At the Point of No Return as Captain Kangaroo Holds Court

The ongoing effort to take down President Donald John Trump has entered a somewhat decisive phase now that the impeachment circus has commenced. There is no need, at least as far as I see it, to discuss the simple fact that this effort began during the administration of then President Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro and has been continued by the mammoth network of American intelligence communities with the assistance of the current president’s own Cabinet and sub-Cabinet appointees and numerous career bureaucrats who believe that it is their duty to “supervise” a duly elected president whose policies meet with their disdainful disapproval.

How Trump Has Enabled Those Who Have Sought and Continue to Seek His Ruin

Before discussing the coup itself, which, as Andrew McCarthy opined recently is being undertaken not necessarily to remove President Donald John Trump but to weaken him politically, something that, it would appear, might not occur given how Captain Kangaroo's coup hearings are unfolding as his self-shaped narrative of impeachable conduct unravels before his very eyes, it should be noted yet again that Trump’s lack of preparedness to be president and his ignorance of the necessity of staffing a president’s political appointees who are the nominal, sometimes very, very nominal, superiors of the career apparatchiks in the administrative state have resulted in a White House staff is that unusually at odds with itself and that leaks like a sieve even from those are supposed to be his allies and not the plants put there by the intelligence community.

Although, I have noted this in the past on several occasions, it is necessary, as I see it, to do so yet again as readers can forget what they have read, especially with all the verbiage available in cyberspace with just the press of a finger on a hyperlink. Repetition is the mother of learning.

First, Donald John Trump knew nothing about the Constitution of the United States of America before his election on Tuesday, November 8, 2016. He still knows nothing about the Constitution of the United States of America. While I am a critic of the false principles underlying the Constitution, it is nonetheless true that it is the governing charter of the Federal government. One who aspires to be the chief executive of the United States of America ought to have some familiarity with the provisions of the document that outlines the responsibilities and powers of the Federal government, including the limitations upon the exercise of those powers. 

Mind you, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro and all other statists of the false opposite of the naturalist “left” had contempt for the Constitution of the United States of America because he believed it to be an “outdated” document that had to be deconstructed of its actual meaning to provide for the alleged “needs” of “the people” in a “changed” world.

In other words, the former president and commander-in-chief of the coup against the current president believed in the sort of “living constitution” that can be manipulated by Federal judges and/or ignored by presidents and congresses who have the “needs” of “the people” in mind. This is nothing other than a secular version of the late Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II’s “living tradition,” which was relabeled as the “hermeneutic of continuity” by Antipope Emeritus Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, that is nothing other than condemned Modernist precept of “dogmatic evolutionism.” Jorge Mario Bergoglio, of course, is just an open dogmatic evolutionist without any pretext.

President Donald John Trump is not a reader. He fashions himself a doer. He simply hath not the attention span to engage in the realm of ideas. He reacts to the world by pure viscera, and he may never realize that his visceral instincts, while correct on some occasions, can never be substituted for a clear-sighted understanding of First and Last Things, ignorance of which consigns any man, including the president, to becoming his own worst enemy over the time and also to becoming easy prey for those who make it appear as though they know the world better (another spoiler alert: military generals and intelligence officials) even though they, the “experts,” are equally clueless about First and Last Things.

Second, Donald John Trump was also ignorant of the actual complexity of the existence, no less the structure, of the Executive Office of the President, which is a massive behemoth consisting of 1,869 full-time employees. It was as president-elect that Trump remarked to the two-faced man who had tried to sabotage his election and was conspiring even at that time to undermine and cripple his presidency, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, that he, Trump, did not know how many people worked in the White House. Such ignorance was inexcusable and is directly responsible for much of the chaos in his presidency as the man with the gigantic combover of dyed hair was simply unprepared to staff the Executive Office of the President, which is why he “outsourced” much of the personnel selection process of the nogoodniks in the Republican National Committee who cared only about giving their friends cushy jobs and to try to “limit the damage,” as they continue to see it, that could be done if Trump actually did carry through with his threat to “drain the swamp.”

Third, Donald John Trump, as has been noted on this site several times before, was equally unprepared to name individuals to fill sub-Cabinet positions in the fifteen Cabinet departments of the Federal government. This is how he got saddled with holdovers from the Obama/Soetoro administration, including the nefarious Sally Yates, who served as Acting Attorney General of the United States of America while a New Yorker who is tougher than Trump, Charles H. Schumer, the Minority Leader of the United States Senate, slow-walked the nomination of United States Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions (R-Alabama) to serve as the Attorney General of the United States of America. Obviously, it should go without saying that Trump’s selection of Sessions was mistaken in the first place.

Fourth, Donald John Trump made a huge mistake by retaining the petty statist and vicious narcissist named James Brien Comey as the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (F.B.I.).  Comey should have been fired. Deputy Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Andrew McCabe, should have been fired. Even without all of the evidence that has been revealed in the past three years now concerning the corruption within the highest reaches of the F.B.I., the United States Department of Justice (D.O.J.), the Central Intelligence Agency (C.I.A.), the National Security Agency (N.S.A.) and the United States Department of State, Comey and McCabe should never have been retained.

Fifth, Donald John Trump made a “yuge” mistake, as they say in New York, by thinking that he could schmooze the retained Comey, whose new book confirms that he had contempt for Trump before his election and distrusted him after his inauguration. Trump has far, far too much confidence in his ability to win people over to his side, and it was when he saw that he could not “play” Comey, who has always been every bit the self-seeker, he chose a most inopportune to fire Comey, which played into the latter’s hand perfectly.  Comey wanted a “special counsel” appointed to investigate the nonexistent “collusion” of the Trump campaign with Russia, and he got exactly the man he wanted, deep state’s own Robert Mueller (see an editorial in The Boston Herald on Mueller’s prosecutorial misconduct in his current role as leader of another American coup, Investigators Reveal Bias Against Trump) and Real Clear Politics’ Carl Cannon’s Special Prosecutorial Abuse, when another ill-chosen appointee, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosentein, chose his former boss at the United States Department of Justice’s Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division to conduct what has turned out to be an investigation whose scope is ever-widening. 

These were completely unforced errors. However, Donald John Trump is the epitome of the “carnal man,” which refers not only his notorious behavior as a serial adulterer in each of his three “marriages” but, much, much more importantly, his absolute obsession with himself and how he is viewed by others. There are more important things for a president to do than to be on something called “twitter” all day long as he responds to what the idiots in the chattering class are saying about it.

Trump also has caused numerous problems for himself by surrounding him with lowlifes such as the late Roy Cohn, the sodomite who mentored him never to admit that he had made mistakes and to attack others without any mercy or distinctions, the weaselly coward and financially crooked Michael Cohen and, of course, the amoral pro-abort named Roger Stone, the thrice married, thrice divorced serial adulterer named Rudolph William Giuliani, who became a pro-abort thirty years ago in order to receive the cross endorsement of the New York State Liberal Party (an endorsement that came with a twenty-five thousand dollar donation), who had absolutely no business being sent on any kind of investigation in Ukraine. There is an investigation to be undertaken in Ukraine, which is the ground zero of the deep state’s effort to thwart Trump's election and to cripple his presidency, but that is the purview of United States Attorney General William Barr and United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut John Durham, not of Rudolph William Giuliani. Trump's trust in Giuliani is similar to the trust that Madame Defarge (also known as Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton) placed in Sidney Blumenthal to run rogue "intelligence" operations for her whilst she was the United States Secretary of State from January 21, 2009, to February 1, 2013.

Similarly, despite the parade of the cast of characters that walked in and out of Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue in the Borough of Manhattan, City of New York, New York, President-elect Trump did not acquit himself well when he selected such men as James Mattis, Rex Tillerson and Jefferson Beauregard Sessions to serve in his Cabinet, and the selection of Reince Priebus to be his first White House Chief of Staff was disastrous. Also, the presence of his Kabbalist son-in-law, Jared Kushner, in the White House was ill-advised, to say the very least.

President Trump was also hamstrung by selected such warmongers as Herbert Raymond “Daddy Warlocks” McMaster and John Bolton, of all people, to serve as his National Security Advisers after his original selectee, Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, for whom Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro had an intense personal animus, was kneecapped as follows by the combined statist likes of Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Brien Comey, Deputy Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Andrew McCabe and Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent Peter Strzok:

Oddity No. 1: Then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe personally contacted Flynn on the second full working day of the Trump administration and asked him to meet with FBI agents, a meeting that McCabe reportedly characterized as no big deal. That should have been Flynn’s first red flag. The FBI doesn’t do “no big deal” interviews.  

McCabe’s request apparently came at the direction of his boss, former FBI Director James Comey, whose now-transparent camera lust led to the nugget last week that he wanted to exploit his perceived — and likely biased — view that the Trump administration would not be sophisticated enough to spot an end run around normal protocols and White House legal counsel.  

Was there anything legally wrong with Comey’s and McCabe’s duplicitous efforts to lull Flynn into a false sense of security, gain direct, solo access to him and not warn him about lying to agents? Nope. And that’s why his attorney’s probe of that angle went nowhere with the court.

But “legal” doesn’t mean it was proper. McCabe dispatched Peter Strzok and another agent to do the interview. Pause a moment: Comey, McCabe, Strzok. All three subsequently were fired for cause. Comey’s and Strzok’s strong anti-Trump biases, and McCabe’s conflicted links to the Clinton campaign, are well documented. It is fair to question their motivations for seeking out Flynn the way they did. Their actions were unprecedented for senior-most leadership of the FBI … yes, odd.   

And so Flynn, who now faces criminal sentencing for lying to FBI agents, was contacted by McCabe, who not only lied to FBI agents but did so, unlike Flynn, while under oath. McCabe remains uncharged. Words such as “odd” and “ironic” fail. (Three Oddities in in FBI Handling of Michael Flynn interview.)

For present purposes of this commentary, you see, James Brien Comey’s Machiavellian calculation about the unsophisticated nature of the chaotic Trump White House on the second day of its operation proved to be quite successful as it set the stage to cripple President Donald John Trump’s presidency by taking out his National Security Adviser. Moreover, Flynn, who had no reason to lie to FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok, about the meeting that he had on December 22, 2016, with Russian Ambassador to the United Nations to ask him to cast a veto on a United Nations resolution condemning the Zionist State of Israel for its continued building of Israeli settlements on the West Bank, found himself under questioning for doing what Jared Kushner wanted done: to protect his beloved State of Israel.  (Flynn-Kislyak Conversation on Israel.)

In other words, it was the desire to help the Zionists that was used by the DeepStateniks to go after Flynn and thus to use their own strategies to capitalize on Trump’s unpreparedness to govern and the misplaced trust that he put in James Brien Comey.

Similar unforced errors on the part of Donald John Trump continues to this day, including that unfortunate “tweet” of his on Friday, November 14, 2019, the Feast of Saint Josaphat as the witness he  sought to undermine, former American Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch

The Bick Stops Squarely At Obama/Soetoro’s Oval Office

The observations above are not meant in any way to detract from the simple truth that the effort to prevent Donald John Trump from being elected and then, failing that, to undermine his presidency with all manner of false accusations that are then dutifully reported as “real news” by the administrative/deep state’s operatives and stooges within the mainslime media began right in the Oval Office with the imperious Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, who said of himself in 2008 that:

Change will not come if we wait for some other person or if we wait for some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for.


We are the change that we seek. We are the hope of those boys who have so little, who've been told that they cannot have what they dreamed, that they cannot be what they imagine.

Yes, they can. We are the hope of the father who goes to work before dawn and lies awake with doubt that tells him he cannot give his children the same opportunities that someone gave him.

Yes, he can.

We are the hope of the woman who hears that her city will not be rebuilt, that she cannot somehow claim the life that was swept away in a terrible storm.

Yes, she can.

We are the hope of the future, the answer to the cynics who tell us our house must stand divided, that we cannot come together, that we cannot remake this world as it should be. (Raw Data: Text of Barack Obama's Super Tuesday Speech.) 

Mind you, the now former President Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro still believes his own narcissistic rhetoric. He really does believe that he was the “one” we had been waiting for and that not no one was qualified to replace if he did not approve of his successor and was assured that he (or she, another “chosen one,” Madame Defarge) would continue his policies without any qualification. This is what the former self-anointed secular savior of the United States of America said Thursday, November 3, 2016, in an anti-Trump campaign speech in Raleigh, North Carolina:

I’ve got Republican friends who don't think or act the way Donald Trump does.  This is somebody who is uniquely unqualified.  I ran against John McCain.  I ran against Mitt Romney.  I thought I’d be a better President, but I never thought that the Republic was at risk if they were elected.  And guess what, North Carolina -- the good news is, all of you are uniquely qualified to make sure this guy who is uniquely unqualified does not become President.  You just got to vote.  You just got to vote.  (Applause.)  And the nice thing is, you don’t just have to vote against that guy because you’ve got a candidate who is actually worthy of your vote -- who is smart, and who is steady, and who is tested, is probably the most qualified person ever to run for this office, and that is the next President of the United States, Hillary Clinton.  (Applause.)  (Obama/Soetoro Speech, November 2, 2016.)

Whether not United States Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz, whose report on how the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation and Justice Department’s mishandling of the Hillary Clinton e-mail scandal permitted the malefactors to escape unpunished and criticized in the mildest manner possible, or the United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, John Durham, ever state categorically that Obama/Soetoro was (and continues to be) the mastermind of the ongoing coup, it is no more believable that the nefarious duo of James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence from August 9, 2010, to January 20, 2017 and John Brennan, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency from March 8, 2013, to January 20, 2017, were acting as “roque agents” in the intelligence community than it was to believe that Lois Lerner was acting on her own when she headed the Exempt Organizations section of the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to thwart the application of “conservative” organizations or that “rogue agents” in the IRS’s Cincinnati, Ohio, office were to blame. It is also implausible that the Deputy Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Andrew McCabe’s infamous “insurance policy” against then-candidate Donald John Trump that was heralded in “tweets” by FBI Special Agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page was taken out without some level of White House approval, if not directly from Obama/Soetoro himself. No, no matter what the Horowitz report or Durham findings may state publicly, it is really inarguable that the impetus for the ongoing coup against Donald John Trump was not the brainchild of Barack Hussein “play by the book” Obama/Barry Soetoro.

The former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency John “I voted Communist Gus Hall, a stooge of the Communist Part of the Soviet Union, for president” Brennan was not acting on his own when he pushed the self-important, above-it-all, self-appointed philosopher king and gatekeeper, James Brien Comey, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation into establishing a false narrative that Trump campaign aides Carter Page and George Pappadapoulous were working in behalf of the government or Russian President Vladimir I. Putin. John Brennan worked for and at the direction of Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, and though the proof may never be established directly, there is no doubt that the man who whose own “qualifications” for being president consistent of having served in the Illinois State Senate and for two years in the United States Senate before announcing his campaign for the 2008 Democratic Party presidential nomination, which he won narrowly over the carpetbagging expert in cattle futures named Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton, remains the mastermind behind the effort to prevent Trump’s election and then to thwart his presidency at every step of the way.

Indeed, Brennan’s role is at the center of United States Attorney John Durham’s investigation:

In the waning days of the Obama administration, the U.S. intelligence community produced a report saying Russian President Vladimir Putin had tried to swing the 2016 election to Donald Trump.

The January 2017 report, called an Intelligence Community Assessment, followed months of leaks to the media that had falsely suggested illicit ties between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin while also revealing that such contacts were the subject of a federal investigation. Its release cast a pall of suspicion over Trump just days before he took office, setting the tone for the unfounded allegations of conspiracy and treason that have engulfed his first term.

The ICA's blockbuster finding was presented to the public as the consensus view of the nation's intelligence community. As events have unfolded, however, it now seems apparent that the report was largely the work of one agency, the CIA, and overseen by one man, then-Director John Brennan, who closely directed its drafting and publication with a small group of hand-picked analysts.

Nearly three years later, as the public awaits answers from two Justice Department inquiries into the Trump-Russia probe’s origins, and as impeachment hearings catalyzed by a Brennan-hired anti-Trump CIA analyst unfold in Congress, it is clear that Brennan’s role in propagating the collusion narrative went far beyond his work on the ICA. A close review of facts that have slowly come to light reveals that he was a central architect and promoter of the conspiracy theory from its inception. The record shows that:

  • Contrary to a general impression that the FBI launched the Trump-Russia conspiracy probe, Brennan pushed it to the bureau – breaking with CIA tradition by intruding into domestic politics: the 2016 presidential election. He also supplied suggestive but ultimately false information to counterintelligence investigators and other U.S. officials.
  • Leveraging his close proximity to President Obama, Brennan sounded the alarm about alleged Russian interference to the White House, and was tasked with managing the U.S. intelligence community's response.
  • While some FBI officials expressed skepticism about the Trump/Russia narrative as they hunted down investigative leads, Brennan stood out for insisting on its veracity.
  • To substantiate his claims, Brennan relied on a Kremlin informant who was later found to be a mid-level official with limited access to Putin’s inner circle.
  • Circumventing normal protocol for congressional briefings, Brennan supplied then-Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid with incendiary Trump-Russia innuendo that Reid amplified in a pair of public letters late in the election campaign.
  • After Trump's unexpected victory, Brennan oversaw the hasty production of the tenuous Intelligence Community Assessment.
  • Departing from his predecessors’ usual practice of staying above the political fray after leaving office, Brennan has worked as a prominent analyst for MSNBC, where he has used his authority as a former guardian of the nation’s top secrets to launch vitriolic attacks on a sitting president, accusing Trump of "treasonous" conduct.

Now Brennan is among the most vocal critics of the more comprehensive of the two Justice probes, the criminal investigation run by U.S. Attorney John Durham and Attorney General William Barr. "I don’t understand the predication of this worldwide effort to try to uncover dirt, real or imagined, that would discredit that investigation in 2016 into Russian interference," he recently said on MSNBC.

The Trump-Russia collusion theory was not propagated by a few rogue figures. Key Obama administration and intelligence officials laundered it through national security reporters who gave their explosive claims anonymous cover. Nevertheless, Brennan stands apart for the outsized role he played in generating and spreading the false narrative. (Brennan Was the Prime Mover of Russiagate.)

This is not all, however, as it was John “Get Out the Vote for Gus Hall” Brennan made sure that the alleged White House hearsay “whistleblower,” Eric Ciaramella, who is a protégé of one Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. (see Alleged Whisteblower Erich Ciaramella Was Biden Guest at State Department Banquet), got to be his—and the administrative state’s—eyes  and ears at the nerve center of the Trump White House (see the very informative video: John Brennan Handpick Ciaramella for White House). Eric Ciaramella also accompanied the aforementioned Biden to Ukraine when the latter attempted to strongarm Ukrainian leaders into firing the prosecutor who was investigation why the Burisma company, which was co-owned by the inexperienced one-time drug addict named Hunter Biden, had received a contract from the Ukrainian government:

SEN. RAND PAUL: I think [alleged Ukraine whistleblower] Eric Ciaramella needs to be pulled in for testimony... he is a person of interest in the sense that he was at the Ukraine desk when Joe Biden was there and Hunter Biden was working for Ukrainian oligarchs. Simply for that, I think he is a material witness and needs to be brought in, the other question is, while the whistleblower is protected from being fired or from retaliation in court proceedings, the whistleblower is not protected from being asked who gave him the information, because we can't have a country where the private contents of the president's phone calls are leaked to people who are not supposed to be in that loop.

I think all these questions have to be asked. I don't think the whistleblower statute was never intended to have criminal trials and people put before the penalty of criminal justice without being able to hear from their accusers. So I think ultimately, he should testify. Adam Schiff is going to prevent it in the House. In the Senate, I will be advocating that if it comes to the Senate, we haven't had a vote yet of what the rules should be. By a simple minority, we should make the rules that the president is allowed to call all his witnesses, and then it is up to the president who he wants to call as his witnesses. (Rand Paul Says Ukraine "Whistleblower" is a Material Fact Witness and Must Testify.)

Ciaramella, it would appear, played a key role in the Obama/Biden White House of trying to “neutralize” Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, meaning that the so-called “whistleblower” (whose very appellation as such is inaccurate as the president of the United States of America is not subject to the jurisdiction and oversight of the intelligence community), meaning that the thirty year-old former “student activist” from Yale is no “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”:

More information is coming to light regarding CIA analyst and alleged whistleblower Eric Ciaramella. A new report from Judicial Watch revealed Obama-era visitor logs from the White House, which showed Ciaramella’s contacts during his tenure in D.C.

In their recent analysis of the visitor logs, the nonprofit examined his ties to Alexandra Chalupa, a contractor hired by the DNC during the 2016 election. She reportedly coordinated with Ukraine to investigate President Trump and his former campaign manager Paul Manafort. The logs showed Chalupa visited the White House 27 times and that her point of contact was Ciaramella. Judicial Watch released a detailed list of several other questionable figures who visited the presidential mansion.

Daria Kaleniuk is the co-founder of the Soros-funded Anti-corruption Action Centre (ANTAC) in Ukraine and visited the White House on December 9, 2015.

Former adviser Rachel Goldbrenner visited on both January 15 and August 8, 2016. During the time of her visit, Goldbrenner served as an adviser to former UN Ambassador Samantha Power, who was behind the unmasking of Mike Flynn.

Former European Assistant Secretary Victoria Nuland also met with Ciaramella and reportedly was involved in the Clinton-funded dossier. She visited on June 17, 2016. Judicial Watch has released documents revealing that Nuland was involved in the Obama State Department’s “urgent” gathering of classified Russia investigation information, which was disseminated to members of Congress within hours of then-candidate Trump taking office.

ANTAC Director Artem Sytnyk visited on January 19, 2016. He is tied to the release of documents during the 2016 campaign that were detrimental to former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort. Sytnyk was convicted in Ukraine — along with Serhiy Leshenkco — for releasing official documents about Manafort to interfere with the 2016 election.

Judicial Watch is calling on Congress to question Ciaramella about these meetings. (Judicial Watch Unearths Visitor Logs from Eric Ciaramella's Time at the White House.)

Even the Obama White House knew that Hunter Biden’s connections to Burisma were problematic, but the don from Chicago by way of Hawaii wanted to protect his vice president, which is why Ciaramella became a “whistleblower” in the first place:

Of all the supposedly shocking revelations that have emerged from the impeachment hearings this week, here’s one that the Democrats in Congress hope you don’t hear about: The Obama White House knew that Hunter Biden’s extremely lucrative appointment to the board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma, which occurred the month after his father was named the administration’s “point person” on Ukraine, reeked of corruption — and they didn’t do anything about it.

In Congressional testimony Friday, former Ukraine ambassador Marie Yovanovitch confirmed for Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), that in 2016 the Obama State Department privately ran her through a series of practice questions and answers to prepare Yovanovitch for her Senate confirmation hearing.

Stefanik confirmed that one specific question Yovanovitch was asked to prepare for was, “What can you tell us about Hunter Biden’s being named to the board of Burisma?” Incredibly, Yovanovitch later testified that the State Department told her to deflect any questions she might get about Hunter Biden and Burisma by referring Senators’ questions to the vice president’s office.

This admission regarding her senate confirmation prep session was startling, and it flatly contradicted a prior statement Yovanovitch had made in the hearing: “Although I have met former vice president several times over the course of our many years in government service, neither he nor the previous administration ever raised the issue of either Burisma or Hunter Biden with me.” (Obama Administration Knew Hunter Biden was Shady, Witness Admits.)

When all is said and done, despite Obam/Soetoro’s fear that a President Donald John Trump would overturn ObamaDeathCare, end the globalist policy of “open borders” and reorient American foreign policy according to this country’s legitimate security interests, it is my belief that the principal reason that the former president was so intent on preventing Donald John Trump’s election and then thwarting his presidency thereafter was the latter’s prominent public role in raising questions about the forty-fourth president’s country of birth. Without discounting the fact that the fascistic Obama/Soetoro and the rest of his Jacobin/Bolsehvik adherents of the farthest reaches of the false opposite of the naturalist left do not believe that anyone other than they are qualified or even have the right to hold public office, it is my belief that the Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro’s visceral hatred for Trump originated with the “birther controversy.” Although Donald John Trump has a pretty thin-skin when it comes to criticism, he is a completely rank amateur in the thin-skinned department in comparison to the prima donna Obama/Soetoro, who was ever ready to use the “race card” to stifle opposition, a ploy that worked more times than not.

There is no need to address the specifics of the ongoing coup’s end game, impeachment, being led at present by the shameless congenital liar named United States Representative Adam Schiff (D-People’s Republic of California) except to note that the administrative/deep state operatives who have been hard at work for well over three years now in multiple Federal agencies and departments believe that they, not elected officials, set the policy agenda for the government of the United States of America and that anyone who dissents from that agenda must be disobeyed and then accused of betraying what they think are the “best interests of the nation.” It is beyond question now that the career bureaucrats, including those in the intelligence communities, and the foreign service, several of whose self-righteous, preening and posturing creatures have been in the public spotlight this past week, believe that elected officials are so much window-dressing that gives them cover to govern as they “know” is best for us unwashed masses.

Journalist Sharyl Atkisson made this observation in a different manner:

Under the U.S. Constitution, it is the president of the United States who determines foreign policy. How can President Trump be “at odds with foreign policy” when he’s the one who determines it?

President Trump may well have been altering foreign policy on Ukraine. It should be of no surprise that he wasn’t operating “business as usual,” since he ran on that platform and has executed it from day one. It’s clear that Kent and Taylor didn’t like or agree with Trump’s ideas, and believe they know what’s best. Trump rankled, contradicted and “embarrassed” them by operating outside the “regular” chain.

But they seem to miss the fact that their desires are subordinate to the president’s. “Official foreign policy,” as they called it, is not an independent unmovable-force object that exists outside the president’s authority; it is what the president determines it to be. The diplomats must execute the president’s wishes or resign from their posts if they feel they cannot bring themselves to do so.

Kent and Taylor genuinely seem to believe Trump was acting for his own political benefit — though they acknowledged they never had spoken to him or met him. Obviously, President Trump would say he was acting in the national interest. But their testimony makes it pretty clear why President Trump would develop a communications chain that would attempt to minimize career diplomats who do not wish to execute his wishes and may be working to undermine them.

Trump’s enemies may cheer on the idea of diplomats and other officials choosing to oppose or undermine his wishes. But based on our Constitution, the dissenting diplomats are the ones who are at odds with “official foreign policy”— not the other way around. To the extent they are attempting to further policies that oppose or undermine the president’s wishes, they are the ones conducting the “shadow campaign.” (The President, Not Diplomats, Sets 'Official Foreign Policy'. See also What impeachment is really all about.)

Even though President Donald John Trump was ill-advised mention in his July 25, 2019, phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, regardless of any nonexistent threat to withhold American military assistance even if that assistance was delayed for a time, something several of the unusually taciturn Vice Preisdent Michael Richard Pence’s aides were concerned might cause a political problem, the previous administration, that under Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro and Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., constantly threatened predominantly Catholic and/or Mohammedan nations to change their laws that defended the inviolability of the preborn child and criminalized sodomite behavior:

Last month, the eyes of the world were on Africa as President Obama welcomed Nigerian president Muhammadu Buhari to the White House and, for the first time as president, visited his father's home country of Kenya.
Reports indicate that Buhari and U.S. President Barack Obama discussed the Islamic terrorist group Boko Haram, as well as possible political and economic reforms for Buhari's struggling country. Similar discussions took place in Kenya.
While all seemed well on the public front, the reality is that both Buhari's and Obama's visits were used by the White House to promote what Pope Francis called "ideological colonization." This agenda was let slip just days before Buhari arrived in Washington, when the U.S. State Department indicated it would push the Nigerian government to redefine marriage.

According to the Nigerian Pilot, America's Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, told reporters that "[a]s a policy, we will continue to press the government of Nigeria, as well as other governments which have provided legislation that discriminates against the LGBT community."

Thomas-Greenfield defended the pressure, saying it was not international interference in Nigeria's domestic affairs, but rather is "very much a work in progress...I think you will agree with me that the law in Nigeria really went far in discriminating against this community but also people who associate with them. So, we will continue to press the government, to press the legislature to change these laws and provide human rights for all Nigerian people regardless of their sexual orientation."
Across Africa, millions of people face starvation, war, oppression, poverty, and death due to a lack of basic aid. For decades, the United States has provided myriad forms of aid designed to help nations surpass these problems.
Under the Obama administration, however, humanitarian aid has often come with a price tag: Abandoning traditional values, especially those related to contraception, abortion, and marriage.
In 2011, Obama issued a memorandum that directed all U.S. embassies worldwide to promote LGBT rights, which he said were "central to the United States commitment to promoting human rights."
"Under my Administration, agencies engaged abroad have already begun taking action to promote the fundamental human rights of LGBT persons everywhere," he said.
That same year, the administration made aid to Nigeria dependent upon its not enacting the Same Sex Marriage Prohibition Act. And before she stepped down as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton compared same-sex relationships to race and sex in a speech that left African leaders furious.
Last year, at the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit in Washington, Obama and Vice President Joe Biden both suggested that Africa's war-torn, impoverished nations could attract economic and development aid from the West by becoming more gay-friendly.
This is social engineering at its finest, but it is not limited to redefining marriage. Contraception and abortion policies -- euphemized as "family planning" -- are also pushed upon Nigeria, whose citizens have rejected these mandates, which they consider harmful anti-women policies.
Again, this "ideological colonization" is not limited to Nigeria. During his visit to Kenya, Obama publicly lectured president Uhuru Kenyatta on his nation's laws against same-sex sexual relationships. According to CNN, sexual relationships between males over 14 is illegal, and punishable by as many as 14 years in prison.
This is the same administration that has spent substantial political capital on a deal with Iran that includes scant reforms in that dictatorial, terrorist-supporting nation, and opened relations with Cuba despite requiring few, if any, political reforms from the Castro dictatorship.
African leaders have long opposed Obama's 21st-century imperialism, especially religious leaders. In October, Ignatius Kaigama, the Archbishop of Jos in Nigeria - whose diocese is in the heart of the area affected by terrorist organization Boko Haram - and Bishop Joseph Osei-Bonsu of Ghana told me that they were tired of international pressure to legalize gay marriage.
The Nigerian prelate explained, "Marriage is between a man and a woman... even outside of scriptural support, our culture tells us that, nature tells us that."
And despite threats of denial of much-needed aid, he says, Africans will not capitulate to the demands. "These are our cultures, and we're not going to compromise over them."
Former Population Research Institute Media and Research Coordinator Anne Morse, who is beginning a doctoral program on population studies, was recently in Kenya. An observation she made on Facebook is instructive:
"Dear President Obama," wrote Morse, "[please] justify why--for every dollar USAID spends on water and sanitation in Kenya--it spends TWELVE dollars on family planning." Morse noted that she "[had] seen 4 advertisements for condoms today, but hasn't had a hot shower since Sunday."
The worst example of America's new-age imperialism is found in the growing evidence that President Obama purposely withheld aid to fight the terrorist group Boko Haram. While Buhari's predecessor has been accused of refusing U.S. aid to fight Boko Haram, what has been less reported is that the refusal came in part because the United States demanded Nigeria change its laws on marriage.
These accusations aren't just coming from Catholic bishops. A former U.S. Congressman, a Pentagon Army spokespersona Nigerian official, and the Nigerian Ambassador to the United States have all confirmed this is the case. To quote Ambassador Adebowale Adefuye in his statement to the Council on Foreign Relations, "the U.S. government has up till today refused to grant Nigeria's request to purchase lethal equipment that would have brought down the terrorists within a short time."
Nigerian-American Winnie Obike, a Ph.D. candidate in political communications at the University of Maryland, told me that she is "appalled by the Obama administration's foreign policy objectives for the African continent."
"It is ironic that a president who has passionately apologized for America's 19th and 20th century imperialism has adopted a twenty-first century imperialism toward Africa by forcing nations to change their beliefs on marriage, abortion and contraception in exchange for basic humanitarian aid," said Obike, who was the Minority Outreach Coordinator for the Minnesota for Marriage Campaign.
"Nigeria and other African nations need humanitarian aid and help fighting terrorist groups like Boko Haram, not the West's declining values," said Obike. "I urge President Buhari not to compromise traditional values in exchange for foreign aid."
In 2009, President Obama was given a Nobel Peace Prize because many hoped he would lead the world to greater peace and security. With less than 18 months left in his time in office, he can finally earn the award by setting aside his own ideology and focusing on the real aid needed by Nigerians, Kenyans, and many other Africans. (Obama's Twenty-first Century Imperialism on Display in Africa.)

How was this not impeachable and Trump’s putative threat to withhold military assistance to Ukraine that was granted after a delay of five weeks considered impeachable?

Well, there is intimidation and then, I suppose, there is intimidation.

A complete farce.

Moreover, what business does the government of the United States of American even have in Ukraine that justifies the sending of American military equipment and technology?

It is not an accident that many of the self-important military figures have testified before United States Representative Adam “Captain Kangaroo” Schiff’s House Intelligence Committee as these war hawks believe in endless war, and it does not matter to them that civilian control of the military is vested by Article II in the President of the United States of America. It is the president, not military officers nor career foreign service officers who establish American military and foreign policy.

President Dwight David Eisenhower was a globalist in his own right who had the blood of countless numbers of Catholics from Eastern Europe who were forcibly “repatriated” to the countries, then under the yoke of Soviet domination, were executed as “traitors” once they had been returned (“Operation Keelhaul”). Nevertheless, though, Eisenhower, a graduate of the United States Military Academy in West Point, New York, and a career military office, understood the dangers posed by the military-industrial complex, some of whose contemporary products deem it to be an act of “commitment to the truth” to cooperate in the takedown of their Commander-in Chief, which he expressed as follows in his Farewell Address to the Nation on January 17, 1961:

Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small,there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research-these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.

But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs-balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage-balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between action of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.

The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of stress and threat. But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. I mention two only.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peace time, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence-economic, political, even spiritual-is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. (Dwight D. Eisenhower -- Farewell Address.) 

Although Eisenhower did not understand that the authentic security of one's nation is premised upon its subordination to the Social Reign of Christ the King as it must be exercised by the Catholic Church, placing him in concert with today's conciliar officials in the counterfeit conciliar church, the late president and former five star General of the United States Army did have a keen insight into the dangers posed by the rise of what he termed so accurately as the military-industrial complex, which thrives on the constant warfare that former President George Walker Bush and his team of Trotskyite advisers envisioned as “necessary” to “secure” this country and “liberate” other peoples. The military figures who are so concerned about a phone call made by the president of the United States of America truly believe that they are the tail that wags the dog.

There is a particular irony in the air of smug superiority exhibited by some of the posturing and preening career diplomats and military officers is being characterized as “heroic” by many on the left” as it was the fact that Lieutenant General Michael Flynn publicly criticized the Obama/Biden administration’s military and foreign policy objectives that earned him the undying enmity of Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, a “Chicago Way” thug who lives to “get even” with those who dare to criticize him.

Captain Kangaroo’s Soviet-style inquiry has eschewed all semblance of due process of law and the right to cross-examine witnesses that are derived from the Natural Law rights found in the Magna Cart and, however attenuated, made their way into the Constitution of the United States of America. Even though such due process is not required in impeachment proceedings, which is defined by the United States of America in each individual impeachment proceeding, the lack of following all previous precedent in this regard has laid bare not only the “left’s” hypocrisy but also their sense of self-assuredness that nobody on “their side” cares about making even a pretense of due process and fair play.

A Silent Coup that was Outlined Over Seven Decades Ago

The DeepStateniks who are arrogant and defiant about the extent of their “omniscience” and omnipotence are, in truth, simply carrying out part of a Communist-inspired master plan draw up by the nefarious Rexford Guy Tugwell, one of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s “brain trust” who helped to plan the New Deal and who, as the appointed Governor of Puerto Rico between 1941 and 1946, turned Puerto Rico into a grand “social laboratory” of central state planning that resulted in problems that have turned the agriculturally rich wealth into an economic mess arising from massive territorial/commonwealth debts incurred by Tugwell’s dream of creating the ideal “welfare state” (see Rexford Guy Tugwell: The Man who Sowed the Seeds of Puerto Rico's Collapse). Part of the master plan for Puerto Rico devised by Tugwell, who worked with the eugenicist and destroyer of families named Margaret Sanger, was to introduce “birth control” on the Catholic island and to encourage Puerto Ricans to voluntarily sterilize themselves, something that had begun in 1937 before Tugwell was appointed Puerto Rico’s territorial governor.

Among Tugwell’s many nefarious projects was to devise “Constitution for the Newstates of America” that was, in essence, a plan to end Federalism and to centralize all control of local regional activity in the hands of the “enlightened” DeepStateniks in the Federal government. Here is a sample of that plan:

The project to re-write our Constitution was headed up by Rex Tugwell an Ivy League professor. viii Tugwell enlisted the assistance of over a hundred likeminded academics and scholars. ix Their work product was published in 1974 as a book, The Emerging Constitution, under Tugwell's name, and contained the Proposed Constitution for the Newstates of America. x

This was a "secret" project which only a few people knew about until it was published. xi

Many of those who analyzed the Constitution for the Newstates of America were shocked was  dismayed. It was said by one that the Newstates Constitution would "dissolve the states" and create a "regional government" and create a "dictatorship - a cleverly disguised dictatorship. xii

Another said the New Constitution would create an "economic dictatorship" where fundamental freedoms are suspended upon the declaration by the government of an "emergency." xiii

Yet another warned that such"... deceitfully worded 'Constitution' [was] tooled up for a Police State under a Dictator!", and asked " Why attempt to tear down and overthrow our form of government by setting up, in its place, a Soviet-type, Godless Dictatorship, depriving the Individual American of Free Enterprise and personal Liberty? " xiv

Tugwell was the head of FDR's "New Deal" "Brain Trust"xv and FDR's Assistant Secretary of Agriculture xvi He was well experienced in developing and implementing programs for governmental and social change. (Tugwell and Dictatorship.)

Ignoring the naturalistic elegy of praise in behalf of “American free enterprise” and what can be taken as a libertarian view of human liberty, the summary of Tugwell’s “Constitution for the Newstates of America” was a master plan for how the administrative state that has grown exponentially during the Franklin Delano Roosevelt-Rexford Guy Tugwell “New Deal” and during Lyndon Baines Johnson’s “Great Society” and “War on Poverty” and whose apparatchiks have become so empowered as to believe that it is their solemn duty to thwart the policies of elected presidents they deem to be unworthy of their respect and obedience. O

One can see this clearly in part of the text of the so-called “Constitution for the Newstates of America”:

 SECTION 1. There shall be a Planning Branch to formulate and administer plans and to prepare budgets for the uses of expected income in pursuit of policies formulated by the processes provided herein.

  SECTION 2. There shall be a National Planning Board of fifteen members appointed by the President; the first members shall have terms designated by the President of one to fifteen years, thereafter one shall be appointed each year; the President shall appoint a Chairman who shall serve for fifteen years unless removed by him.

  SECTION 3. The Chairman shall appoint, and shall supervise, a planning administrator, together with such deputies as may be agreed to by the Board.

  SECTION 4. The Chairman shall present to the Board six- and twelve-year development plans prepared by the planning staff. They shall be revised each year after public hearings, and finally in the year before they are to take effect. They shall be submitted to the President on the fourth Tuesday in July for transmission to the Senate on September 1 with his comments.

     If members of the Board fail to approve the budget proposals by the forwarding date, the Chairman shall nevertheless make submission to the President with notations of reservation by such members. The President shall transmit this proposal, with his comments, to the House of Representatives on September 1.

  SECTION 5. It shall be recognized that the six-and twelve-year development plans represent national intentions tempered by the appraisal of possibilities. The twelve-year plan shall be a general estimate of probable progress, both governmental and private; the six-year plan shall be more specific as to estimated income and expenditure and shall take account of necessary revisions.

     The purpose shall be to advance, through every agency of government, the excellence of national life. It shall be the further purpose to anticipate innovations, to estimate their impact, to assimilate them into existing institutions, and to moderate deleterious effects on the environment and on society.

     The six- and twelve-year plans shall be disseminated for discussion and the opinions expressed shall be considered in the formulation of plans for each succeeding year with special attention to detail in proposing the budget.

  SECTION 6. For both plans an extension of one year into the future shall be made each year and the estimates for all other years shall be revised accordingly. For nongovernmental activities the estimate of developments shall be calculated to indicate the need for enlargement or restriction.

  SECTION 7. If there be objection by the President or the Senate to the six- or twelve-year plans, they shall be returned for restudy and resubmission. If there still be differences, and if the President and the Senate agree, they shall prevail. If they do not agree, the Senate shall prevail and the plan shall be revised accordingly.

  SECTION 8. The Newstates, on June 1, shall submit proposals for development to be considered for inclusion in those for the Newstates of America. Researches and administration shall be delegated, when convenient, to planning agencies of the Newstates.

  SECTION 9. There shall be submissions from private individuals or from organized associations affected with a public interest, as defined by the Board. They shall report intentions to expand or contract, estimates of production and demand, probable uses of resources, numbers expected to be employed, and other essential information.

  SECTION 10. The Planning Branch shall make and have custody of official maps, and these shall be documents of reference for future developments both public and private; on them the location of facilities, with extension indicated, and the intended use of all areas shall be marked out.

     Official maps shall also be maintained by the planning agencies of the Newstates, and in matters not exclusively national the National Planning Board may rely on these.

     Undertakings in violation of official designation shall be at the risk of the venturer, and there shall be no recourse; but losses from designations after acquisition shall be recoverable in actions before the Court of Claims.

  SECTION 11. The Planning Branch shall have available to it funds equal to one-half of one percent of the approved national budget (not including debt services or payments from trust funds). They shall be held by the Chancellor of Financial Affairs and expended according to rules approved by the Board; but funds not expended within six years shall be available for other uses.

  SECTION 12. Allocations may be made for the planning agencies of the Newstates; but only the maps and plans of the national Board, or those approved by them, shall have status at law.

  SECTION 13. In making plans, there shall be due regard to the interests of other nations and such cooperation with their intentions as may be approved by the Board.

  SECTION 14. There may also be cooperation with international agencies and such contributions to their work as are not disapproved by the President. (Newstates of America).

This was the DeepStateniks want, and this is what they are going to get sooner or later as part of the above-cited “constitution” was making human freedom conditional not on obedience to the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law but to the judgments of the central planners:

SECTION 1. Freedom of expression, of communication, of movement, of assembly, or of petition shall not be abridged except in declared emergency. (Newstates of America.)


In other words, the central planners and their elected subordinates can terminate such freedoms arbitrarily, which is what the “left” wants to do universally after having done so in colleges and universities.

Ah, but to illustrate how the conflict of false opposites causes people to lose sight of what is happening before their very eyes, it is also what the administration of President George Walker Bush actually did in the aftermath of the events of September 11, 2001, by means of the so-called Patriot Act, thus subjecting ordinary citizens to all manner of surveillance. We are all considered to be potential "suspects" who have to be carefully monitored and controlled. It is just a matter of time before this all comes to its ultimate conclusion: the placing of "suspects" into concentration camps, which might be called "security centers," in the name of national "security."

Ah, that would never happen under President Donald John Trump?

Guess again:

Last Wednesday, U.S. Attorney General William Barr issued a memorandum to all U.S. attorneys, law enforcement agencies and top ranking Justice Department officials announcing the imminent implementation of a new “national disruption and early engagement program” aimed at detecting potential mass shooters before they commit any crime.

Per the memorandum, Barr has “directed the Department [of Justice] and the FBI to lead an effort to refine our ability to identify, assess and engage potential mass shooters before they strike.” The Attorney General further described the coming initiative, slated to be implemented early next year, as “an efficient, effective and programmatic strategy to disrupt individuals who are mobilizing towards violence, by all lawful means.” More specific information about the program is set to follow the recent memorandum, according to Barr, though it is unclear if that forthcoming document will be made public.

Barr also requested that those who received the memorandum send their “best and brightest” to a training conference at FBI headquarters this coming December where the DOJ, FBI and “private sector partners” will prepare for the full implementation of the new policy and will also be able to provide “new ideas” for inclusion in the program.

Perhaps the most jarring aspect of the memorandum is Barr’s frank admission that many of the “early engagement” tactics that the new program would utilize were “born of the posture we adopted with respect to terrorist threats.” In other words, the foundation for many of the policies utilized following the post-9/11 “war on terror” are also the foundation for the “early engagement” tactics that Barr seeks to use to identify potential criminals as part of this new policy. Though those “war on terror” policies have largely targeted individuals abroad, Barr’s memorandum makes it clear that some of those same controversial tactics will soon be used domestically.

Barr’s memorandum also alludes to current practices by the FBI and DOJ that will shape the new plan. Though more specifics of the new policy will be provided in the forthcoming notice, Barr notes that “newly developed tactics” used by the Joint Terrorist Task Forces “include the use of clinical psychologists, threat assessment professionals, intervention teams and community groups” to detect risk and suggests that the new “early engagement program” will work along similar lines. Barr also alludes to this “community” approach in a separate instance, when he writes that “when the public ‘says something’ to alert us to a potential threat, we must do something.”

However, the memorandum differentiates suspected terrorists from the individuals this new program is set to pursue. Barr states that, unlike many historical terrorism cases, “many of today’s public safety threats appear abruptly and with sometimes only ambiguous indications of intent” and that many of these individuals “exhibit symptoms of mental illness and/or have substance abuse problems.”

Thus, the goal of the program is ostensibly to circumvent these issues by finding new and likely controversial ways to determine intent. As will be shown later in this report, Barr’s recent actions suggest that the way this will be accomplished is through increased mass surveillance of everyday Americans and the use of algorithms to analyze that bulk data for vaguely defined symptoms of “mental illness.” (lWith Little Fanfare, William Barr Formally Announces Orwellian "Pre-Crime' Program.)

Pray tell, what are “symptoms” of “mental illness”?

Well, whatever the administrative state says it is, which should help you to understand that no matter their differences, the false opposites of the Judeo-Masonic naturalist “right” and “left” are united in their goal to monitor and to control citizens. Those on the “left” happen to have the honesty to admit this openly while their counterparts on the “right” want to do so surreptitiously while most Americans are distracted by their bread and circuses. No matter who “wins” in the current contest waged by the “left” against President Donald John Trump, the power of the Federal government and its ability to spy on us all as potential criminals and as potentially dangerous mental incompetents is just going to continue to increase to the point of out-and-out totalitarianism that the “left” will claim is “necessary” and the “right” will claim is  “for our own good.”

No matter the fact that United States of America Attorney General William Barr gave a superb speech about how about leftists use all that is within its power to destroy their opponents, he is still a supporter, enforcer and enhancer of the surveillance state. There is no refuge from those who believe that “Big Brother” is here to “protect” us. For our “own good,” you understand.

We are only witnessing the appearance of conflict between the “left” and the “right” on the surface of things as there is wide agreement on goals no matter the differences as to how to achieve them.

Not wanting to detain you too much longer, it is useful, however, at two other provisions found in Rexford Guy Tugwell’s “Constitution for the Newstates of America,” one which demonstrates that United States Attorney General William Barr’s “pre-crime” detention plan is identical to the provision found in Section 4, below:

 SECTION 2. Access to information possessed by governmental agencies shall not be denied except in the interest of national security; but communications among officials necessary to decisionmaking shall be privileged. (Newstates of America.)


The DeepStateniks get to define what is in the interest of “national security,” and they get to keep their secrets from groups under any Freedom of Access to Information request as they were bill so “freedom of information” when they, the Deepstateniks, acquire total control.

SECTION 3. Public communicators may decline to reveal sources of information, but shall be responsible for hurtful disclosures. (Newstates of America.)


What is a “public communicator”?

Well, the phrase could be interpreted as applying to anyone who speaks in public or who writes for public consumption. Today, of course, it could be applied to those who “tweet” or post comments on various “forums.” What this means, of course, is that “hurtful” communications can be deemed “hate crimes” and those who criticize the omniscient Deepstateniks and hurt their tender feelings will suffer state-imposed consequences for doing so.

SECTION 4. The privacy of individuals shall be respected; searches and seizures shall be made only on judicial warrant; persons shall be pursued or questioned only for the prevention of crime or the apprehension of suspected criminals, and only according to rules established under law. (Newstates of America.)


Please see the article about William Barr’s “pre-crime” detection program cited above. Oh, we are always told that the “good guys,” the Republicans, won’t abuse such massive surveillance powers. Sure. By the way, that bridge designed by John A. Roebling from the East Side of Manhattan to Brooklyn Heights, Brooklyn, still for sale?

We are at the mercy of our Judeo-Masonic masters no matter which organized crime family of the naturalism has power at any one time, although the day will be coming soon, thanks to the determined effort on the part of the ideologues who control American public “schooling” as well as their liked-minded colleagues in most educational programs under the control of the conciliar revolutionaries, when the organized crime family of the naturalist “right” will never win a presidential election and perish the way of the Federalist and the Whig Parties.

Don’t fool yourselves.

Even though there has been and continues to be a plot against the person, family and administration of President Donald John Trump, the forty-fifth president, no matter how much he has quarreled with the DeepStateniks, has been able to use his boisterous, profane-ridden rallies that delights his ego and pleases the crowds while giving the police state wing of the DeepStateniks completely license to monitor us at will.

The Convergence of a Cluster of Anti-Incarnational Forces

We are witnessing the a convergence of a cluster of various anti-Incarnational forces that have been at work since the Renaissance, were given expression popularly by the diabolically-inspired revolutionary named Martin Luther, overthrew the Social Reign of Christ the King, made possible the rise of Judeo-Masonry and its welter of naturalistic “philosophies” and ideologies that are but sterile substitutes for the Catholic Faith, captured the entirety of the “civilized” world’s educational, legal, governmental, administrative, scientific, medical and communications networks to create a world of “soft totalitarianism” that is nothing other then the inexorable end result of the false premises upon which the secular state, including the United States of America, was created and has grown without cease. The use of raw amorality, including outright lying and ruminating publicly about the assassination of public officials, including the president of the United States of America, has become so commonplace that those who pursue a scorched earth policy against political opponents who hold positions anathematized by the false opposite of the naturalist “left” now openly boast of the alleged need to deceive and assert fabrications as fact.

To be sure, of course, the intolerance of the ever-so-“tolerant” adherents of the organized crime family of the naturalist “left” antedates the rise of the political phenomenon known as Donald John Trump, who bears great responsibility for the mainstreaming of his pornographic interests and his use of blasphemous profanities and scurrilities, which are now used by his opponents openly and are seen fit to publish without any censorship (see Ever Lowering the Bar of Truth in Public Discourse).

Consider the “tolerance” of the late United States Edward Moore Kennedy browbeat United States Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Judge Robert Bork just forty-five minutes after then President Ronald Wilson Reagan nominated him on July 1, 1987, to succeed during his confirmation hearings in 1987 before the Senate Judiciary Committee of the United States Senate to succeed retiring Supreme Court of the United States Associate Justice Lewis Powell, with these demagogic words:

Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens. (Kennedy And Bork.)

Bork’s confirmation, of course, was rejected by the United States Senate, then in the control of the organized crime family of the naturalist “left,” by a vote 52-48 on October 23, 1987, whereupon Reagan, who did not lobby Republican senators to vote to confirm Bork after the vicious attacks by the then Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senator Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. (D-Delaware) and, of course, the Chappaquiddick Kid himself, United States Senator Edward Moore Kennedy (D-Taxachussetts), nominated United States Circuit Court of Appeals Judge for the District of Columbia Douglas Ginsburg as Powell’s replacement. Ginsburg, though, had to withdraw because of use of marijuana a law professor at Harvard University, after which President Reagan turned to Anthony McLeod Kennedy.

Want another example of “leftist” tolerance?


Barack Obama is warning supporters that the general election fight between him and John McCain may get ugly, but the Illinois senator is vowing not to back down.

"If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun," Obama said at a fundraiser in Philadelphia Friday, according to pool reports.

"We don't have a choice but to win," Obama said, joking that he has heard "folks in Philly like a good brawl. I've seen Eagles games." ( "If they bring a knife, we bring a gun.".)

It is truly laughable that the adherents of the organized crime family of the naturalist “left” talked about knives and guns in reference to the now secularly “canonized” John Sidney McCain III.

Want another example?

I can certainly help you out a bit here:

Mitt Romney's campaign blasted President Obama's team for hitting a "new low" after Vice President Biden suggested to voters that the Republican ticket’s economic policies would “put y’all back in chains."

Biden made the remark while campaigning Tuesday in Virginia, during a discussion of Wall Street regulation. 

"They’ve said it. Every Republican’s voted for it. Look at what they value and look at their budget and what they’re proposing. Romney wants to let the — he said in the first 100 days, he’s going to let the big banks once again write their own rules — unchain Wall Street," Biden said. "They’re going to put y’all back in chains. He’s said he’s going to do nothing about stopping the practice of outsourcing."

Romney's campaign said the remarks showed the president is determined to run a negative campaign. 

“After weeks of slanderous and baseless accusations leveled against Gov. Romney, the Obama campaign has reached a new low," Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul said. "The comments made by the vice president of the United States are not acceptable in our political discourse and demonstrate yet again that the Obama campaign will say and do anything to win this election."

Saul then called on the president to say whether he condoned Biden's language.

"President Obama should tell the American people whether he agrees with Joe Biden’s comments," Saul said.

A review of previous comments by Biden suggests the gaffe-prone vice president had made another speaking error. 

Obama campaign officials noted that Republicans — including Romney — have spoken of the need to "unshakle" the private sector from regulations, and that Biden has frequently used that term in arguing it is the middle class that needs to be "unshackled." 

Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter said Biden's remarks on Tuesday "were a derivative of those remarks, describing the devastating impact letting Wall Street write its own rules again would have on middle-class families."

Cutter defended the statement shortly thereafter on MSNBC, blasting the Romney response as "faux outrage."

Asked by host Andrea Mitchell if she would say the vice president went too far, Cutter responded, "No, I'm not."

"The bottom line is we have no problem with those comments," Cutter added.

Saul then released a second statement criticizing the Obama campaign. 

“In case anyone was wondering just how low President Obama could go in his campaign for reelection, we now know he’s willing to say that Governor Romney wants to put people back in chains," Saul said. "Whether its accusing Mitt Romney of being a felon, having been responsible for a woman’s tragic death or now wanting to put people in chains, there’s no question that because of the president’s failed record he’s been reduced to a desperate campaign based on division and demonization.” 

In a statement released after her appearance on MSNBC, Cutter said the Romney campaign's outrage was "hypocritical" given Romney's stump speech that she said questioned the president's patriotism. (hRomney Team Blasts Biden for Saying the GOP Would "put y'all back in chains".)

The then vice president of the United States of America made those remarks, by the way, when he was running for reelection with coup mastermind Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro against none other than two creatures of the administrative state named Willard Mitt Romney and Paul Davis Ryan. And the “left” claims that Donald John Trump alone initiated “divisive speech” in campaigns?

Just by the way, you understand, Willard Mitt Romney, who seems to be suffering from political amnesia and considers himself the new John Sidney McCain III, can be counted upon to vote for President Donald John Trump’s conviction in the United States Senate after the United States House of Representatives proceeds to impeach the president following the Soviet-style kangaroo hearings being chaired by the authoritarian named Adam Schiff.

Speaking of Romney, here is what the always statesmanlike former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) said about the carpetbagging senator from Utah by way of Michigan and Massachusetts:

WASHINGTON — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has what he says is an informed explanation for why Mitt Romney refuses to release additional tax returns. According a Bain investor, Reid charged, Romney didn’t pay any taxes for 10 years.

In a wide-ranging interview with The Huffington Post from his office on Capitol Hill, Reid saved some of his toughest words for the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. Romney couldn’t make it through a Senate confirmation process as a mere Cabinet nominee, the majority leader insisted, owing to the opaqueness of his personal finances.

His poor father must be so embarrassed about his son,” Reid said, in reference to George Romney’s standard-setting decision to turn over 12 years of tax returns when he ran for president in the late 1960s.

Saying he had “no problem with somebody being really, really wealthy,” Reid sat up in his chair a bit before stirring the pot further. A month or so ago, he said, a person who had invested with Bain Capital called his office.

“Harry, he didn’t pay any taxes for 10 years,” Reid recounted the person as saying.

“He didn’t pay taxes for 10 years! Now, do I know that that’s true? Well, I’m not certain,” said Reid. “But obviously he can’t release those tax returns. How would it look?

“You guys have said his wealth is $250 million,” Reid went on. “Not a chance in the world. It’s a lot more than that. I mean, you do pretty well if you don’t pay taxes for 10 years when you’re making millions and millions of dollars.”

The highest ranked Democrat in Congress, Reid is known more as a back room brawler than a public flamethrower. So his willingness to throw this private conversation into the media frenzy over Romney’s taxes underscores the low opinion he has of the Republican candidate. (

The mean-spirited Mormon from Nevada, Reid, had no regrets about his unfounded statement about his “nice” Mormon’s tax returns, saying in 2015 that they helped to keep Romney out of the White House:

Harry Reid, D-Nev. has no regrets about his 2012 claims that then presidential candidate Mitt Romney paid no taxes for 10 years.

The outgoing Senate Minority Leader even bragged to CNN that the comments, which had been described as McCarthyism, helped keep Romney from winning the election.

"They can call it whatever they want. Romney didn't win did he?" Reid said during a wide-ranging interview.

So, in Reid's world, it is perfectly acceptable to make a defamatory charge against an opponent to damage his campaign.

Reid first made the accusation against the former Massachusetts governor in a 2012 interview with the Huffington Post. At the time, Reid claimed that a Bain Capital investor told him Romney didn't pay taxes for the previous 10 years. This, Reid claimed, was why Romney hadn't released his tax returns.

"He didn't pay taxes for 10 years!" Reid said. "Now, do I know that that's true? Well, I'm not certain, but obviously he can't release those tax returns. How would it look?"

A few days after the HuffPo interview, Reid made the same charge on the Senate floor, this time claiming as fact that Romney paid no taxes.

"As we know, he has refused to release his tax returns. If a person coming before this body wanted to be a Cabinet officer, he couldn't be if he had the same refusal Mitt Romney does about tax returns," Reid said. "So the word is out that he has not paid any taxes for 10 years. Let him prove he has paid taxes, because he has not."

Even though Reid made a slanderous statement that Romney had in fact paid not taxes, without mentioning anything about his Bain source or skepticism, he cannot be sued for that particular statement. Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution states that members of Congress shall "be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place." The only exceptions to this rule are for treason, felonies and "breach of the peace."

After his floor speech, Reid made the claim again, except this time he again cited his "extremely credible source" for the accusation.

So when Reid directly accused Romney of being a tax dodge, he did so from the safety of the Senate floor. Outside the protection of legislative immunity, Romney was only possibly a tax dodge.

Not only does Reid not think he did anything wrong, he's actually proud that his lies might have helped cost Romney the election.

Note: The Washington Post's fact checker gave Reid " 4 Pinocchios" for his claims. PolitiFact gave the claim a " pants on fire" rating. (Slimeball Harry Reid Pround He Lied about Mitt Romney's Taxes .)

In other words, the ends justify the means. As I noted in 2008, A System Based on Lies Produces Liars.

Reid was also busy at work in 2016 disseminating Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro’s web of lies about the Donald John Trump campaign’s alleges ties to Russian operatives:

Brennan placed one of them center stage. On August 25, he gave a briefing that differed from the others; he tailored its content especially to the bare-knuckle politics of its recipient, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. During the 2012 election, Reid had assisted President Obama by falsely claiming that his Republican presidential challenger, Mitt Romney, had paid no taxes for ten years. When later asked if spreading a false rumor wasn’t reminiscent of McCarthyism, Reid responded, “They can call it whatever they want. Romney didn’t win, did he?” With the certain knowledge that Reid, who was in any case retiring after the 2016 election, would do whatever it took to win, Brennan indulged his own partisan political passions. He told Reid, according to the New York Times, “that unnamed advisers to Mr. Trump might be working with the Russians to interfere in the election.”

If Reid’s response is anything to go by, Brennan did much more than that: He briefed the senator on information taken directly from Steele’s dossier; and he complained about the recalcitrance of the director of the FBI. Two days after the briefing, Reid wrote a letter to Comey, which he immediately shared with the press. Claiming there was mounting evidence of “a direct connection between the Russian government and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign,” Reid demanded that the FBI launch an immediate investigation. The American people, he wrote, deserve all the facts “before they vote this November.”

The Trump campaign, Reid continued bluntly, “has employed a number of individuals with significant and disturbing ties to Russia and the Kremlin.” He was particularly concerned with Trump associates who may have served as what he called “complicit intermediaries” between the Russian government and hackers. “The prospect of individuals tied to Trump, Wikileaks, and the Russian government coordinating to influence our election raises concerns of the utmost gravity and merits full examination.” In an unmistakable reference to Steele’s reports on Carter Page, Reid informed Comey that “questions have been raised” about a Trump adviser who allegedly “met with high-ranking sanctioned individuals while in Moscow.”

Serving as Brennan’s dummy, Reid publicized the Marvel Comics rendering of Carter Page, and he demanded that the FBI launch an investigation on the basis of it. Before long, Comey would obey. (The Real Russia Collusion Story.)

Men who care not for the Particular Judgment that Christ the King will render on their immortal souls at the moment they die will be without any kind of self-restraint in their efforts to defeat and figuratively destroy anyone who gets in their way, something that has come fully to the surface in the past few years although I can assure you that what is in public view now was quite at work in the halls of academe even as early as the late-1970s before becoming much worse since then. Men who can lie with impunity are doing the work of the adversary, whose work is being done with ready abandon by Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his fellow Jacobin/Bolsheviks in the counterfeit church of conciliarism and by his close allies in Modernity’s work of totalitarianism.

The ever-tolerant left that continues a feeding frenzy against a president who is without any sense of self-restraint and has no understanding of the harm that he has done to popular discourse did not care that the false accusations made against then Judge Michael Brett Kavanaugh caused his own family great pain. Kavanaugh was seen, wrongly, I believe, as a sure vote in support of Roe v. Wade, January 22, 1973, and he had to be taken down no matter if his wife and children suffered much in the process. The “left” is without pity in their merciless assaults upon those they oppose while their hapless opponents of the “right” worry about hurting the sensibilities “moderate” or “swing” voters. No one is concerned about offending the true God of Divine Revelation as He has revealed Himself to us through His true Church, the Most Blessed Trinity.

Chicago Sun-Times columnist John Kass summarized the left’s tactics against Justice Kavanaugh:

The strategy of the left is undeniable and clear. It is about the use of force, about relentless pressure and shame, using media as both handmaiden and the lash. It is about those who virtue signal most often about due process, demanding it, yet denying those same due process considerations to those with whom they disagree.

The left’s end game is the delegitimization of the Supreme Court, if justices don’t give them the political outcomes they can’t achieve through legislation.

One way to accomplish this is to sear into the American mind the idea that Kavanaugh is personally illegitimate, and therefore, his reasoning and decisions are illegitimate. Though the allegations against him remain uncorroborated, and most are incredible and fall apart in embarrassing fashion, like the one most recently in the Times, the assault continues.

And not only against Kavanaugh, but also against other justices and future nominees. They are warned that destruction and humiliation await. (Delegitimizing the Supreme Court.)

Admitting that men were divided at times, sometimes violently, during the High Middle Ages because of the vagaries of fallen human nature, which produces all the problems in the world, including the sorts of palace intrigues and plots that are recorded in the Old Testament, men must become more and more ferocious in their treatment of each other when their sins go without being confessed and absolved. Nations whose citizens who live lives of moral perdition, including the use of contraceptives and the wanton displays of immodesty, impurity, indecency, blasphemy, profanity and worldliness must descend more and more into open acts of bitter hatred and violence. Compounding this sad reality is the fact that the “civilized” nations of Modernity enshrine sins, including the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance, in their constitutions and civil laws as matters of “human rights.”

It is thus laughable to presume that men who are unjust in their own personal lives, no less promote injustice under the cover of the civil law, to administer justice fairly to others, especially those who are deemed to be execrable opponents deemed deserving of being crush at all costs.

That is, one can only expect the likes of Adam Schiff, Jerrold Lewis Nadler, Nancy Patricia D’Alsesandro Pelosi, et al., to act arbitrarily in full view of the American public without any sense of shame or remorse. This is but a foretaste of how they will govern when they capture all three branches of the Federal government and start to impeach most of the Federal justices appointed by the “illegitimate president,” Donald John Trump. We are at the point of no return to a hard totalitarianism that will only be the result of the false conceptions of “liberty”—including “religious liberty”—that are the bedrock of the contemporary West.

To be sure, the use of raw government power to intimidate opponents has been a staple of the American “democratic republic,” dating back to the War for Independence when “patriots” condemned and sought to persecute those colonists who wanted to remain loyal to the British Crown. (See Lawless Nations Produce Lawless Men.)

An Opportunity for Trump to Save His Soul and Make Reparation for His Sins if He Converted to the True Faith

Thus it is that the effort to impeach President Donald John Trump is nothing other than the full manifestation of the amorality upon which a world founded upon the belief that men can ignore the fact of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’s Incarnation, Nativity, Public Life and Ministry, Passion, Death, Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven and ignore, if not despise, the true Church He created upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope, as the means to sanctify and save their immortal souls. A world founded upon such a diabolical falsehood winds up convincing men that they can be “good” by the use of their own unaided power and that it is not necessary to have belief in, access to and cooperation with Holy Mother Church’s sanctifying offices to grow in virtue and, if they are even aware that there is such a thing, of scaling the heights of personal sanctity.

President Donald John Trump does not realize that while he is indeed the victim of a massive plot against him it is also the case that he, an unrepentant sinner who has said that he has never had to apologize for anything he has ever said or done (“Mr. Foxman, Trump never apologizes.  The Complex History of Trump and the Jews), must be punished for his sins and though he is indeed the victim of a great injustice now, this injustice could be the means for him to help pay back some of the debt that he owes for his sins if he bore this cross with patience while praying for the conversion and salvation of his persecutors. That Trump does not understand this is itself a tragedy of untold proportions, and I know of no one who has his ear who can explain that this is so. He is missing an opportunity that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour  Jesus Christ is giving him to save his own immortal soul and to make reparation for his sins, which is why we must pray for the miracle that it would take to convert the consummate worldly man who is impressed with himself no end.

Moreover, the current president has increased the debt that he owes to God, objectively speaking, for his promotion of sodomy universally and for the many times in which he has blasphemed God, including his “Jerusalem is the eternal capital of Israel” blasphemy against Christ the King and His true Church. He has also signaled his full support for the PCHTEA that is a massive expansion of the medical industry to use rank utilitarianism as the basis to determine who gets actual medical are and who is put on the "exit path" for liquidiation according to a time schedule and "plan" of mistreatment that is agreed upon by the "palliative care team" in "consultation" with the patient and/or his family, who are, of course, subject to the "team's" skillful use of emotionalism to get the patient and/or his family to agree without questioning a plan of mistreatment that kills him (see, for example, Chronicling the Adversary's Global Takeover of the Healthcare Industry).

Dr. Elizabeth Wickham explained the nefarious nature of thPalliative Care and Hospice Education Training Act (PCHTEA) nine months ago at a time when Jorge Mario Bergoglio gave his personal endorsement to the George Soros sponsored program of death that Trump himself, who has given Big Pharma everything its lobbyists have asked for, supports:


Many of us remember being with Bishop Rene Henry Gracida on the Feast of St. Benedict, 2015 here in Raleigh at the Renaissance Hotel. The sex abuse scandals were then on the back burner, but we were a small group committed to discussing the takeover of America's health care system. In his keynote address, Bishop Gracida said the problem with palliative care was that it has grown from the cultural virus of proportionalism.

He guided our discussions in the afternoon brainstorming session and urged that we take to social media. Surprise advice from a nonagenarian ordinary, but this was not your ordinary bishop, despite his claim to be one. (His autobiography is titled An Ordinary's Not So Ordinary Life.) This is a humble bishop who trusts in the Lord and sees an obligation to act to save lives and souls.

Here we are, nearly four years later, and we are yet to stretch far into social media. Trusting in the ways of the Lord, we continue to pray for help.

We at LifeTree are small, but we are presently directing our efforts at trying to prevent passage of the Palliative Care and Hospice Education Training Act (PCHETA) here in America. Click here to read the bill. This bill will replace millions of foundation funding with government funding. These monies will provide for the training of palliative professionals, the training of non-palliative professionals in the palliative philosophy, and finance a government-run campaign to encourage people to think favorably about today's palliative medicine. The bill passed the House of Representatives with no opposition in the last Congress. It was done by voice vote. On that basis the bill has a strong chance of passing both the Senate and House in the present Congress. Unfortunately, I fear that our president does not know what he would be signing.

In 2017 Pope Francis positioned two Soros people front and center at the Vatican. Soros scholars from his Project on Death in America (PDIA) are now members of the Pontifical Academy for Life. A year ago, the Pontifical Academy for Life launched the PAL-Life Project in cooperation with the Secretariat of State and the Dicastery for the Laity, Family and Life to bring palliative care to the entire world. Their theme was "Palliative Care: Everywhere and By Everyone." The implication is that all patients and all providers will be required to participate.

Think about where we are headed. We all know how strong the current of globalism is today. Now ask yourself: why push palliative care globally? The obvious answer is to install palliative medicine's guidelines in a one-world economy. Palliative care will become a basic human right!

We pray for more people to realize what is happening within the Church in regard to the subtle ways of the euthanasia movement. We pray for a general awakening that people will see where the framers of Obamacare wanted to take us ... and so then did!

It breaks my heart to say the sad truth that, although the Church is officially against the radical campaign for physician-assisted suicide, in its official capacities it is working to achieve the same end through the full transformation of health care.

Elizabeth D. Wickham, Ph.D.
Executive Director, LifeTree
PO Box 17301
Raleigh, NC 27619 
Help Defeat PCHETA.)

In case you want to see how social re-engineering happens I wanted to make sure you all have this video from last Monday night when PCHETA passed in the House of Representatives by voice vote.  Its companion (SB 2080) is in the Senate HELP Committee headed by Sen Lamar Alexander from TN.  He is not our friend.  Perhaps Sens. Scott and Cruz and others would take a stand against this bill.  Please pray that it never makes it out of the Senate! If anyone knows how to contact the President for a possible veto, please begin to initiate that action.  This bill with change healthcare in America for generations to come!   
It is important for us to distinguish palliative care from hospice care by understanding  that hospice care is usually part of the last days of palliative care.  Palliative care is the much wider concept.  The palliative care model developed by the Third Path Euthanasia Movement aims to introduce palliative care at the point of diagnosis.  Just remember to explain to people that palliative care should not be thought of as end-of-life care!  
In this video legislators from Evanston, IL and from Ithaca, NY are talking about hospice care at end-of-life and why it was so wonderful for their parent.  They are not really talking about today's new field of palliative care. 
Palliative care is administered by an interdisciplinary team who are joined together in their overall goal of switching from curative care to non-curative care with the concurrence of the patient/family.  Sustainable medicine!  They are trained in how to "nudge" in family discussions.  It would be interesting to plot the time they train in conversational techniques vs ordinary medical care.  The palliative-trained medical people are supported by lay people such as those trained in the Respecting Choices curriculum.
I thought you might like to understand where the notion that we need a new field of medicine originated. To my knowledge it first came up in 1972 at the 3-Day Senate Hearing on the Aging. (Senate Publications.)


Day one started with testimony from Dr. Poe, a public health doctor from Duke.   He had argued in the NEJM of the need for a new field of medicine -- MARANTOLOGY, A NEEDED SPECIALTY (Jan. 13, 1972).  (His article appears in the testimony as an Addendum.)  Day one continued with a discussion on brain death with testimony from Dr. Henry Beecher who was the first anesthesia dept chair at Harvard. Connection between brain death and palliative care?  What are the odds? (E-mail sent by Dr. Wickham to her list.)

Obviously, Dr. Wickham does not understand that what she thinks is the Catholic Church, she who is the spotless, virginal mystical spouse of her Divine Founder, Invisible Head and Mystical Bridegroom, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, is in her fact her counterfeit ape headed by godless apostates and pantheists who have enshrined all that is theologically and morally evil and liturgically abominable while occupying the buildings and claiming to have the titles of Holy Mother Church. It is indeed ironic that the United States House of Representatives passed the Palliative Care and Hospice Education Training Act unanimously on October 28, 2019, as the Republicans defending President Donald John Trump at present are not the friends of Christ the King, His true Church, and they are clueless about--no less how to defend--the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law. We are cooked, ladies and gentlemen. Cooked.

No matter which of the two major political parties president holds the White House or the two houses of the United States Congress, evil gets adavanced more and more, either at a slower or more accelerated rate, with every passing year. Trump himself is complicit, and this is one of the reasons he is being chastised by God at present. Unfortuately, however, he is incapable of seeing that this is so. This does not mean that the coup against him is justified. Of course not! It does mean, however, that we must all suffer injustices because of our sins, and it is a tragedy that the president cannot use this opportunity to pay back what he owes for his sins and to pray for his obsessed, diabolically-driven persecutors who have not a bit of any kind of decency or intellectual honesty anyone within their deeply darkened souls.

Alas, many who support President Donald John Trump reflexively do not realize that sin maketh nations miserable and that a nation whose ruling class and citizens sin unrepentantly, protect it under the cover of the civil law and celebrate it in the popular “culture” are doomed to descend into civil war and, ultimately, after a period of domestic authoritarian/totalitarian rule by the ever-tolerant “left,” to be taken over by Red China, whose agents are busy scooping up real estate all across the United States of America.

To note this is not to disparage the actual of fact of a bold and shameless “in your face” coup based solely on the refusal to accept the results of the president election that was held on Tuesday, November 8, 2016, and to undertake the most massive, complex plan to thwart an opponent's electoral legitimacy. It is to note that men must fall into the abyss of ideological/political conflict based upon adherence to one or more of the anti-Incarnational errors of Modernity.

We should be surprised that most of our elected and appointed official act in a criminal manner as they are criminals in the eyes of the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Blessed Trinity, and act as criminals open before their nominal “superiors,” the citizenry,” as nations based on the secular, naturalistic, Pelagian principles are bound to be characterized by public crime, that is, crime committed by public officials themselves:

A system of morality based exclusively on human reason robs man of his highest dignity and lowers him from the supernatural to the merely natural life. Not but that man is able by the right use of reason to know and to obey certain principles of the natural law. But though he should know them all and keep them inviolate through life-and even this is impossible without the aid of the grace of our Redeemer-still it is vain for anyone without faith to promise himself eternal salvation. "If anyone abide not in Me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up and cast him into the fire, and he burneth" john xv., 6). "He that believeth not shall be condemned" (Mark xvi., 16). We have but too much evidence of the value and result of a morality divorced from divine faith. How is it that, in spite of all the zeal for the welfare of the masses, nations are in such straits and even distress, and that the evil is daily on the increase? We are told that society is quite able to help itself; that it can flourish without the assistance of Christianity, and attain its end by its own unaided efforts. Public administrators prefer a purely secular system of government. All traces of the religion of our forefathers are daily disappearing from political life and administration. What blindness! Once the idea of the authority of God as the Judge of right and wrong is forgotten, law must necessarily lose its primary authority and justice must perish: and these are the two most powerful and most necessary bonds of society. Similarly, once the hope and expectation of eternal happiness is taken away, temporal goods will be greedily sought after. Every man will strive to secure the largest share for himself. Hence arise envy, jealousy, hatred. The consequences are conspiracy, anarchy, nihilism. There is neither peace abroad nor security at home. Public life is stained with crime. (Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900.)

At the Point of No Return

God will not be mocked as men sin wantonly.

God will not be mocked as men in public life dismiss the pertinence of eacg of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance.

Most Americans want some form of state-administered "goodies."

Many of them want to "soak the rich" with more taxes to pay for the continuation of the programs that provide them their goodies even though those programs are in violation both of the Natural Law principle of Subsidiarity and of the very provisions of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Most Americans want their "big government." Many of them have learned to embrace "ObamaDeathCare," which has become institutionalized thanks  to former President George Walker Bush's Opus Dei Wunderkind, Chief Justice John Glover Roberts and the the likes of the late United States Senator John Sidney McCain III, who ran against the concept that was "ObamaCare" in 2008 before sabatoging a defective plan to "repeal and replace" it in 2017.

Most Americans want their contraception, and many of them want to have "access" to surgical-baby killing in at least some cases under cover of the civil law.

As demonstrated once again in election after election, most Americans care first and foremost about their money so that they may enjoy their "bread and circuses."

Most Americans want to waste their lives watching television.

They want their sports, professional and collegiate.

They want their movies.

They want their "rock" "music," which was featured at rallies held in support of Obama/Soetoro and those held in support of Romney, who toured with a fellow blasphemer (Mormons are blasphemers as they are polytheists and as they believe that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is a "spirit brother" of the devil) whose stage name is "Kid Rock."

They want their leisure time.

They want their immodest attire.

Being a-ideological and thus very pragmatic, most Americans do not care how they get their material goodies. They just want them. If it's going to be given to them by a capitalist tinged with a bit of corporate socialism, well, that's just fine. But if it's going to be given to them by a Marxist, well, that's also just fine. The "bottom line" materially and hedonistically is the "bottom line" in American life. The material "bottom line" is the "engine" that drives American life and the absolute, insane farce of its electoral politics.

Such must forever be the enduring legacy of the Protestant Revolt, which overthrew the Social Reign of Christ the King and gave us a world that is in the grip of the devil's lies, starting with the lie of the "sovereignty of the people." To overthrow the Social Reign of Christ the King is to give us the reign of the devil in the name of "the people" and not to the King of Kings Himself. 

When a citizenry is obsessed with material well-being as the ultimate end of human existence, however, all sight is lost of First and Last Things as ever the economic order is perverted and made unjust as a result of the fission between Church and State. Dr. George O'Brien noted this early in the Twentieth Century:

The thesis we have endeavoured to present in this essay is, that the two great dominating schools of modern economic thought have a common origin. The capitalist school, which, basing its position on the unfettered right of the individual to do what he will with his own, demands the restriction of government interference in economic and social affairs within the narrowest  possible limits, and the socialist school, which, basing its position on the complete subordination of the individual to society, demands the socialization of all the means of production, if not all of wealth, face each other today as the only two solutions of the social question; they are bitterly hostile towards each other, and mutually intolerant and each is at the same weakened and provoked by the other. In one respect, and in one respect only, are they identical--they can both be shown to be the result of the Protestant Reformation.

We have seen the direct connection which exists between these modern schools of economic thought and their common ancestor. Capitalism found its roots in the intensely individualistic spirit of Protestantism, in the spread of anti-authoritative ideas from the realm of religion into the realm of political and social thought, and, above all, in the distinctive Calvinist doctrine of a successful and prosperous career being the outward and visible sign by which the regenerated might be known. Socialism, on the other hand, derived encouragement from the violations of established and prescriptive rights of which the Reformation afforded so many examples, from the growth of heretical sects tainted with Communism, and from the overthrow of the orthodox doctrine on original sin, which opened the way to the idea of the perfectibility of man through institutions. But, apart from these direct influences, there were others, indirect, but equally important. Both these great schools of economic thought are characterized by exaggerations and excesses; the one lays too great stress on the importance of the individual, and other on the importance of the community; they are both departures, in opposite directions, from the correct mean of reconciliation and of individual liberty with social solidarity. These excesses and exaggerations are the result of the free play of private judgment unguided by authority, and could not have occurred if Europe had continued to recognize an infallible central authority in ethical affairs.

The science of economics is the science of men's relations with one another in the domain of acquiring and disposing of wealth, and is, therefore, like political science in another sphere, a branch of the science of ethics. In the Middle Ages, man's ethical conduct, like his religious conduct, was under the supervision and guidance of a single authority, which claimed at the same time the right to define and to enforce its teaching. The machinery for enforcing the observance of medieval ethical teaching was of a singularly effective kind; pressure was brought to bear upon the conscience of the individual through the medium of compulsory periodical consultations with a trained moral adviser, who was empowered to enforce obedience to his advice by the most potent spiritual sanctions. In this way, the whole conduct of man in relation to his neighbours was placed under the immediate guidance of the universally received ethical preceptor, and a common standard of action was ensured throughout the Christian world in the all the affairs of life. All economic transactions in particular were subject to the jealous scrutiny of the individual's spiritual director; and such matters as sales, loans, and so on, were considered reprehensible and punishable if not conducted in accordance with the Christian standards of commutative justice.

The whole of this elaborate system for the preservation of justice in the affairs of everyday life was shattered by the Reformation. The right of private judgment, which had first been asserted in matters of faith, rapidly spread into moral matters, and the attack on the dogmatic infallibility of the Church left Europe without an authority to which it could appeal on moral questions. The new Protestant churches were utterly unable to supply this want. The principle of private judgment on which they rested deprived them of any right to be listened to whenever they attempted to dictate moral precepts to their members, and henceforth the moral behaviour of the individual became a matter to be regulated by the promptings of his own conscience, or by such philosophical systems of ethics as he happened to approve. The secular state endeavoured to ensure that dishonesty amounting to actual theft or fraud should be kept in check, but this was a poor and ineffective substitute for the powerful weapon of the confessional. Authority having once broken down, it was but a single step from Protestantism to rationalism; and the way was opened to the development of all sorts of erroneous systems of morality. (Dr. George O'Brien, An Essay on the Economic Efforts of the Reformation, IHS Press, Norfolk, Virginia, 2003.)

The entire American regime is built on on a web of Protestant and Judeo-Masonic lies. Catholics have been so uncritically immersed in these naturalistic, anti-Incarnational, religiously indifferentist and semi-Pelagian lies for so long that even the believers among them look at the world in merely naturalistic terms, convincing themselves that there is something short of Catholicism that can serve, at least as a "stopgap measure," as the foundation of personal and social order. Catholics prone to the "leftist" bent of naturalism and those prone to the "rightist" bent of naturalism may disagree about many of the "details" of naturalism. However, both sets of Catholics are united in their quest to find some secular, religiously indifferentist, nondenominational or interdenominational means to create a "better" world, looking to the farce of electoral politics as the focal point in this quest.

This is an illusion. Indeed, this is delusional. It is madness.

A nation that is founded and sustained on a web of naturalistic lies must degenerate over the course of time. This degeneration has been aided by the fact that most Catholics have lost the true sacraments as a result of the conciliar revolution, plunging millions upon millions of them into abject paganism as they have lost any sense of the Faith and behave in a manner befitting their long ago barbarian ancestors in Europe before they were Christianized in the First Millennium of the Church. They want their money and their bread and circuses.

The babies?

The innocence of their own children?

Ah, we must live in the "real" world of endless pleasures and honors.

This world of Modernity has reached a point of no return as its lords are as one with the lords of Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, and this world of Modernity was described as follows by Father Frederick William Faber in the Creator and Creature over one hundred sixty-three years ago now:

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. (Father Frederick Faber, The Creator and Creature, written 1856 and republished by TAN Books and Publishers, pp. 314-315. The entirely of this passage is appended below.)

No matter the fact that there is an honest-to-goodness-coup being attemped by men who are afraid that the upcoming Horowitz report, alluded  to earlier, might expose them all and subject some of them to criminal prosecution, something that I will believe only if it transpires, at this time here in the United States of America, we must remember the truth that it is impossible to realize sustained a right ordering of men and their nations as long as they seek to protect that which is repugnant to the peace and happiness of eternity under the cover of the civil law:

The more closely the temporal power of a nation aligns itself with the spiritual, and the more it fosters and promotes the latter, by so much the more it contributes to the conservation of the commonwealth. For it is the aim of the ecclesiastical authority by the use of spiritual means, to form good Christians in accordance with its own particular end and object; and in doing this it helps at the same time to form good citizens, and prepares them to meet their obligations as members of a civil society. This follows of necessity because in the City of God, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, a good citizen and an upright man are absolutely one and the same thing. How grave therefore is the error of those who separate things so closely united, and who think that they can produce good citizens by ways and methods other than those which make for the formation of good Christians. For, let human prudence say what it likes and reason as it pleases, it is impossible to produce true temporal peace and tranquillity by things repugnant or opposed to the peace and happiness of eternity. (Silvio Cardinal Antoniano, quoted by Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.)

Although the proximate antecedent roots to the chastisement that faces us today date back to certain elements of the Renaissance and, as mentioned earlier, the Protestant Revolution and the subsequent rise and triumph of naturalism, the rapid promotion of evil under cover of the civil law has occurred in the past fifty years in no small measure as a result of the counterfeit church of conciliarism's "reconciliation" with the principles of Modernity and as a result of its sacramentally barren liturgical rites that have predisposed so many millions of Catholics to embrace the "secular magisterium" of the world and to scoff at any residue of Catholic teaching that remains in that conciliar church.

We, though, must be reminded of the truths taught by such great apostles of Christ the King as the late Louis-Edouard-François-Desiré Cardinal Pie, whose writing had the support of Popes Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X and Benedict XV (the latter two long after Cardinal Pie's death, having studied his writings in great depth and approving of them without any complaint), wrote in the Nineteenth Century:

"If Jesus Christ," proclaims Msgr. Pie in a magnificent pastoral instruction, "if Jesus Christ Who is our light whereby we are drawn out of the seat of darkness and from the shadow of death, and Who has given to the world the treasure of truth and grace, if He has not enriched the world, I mean to say the social and political world itself, from the great evils which prevail in the heart of paganism, then it is to say that the work of Jesus Christ is not a divine work. Even more so: if the Gospel which would save men is incapable of procuring the actual progress of peoples, if the revealed light which is profitable to individuals is detrimental to society at large, if the scepter of Christ, sweet and beneficial to souls, and perhaps to families, is harmful and unacceptable for cities and empires; in other words, if Jesus Christ to whom the Prophets had promised and to Whom His Father had given the nations as a heritage, is not able to exercise His authority over them for it would be to their detriment and temporal disadvantage, it would have to be concluded that Jesus Christ is not God". . . .

"To say Jesus Christ is the God of individuals and of families, but not the God of peoples and of societies, is to say that He is not God. To say that Christianity is the law of individual man and is not the law of collective man, is to say that Christianity is not divine. To say that the Church is the judge of private morality, but has nothing to do with public and political morality, is to say that the Church is not divine."

In fine, Cardinal Pie insists:

"Christianity would not be divine if it were to have existence within individuals but not with regard to societies."

Fr. de St. Just asks, in conclusion:

"Could it be proven in clearer terms that social atheism conduces to individualistic atheism?" (Selected Writings of Cardinal Pie of PoitiersCatholic Action Resource Center.) 

Our hope, therefore, is in Christ the King, not in political "saviours" of the "left" or the "right" nor in "conservative" "cardinals" who refuse to recognize that they have enable heresy and error, including religious liberty, separation of Church and State and false ecumenism, in their own right

We need Our Lady's help, especially by means of her Most Holy Rosary, in these troubling times as without the graces she sends us we will be prone to view the world through the eyes of naturalism and not through the supernatural eyes of the Catholic Faith.

May we take solace in these words of Dom Prosper Gueranger about Gaudete Sunday, which occurs this year on Sunday, December 15, 2019:

There hath stood One in the midst of you, whom you know not, says Saint John the Baptist to them that were sent by the Jews. So that our Lord may be near. He may even have come, and yet by some be not known! This Lamb of God is the holy Precursor’s consolation; he considers it a singular privilege to be but the voice which cries out to them to prepare the way of the Redeemer. In this, St. John a type of the Church, and of all such as seek Jesus. St. John is full of joy because the Savior has come, but the men around him are as indifferent as though they neither expected nor wanted a Savior. This is the third week of Advent; and are all hearts excited by the great tidings told them by the Church, that the Messias is near at hand? They that love Him not as their Savior, do they fear Him as their Judge? Are the crooked ways being made straight, and the hills being brought low? Are Christians seriously engaged in removing from their hearts the love or riches and the love of sensual pleasures? There is no time to lose: The Lord is nigh!" If these lines should come under the eye of any of those Christians who are in this state of sinful indifference, we would conjure them to shake off  their lethargy, an render themselves worthy of the visit of the divine Infant; such a visit will bring them the greatest consolation here, and give them confidence hereafter, when our Lord will come to judge all mankind. Send thy grace, O Jesus, still more plentifully into their hearts; ‘compel them to go in,’ and permit not that it be said of the children of the Church, as St. John said of the Synagogue: There standeth in the midst of you One, whom you know not. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, The Liturgical Year, Volume I, Advent, pp. 205-206.)

The world in which we live knoweth not Christ the King and His true Church.

It cannot be this way with us, and we cannot be on the edge of our seats during the Advent season that begins with First Vespers on Saturday, November 30, 2019, waiting for the “latest development” in the naturalist soap opera to unfold. Too many people spent their Lent and their Paschaltide glued to televisions or tuned into the babbling, blathering naturalists who on the radio and/or online.

We must make more sacrifices.

We must pray more Rosaries.

We must, if at all possible in this time of apostasy and betrayal, spend more time before the Blessed Sacrament in prayer.

Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order, and it is because the lords of conciliarism have abandoned the Catholic Faith and exalted "Man" and his "ability" to "better" the world that we find ourselves deep in an abyss caused by the concentration of almost all philosophical errors and theological heresies that have been known in salvation history from which the only escape is through Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart as we continue to pray as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits. 

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Vivat Christus RexViva Cristo Rey!

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.

Saint Felix of Valois, pray for us.


From Father Frederick William Faber’s The Creator and Creature

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 ot 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 God. Worldliness 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.)