as men and wield the same supposed "power" that they do.

In order to achieve this "equality," it was, of course, necessary to abandon childbearing, whether by means of contraceptive devices or pills or by the surgical dismemberment of the very fruit of their wombs, in order to take their "rightful" place in the halls of commerce, politics, banking and the media.

Women have been taught to dress immodestly and suggestively. "Dressed to kill" is what such attire is called. Women who are "dressed to kill" and care only about personal pleasure and satisfaction have by the millions learned how to kill their babies.

Now, of course, women in the United States of America have broken through the "glass ceiling" of the final de jure barriers in order to take their "place at the barricades." They are now dressed to kill, sometimes separated from their families, and placed at all times in situations where temptations, whether natural or unnatural, against the Holy Virtue of Purity, as members of the armed forces of the United States of America.

Although what follows will anger considerably those attached to the naturalist ideology of "conservatism," the plain fact of the matter is that it was none other than Vladimir I. Lenin who wanted to see women, including those with young children at home, take their place as equals with men in the realm of civil governance. To be sure, this was certainly a goal of the French Revolution. It was, however, institutionalized by the Bolshevik Revolution and popularized by its naturalistic, anti-Incarnational agents throughout the Western world, including the United States of America:

The second anniversary of the Soviet power is a fitting occasion for us to review what has, in general, been accomplished during this period, and to probe into the significance and aims of the revolution which we accomplished.

The bourgeoisie and its supporters accuse us of violating democracy. We maintain that the Soviet revolution has given an unprecedented stimulus to the development of democracy both in depth and breadth, of democracy, moreover, distinctly for the toiling masses, who had been oppressed under capitalism; consequently, of democracy for the vast majority of the people, of socialist democracy (for the toilers) as distinguished from bourgeois democracy (for the exploiters, the capitalists, the rich).

Who is right?

To probe deeply into this question and to understand it well will mean studying the experience of these two years and being better prepared to further follow up this experience.

The position of women furnishes a particularly graphic elucidation of the difference between bourgeois and socialist democracy, it furnishes a particularly graphic answer to the question posed.

In no bourgeois republic (i.e., where there is private ownership of the land, factories, works, shares, etc.), be it even the most democratic republic, nowhere in the world, not even in the most advanced country, have women gained a position of complete equality. And this, notwithstanding the fact that more than one and a quarter centuries have elapsed since the Great French (bourgeois-democratic) Revolution.

In words, bourgeois democracy promises equality and liberty. In fact, not a single bourgeois republic, not even the most advanced one, has given the feminine half of the human race either full legal equality with men or freedom from the guardianship and oppression of men.

Bourgeois democracy is democracy of pompous phrases, solemn words, exuberant promises and the high-sounding slogans of freedom and equality. But, in fact, it screens the non-freedom and inferiority of women, the non-freedom and inferiority of the toilers and exploited.

Soviet, or socialist, democracy sweeps aside the pompous, bullying, words, declares ruthless war on the hypocrisy of the "democrats", the landlords, capitalists or well-fed peasants who are making money by selling their surplus bread to hungry workers at profiteering prices.

Down with this contemptible fraud! There cannot be, nor is there nor will there ever be "equality" between the oppressed and the oppressors, between the exploited and the exploiters. There cannot be, nor is there nor will there ever be real "freedom" as long as there is no freedom for women from the privileges which the law grants to men, as long as there is no freedom for the workers from the yoke of capital, and no freedom for the toiling peasants from the yoke of the capitalists, landlords and merchants.

Let the liars and hypocrites, the dull-witted and blind, the bourgeois and their supporters hoodwink the people with talk about freedom in general, about equality in general, about democracy in general.

We say to the workers and peasants: Tear the masks from the faces of these liars, open the eyes of these blind ones. Ask them:

“Equality between what sex and what other sex?

“Between what nation and what other nation?

“Between what class and what other class?

“Freedom from what yoke, or from the yoke of what class? Freedom for what class?”

Whoever speaks of politics, of democracy, of liberty, of equality, of socialism, and does not at the same time ask these questions, does not put them in the foreground, does not fight against concealing, hushing up and glossing over these questions, is one of the worst enemies of the toilers, is a wolf in sheep's clothing, is a bitter opponent of the workers and peasants, is a servant of the landlords, tsars, capitalists.

In the course of two years Soviet power in one of the most backward countries of Europe did more to emancipate women and to make their status equal to that of the "strong" sex than all the advanced, enlightened, "democratic" republics of the world did in the course of 130 years.

Enlightenment, culture, civilisation, liberty--in all capitalist, bourgeois republics of the world all these fine words are combined with extremely infamous, disgustingly filthy and brutally coarse laws in which woman is treated as an inferior being, laws dealing with marriage rights and divorce, with the inferior status of a child born out of wedlock as compared with that of a "legitimate" child, laws granting privileges to men, laws that are humiliating and insulting to women.

The yoke of capital, the tyranny of "sacred private property", the despotism of philistine stupidity, the greed of petty proprietors --these are the things that prevented the most democratic bourgeois republics from infringing upon those filthy and infamous laws.

The Soviet Republic, the republic of workers and peasants, promptly wiped out these laws and left not a stone in the structure of bourgeois fraud and bourgeois hypocrisy.

Down with this fraud! Down with the liars who are talking of freedom and equality for all, while there is an oppressed sex, while there are oppressor classes, while there is private ownership of capital, of shares, while there are the well-fed with their surplus of bread who keep the hungry in bondage. Not freedom for all, not equality for all, but a fight against the oppressors and exploiters, the abolition of every possibility of oppression and exploitation-that is our slogan!

Freedom and equality for the oppressed sex!

Freedom and equality for the workers, for the toiling peasants!

A fight against the oppressors, a fight against the capitalists, a fight against the profiteering kulaks!

That is our fighting slogan, that is our proletarian truth, the truth of the struggle against capital, the truth which we flung in the face of the world of capital with its honeyed, hypocritical, pompous phrases about freedom and equality in general, about freedom and equality for all.

And for the very reason that we have torn down the mask of this hypocrisy, that we are introducing with revolutionary energy freedom and equality for the oppressed and for the toilers, against the oppressors, against the capitalists, against the kulaks--for this very reason the Soviet government has become so dear to the hearts of workers of the whole world.

It is for this very reason that, on the second anniversary of the Soviet power, the: sympathies of the masses of the workers, the sympathies of the oppressed and exploited in every country of the world, are with us.

It is for this very reason that, on this second anniversary of the Soviet power, despite hunger and cold, despite all our tribulations, which have been caused by the imperialists' invasion of the Russian Soviet Republic, we are full of firm faith in the justice of our cause, of firm Faith in the inevitable victory of Soviet power all over the world. (Soviet Power and the Status of Women)

Comrades, the elections to the Moscow Soviet show that the Party of the Communists is gaining strength among the working class.

It is essential that women workers take a greater part in the elections. The Soviet government was the first and only government in the world to abolish completely all the old, bourgeois, infamous laws which placed women in an inferior position compared with men and which granted privileges to men, as, for instance, in the sphere of marriage laws or in the sphere of the legal attitude to children. The Soviet government was the first and only government in the world which, as a government of the toilers, abolished all the privileges connected with property, which men retained in the family laws of all bourgeois republics, even the most democratic.

Where there are landlords, capitalists and merchants, there can be no equality between women and men even in law.

Where there are no landlords, capitalists and merchants, where the government of the toilers is building a new life without these exploiters, there equality between women and men exists in law.

But that is not enough.

It is a far cry from equality in law to equality in life.

We want women workers to achieve equality with men workers not only in law, but in life as well. For this, it is essential that women workers take an ever increasing part in the administration of public enterprises and in the administration of the state.

By engaging in the work of administration women will learn quickly and they will catch up with the men.

Therefore, elect more women workers, both Communist and non-Party, to the Soviet. If she is only an honest woman worker who is capable of managing work sensibly and conscientiously, it makes no difference if she is not a member of the Party--elect her to the Moscow Soviet.

Let there be more women workers in the Moscow Soviet! Let the Moscow proletariat show that it is prepared to do and is doing everything for the fight to victory, for the fight against the old inequality, against the old, bourgeois, humiliation of women!

The proletariat cannot achieve complete freedom, unless it achieves complete freedom for women.

N. Lenin

February 21, 1920  To the Working Women

The French Revolution had proclaimed the "liberation" of women from the "shackles" of the past.

Contemporary feminism is but one expression of pride. It is an aspect of the narcissistic selfism of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who once wrote that there was nothing more wonderful for him to experience than his own visage in a mirror. Rousseau's radical egalitarianism, which rejected all social distinctions based on nature and function found in the Order of Creation and in the Order of Redemption, helped to bring forth the French Revolution and its assault upon all legitimately constituted authority in the Church and in the world. Women were taught that their place was besides the men at the barricades, that they were to be "liberated" from the responsibilities of home and hearth, especially those of child-rearing.

The Bolshevik Revolution did the same, helping to pave the way for the "Roaring Twenties" in the West as Talmudic sympathizers of the Bolshevik Revolution produced motion pictures and magazines designed to introduce Bolshevik standards as the basis of undermining the role of men in society and to take women out of the home so that their children would be trained from infancy through young adulthood by the agents of all forms of naturalism (Judeo-Masonic and Bolshevik in particular). Contemporary feminism is but an outgrowth of the devil's efforts to replace Our Lady as the model of femininity with that of the "Eve" of modernity, fully liberated from "man" and from God Himself.

We have let the Leninist program of feminism take such deep root in our collective national psyche that anyone who dares point out the revolutionary nature of upsetting the good order of the family so that women with young children at home can run for elected office is considered to be a "reactionary." It is "conservatives," therefore, who have proved themselves to be most useful idiots in accepting the various errors of Russia, including those of Vladimir I. Lenin, that have been advanced very steadily by "conservative" presidential administrations.

Indeed, anyone who thinks that the hapless naturalists in the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist "right" is going to oppose proposal made by the pro-abortion Catholic named Leon Edward Panetta, who was recently praised by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI for "helping to protect the world" (see Forty Years Of Emboldening, Appeasing And Enabling Killers, part one), is not thinking too clearly.

No, the denizens of the "right" follow the election results and the polls. Seventy-five percent of the American public support lifting all remaining restrictions on women in military combat.

Why not?

Sixty percent of Americans support the retention of the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1899.

Why not dress up women to kill in combat when so many of them are dressed to kill their own babies?

Perhaps even more to the point is that most Catholics attached to the structures fo the counterfeit church of conciliarism, having been thoroughly imbued with the ethos of feminism by virtue of "religious education" programs and propaganda from the pulpit and as women have invaded the sanctuary itself in order to "take their place" next to the "presider" at the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service, serving as the extension of the hands of the presider as "altar servers," reading from the "lectionary" at the lectern an distributing what they think is Holy Communion. The conciliar "pope," who has sided with Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro on so many issues, and most of his "bishops" will have no problem with lifting all remaining legal restrictions on women in combat in the armed forces of the United States of America.

This proves yet again that we are undergoing quite a chastisement for the failure of a true pope to consecrate Russia to Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart with all of the world's true bishops as Our Lady herself requested of Sister Lucia dos Santos in 1925 as a further elaboration of what she had requested on July 13, 1917.

Pope Pius XI explained this in Divini Redemptoris, his encyclical letter on atheistic communism issued on March 19, 1937, two days after he issued his encyclical letter, Mit Brennender Sorge, condemning Nazi nationalism and racialism: 

Refusing to human life any sacred or spiritual character, such a doctrine logically makes of marriage and the family a purely artificial and civil institution, the outcome of a specific economic system. There exists no matrimonial bond of a juridico-moral nature that is not subject to the whim of the individual or of the collectivity. Naturally, therefore, the notion of an indissoluble marriage-tie is scouted. Communism is particularly characterized by the rejection of any link that binds woman to the family and the home, and her emancipation is proclaimed as a basic principle. She is withdrawn from the family and the care of her children, to be thrust instead into public life and collective production under the same conditions as man. The care of home and children then devolves upon the collectivity. Finally, the right of education is denied to parents, for it is conceived as the exclusive prerogative of the community, in whose name and by whose mandate alone parents may exercise this right.  (Pope Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris, March 19, 1937.)

Forcing women out of the family and into the sweatshops and the factories was a goal of not only the French and Bolshevik Revolutions, but also of the Industrial Revolution of Calvinist capitalism. Wives and mothers whose husbands worked long hours in factories for substandard wages were forced in many instances to go to work themselves in order to supplement their husbands' meager incomes. This is what prompted Popes Leo XIII and Pius XI to insist that the man, the principal breadwinner of the family, to be paid a "living wage," that is, to be paid enough to support their families without forcing their wives to abandon the home and to enter unnecessarily into the work force. The living wage is not a flat sum of money.

Indeed, Holy Mother Church teaches that a just employer will pay his employees a sum proportionate to the work that they do and proportionate to the number of children with which he has been blessed by God. (See the appendix below for Pope Pius XI's explication of this important point in Quadragesimo Anno, May 15, 1931.)

Women, having become accustomed to "equality" in the Order of Creation (Order of Nature), are now celebrating their ability to lead and to serve in combat missions with full legal impunity as part of American military policy, aping not only the revolutionaries in France in 1789 or those in Russia in 1917 but, of course, the Zionist revolutionaries of the State of Israel, who have placed women at the barricades from the beginning of their "war for independence."

Why not?

We are eyewitnesses to the complete and utter perversion, distortion, and inversion of the entirety of God's creation. We are still reaping the bitter, rotten fruit of the first feminist of them all, Eve:

Now the serpent was more subtle than any of the beasts of the earth which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman: Why hath God commanded you, that you should not eat of every tree of paradise? [2] And the woman answered him, saying: Of the fruit of the trees that are in paradise we do eat: [3] But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of paradise, God hath commanded us that we should not eat; and that we should not touch it, lest perhaps we die. [4] And the serpent said to the woman: No, you shall not die the death. [5] For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil.

[6] And the woman saw that the tree was good to eat, and fair to the eyes, and delightful to behold: and she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave to her husband who did eat. (Genesis 3: 1-6.)

The current effort, though, does not really mean to draft women for military service in the near-future.

No, the open-ended amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act is an incremental step prior to the mandating of “universal national service” for all Americans, male and female (and whatever delusional means of identification which, if proposed even seventy years ago as having a shred of credibility based in biological science and the very nature of things would have been considered mental illness and grounds for immediate institutionalization), between the ages of eighteen and thirty-five without regard to the stability of marriage or employment, or the welfare of children left without parents forced to serve a period of national service.

All this would further destabilize the family even more than it has been destabilized in the past century because of contraception, easy divorce, the abandonment of dependent mothers and children that force mothers of young children into the work force against their will (something that has happened also as a result of stay-at-home mothers being forced to find work when their husbands lose jobs or cannot gain employment because of preference being given to women in the name of “equality” and “gender equity”), and of course, feminism and its cult of “career fulfillment” that has driven so many women away from motherhood to compete with men by exhibiting masculine characteristics of mind or body or both.

More to the point, however, is that requiring women of child-bearing age to register with the Selective Service System is to make sure that they can be “called up” at any time because of some manufactured crisis (global “warming,” the plandemic or its sequels, etc.) to indoctrinate one and all in “wokeness” and its accompanying “critical race theory” as all attachment to “superstitious” and “hateful” religious beliefs are stripped away in favor of an dutiful, unquestioning and docile submissiveness to whatever our statist minders want them to believe. Part of this “national service,” which could indeed be in the military as we all “know” how “global warming” threatens national security would include mandatory vaccinations and, most likely, the sort of incentivized “volunteering” for being microchipped—and thus programmed for life—in exchange for an early and honorable discharge.


Well, consider the fact that United States Department of Justice under United States Attorney General Merrick Garland is exploring the use of the unconstitutional Patriot Act to silence parents who express their vocal opposition to the efforts on the part of the “woke” elitists on public school boards to impose Marxism in the form of “critical race theory” upon their children, who I should point out, should not be put in the harm’s way that is public schools in the first place:

The Department of Justice is launching an effort to combat what it said is an "increase" in "threats of violence" against school officials and teachers across the country.

"Threats against public servants are not only illegal, they run counter to our nation’s core values," Attorney General Merrick Garland said of the effort in a statement Monday. "Those who dedicate their time and energy to ensuring that our children receive a proper education in a safe environment deserve to be able to do their work without fear for their safety."

Garland directed the FBI and U.S. attorney's offices to hold meetings with federal, state and local law enforcement leaders in the next 30 days, during which they will discuss ways to combat what the DOJ called a "disturbing trend" of harassment and threats against school officials.

Critics say the move amounts to an attempt by the Biden administration to bully parents from exercising their First Amendment rights.

The DOJ will also be launching a task force aimed at addressing the issue, while attempting to determine how the federal government could use its powers to prosecute crimes and to assist local law enforcement in incidents that are not federal crimes.

Specialized training will also be made available for local school boards and administrators to assist them in recognizing behaviors that constitute a threat, as well as helping them report the incidents to appropriate law enforcement agencies while preserving evidence to assist in the prosecution of crimes.

The move comes just four days after a leading organization representing the nation's school boards called on the Biden administration and federal law enforcement agencies to assist school boards, which the group said have seen an increase in violent threats in response to COVID-19 restrictions and critical race theory curriculum.

"While local and state law enforcement agencies are working with public school officials in several communities to prevent further disruptions to educational services and school district operations, law enforcement officials in some jurisdictions need assistance — including help with monitoring the threat levels," said National School Boards Association President Viola Garcia, whose organization represents over 90,000 school board members. (DOJ launching effort to combat threats of violence against school officials.) 

As noted earlier in this commentary, “leftists” have long believed that “democracy” means that anyone who opposes their agenda du jour is a “terrorist” and worthy of arrest and imprisonment, and all they are doing now is taking framework provided by the so-called “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism [Patriot]Act of 2001” that was passed by Congress on October 26, 2001, at the behest of the statist “conservative” President George Walker Bush in the aftermath of the tragic events that unfolded on Tuesday, September 11, 2001, to its logical conclusions of totalitarianism.

This unconstitutional act, whose full title is an Orwellian monstrosity, was created to give the government of the United States of America the full authority to spy on us all, thus bartering legitimate human liberties in the name of an illusory sense of “national security.” Such must ever be the work of Trotsykites, who are prone to curb legitimate freedoms and increase the surveillance powers of the civil state in increments, something that an editorial in The Washington Examiner pointed out even though its authors do not understand that public schools are fatal to men and their nations:

The coronavirus pandemic was obviously tragic in many ways, killing many of the most vulnerable, disrupting life, and causing job loss and economic hardship for millions. But in other ways, the experience has helped people gain perspective about important social problems.

One of them pertains specifically to education. The abandonment of in-person instruction by teachers unions was very revealing. It showed that unions are powerful organizations with no concern at all for children’s education. The learning loss they have caused has harmed schoolchildren.

On the other hand, though, a forced increase of involvement in their children’s day-to-day education experience has also helped parents wake up to the inanities that certain far-left school boards are forcing upon their children.

The school boards are not happy about the scrutiny. They have in some cases tried to keep parents out of public meetings. They are so out of touch and so entitled that they resent being held accountable by irate parents who have started showing up at these meetings.

Parents are unhappy at having their children indoctrinated with toxic racialist ideologies such as critical race theory, which attempts to make children feel bad about the color of their skin. They have raised the problem of pornographic materials and even child pornography that has been made available in some school libraries, supposedly in the name of tolerance for alternate lifestyles. Some parents have also come to meetings upset about school mask mandates that have little or no scientific basis.

As outrageous as it is for these board members to resent the public they are supposed to be serving, they are now crossing a much brighter line. They are literally asking the Biden administration to designate parents as terrorists for shouting at them, insulting them, and at some meetings behaving in a rowdy fashion. They want the White House to use the powers of the PATRIOT Act against the parents they are supposed to be serving. And unfortunately, it appears that Biden’s White House is at least remotely considering such a thing.

The National School Boards Association sent a letter Thursday to President Joe Biden complaining that school board members feeling the heat are actually victims of "a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes."

The letter demands that the Justice Department, the FBI, and the Department of Homeland Security intervene to stop the angry parents, using such tools as “the PATRIOT Act in regards to domestic terrorism, the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act,” and “the Violent Interference with Federally Protected Rights statute.”

In order to justify this genuinely insane crackdown on rowdy people at school board meetings, the letter cites a rather unimpressive handful of cases where people were hurt or arrested or disruptive at meetings, or where school board members ended meetings rather than face an angry crowd of parents. It shouldn’t even have to be said, but none of these things — even the ones involving criminal behavior — constitute terrorism. Are we really supposed to turn this into a homeland security matter and curtail people’s constitutional rights just because someone inappropriately shouted “sieg heil” at a board meeting to mock a Michigan school board’s supposedly authoritarian behavior?

We certainly do not condone threats or violence. But what we really don't condone is government suppression of activism. Parents have every right to get angry and participate in the process. The real issue is that many school boards would like to go back to operating in secret, the way they did before COVID. That’s why they are asking the Biden administration to use literal Nazi-like tactics in order to suppress dissent. It’s funny how the Left’s idea of “resistance” as a positive thing, or of dissent as the highest form of patriotism, vanishes the very moment the resistance is turned upon themselves.

"Obviously, these threats to school board members is horrible,” White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki said when asked about NSBA’s unusual request. “They’re doing their jobs," she added. She said that the White House would consider federal action, but that most such situations would be handled locally.

That is the wrong answer. The correct answer is “Hell no! We don’t do things like that in America.” There was a time when liberals understood this. Many of them were skeptical of the PATRIOT Act precisely because they feared some idiot might come along later and use its powers against political dissenters.

Biden must now decide whether he wants to be that idiot. We sincerely hope that he forcefully rejects the idea. (Biden must reject using the PATRIOT Act to suppress angry parents' opinions.)

What constitutes “violence” and “intimidation” according to the fascists of the false opposite of the naturalist “left”? Even the meekest, the mildest, the most soft-spoken criticism of what they assert as true and beyond question constitutes “violence” and “intimidation.”

This is the same tactic that was used during the administration of morally corrupt, depraved, serial adulterer and pathological liar who served as President of the United States from January 20, 1983, to January 20, 2001, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton (whose wife, Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton, aka Madame Defarge, had her minions mastermind an intricate plot to divert attention in 2016 from the use of a home-brewed server to store sensitive and classified emails and other documents during her time as Secretary of State of the United States of America by knowingly create a false narrative that candidate Donald John Trump was a tool of Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin; see Michael Sussmann's Indictment Also Previews the Clinton Foundation Conspiracy Against Trump) as  the late Janet “See No Chinagate, Hear No Chinagate, Speak No Chinagate” Reno created a Federal Bureau of Investigation task force to prevent “violence” against baby-killers.

The so-called violence Against Abortion Providers Conspiracy (VAAPCON) Task Force authorized agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)  to intimidate pro-life Americans, including a woman in Toledo, Ohio, who was visited by FBI agents after she had written to a baby-killer to tell her that she was praying for her conversion, an act that was deemed by the agents to have constituted a "violent threat" against the baby-killer (see FBI's VAAPCON Spies on Pro-Lifers for more information about the Clinton-Reno war against pro-lifers).

It was also during the administration of William Jefferson Blythe Clinton that the Chairman of the Federal Election Commission, a woman by the name of Lois Lerner, sought to intimidate former Illinois State Representative Al Salvi by seeking to bring charges against him that were found by a federal judge to be without merit whatsoever (see Lerner intrigue goes back to '96 DurbinSalvi.)

Even though modern methods of thought-control are more sophisticated and deeply embedded than they were two hundred fifty years ago, it is still nevertheless true that there is a long, long history of suppression of dissenting speech here in the United States of America and elsewhere in the so-called “civilized” world of Modernity. Intimidation of political opponents has been a staple of American government and politics from its inception.

Indeed, the late Dr. Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, explained the system of unofficial censorship that existed in the United States of America at the time he gave his famous commencement address at Harvard University on June 8, 1978:

Without any censorship in the West, fashionable trends of thought and ideas are fastidiously separated from those that are not fashionable, and the latter, without ever being forbidden have little chance of finding their way into periodicals or books or being heard in colleges. Your scholars are free in the legal sense, but they are hemmed in by the idols of the prevailing fad. There is no open violence, as in the East; however, a selection dictated by fashion and the need to accommodate mass standards frequently prevents the most independent-minded persons from contributing to public life and gives rise to dangerous herd instincts that block dangerous herd development.

In America, I have received letters from highly intelligent persons - maybe a teacher in a faraway small college who could do much for the renewal and salvation of his country, but the country cannot hear him because the media will not provide him with a forum. This gives birth to strong mass prejudices, to a blindness which is perilous in our dynamic era. (Dr. Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, A World Split Apart. June 8, 1978.)

Freedom? It is an illusion. There can be no authentic freedom for the individual or for the state that is not founded in the Kingship of Jesus Christ as it must be exercised by the Catholic Church in all pertains to the good of souls, upon which depends the entire fate of nations.

Speaking out against blasphemies committed by the motion picture and related "entertainment" industries? A crime. Defending the inviolability of innocent human life? A crime. Far-fetched? Think again, ladies and gentlemen. Think again.

Lest the very few readers who remain on this site think that this kind of contempt by one set of “naturalists” for those who disagree with them is anything “new” or that the deep state effort to portray candidate Donald John Trump as a Russian puppet five years ago and then to undermine the legitimacy and the very conduct of his presidency thereafter is novel, permit me to provide you with a bit of historical perspective that may or may not be familiar to longtime readers of this site.

A Long History of Repressing and Censoring Political Dissent in the Land of the “Free”

As initial overview, it must be remembered that tyrants have sought to silence Catholics from the very birth of the Church on Pentecost Sunday, starting with the thugs who composed the Sanhedrin. Roman Emperors and the kings of barbaric tribes tried with all their might to get Catholics to deny the Faith during the early part First Millennium. Mohammedans have tried to do so from the Seventh Century to this very day. Protestants and Freemasons and social revolutionaries have tried to do so with varying degrees of ferocity since 1517. The names of these perpetrators have ranged from Nero to Trajan to Diocletian to Mohammed to Luther to Henry to Cranmer to Calvin to Cromwell to Danton to Robespierre to Garibaldi and Bismarck to Lenin to Hitler to Mao to Ho to Castro to Ortega and to all of the petty little men and women, many of them apostate Catholics, who have served in our own government in the past thirty to forty years, ever eager to sell out the Faith for their thirty pieces of silver of popularity and political power.

Tyrants never learn their lessons. Inspired by the adversary, who hates God and who hates us because our souls made in the image and likeness of God, new generations of tyrants arise to try to silence the voice of Catholics. This is why the accommodation of the Church in her human elements to the spirit of the world has made it more possible for the witches' brew of forces that has been coalescing and mutating and re-coalescing since the Sixteenth Century to be victorious in all aspects of the popular culture of most of the countries in the so-called "developed" world. The devil and his minions grow bolder when Catholics begin to speak with the voice of the world, something that the conciliar “popes” and their “bishops” have done for over sixty years now.

In particular, of course, the Protestant Revolution against the Social Reign of Christ the King that began five hundred three years ago on October 31, 1517, was an effort to “provide” “evangelical liberty” to those who had been “enslaved” by a supposedly “dictatorial” hierarchical Church that had “corrupted” the Gospel message for her own purposes. This “evangelical liberty,” however, quickly descended into rank libertinage to the extent that even Martin Luther himself was aghast at what the decline in morals that took place once he had “liberated” men from the true Church, the Catholic Church, and set them “free” as “equals” to decide for themselves the meaning of Sacred Scripture and to sack and pillage Catholic churches, monasteries, and convents. 

King Henry VIII, of course, was so intent on crushing all opposition to his taking England out of the Catholic Faith that he engaged in a bloodbath of 72,000 Catholics between 1534 and the tyrant's death in 1547, a little over three percent of the population of England at that time. The killing of over 72,000 people, the seizure of the monastery and convent lands and the other discriminatory measures imposed upon Roman Catholics in the wake of the English Protestant Revolt were undertaken done quite legally, thank you. Judges sentenced Catholics to death quite routinely. The England of the Anglican Church just went about its business as though anyone who resisted the new order of things was a disloyal extremist.

This lawless desire to crush opposition transcended the waters of the Atlantic Ocean and infected many of those who believed that the English colonies situated upon and down the Atlantic seaboard of the United States of America should break from England. Those arguing against such a break did so frequently at the very threat of their lives.

To wit, Jonathan Boucher, an Anglican preacher in England and in the Colony of Virginia in the years before the Revolutionary War in the Eighteenth Century, argued in very eloquent terms against a break of the thirteen English colonies from the British Crown by reminding his listeners that true freedom comes only from Our Blessed Lord and Saviour. Boucher made some very fine points in his sermon (On Civil Liberty, Passive Obedience and Nonresistance), which should be studied if for no other reason than to realize that there was some effort made by "conservative" colonists to stem the tide of rebellion and to prevent a war for "independence," which was, after all, an act of high treason against King George III.

Boucher, who sometimes packed two single-shot pistols and kept them in his pulpit when he preached so that "patriots" would not attack him, argued against what could be called "liberation theology," urging Anglicans and other colonists to accept whatever sufferings were being imposed by King George III and to offer them up to God, stating that one should not seek to rebel from the authority which God has seen fit in His Providence to provide for the governance of men. The "disconnect" of Protestantism was such, however, that Boucher could not see that his own false "church" was born in a violent, bloody rebellion against the true authority given by God Himself over men in the form of the Church that He created upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope. It was incongruous to argue that a rebellion against civil authority was unjust when one's very "church" was created as a result of a rebellion against God Himself.

Similarly, Americans have long fashioned their nation to be one of laws, not of men. However, this is simply not true. This is a fantasy. This is delusional.

The laws of God have been broken on these shores by the proliferation of unbridled error under the false slogans of "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press" from the very beginning.

President after president has engaged in activities designed to suppress legitimate dissent and opposition.

It was within a decade of the inauguration of the first President of the United States of America, George Washington, that a Congress controlled by Federalist Party members during the administration of Washington's successor, the Catholic-hating John Adams (see A Founding Hatred for Christ the King), who was, of course, the first Vice President of the United States of America, that the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed on July 14, 1798, made it a crime to publish "false, scandalous, and malicious" writing against the government of the United States of America and its officials.

The sixteenth President of the United States of America, Abraham Lincoln, did not exactly "cotton" to political opposition during the War Between the States from 1861 to 1865, as he intimidated judges, shut down newspapers, suspended the writ of habeas corpus without an Act of Congress, held opponents in prison without trial and put civilians on trial in military courts at a time when civilian courts were open. And this is just a partial listing of what led John Wilkes Booth to cry out, "Sic temper tyrannis!" as he jumped onto the stage of the Ford Theater in Washington, District of Columbia, on Good Friday, April 14, 1865, from the balcony where he had just shot Lincoln in the head, a wound that would take Lincoln's life early the next morning, Holy Saturday, April 15, 1865.

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

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

Wilson replied [in 1915, to Father Francis Clement Kelley, who was a representative of James Cardinal Gibbons, the Archbishop of Baltimore, for whom Wilson had such contempt that he addressed him as Mister Gibbons]: 'I have no doubt but that the terrible things you mention have happened during the Mexican revolution. But terrible things happened also during the French revolution, perhaps more terrible things than have happened in Mexico. Nevertheless, out of that French revolution came the liberal ideas that have dominated in so many countries, including our own. I hope that out of the bloodletting in Mexico some such good yet may come.'

"Having thus instructed his caller in the benefits which must perforce accrue to mankind out of the systematic robbery, murder, torture and rape of people holding a proscribed religious conviction, the professor of politics [Wilson] suggested that Father Kelley visit Secretary of State Williams Jennings Bryan, who expressed his deepest sympathy. Obviously, the Wilson administration was committed to supporting the revolutionaries. All efforts of Catholic to succor their coreligionists across the border were to prove fruitless, as they were to prove once again in 1924, when the fiercest persecution of all was begun by Plutarco Calles. In this systematic pogrom, all public worship came to an end in Mexico an priests were methodically hunted down and executed like outlaws. It was of this travail which Graham Greene wrote in The Power and the Glory. Generally, however, the world press ignored the Calles persecution in a “conspiracy of silence” which the American hierarchy and Pope after Pope were powerless to break. (Robert Leckie American and Catholic, Doubleday, 1970, pp. 274.)

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

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

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

Do not think for a single moment that abuses of deep state bureaucrats being exposed at this time is anything new. Illegal surveillance by the Federal government has been on the rise since World War II and the establishment of permanent intelligence agencies. Modern technology has advanced to such a point that these agencies, acting both legally and illegally, monitor every means of human communication today save for those done with an old-fashioned typewriter that has not connection of any kind to the internet or to a telephone line.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation itself, as noted just above, has long seen itself as a “check” upon elected officials, and John Edgar Hoover, who served as Director of the Bureau of Investigation from May 10, 1924, to March 22, 1935, and then as the founding Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation from March 23, 1935, until the time of his death on May 2, 1972, believed in the suppression of political dissent dating back to his days as the head of President Thomas Woodrow Wilson’s “War Emergency Division’s” “Alien Enemy Bureau” one hundred years ago. Please, what is going on now, although certainly shocking to those not conversant with the darker sides of American history, is really nothing new at all.

Although Presidents Harry S. Truman and John Fitzgerald Kennedy each considered firing Hoover, the latter had amassed too much information on too many people. This information, most of it gathered quite illegally and/or by the improper use of Federal Bureau of Investigation field agents, was Hoover’s own kind of “insurance policy.”

President Lyndon Baines Johnson, on the other hand, knowing what kind of “insurance policy” that Hoover had on him, whetted Hoover’s appetite for domestic surveillance under the thinnest of legal pretexts, including wiretapping his own vice president, the garrulous spendthrift with taxpayer dollars named Hubert Horatio Humphrey:

Resigned to Humphrey's candidacy [in 1968], Johnson pressed his Vice President throughout the campaign not to stray too far from the Administration's position on Vietnam.

Humphrey largely complied. But at the end of September, when he showed greater flexibility than the White House on how to end the war, Johnson reacted angrily. He told Clark Clifford that he doubted Humphrey's ability to be President. He lacked the guts for the job. After Humphrey had become Vice President and expressed doubts about the war, the White House, according to a Humphrey aide, Ted Van Dyk, had arranged for wiretaps on Humphrey's office phones. Van Dyk learned this from two Secret Service agents on the vice-presidential detail. Neither Van Dyk nor Humphrey was surprised. Though Johnson in principle disliked taping and wiretaps, he secretly taped more than 7,500 of his own telephone conversations as President. Moreover, during the 1964 campaign, after a visit to the White House, Richard Russell wrote, "Hoover has apparently been turned loose and is tapping everything.... [Johnson] stated it took him hours each night to read them all (but he loves this)." The speed with which Johnson had information about Humphrey's presidential campaign suggested to Van Dyk that the White House was still tapping Humphrey's phones in 1968. Johnson apparently wanted the taps to gain advance notice and a chance to dissuade him should Humphrey decide to break away on the war. (Three New Revelations about Lyndon Baines Johnson.)

It should be noted, however, that the liberal Robert Dallek, who authored the synopsis of his own book about Lyndon Baines Johnson, did not include the following fact about Johnson’s wiretapping in 1968 that is covered in another book:

In 1968, President Lyndon Johnson ordered Hoover to tap the phone of Republican vice- presidential nominee Spiro Agnew on the suspicion that Agnew was telling the South Vietnamese that they would get a better peace agreement from Nixon if he were elected president. The taps did not reveal that Agnew ever made such a deal. (Henry M. Holden, FBI 100 Years: An Unofficial History, Zenith Press, an imprint of MBI Publishing, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 2008, p. 218.)

Mind you, this is only a partial listing of abuses that have been committed in this alleged land of "laws and not men," a land where over sixty-three million innocent babies have been butchered by surgical means (hundreds of millions more by chemical means) since, most of those having taken place in the forty-seven years after the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973. That staggering figure does not include those babies who were killed by surgical means in their mothers' wombs between 1967 and 1973 when various states, including Colorado, California, Hawaii, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Alaska, and Washington (and Washington, District of Columbia) decriminalized surgical baby-killing in some or all cases at various stages of a baby's development in his mother's womb, and it does not even begin to include all those killed by means of “brain death”/human organ vivisection, “quality of life care”/hospice/palliative care, vaccinations, and the starvation and dehydration of innocent human beings.

A "civilized" nation of "laws." I don't think so.

The lawless imposition of policies even in violation of constitutions and civil code or statutory law and the suppression of opposition to the policies of statists of one stripe or another is nothing new, you see. It has been around for a long, long time. There is even a certain "logic" to the efforts on the part of naturalists to suppress opposition as those committed to their own acquisition and retention of personal power as an ultimate end/or who are committed ideologues of one system of "secular salvation" or another ape, pervert, invert and distort the Catholic Church's teaching that the civil state is is "acting against the laws and dictates of nature whenever it permits the license of opinion and of action to lead minds astray from truth and souls away from the practice of virtue" (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.) Statists believe their anyone who opposes their schemes and their firmly held ideological beliefs is leading "minds away from truth" and must be denounced and threatened with fines and imprisonment. 

You see, good readers, those who believe in the false, naturalistic, anti-Incarnational, and semi-Pelagian principles of Modernity that must degenerate into full-blown statists who can never "coexist" peacefully with Catholics who believe in the immutable doctrine of the Social Reign of Christ the King and who are devoted to the restoration of Our Lord's Social Kingship as the fundamental precondition of a rightly ordered civil government that pursues the common temporal good in light of man's Last End. These statists must seek to make war upon believing Catholics, especially those who reject the Modernism of the counterfeit church of conciliarism that has made its "reconciliation" with the diabolical principles of Modernity.

To Rise Above the Agitation 

Whether or not they realize it, most Catholics today have fallen prey to the Pelagian heresy in that they think that they can hold back the tide of evil and/or advance the cause of justice in the world absent a due social reverence for Christ the King and His true Church. Public life is quite indeed stained with crime as a result, a result that was and will forever remain the logical and inevitable consequence of the false premises of the American founding, false premises that have been turned on their head as the country becomes a mirror of the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) as it existed from 1949 to October 3, 1990.

Men prefer to wallow in their pleasures and to accumulate wealth and “toys” as they waste their time on vain amusements. They are as immune to the warning signs of a decaying society today as were the men at the time of the Flood and destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha. Modernity rejected Catholicism and the Social Reign of Christ the King and replaced with the oligarchy of self-anointed “high priests” and “priestesses” who have always been intent on imposing their own “orthodoxy,” whatever it may happen to be at a particular time, in increasingly more totalitarian ways while the masses are distracted with their bread and circuses.

Father Henry James Coleridge explained that those who ignore God’s warnings, including those given by His Co-Equal, Co-Eternal Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, bring themselves and their nations to destruction:

With regard to the antediluvian world, there is this feature besides, that God undoubtedly warned the race of mankind that His judgments were about to come on them. It appears from the Scripture account that the ark took a hundred years to build, and that during that time Noe was a preacher of repentance. We know but little indeed of those marvellous days, when human life, as the Scripture tells us, was so long, but if that were so, it would be quite enough to account for the forgetfulness of the things of God and of the soul, and for the extreme profligacy of which we also read of the anteldiluvian. Alas! So it is. If life in our days could be prolonged for twice or thrice its ordinary span, it would more probably be for the greater misery that for the greater happiness of mankind. And when we are told, as we are times told in Scriptures, that God has shortened the days of the ordinary human lifetime, it is certain that He has done so in pity rather than in anger. Then also, the antediluvians seem to have dwelt in the very fairest region of the earth, they seem to have been more full of natural knowledge and of acquired skill in the use of the resources of enjoyment and physical wellbeing that those who came after them, and it is very likely indeed that their numbers were not such as to cause that struggle for existence which is now the lot of the populations of so many countries of the world, in which the great enjoyment of the good things of the earth is not yet the free inheritance of the many. At all events, they were so fearfully and outrageously corrupt, morally and socially, that the sacred writer tells us that their wickedness was so great, that it made God repent in His heart that He had created them. Such was the population of the earth, or of those parts of it then inhabited by man, on whom the great destruction of the Flood came like a thief in the night.

As to the other period and generation of which our Lord speaks, and to which, in its heedlessness and unwatchfulness, He compares the men of the last days, why need I speak? Sodom and Gomorrha, the Cities of the Plain – the very name is synonymous with everything that is most foul and licentious, even to the degradation of our human nature. The land in which they dwelt was one of unexampled beauty and fertility. We are told in the book of Genesis, that “the country about Jordan was watered throughout before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrha, as the paradise of the Lord, and like Egypt as when one comes to Segur.” (Gen. Xiii. 10)  And as the Flood had been brought on by list, so also was it with the destruction of these fair cities and their wicked inhabitants. Here, then, we find also these two features, immense material enjoyment and the most intense moral degradation. We are not told that the people of these cities were directly warned of the chastisement which they were bringing on themselves, but, at all events, they had had for some time resident among them a chosen servant of God Lot, the sister's son of Abraham, of whom St. Peter speaks as if he had been a witness to virtue and morality, “oppressed by the injustice and lewd conversation of the wicked, for in sight and hearing he was just, dwelling among them, who day by day vexed the just soul with ungodly works.” (2 St. Peter ii 7, 8.)  So that if they had not a direct warning, they had the witness of a holy life among them to reproach them for their profound foulness of lust. And we may daily suppose that if they were not warned by any more direct signs or predictions of their coming destruction, it was because they were so deeply engrossed in their sensuality as not to be capable of conversation, or of arousing, by any such means, as it is indeed the characteristic of men who are given to those enormous sins of lust, to be incapable of compunction, and beyond the reach of the most startling warnings of Providence. (Father Henry James Coleridge, S.J.. Discourses on the Latter Days, 1883, pp. 77-91. Published by St. Pius X Press.)

We have arrived at the days of the sort that Father Coleridge did not believe existed in his time. Indeed, we have exceeded the lusts of the pagan Romans and the statism of its ceasars, and we are making Sodom and Gomorrha look like the Victorian England in which Father Coleridge lived all but the first fifteen years of his life.

This degenerative process is unstoppable by merely natural means. Only a very tiny percentage of people in the United States of America understand even the rudimentary elements of the immutable doctrine of the Social Reign of Christ the King, no less accept the truth that Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order. No matter where they fall along the vast expanse of the ecclesiastical divide, most Catholics in the United States of America have had their world view shaped by the naturalism of Americanism, a naturalism that has been aided and abetted by the view of Church-State relations held and advanced by the lords of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, who are rather tyrannical in their own right in seeking to obliterate opposition to their own revolutionary schemes that are contrary to the Catholic Faith and thus to the good of both men and their nations.

We Must Rely Upon Our Lady’s Most Holy Rosary

The answer to this madness is the restoration of the Social Reign of Christ the King as a result of the fulfillment of Our Lady's Fatima Message and thus of the Triumph of her Immaculate Heart. It is not to be found in anything offered in the cottage industries created by various Protestant and naturalist merchants of "information" and "truth" (Alex Jones, Jeff Rense, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Hugh Hewitt, et al.), each of whom has products galore which are nothing more than the modern equivalents of snake-oil salesmen who serve their own roles in agitating the masses and keeping Catholics from considering the events of the world in light of First and Last Things and keeping them by turning off the idiot box, which they should have thrown out of their houses a long time ago, and the radio and praying more and more Rosaries each day.

Father Frederick Faber, writing in The Creator and Creature, which was published in 1856, explained the influence of worldliness upon Catholics even in his own day, a worldliness that causes us to lose sight of the fact that the side shows of the lords of Modernity are simply that, side shows from the devil that distract us from the simple truth that men and their nations must be converted to Catholicism and that individual men must live in a penitential manner to make reparation for their sins as they beseech the Mother of God to help them to grow in holiness so that they are ready at all times to die in a State of Sanctifying Grace. These words of Father Faber are worth considering once again if you have read them before. They are worth reading for the first time if you have not done so: 

The question of worldliness is a very difficult one, and one which we would gladly have avoided, had it been in our power to do so. But it is in too many ways connected with our subject, to allow of its being passed over in silence. In the first place, a thoughtful objector will naturally say, If the relation between the Creator and the creature is such as has been laid down in the first eight chapters, and furthermore if it is as manifest and undeniable as it is urged to be, how comes it to pass that it is not more universally, or at least more readily, admitted than it is? Almost all the phenomena of the world betray a totally opposite conviction, and reveal to us an almost unanimous belief in men, that they are on a quite different footing with God from that one, which is here proclaimed to be the only true and tenable one. There must be at least some attempt to explain this discrepancy between what we see and what we are taught. The explanation, we reply, is to be found in what Christians call worldliness. It is this which stands in the way of God's honor, this which defrauds Him of the tribute due to Him from His creatures, this which blinds their eyes to His undeniable rights and prerogatives. How God's own world comes to stand between Himself and the rational soul, how friendship with it is enmity with Him--indeed an account of the whole matter must be gone into, in order to show, first, that the influence of the world does account for the non-reception of right views about God, and, secondly, that the world is in no condition to be called as a witness, because of the essential falsehood of its character. This identical falsehood about God is its very life, energy, significance, and condemnation. The right view of God is not unreal, because the world ignores it. On the contrary, it is because it is real that the unreal world ignores it, and the world's ignoring it is, so far forth, an argument in favor of the view.

But not only does this question of worldliness present itself to us in connection with the whole teaching of the first eight chapters; it is implicated in the two objections which have already been considered, namely, the difficulty of salvation and the fewness of the saved. If it is easy to be saved, whence the grave semblance of its difficulty? If the majority of adult Catholics are actually saved, because salvation is easy, why it is necessary to draw so largely on the unknown regions of the death-bed, in order to make up our majority? Why should not salvation be almost universal, if the pardon of sin is so easy, grace so abundant, and all that is wanted is a real earnestness about the interests of our souls? If you acknowledge, as you do, that the look of men's lives, even of the lives of believers, is not as if they were going to be saved, and that they are going to be saved in reality in spite of appearances, what is the explanation of these appearances, when the whole process is so plain and easy? To all this the answer is, that sin is a partial explanation, and the devil is a partial explanation, but that the grand secret lies in worldliness. That is the chief disturbing force, the prime counteracting power. It is this mainly, which keeps down the number of the saved; it is this which makes the matter seem so difficult which is intrinsically so easy; nay, it is this which is a real difficulty, though not such an overwhelming one as to make salvation positively difficult as a whole. Plainly then the phenomenon of worldliness must be considered here, else it will seem as if an evident objection, and truly the weightiest of all objections, had not been taken into account, and thus an air of insecurity will be thrown, not only over the answer to the preceding two objections, but also over the whole argument of the first eight chapters.

This inquiry into worldliness will, in the third place, truthfully and naturally prepare us for the great conclusion of the whole inquiry, namely, the personal love of God is the only legitimate development of our position as creatures, and at the same time the means by which salvation is rendered easy, and the multitude of the saved augmented. For it will be found that the dangers of worldliness are at once so great and so peculiar, that nothing but a personal love of our Creator will rescue us from them, enable us to break with the world, and to enter into the actual possession of the liberty of the sons of God.

O, it is a radiant land--this wide, many-colored mercy of our Creator! But we must be content for a while now to pass out of its kindling sunshine into another land of most ungenial darkness, in the hope that we shall come back heavy laden with booty for God's glory, and knowing how to prize the sunshine more than ever. There is a hell already upon earth; there is something which is excommunicated from God's smile. It is not altogether matter, not yet altogether spirit. It is not man only, nor Satan only, nor is it exactly sin. It is an infection, an inspiration, an atmosphere, a life, a coloring matter, a pageantry, a fashion, a taste, a witchery, an impersonal but a very recognisable system. None of these names suit it, and all of them suit it. Scripture calls it, "The World." God's mercy does not enter into it. All hope of its reconciliation with Him is absolutely and eternally precluded. Repentance is incompatible with its existence. The sovereignty of God has laid the ban of the empire upon it; and a holy horror ought to seize us when we think of it. Meanwhile its power over the human creation is terrific, its presence ubiquitous, its deceitfulness incredible. It can find a home under every heart beneath the poles, and it embraces with impartial affection both happiness and misery. It is wider than the catholic Church, and is masterful, lawless, and intrusive within it. It cannot be damned, because it is not a person, but it will perish in the general conflagration, and so its tyranny be over, and its place know it no more. We are living in it, breathing it, acting under its influences, being cheated by its appearances, and unwarily admitting its principles. Is it it not of the last importance to us that we should know something of this huge evil creature, this monstrous seabird of evil, which flaps its wings from pole to pole, and frightens the nations into obedience by its discordant cries?

But we must not be deceived by this description. The transformations of the spirit of the world are among its most wonderful characteristics. It has its gentle voice, its winning manners, its insinuating address, its aspect of beauty and attraction; and the lighter its foot and the softer its voice, the more dreadful is its approach. It is by the firesides of rich and poor, in happy homes where Jesus is named, in gay hearts which fain would never sin. In the chastest domestic affections it can hide its poison. In the very sunshine of external nature,in the combinations of the beautiful elements--it is somehow even there. The glory of the wind-swept forest and the virgin frost of the Alpine summits have a taint in them of this spirit of the world. It can be dignified as well. It can call to order sin which is not respectable. It can propound wise maxims of public decency, and inspire wholesome regulations of police. It can open the churches, and light the candles on the altar, and entone Te Deums to the Majesty on high. It is often prominently, and almost pedantically, on the side of morality. Then, again, it has passed into the beauty of art, into the splendor of dress, into the magnificence of furniture. Or, again, there it is, with high principles on its lips, discussing the religious vocation of some youth, and praising God and sanctity, while it urges discreet delay, and less self-trust, and more considerate submissiveness to those who love him, and have natural rights to his obedience. It can sit on the benches of senates and hide in the pages of good books. And yet all the while it is the same huge evil creature which was described above. Have we not reason to fear?

Let us try to learn more definitely what the world is, the world in the scripture sense. A definition is too short, a description is too vague. God never created it; how then does it come here? There is no land, outside the creation of God, which could have harbored this monster, who now usurps so much of this beautiful planet, on which Jews was born and died, and from which He and His sinless Mother rose to heaven? It seems to be a spirit of spirit, which has risen up from a disobedient creation, as if the results, and after-consequences of all the sins that ever were, rested in the atmosphere, and loaded it with some imperceptible but highly powerful miasma. It cannot be a person, and yet it seems as if it possessed both a mind and a will, which on the whole are very consistent, so as to disclose what might appear to be a very perfect self-consciousness. It is painless in its operations, and unerring too; and just as the sun bids the lily be white and the rose red, and they obey without an effort, standing side by side with the same aspect and in the same soil, so this spirit of the world brings forth colors and shapes and scents in our different actions, without the process being cognisable to ourselves. The power of mesmerism on the reluctant will is a good type of the power of this spirit of the world upon ourselves. It is like grace, only that it is contradictory.

But it has not always the same power. It the expression may be forgiven, there have been times when the world was less worldly than usual; and this look as as if it were something which the existing generator of men always gave out from themselves, a kind of magnetism of varying strengths and different properties. As Satan is sometimes bound, so it pleases God to bind the world sometimes. Or He thunders, and the atmosphere is cleared for awhile, and the times are healthy, and the Church lifts her head and walks quicker. But, on the whole, its power appears to be increasing with time. In other words, the world is getting more worldly. Civilization develops it immensely, and progress helps it on, and multiplies its capabilities. In the matter of worldliness, a highly civilized time is to a comparatively ruder time what the days of machinery are to those of hand-labor. We are not speaking of sin; that is another idea, and brings in fresh considerations: we are speaking only of worldliness. If the characteristic of modern times go on developing with the extreme velocity and herculean strength which they promise now, we may expect (just what prophecy would lead us to anticipate) that the end of the world and the reign of anti-Christ would be times of the most tyrannical worldliness.

This spirit also has its characteristic of time and place. The worldliness of one century is different from that of another. Now it runs toward ambition in the upper classes and discontent in the lower. Now to money-making, luxury, and lavish expenditure. One while it sets towards grosser sins; another while towards wickedness of a more refined description; and another while it will tolerate nothing but educated sin. It also has periodical epidemics and accessions of madness, thought at what intervals, or whether by the operation of any law, must be left to the philosophy of history to decide. Certain it is, that ages have manias, the source of which it is difficult to trace, but under which whole communities, and sometimes nations, exhibit symptoms of diabolical possession. Indeed, on looking back, it would appear that every age, as if an age were an individual and had an individual life, had been subject to some vertigo of its own, by which it may be almost known in history. Very often, the phenomena, such as those of the French Revolution, seem to open out new depths in human nature, or to betoken the presence of some preternatural spiritual influences. Then, again, ages have panics, as if some attribute of God came near to the world, and cast a deep shadow over its spirit, marking men's hearts quail for fear.

This spirit is further distinguished by the evidences which it presents of a fixed view and a settled purpose. It is capricious, but, for all that, there is nothing about it casual, accidental, fortuitous. It is well instructed for its end, inflexible in its logic, and making directly, no matter through what opposing medium to its ultimate results. Indeed, it is obviously informed with the wisdom and subtlety of Satan. It is his greatest capability of carrying on his war against God. Like a parasite disease, it fixes on the weak places in men, pandering both to mind and flesh, but chiefly to the former. It i one of those three powers to whom such dark pre-eminence is given, the world, the flesh, and the devil; and among these three, it seems to have a kind of precedence given to it, by the way in which our Lord speaks of its in the Gospel, though the line of its diplomacy has been to have itself less thought of and less dreaded than the other two; and, unhappily for the interests of God and the welfare of souls, it has succeeded. It is, then, pre-eminent among the enemies of God. Hence the place which it occupied in Holy Scripture. It is the world which hated Christ, the world which cannot receive the Spirit, the world that loves its own, the world that rejoices because Christ has gone away, the world which He overcame, the world for which He would not pray, the world that by wisdom knew not God, the world whose spirit Christians were not to receive, the world that was not worthy of the saints, the world whose friendship is enmity with God, the world that passeth away with its lusts, the world which they who are born of God overcome, or, as the Apocalypse calls its, the world that goes wandering after the beast. Well then might St. James come to his energetic conclusion, Whosoever therefore will be a friend of this world, becometh an enemy of God. It is remarkable also that St. John, the chosen friend of the Incarnate Word, and the Evangelist of His Divinity, should be the one of the inspired writers who speaks most often and most emphatically about the world, as if the spirit of Jesus found something especially revolting to it in the spirit of the world.

It is this world which we have to fight against throughout the whole of our Christian course. Our salvation depends upon our unforgiving enmity against it. It is not so much that it is a sin, as that it is the capability of all sins, the air sin breathes, the light by which it sees to do its work, the hotbed which propagates and forces it, the instinct which guides it, the power which animates it. For a Christian to look at, it is dishearteningly complete. It is a sort of catholic church of the powers of the darkness. It is laws of its own, and tastes the principles of its own, literature of its own, a missionary spirit, a compact system, and it is a consistent whole. It is a counterfeit of the Church of God, and in the most implacable antagonism to it. The doctrines of the faith, the practices and devotions of pious persons, the system of the interior life, the mystical and contemplative world of the Saints, with all these it is at deadly war. And so it must be. The view which the Church takes of the world is distinct and clear, and far from flattering to its pride. It considers the friendship of the world as enmity with God. It puts all the world's affairs under its feet, either as of no consequence, or at least of very secondary importance. It has great faults to find with the effeminacy of the literary character, with the churlishness of the mercantile character, with the servility of the political character, and even with the inordinateness of the domestic character. It provokes the world by looking in progress doubtingly, and with what appears a very inadequate interest, and there is a quiet faith in its contempt for the world extremely irritating to this latter power.

The world on the contrary thinks that it is going to last for ever. It is almost assumes that there are no other interests but its own, or that if there are, they are either of no consequence, or troublesome and in the way. It thinks that there is nothing like itself anywhere, that religion was made for its convenience, merely to satisfy a want, and must not forget itself, or if it claims more, must be put down as a rebel, or chased away as a grumbling beggar; and finally it is of opinion, that of all contemptible things spirituality is the most contemptible, cowardly, and little. Thus the Church and the world are incompatible, and must remain so to the end.

We cannot have a better instance of the uncongeniality of the world with the spirit of the Gospel, than their difference in the estimate of prosperity. All those mysterious woes which our Lord denounced against wealth, have their explanation in the dangers of worldliness. It is the peculiar aptitude of wealth and pomp, and power, to harbor the unholy spirit of the world, to combine with it, and transform themselves into it, which called forth the thrilling malediction of our Lord. Prosperity may be a blessing from God, but it may easily become the triumph of the world. And for the most part the absence of chastisement is anything but a token of God's love. When prosperity is a blessing, it is generally a condescension to our weakness. Those are fearful words, Thou has already received thy reward; yet how many prosperous men there are, the rest of whose lives will keep reminding us of them; the tendency of prosperity in itself is to wean the heart from God, and fix it on creatures. It gives us a most unsupernatural habit of esteeming others according to their success. As it increases, so anxiety to keep it increases also, and makes men restless, selfish, and irreligious; and at length it superinduces a kind of effeminacy of character, which unfits them for the higher and more heroic virtues of the Christian character. This is but a sample of the different way which the Church and the world reason.

Now it is this world which, far more than the devil, fare more than the flesh, yet in union with both, makes the difficulty we find in obeying God's commandments, or following His counsels. It is this which makes earth such a place of struggle and of exile. Proud, exclusive, anxious, hurried, fond of comforts, coveting popularity, with an offensive orientation of prudence, it is this worldliness which hardens the hearts of men, stops their ears, blinds their eyes, vitiates their taste, and ties their hands, so far as the things of God are concerned. Let it be true that salvation is easy, and that by far the greater number of Catholics are saved, it is still unhappily true that that the relations of the Creator and the creature, as put forward in this treatise, are not so universally or so practically acknowledged as they ought to be. Why is this? Sin is a partial answer. The devil is another partial answer. But I believe worldliness has got to answer for a great deal of sin, and for a great deal of devil, besides a whole deluge of iniquity of its own, which is perpetually debasing good works, assisting the devil in his assaults, and working with execrable assiduity against the sacraments and grace. The world is for ever lowering the heavenly life of the Church. If there ever was an age in which this was true, it is the present. One of the most frightening features of our condition is, that we are so little frightened of the world. The world itself has brought this about. Even spiritual books are chiefly occupied with the devil and the flesh; and certain of the capital sins, such as envy and sloth, no loner hold the prominent places which they held of the systems of the elder ascetics; and yet they are just those vices which contain most of the ungodly spirit of the world. The very essence of worldliness seems to consist in its making us forget that we are creatures; and the more this view is reflected upon, the more correct will it appear.

When our Blessed Lord describes the days before the Flood, and again those which shall precede the end of the world, He portrays them rather as times of worldliness than of open sin. Men were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage; and He says no more. Now none of these things are wrong in themselves. We can eat and rink, as the apostle teaches us, to the glory of God, and marriage was a divine institution at the time of the Flood, and is not a Christian Sacrament. In the same way when He describes the life of the only person whom the gospel narratives follows into the bode of the lost, He sums it up as the being clothed in purple and fine linen, and feasting sumptuously every day. here again there is nothing directly sinful in the actions which He names. It surely cannot be a mortal sin to have fine linen, nor will a man lose a state of grace because he feasts sumptuously every day, provided that no other sins follow in the train of this soft life. The malice of it all is in its worldliness, in the fact that this was all or nearly all the lives of those before the flood, of those before the days of anti-Christ, and of the unhappy Dives. Life began and ended in worldliness. There was nothing for God. It was comprised in the pleasures of the world, it rested in them, it was satisfied by then. Its characteristic was sins of omission. Worldliness might also be defined to be a state of habitual sins of omission. The devil urges men on to great positive breaches of the divine commandments. The passions of the flesh impel sinners to give way to their passions by such dreadful sins, as catch the eyes of men and startle them by their iniquity. Worldliness only leads to these things occasionally and by accident. It neither scandalizes others, not frightens the sinner himself. This is the very feature of it, which, rightly considered, ought to be so terrifying. The reaction of a great sin, or the same which follows it, are often the pioneers of grace. They give self-love such a serious shock, that under the influence of it men return to GodWorldliness hides from the soul its real malice, and thus keeps at arm's length from it some of the most persuasive motives to repentance. Thus the Pharisees are depicted in the Gospel as being eminently worldly. It is worldliness, not immorality, which is put before us. There is even much of moral decency, much of respectable observance, much religious profession; and yet when our Blessed Saviour was among them, they were further from grace than the publicans and sinners. They had implicit hatred of God in their hearts already, which became explicit as soon as they saw Him. The Magdalen, the Samaritan, the woman taken in adultery--it was these who gathered round Jesus, attracted by His sweetness, and touched by the graces which went out from Him. The Pharisees only grew more cold, more haughty, more self-opinionated, until they ended by the greatest of all sins, the crucifixion of our Lord. For worldliness, when its selfish necessities drive it at last into open sin, for the most part sins more awfully and more impenitently than even the unbridled passions of our nature. So again there was the young man who had great possessions, and who loved Jesus when he saw Him, and wished to follow Him. He was a religious man, and with humble scrupulosity observed the commandments of God; but when our Lord told him to sell and give the price to the poor and to follow Him, he turned away sorrowful, and was found unequal to such a blessed vocation. Now his refusing to sell his property was surely not a mortal sin. It does not appear that our Lord considered him to have sinned by his refusal. It was the operation of worldliness. We do not know what the young man's future was; but a sad cloud of misgivings must hang over the memory of him whom Jesus invited to follow Him, and who turned away. Is he looking now in heaven upon that Face, form whose mild beauty he so sadly turned away on earth?

Thus the outward aspect of worldliness is not sin. Its character is negative. It abounds in omissions. Yet throughout the Gospels our Saviour seems purposely to point to it rather than to open sin. When the young man turned away, His remark was, How hard it is for those who have riches to enter into the kingdom of heaven. But the very fact of our Lord's thus branding worldliness with His especial reprobation is enough to show that it is in reality deeply sinful, hatefully sinful. It is a life without God in the world. It is a a continual ignoring of God, a continual quiet contempt of His rights, an insolent abatement in the service which He claims from His creatures. Self is set up instead of God. The canons of human respect are more looked up to than the Divine Commandments. God is very little adverted to. He is passed over. The very thought of Him soon ceases to make the worldly man uncomfortable. Indeed all his chief objections to religion, if he thought much about the matter, would be found a repose on his apprehension of it as restless and uncomfortable. But all this surely must represent an immensity of interior mortal sin. Can a man habitually forget God, and be in a state of habitual grace? Can he habitually prefer purple garments and sumptuous fare to the service of his Creator, and be free of mortal sin? Can be make up a life for himself even of the world's sinless enjoyments, such as eating, drinking, and marrying, and will not the mere omission of God from it be enough to constitute him in a state of deadly sin? At that rate a moral atheist is more acceptable to God than a poor sinner honestly but freely fighting with some habit of vice, to which his nature and his past offenses set so strongly, that he can hardly lift himself up. At that rate the Pharisees in the Gospel would be the patterns for our imitation, rather than the publicans and sinners; or at least they would be as safe. Or shall we say that faith is enough to save us without charity? If a man only believes rightly, let him eat and rink and be gaily clothed, and let him care for nothing else, and at least that exclusive love of creatures, that omission of the Creator, provided only it issues in no other outward acts than his fine dinners and his expensive clothes, shall never keep his soul from heaven. His purple and his sumptuous feasting shall be his beatific vision here, and then his outward morality shall by God's mercy hand him on to his second beatific Vision, the Vision of the beauty of God, and the eternal ravishment of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity! Can this be true?

Yet on the other hand, we may not make into sins what God had not made sins. How is this? O it is the awful world of inward sin which is the horror of all this worldliness! It is possession, worse far than diabolical possession, because at once more hideous and more complete. It is the interior irreligiousness, the cold pride, the hardened heart, the depraved sense, the real unbelief, the more implicit hatred of God, which makes the soul of the worldly man an actual, moral, and intellectually hell on earth, hidden by an outward show of faultless proprieties, which only make it more revolting to the Eye that penetrates the insulting disguise. The secret sins moreover of the worldly are a very sea of iniquity. Their name is legion; they cannot be counted. Almost every thought is sin, because of the inordinate worship of self that is in it. Almost every step is sin, because it is treading underfoot some ordinance of God. It is a life without prayer, a life without desire of heaven, a life without fear of hell, a life without love of God, a life without any supernatural habits at all. Is not hell the most natural transition from such a life as this? heaven is not a sensual paradise. God is the joy, and he beauty, and the contentment there; all is for God, all from God, all to God, all in God, all around God as the beautiful central fire about which His happy creatures cluster in amazement and delight. Whereas in worldliness God is the discomfort of the whole thing, an intrusion, an unseasonable thought, an unharmonious presence like a disagreeable uninvited guest, irritating and fatiguing us by the simple demand His presence makes on sufferance and our courtesy. O surely such a man has sin in his veins instead of blood!

Worldliness then is a life of secret sins. It is such an irresistible tendency to sin, such a successful encouragement of it, such a genial climate, such a collection of favourable circumstances, such an amazing capability of sin, that it breeds actual sins, regularly formed and with all the theological requirements, by millions and millions. It we read what the catechism of the Council of Trent says of sins of thought, we shall see how marvellously prolific sins can be, and what a pre-eminently devastating power sins of thought in particular exercise within the soul. In numberless cases open and crying sins must come at last. Still we must remember that on the whole there are two characteristics which always distinguish sins of worldliness from sins of the passions, or sins of direct diabolical temptation. The respectability which worldliness affects leads it rather to satisfy itself in secret sins. Indeed its worship of self, its predilection for an easy life, would hinder its embarking in sins which take trouble, time, and forethought, or which run risks of disagreeable consequences, and therefore would keep it confined within a sphere of secret sins. And in the next place its love of comfort makes it so habitually disinclined to listen to the reproaches of conscience, or the teasing solicitations of grace, that it passes into the state of a seared conscience, a dreaded moral sense, with a speed which is unknown even to cruelty or sensuality. (Father Frederick Faber, The Creator and Creature, written 1856 and republished by TAN Books and Publishers, pp. 314-328.)

This is a description of our world today, is it not?

These passages should be required reading of all of our traditional clergy, especially those who do not believe that it is "pastorally prudent" to speak in these terms, that they would "turn people off" if they did so, refusing them the "pleasures" of watching television or going to the "latest" motion picture or dressing in ways that offend Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and His Most Blessed Mother.

Anyone who believes that "our people today" are not "ready" to accept—and could never "handle"—being challenged with the truths contained in these passages from Father Faber ought to surrender to the Novus Ordo establishment immediately as the entire ethos of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service is designed to be an accommodation with the prevailing spirit of the world in order for Catholics to "relax," "have fun" and "enjoy themselves." This is the path to Hell, not the path to the glories of Heaven, which are open to those who work hard to get there, especially by eschewing worldliness in of its fancy allurements.

Indeed, Catholics are more and more susceptible to participating in the world because the world has been deprived of the Sanctifying and Actual Graces that people need to resist it. The barren sacramental rites of a false church, the counterfeit church of conciliarism, have Catholics and non-Catholics alike exposed to a veritable tornado from the devil that uproots from them all notion of eternal verities, no less an abiding commitment to the Sacred Deposit of Faith that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ entrusted exclusively to His Catholic Church, the one and only true Church, for Its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication. The chaos and lies and the killing that abound in our world today are in large measure the result of the loss of grace that has occurred because of the promulgation and institutionalization of the false rites of the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio does not believe in the Social Reign of Christ the King, a doctrine of the Catholic Church that inspired countless kings and prices and queens and princesses and emperors of the Catholic Middle Ages to govern according to the Mind of the Divine Redeemer as they kept uppermost in their own minds the fact that they would be judged by their Eternal High Priest and King by how well and just and diligent they were in pursuing the common temporal good in light of man's Last End, seeking to foster those conditions in their temporal realms wherein citizens could better sanctify and thus save their immortal souls as members of the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order.

The world in which we live today is one where Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ does not reign as King and where His Most Blessed Mother is not honored as its Immaculate Queen is one where most every man will live and think and act and speak naturalistically, not supernaturally according to the Mind of the Divine Redeemer as He has discharged It exclusively in the Catholic Church. The Faith must be shunted aside in favor or the pursuit of wealth or popularity or career success or in favor of this or than naturalistic “system” of economic, social and political "order" to which must be rendered an assent of faith and a due submission of will at all times.

It cannot and it must not be this way with us, ladies, and gentlemen. We must be deceived by the farce of the "battle" between the naturalists as the out-and-out-statists tell lies to protect their own power against its being diminished by the "conservative" statists while both combatants believe in the lies of Modernity.

We must grow in love more and more with God as He has revealed Himself through His true Church. We will come to hate our sins the more. We will seek to do voluntary penances for our sins and those of the whole world. We will be more attentive to the needs of the members of the Church Suffering in Purgatory. We will have more apostolic zeal for the salvation of souls, seeking to distribute Green Scapulars to those whom God's Holy Providence places in our paths each day. We will live for the Faith, not for the passing things of this world.

We must look beyond the naturalism of the moment as we trust completely in the mercies of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, rendering unto that Heart of Hearts all our prayers and penances and mortifications and sufferings and humiliations through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart out of which It was formed, the Immaculate Heart of Mary itself. Our trust must be in the Eucharistic piety and total Marian consecration as we pray as many Rosaries each day as our freely chosen states in life permit. We must resolve, once and for all, not to be anxious about anything in the world as we trust totally in the mercies of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus and the intercessory power of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

We must stand up to evil in our own lives, rooting it out from our souls in cooperation with the graces sent to us by Our Lord through Our Lady's loving hands as the Mediatrix of All Graces, and fear never to call it by its proper name in the world or in the counterfeit church of conciliarism that has made its reconciliation with its false, anti-Incarnational and religiously indifferentist premises.

May the offerings we make to the Throne of the Most Blessed Trinity in this month of October, the month of Our Lady’s Holy Rosary, as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary help to transform a world of lies into a world where He, the Way, the Truth and the Life, is recognized as the One and only Redeemer of men, that His truths have been entrusted for all eternity to the authority of the Catholic Church, which will forever champion His Social Reign over men and nations.

Vivat Christus RexViva Cristo Rey!

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

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 Balthazar, pray for us.