The administration of Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetero, Jr., is filled with racialists, men and women who believe that is is necessary to “correct” past injustices, real or imagined, by exculpating those who skin color happens to be anything other than “white” when they are accused of serious crimes or of seeking to intimidate the descendants of those associated with the slave-holding of the past even though most white people never owned slaves and a significant number of them are descended from immigrants who suffered all manner of unjust, invidious discrimination upon their arrival on the shores of the United States of America and simply offered up the difficulties as they sought to make new lives for themselves without considering themselves to be perpetual victims who had to “right” every “wrong” of the past.
Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro and his wife, Michele Robinson Obama, who is also an attorney, and United States Attorney General Eric Holder are indeed racialists, people who believe that nonwhites are superior to whites and thus have the “right” to special, preferential treatment insofar as discipline in schools for errant behavior and grading on examinations and admissions to colleges or universities or professional schools and in being hiring and considered for promotions by employers. The Obamas and Eric Holders believe that they are “entitled” to the “power” that has come their way, determined to use that power to make it difficult for their hated “white power structure” to recapture any claim on policy-making and to “force” them to submit to their own “vision” of a “just” United States of America where preferential treatment must be given to nonwhites in perpetuity even though nearly fifty years of so-called “affirmative action” has resulted in the rise of generations of Americans who believe that life is one gigantic “entitlement” program that indemnifies them against incompetence, sloth, malfeasance and even overt criminal activity. In other words, blacks can do no wrong and “whitey” just has to “pay” for what he did to “their people” in the past.
Such is the belief of pagans who are nothing other than the end-products of Modernity, veritable monsters whose souls are seething with hatred and revenge, people who believe that the possession of power in this world defines their “importance” of human beings and assures “their people” of “getting what is due them” once and for all.
Well, consider Attorney General Eric Holder’s own words three years ago when questioned on Tuesday, March 1, 2011, by a subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations of the United States House of Representatives about why he did not seek to prosecute members of the “New Black Panther Party” in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, who stood outside of a polling place on November 4, 2008, as they shouted such things as “white devil” and “you are about to ruled by the black man, cracker.” One of their number, a fellow going by the name of “Minister King Shabazz,” was holding a billy club in a menacing manner. Poll watchers saw several people turn away from the polling place as a result (here is a video of the incident):
Attorney General Eric Holder said Tuesday that voter intimidation by members of the New Black Panther Party was different than the historic intimidation experienced by “my people.”
The New Black Panther Party had uniformed members stationed outside of Philadelphia polling stations in November 2008 shouting racial insults. One carried a nightstick.
Holder responded to statements made by Texas Republican Rep. John Culberson at a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing. Culberson said, “There’s clearly overwhelming evidence that your Department of Justice refuses to protect the rights of anybody other than African-Americans to vote.”
Holder said, “When you compare what people endured in the South in the ’60s to try to get the right to vote for African Americans, to compare what people subjected to that with what happened in Philadelphia… I think does a great disservice to people who put their lives on the line for my people.”
In December, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights released a scathing report on the Justice Department’s handling of the New Black Panthers case.
Civil Rights Commission Chairman Gerald A. Reynolds wrote, “Because the Department withheld relevant documents and relevant officials’ and supervisors’ witness testimony, the Commission was limited in its ability to complete a final report.”
“Based upon the incomplete, incorrect and changing explanations offered by the Department for its actions, the Commission decided to examine whether the U.S. Department of Justice enforced voting rights in a race-neutral manner when it reversed course in the New Black Panther Party case,” Reynolds wrote in an introductory letter for the report.
The Justice Department had dropped nearly all charges against defendants from the New Black Panther Party.
“The Department refused to comply with certain Commission requests for information concerning DOJ’s enforcement actions, and it instructed its employees not to comply with the Commission’s subpoenas for testimony,” Reynolds wrote.
The New Black Panther Party has been denounced by leaders of original Black Panther Party as a bastardized, racist version of the 60s’ group.
Reacting to the new group, co-founder of the original Black Panthers, Bobby Seale, said, “The Black Panther Party were not revenge nationalists. My organization was all power to all the people whether you’re black, white, blue, green, yellow, or polka dot.”
“The Party operated on love for black people, not hatred of white people,” said the foundation dedicated to the memory of the late Huey Newton.
Megan Mitchell, communications director for Culberson, told The Daily Caller, “the congressman believes that the attorney general needs to be the attorney general of all Americans.” (Eric Holder and “My People”; see also the scathing report of the U. S. Civil Rights Commission on this unquestioned exercise preferential treatment being accorded to human beings solely because of the color of their skin.)
What a racialist.
Voter intimidation of white Americans cannot be compared to voter intimidation of black of Americans because to do so would be to a ” great disservice to people who put their lives on the line for my people”?
Prosecutors should go easy in cases of “black on white” crime and seek maximum penalties in cases of “white on black” crime? An endless succession of “affirmative action” and other preferential programs to “level the playing field” in the acquisition, retention and increase of civil power, economic clout and social prestige. Yes, this is the vision and the goal of the Obamas and Eric Holder, who says that “affirmative action” has only just begun to remedy the injustices of the past:
Our own attorney general, ostensibly committed to even-handed enforcement of the nation’s laws, referred to blacks as “my people.” Strangely, it is socially acceptable for only certain groups to proudly claim ethnic group membership. If similar tribal loyalties were publicly boasted by a white ethnic, that would be seen as sinister. Just imagine the reaction if a President Bush had identified — on the basis of race — with a victim of minority-on-white crime by saying, “Channon Christian looks like my daughters.”
Identifying with an ethnic group as one’s own “people” will lead in most cases to in-group favoritism. Cultural pride is one thing, but proclaiming exclusive ethnic group affiliation while occupying a position of public trust is another. This tendency is too often written off as a harmless cultural tic or a healthy form of therapeutic identity formation. The trouble is that there is a worldview lying beneath the “my people” language.
In his remarks, the attorney general has provided the most explicit statement of ethnic favoritism and racial grievance by a high public official in American history. And the racket has just begun: “When do people of color truly get the benefits to which they are entitled?” asks Holder. The question is rhetorical, and his constituents know the answer.
In this liberal, racialized conception of society, minority groups are supposedly not getting “benefits to which they are entitled.” The danger in this attitude is not just that people are asking for free stuff from the government. The danger is that minority group members are made to believe that society is purposefully withholding benefits from them due to their racial group membership. Hence the resentment and latent animosity lurking at the core of the welfare state, and its ever-expanding legion of dependents.
This menacing fact was once openly recognized by sociologists. Decades ago, Edward C. Banfield wrote that urban social problems will increasingly come to be regarded as the fault of “callousness or neglect by the ‘white power structure’” . Just as expected, we now have a cult of anti-white resentment named Critical Race Theory being taught in law schools around the nation.
The constant use of physical metaphors like “white power structure” will guarantee that some people view themselves — usually falsely — as being intentionally excluded from that structure. Of course, structures comprise people, so real human beings will inevitably become targets of the resentment originally intended for abstract “power structures.”
The victim mentality feeds off racial bitterness, which is constantly politicized and enflamed. We see this in the rhetoric of Congresswoman Frederica Wilson (D-Florida), who said that Trayvon Martin was “hunted down like a dog.” The attorney general and president are doing their part to sow the seeds of bitterness, entitlement, and racial favoritism. By acknowledging those seeds, one begins to understand why racial double standards and potential violence are so easily stirred up amidst controversies such as the current one involving Trayvon Martin. (Eric Holder’s Revenge. I want to add that the late Edward Banfield’s The Unheavenly City and The Unheavenly City Revisited were outstanding books describing urban poverty. I read the first book when taking a course on Urban Politics at Saint John’s University as an undergraduate in the Spring Semester of 1972–can that be forty years ago now?–and used it in courses that I taught on the subject over the decades. Obviously, Banfield’s books provided no supernatural perspective. One who read them, however, with an understanding of First and Last Things could nevertheless appreciate the author’s insights about how the policies of the statists had enslaved the poor to make them a new caste of slaves here in the United States of America.)
Here is news for the Obamas and Eric Holder, who, as the head of the Deputy Attorney General under that zealous seeker of truth in Travelgate, Whitewatergate, Chinagate and other scandals, Attorney General Janet Reno (a pro-abortion, pro-perversity Catholic), in the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice in the administration of one Caesar Gulielmi Clintonus Ignoramus, helped the grease the skids for Clinton’s presidential pardon on January 20, 2001, of fugitive financier Marc Rich, whose former wife, Denise Rich, was a major fund-raiser for the Democratic Party, who had taken refuge in Switzerland to evade prosecution in the United States of America: There is no “affirmative action program” in Heaven.
I am sorry, one’s skin color does not exempt one from the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law. We are not judged by God at the moment of our Particular Judgments on the basis of our skin color. We are judged on the basis of whether we are in a state of Sanctifying Grace as a member of the Catholic Church.
There is no “affirmative action” program in Heaven, and the mere fact of being black, white, red, brown, yellow, pink or turquoise (or any combination thereof) has no bearing whatsoever on one’s absolute obligation to live in accord with the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law as these have been entrusted by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Himself to the Catholic Church for their eternal safekeeping and infallible explication. Each and every human being on the face of this earth has an obligation to try, despite their sins and failings, to cooperate with the graces won for us on Calvary by the shedding of every single drop of Our Lord’s Most Precious Blood that flow into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces, to live in accord with the Deposit of Faith, and those who serve in public office have an positive obligation to pursue the common temporal good in the light of the pursuit of man’s Last End, the possession of the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost for all eternity.
Says who? Every true pope of the Catholic Church, that’s who, including Pope Saint Pius X?
That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man’s eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man’s supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it. (Pope Saint Pius X, Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906.)
As Catholics, my friends, we know that God does not judge us on the basis of the race or ethnicity. Our immortal souls is made unto His own very image and likeness in that we have a rational soul with an intellect to know Him and a will to choose with which to love and to serve Him. Human beings do not love God as “blacks” or as “whites” or as “Latinos or Latinas” or as “Orientals” or as “Native Americans” or as “Italians” or as “Croatians” or as “French” or as “Americans” but as creatures whose immortal souls have been redeemed by the shedding of every single drop of the Most Precious Blood of the Divine Redeemer, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Human beings are called upon to love God as He has revealed Himself to them through His true Church, the Catholic Church, and to love their own immortal souls as they have been redeemed at so great a cost. Our principal identity as human beings is as members of the Catholic Church. Everything else about us (race, ethnicity, nationality, gender), although occurring certainly within the Providence of God, is secondary.
As I tried to explain to students during my days as a college professor, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ embraced all of the legitimate joys and sorrows of this passing, mortal vale of tears as He underwent His fearful Passion and Death. We suffer or experience joy as human beings, as redeemed creatures, not as mere animals identifiable by external characteristics. There are no such things as “black” tears or “white” tears or “Indian” tears. There is no such thing as “white” joy or “black” joy” or “Latino” joy. The use of the “race” or “ethnicity” or “gender” card is the refuge of cowardly scoundrels who seek privilege and/or to indemnify slothful or corrupt behavior.
We are to see in each person the very impress of the Divine Redeemer and to treat Him accordingly, rendering unto each person that which is his due. We are to discriminate unjustly (we must discriminate justly in many circumstances of our lives as we choose which merchant to patronize, which person to employ, who to admit to a seat in a college or a professional school, to deny employment or privileges to those steeped in public scandal, etc.) against no one nor must we use the external characteristics of a human being to extend privileges that are undeserving and/or would result in an injustice to someone else.
Ah, the Obamas and Eric Holder are penultimate expressions of the farce that must occur in a world when people do not realize that they identities are defined by the fact that they have rational, immortal souls created in the very image and likeness of the Most Blessed Trinity that have been redeemed by the shedding of the Most Precious Blood of the Divine Redeemer, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, during this fearful week of weeks.
Human beings are supposed to be bound together by the common bonds of the Catholic Faith, not to break into warring tribes along ethnic or racial or geographic lines, seething with hatred and resentment at those who have “more” (power, money, fame, prestige, accomplishment) than they do. We are to help each other get home to Heaven as members of the Catholic Church who aspire to make reparation to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary for our sins, fulfilling these words of Saint Paul in his Epistle to the Ephesians as we seek to build up each other as members of the Mystical Body of Christ on earth:
 From whom the whole body, being compacted and fitly joined together, by what every joint supplieth, according to the operation in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body, unto the edifying of itself in charity. This then I say and testify in the Lord: That henceforward you walk not as also the Gentiles walk in the vanity of their mind,  Having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their hearts.  Who despairing, have given themselves up to lasciviousness, unto the working of all uncleanness, unto the working of all uncleanness, unto covetousness.  But you have not so learned Christ;
 If so be that you have heard him, and have been taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus:  To put off, according to former conversation, the old man, who is corrupted according to the desire of error.  And be renewed in the spirit of your mind:  And put on the new man, who according to God is created in justice and holiness of truth.  Wherefore putting away lying, speak; ye the truth every man with his neighbour; for we are members one of another.
 Be angry, and sin not. Let not the sun go down upon your anger.  Give not place to the devil.  He that stole, let him now steal no more; but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have something to give to him that suffereth need.  Let no evil speech proceed from your mouth; but that which is good, to the edification of faith, that it may administer grace to the hearers.  And grieve not the holy Spirit of God: whereby you are sealed unto the day of redemption.
 Let all bitterness, and anger, and indignation, and clamour, and blasphemy, be put away from you, with all malice.  And be ye kind one to another; merciful, forgiving one another, even as God hath forgiven you in Christ. (Ephesians 4: 16-32.)
This spirit of the Divine Redeemer, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, He Who is the King of all men and all nations whether or not they know or accept Him as such, is far, far from the wretched, darkened hearts of haters such as the Obamas and Eric Holder, people intent on “remedying” every past injustice imaginable as they seek to persecute those who disagree with what they believe to be their “infallible” ideological agenda that they pursue relentlessly in behalf of one objectively grave evil after another. Holder’s own Department of Justice sought several years ago to persecute a woman, Mary Susan Pine, who did sidewalk counseling in the State of Florida, an act of rank administration tyranny and a gross miscarriage of justice and abuse of civil power that was denounced as such by Judge Kenneth Ryskamp, the senior judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida:
The Department of Justice has given up its bid to prosecute a pro-life counselor and agreed to pay her $120,000 in a case a judge said never should have been brought.
Mary Susan Pine, who stands outside abortion clinics and advises women not to have the procedure, was accused of blocking a car from entering a Florida abortion clinic in 2009. In December, a judge threw out the case, in which the government sought $10,000 in fines and a permanent injunction barring Pine from counseling women outside the Presidential Women’s Center in West Palm Beach, Fla. The government had been appealing the ruling until it was announced Monday it would no longer pursue the case.
Pine’s lawyer said she was a victim of a politically-driven prosecution.
“It is irresponsible for the U.S. Department of Justice to place politics above principle when deciding to prosecute, and thus attempt to silence, a pro-life sidewalk counselor without any evidence of wrongdoing,” Mathew Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, said in a statement. “When the nation’s highest law enforcement officer files suit against any citizen, the suit must be based on the law coupled with compelling evidence. Anything less is an abuse of the high office.”
A spokesperson for the Department of Justice defended prosecution decision as “based on the facts presented during our investigations and the applicable federal laws.” In Pine’s case, “the department made a decision to settle with the defendant rather than continue with costly litigation.”
Florida District Judge Kenneth Ryskamp said in December the case appeared to be part of a “concerted effort” between the government and the Presidential Women’s Center.
“The Court is at a loss as to why the government chose to prosecute this particular case in the first place,” Ryskamp wrote in a summary judgment order against the feds. “The court can only wonder whether this action was the product of a concerted effort between the government and PWC, which began well before the date of the incident at issue, to quell Ms. Pine’s activities rather than to vindicate the rights of those allegedly aggrieved by Ms. Pine’s conduct.”
Under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) federal law, DOJ officials alleged that Pine obstructed a car from entering the Florida abortion clinic on Nov. 19, 2009.
Pine, who could not be reached for comment, had denied obstructing any vehicle from entering the clinic. (DOJ officials drops appeal, pays Florida pro-life sidewalk counselor.)
Sure, protect the “New Black Panther Party.” Rush to judgment on the case of Travyon Martin back in 2012. The new caste of political leaders who are but the final product of false, naturalistic, anti-Incarnational and semi-Pelagian principles of the American founding (see Conversion in Reverse, which is still available for sale) will protect “their people” while they use the full powers of the Department of Justice to intimidate “reactionary” citizens such as Mary Susan Pine who try to be a peaceful, prayerful presence in front of America’s killing centers so as to convince at least one woman to save her baby from those who are paid to butcher her innocent preborn baby and to use the offices of the Internal Revenue Services to conduct audits on political opponents such as even low-level members of the self-described “Tax Enough Already” (TEA) Party.
Let’s be clear on all of this.
Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro and Eric Holder, et al., consider all opposition to them to be illegitimate. Living in the Manichean world of good and evil that is a part of the American ethos, the Obama/Soetoro cadre of statists believes all opposition voices must be silence. Intimidation, not excluding the politicization of the Internal Revenue Service and the threat of prosecution. These cowardly tyrants raise the specter of “racism” to shield themselves in their lawless activities that defy the laws of both God and man. They are truly Tyrants Who Speak About “Freedom”.
Although Tyrant Holder’s exchange with United States Representative Louis Gohmert (R-Texas) received a great deal of attention in the past week, it is good to highlight it here as it is just one contemporary proof of Holder’s resentment of his actions being called into question by anyone, including an elected member of the United States House of Representatives who, unlike Holder, is answerable to his constituents on Tuesday, November 4, 2014:
REP. LOUIE GOHMERT (R-TX) Attorney General, I’ve read in the 5th Circuit opinion, about 9600 summaries of transcripts of conversations that the Justice Department had that were made available to attorneys for the terrorists. I still do not understand why your department can provide documents to terrorists’ lawyers, and many of them to four out of eight of the terrorists, and not provide them to members of Congress.
Sir, I’ve read you what your department promised, and it is inadequate, and I realize that contempt is not a big deal to our attorney general, but it is important that we have proper oversight.
ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER: You don’t want to go there, buddy. You don’t want to go there, okay?
GOHMERT: I don’t want to go there?
GOHMERT: About the contempt?
HOLDER: You should not assume that that is not a big deal to me. I think that it was inappropriate. I think it was unjust, but never think that that was not a big deal to me. Don’t ever think that.
GOHMERT: Well I’m just looking for evidence, and normally we’re known by our fruits, and there have been no indications that it was a big deal, because your department has still not been forthcoming in producing the documents that were the subject of the contempt.
HOLDER: The documents that we were prepared to make available then, we’re prepared to make available now that would have obviated the whole need. This was all about the gun lobby and a desire to have a –
GOHMERT: Sir, we’ve been trying to get to the bottom of Fast and Furious where people died, where at least a couple hundred Mexicans died, and we can’t get the information to get to the bottom of that, so I don’t need lectures from you about contempt, because it is very difficult to deal with asking questions.
HOLDER: And I don’t need lectures from you either.
GOHMERT: As a former judge, I’d never have asked questions of someone who’s been held in contempt. We waited ‘til the contempt was purged, and then we asked questions. (Eric Holder To Louie Gohmert: “You Don’t Want To Go There, Buddy”)
“You don’t want to go there, buddy”?
What incredible arrogance.
The chief law enforcement officer of the United States of America, who serves in that capacity after having been confirmed by the United States Senate in 2009 following his nomination by his comrade-in-statist-arms, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, believes that a member of the United States House of Representatives has no right to “go there” to question him about his violations of the Constitution of the United States of America and of the laws passed by Congress itself. He believes that he is answerable to no one, especially to the Divine Judge, Christ the King, for his wanton, bold and arrogant abuse of the powers of his office. Too bad for those killed as a result of Fast and Furious. Just too bad.
Tyrant Holder took an oath to uphold the Constitution, whose defects helped made the election of his patron, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, possible. Yet it is that he believes that he has wide prosecutorial discretion to do whatever he wants as long as its consistent with “his” values, which include violating the direct mandates of Federal law concerning the sentencing of those convicted of trafficking in illegal substances.
Representative Louie Gohmert’s commendable condemnation of Tyrant Holder’s abuse of law and his contempt of Congress came just a few days before a two Federal judges who serve on a panel to supervise the uniform enforcement of sentencing guidelines rebuked him for his abuse of prosecutorial discretion and the intellectual dishonesty he displayed when testifying before them recently without informing them that he had already issued his directive to Federal prosecutors to go easy on what he believes are “low-level” drug traffickers:
(CNSNews.com) — Two federal judges on the U.S. Sentencing Commission said Thursday that Attorney General Eric Holder stepped “outside the legal system” and exceeded the authority of the executive branch by sending “improper instruction” to federal prosecutors to reduce drug sentences before they were officially approved by either the commission or Congress.
“I have been surprised at the attorney general’s steps taken to proceed with this reduction outside of the legal system set up and established by the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984,” Judge Ricardo Hinojosa, the commission’s vice chair, said during a public hearing in the Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building in Washington.
“As you all know, the commission in the act is given the authority to promulgate and amend guidelines on a yearly basis. And in the act itself, Congress has preserved its right to reject any potential promulgation of, or amendment to, any guidelines made by the commission itself after the commission has acted.
“Meaning that if Congress does not reject a guideline amendment, it will not go into effect until November 1st of this year if we vote in favor of this amendment.,” said Hinojosa, who is also the chief judge of the Southern District of Texas.
“When the attorney general testified before us, he failed to mention that the night before, at around 11 pm, the department had ordered all of the assistant U.S. attorneys across the country to (and it’s not clear to me whether it was supposed to be not oppose or to argue for, in fact the U.S. attorneys in front of my court have said they’ve been asked to argue for) the two-level reduction in all drug trafficking cases before the commission has acted and before Congress has had the opportunity to vote its disapproval of the commission’s actions, if Congress is so inclined, which is certainly the right that they have preserved for themselves in the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984,” Hinojosa said.
“It would have been nice for us to have known and been told beforehand that this action had been taken, so any of us who would have liked to have asked the attorney general under what basis under Title 18…the courts were being asked by the Justice Department to follow this request.
“If it was because the attorney general had spoken in favor of this proposal, that is a dangerous precedent because attorney generals in the past have consistently expressed opinions to the commission on guideline promulgation and amendments, many times for an increase, and sometimes for a lowering of the penalties.
“But none have ever then asked the courts to proceed with increases or decreases simply because the attorney general has spoken in support of them before the commission has acted and before the Congress has exercised its statutory right not to act,” the vice-chairman said. (Judge: Law Provides Executive No Authority to Cut Drug Sentences.)
How does Eric Holder react to rebukes such as those given him by Representative Louie Gohmert and Judges Rico Hinojosa?
Cry racism, which is exactly what Holder did when speaking before a convention organized by the nefarious pro-abort, racialist, inciter of riots and racial hatred and resentment named Alfred Sharpton, the founder of the so-called “National Action Network”:
“The last five years have been defined by significant strides and by lasting reforms even in the face, even in the face of unprecedented, unwarranted, ugly and divisive adversity,” Holder said. “If you don’t believe that, you look at the way — forget about me, forget about me. You look at the way the attorney general of the United States was treated yesterday by a House committee — has nothing to do with me, forget that. What attorney general has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment? What president has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment?” (Eric Holder strays from planned remarks.)
What a unspeakably horrible, self-piteous, self-righteous demagogue.
No President has “ever had to deal with this kind of treatment”?
Barack Hussen Obama/Barry Soetoro has had minimal opposition from the mostly hapless members of the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist “right,” save for the likes of Representatives Louis Gohmert and Dan Issa and a few others precisely because he is black. He has been protected from any serious effort to impeach him for his own numerous crimes, including the arbitrary suspending of the provisions Federal law in the manner of the late Hugo Chavez, misrepresenting and covering up the Mohammedan terrorist attack on the American compound in Benghazi, Libya, on Tuesday, September 11, 2012, sweeping under the rug, along with Holder, the scandal of Internal Revenue Service’s tax-exempt division’s targeting of “conservative” groups and its auditing of administration critics (such as Dr. Ben Carson and several outspoken critics of ObamaCare), refusing to protect the legitimate national sovereignty of the United States of America by encouraging an influx of illegal immigrants and to provide them with de facto amnesty and a vast array of social services in order to make them wards of the civil state and loyal voters of the Democratic Party when they are granted citizenship by executive fiat, using the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency to spy on ordinary Americans whose only “crime” is expressing opposition to him and his policies, using the Federal Bureau of Investigation as a tool of intimidating opponents and, among so many other offenses, seeking to restrict the use or to confiscate altogether private property under various bogus texts, no less spending this country far, far into the abyss of national debt.
Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro has been protected by his race, which he has chosen to highlight and to exploit despite the fact that he is actually bi-racial. He has exceeded the criminality of the administrations of Presidents Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Lyndon Baines Johnson, Richard Milhous Nixon, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton and George Walker Bush combined. (My upcoming article on the situation on Crimea and Ukraine will review past presidential crimes, including those perpetrated on innocent human beings in other parts of the world.) He has received a free pass from most careerists in the Republican Party and has been enabled by the talking heads and paid sycophants in the mainslime media.
Moreover, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro and Eric Holder believe that any effort to prevent voter fraud is an exercise in racial intimidation. Caesar Obamus Barackus Igoranums said so himself at Alfred Sharpton’s National Action Network convention in New York, New York:
President Obama deplored on Friday what he called a Republican campaign to deny voting rights to millions of Americans as he stepped up efforts to rally his political base heading into a competitive midterm campaign season.
Appearing at the annual convention of the Rev. Al Sharpton’s National Action Network in Manhattan, Mr. Obama accused Republicans of trying to rig the elections by making it harder for older people, women, minorities and the impoverished to cast ballots in swing states that could determine control of the Senate.
“The right to vote is threatened today in a way that it has not been since the Voting Rights Act became law nearly five decades ago,” Mr. Obama said in a hotel ballroom filled with cheering supporters, most of them African-American. “Across the country, Republicans have led efforts to pass laws making it harder, not easier, for people to vote.”
Speaking a day after a conference in Texas commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, Mr. Obama linked the issue to the movement that helped pave the way for him to become the nation’s first black president.
“America did not stand up and did not march and did not sacrifice to gain the right to vote for themselves and for others only to see it denied to their kids and their grandchildren,” he said.
Republicans in some swing states have advanced new laws that go beyond the voter identification requirements of recent years. Among other things, state lawmakers are pushing measures to limit the time polls are open and to cut back early voting, particularly weekend balloting that makes it easier for lower-income voters to participate. Other measures would eliminate same-day registration, make it more difficult to cast provisional ballots or curb the mailing of absentee ballots.
Over the last 15 months, at least nine states have enacted voting changes making it harder to cast ballots. A federal judge last month upheld laws in Arizona and Kansas requiring proof of citizenship, like a birth certificate or a passport, leading other states to explore following suit.
Sponsors of such laws have said they are trying to prevent voter fraud and argue that Democrats overstate the impact of common-sense measures in a crass and transparent effort to rile up their most fervent political supporters.
“They want to create an issue out of nothing,” said Sean Spicer, communications director for the Republican National Committee. “The bottom line is, they know they’re on the wrong side of the issues that are important with voters, and the only way they can win is by scaring their base into voting.”
Mr. Spicer said the new laws proposed in some states had more to do with establishing uniformity, ensuring fairness between urban and rural communities and containing costs. He argued that Georgia actually saw minority voter participation increase after a new identification law went into effect.
Mr. Obama said nothing about a compromise idea presented to him in Texas this week by Andrew Young, the civil rights leader and former United Nations ambassador. Mr. Young proposed bridging the divide over ballot security by putting photographs on Social Security cards, which are issued to all citizens.
Former President Bill Clinton embraced the idea, but the White House did not. “We haven’t had a chance to review it,” said Jay Carney, the president’s press secretary.
The focus on voting rights came in the same week when Mr. Obama and other Democrats highlighted efforts to combat pay inequality for women, another critical constituency in the fall campaign. The president continues to promote an increase in the minimum wage, an issue popular with core Democratic voters, as well as some Republicans.
In addressing the National Action Network for the first time in three years, Mr. Obama made no mention of new details that came to light this week about Mr. Sharpton’s work as a confidential informer for the F.B.I. in the 1980s. Mr. Sharpton, in introducing Mr. Obama, said nothing about it either.
Instead, Mr. Sharpton embraced the president as a champion of the organization’s causes, despite past grumbling among some activists that Mr. Obama has not been energetic enough in addressing issues of concern to African-Americans.
“He has been an action president,” Mr. Sharpton told the audience. “I’m not talking about style. I’m not talking about rhetoric. I’m not talking about who would high-five us. I’m talking about action.”
He cited the president’s health care program and efforts to create private sector jobs and ensure equal pay for women. “This man didn’t talk,” Mr. Sharpton said. “He didn’t play us cheap. He brought us action.”
A relaxed Mr. Obama laughed and said he appreciated that. “Although I do also have style,” he added with a smile. “I just want to point that out.”
He also raised an old scandal, which he spent years trying to put to bed, when he said laws requiring passports or birth certificates would disenfranchise voters.
“Just to be clear, I know where my birth certificate is,” he said to laughter and cheers, referring to questions about whether he had been born in the United States that largely quieted down after he produced a birth certificate in 2011. (Caesar Says the Right to Vote Multiple Times and Without Proof of Citizenship Is Theatened.)
“This recent effort to restrict the vote has not been led by both parties,” Obama said, speaking to 1,600 people at the Sheraton ballroom in Midtown Manhattan.
“It’s been led by the Republican Party …. If your strategy depends on having fewer people showing up to vote, that’s not a sign of strength. That’s a sign of weakness. And not only is ultimately bad politics, ultimately it is bad for the country.”
He said it was undemocratic to force Americans to produce an ID such as a passport to vote.
“About 60% of Americans don’t have a passport. Just because you don’t have the money to travel abroad doesn’t mean you shouldn’t vote at home.
“Just to be clear I know where my birth certificate is,” he joked. “I think it’s still up on a website somewhere. Do you remember that?” he added, referring to his release of the certificate. (Obama stands by Rev. Al Sharpton.)
Leaving aside the typical fear-mongering and race-baiting that is, of course, second nature to Obama/Soetoro, Eric Holder and the master of such tactics, Alfred Shaprton, that are designed to turn out the vote in the midterm national elections on November 4, 2014, Obama/Soetoro’s line of reasoning, such as it is, was fallacious and disingenuous.
One needs photo identification to open a bank account, a little gift of the statist named George Walker Bush and the Patriot Act.
One needs photo identification to be able to run the gauntlet known as the Keystone Cops who pass for security guards at our airports, who are under direct orders to target everyone but those who are actual terrorists as “racial profiling,” which the Israelis use to keep their own aircraft safe, is forbidden.
One needs photo identification and proof of citizenship or permanent residency or a work visa to get a job legally in the United States of America.
Why is asking for such identification when voting to be considered an effort to exclude black Americans and Spanish-speaking Americans from participating in the farce of naturalism we call elections, which are control by two competing crime families of naturalism in the first place?
As for the Social Security card proposal, suffice it to say that this is a sham as there is a cottage industry of producing false Social Security cards for illegal immigrants, something that Jorge Mario Bergoglio himself would support as a “civil right.”
There is yet a larger question, however: why would the President and the Attorney-General of the United States of America want to be associated with and to lend further credibility to Alfred Sharpton, who perpetrated the Tawana Brawley hoax in 1987, slandered a New York State trooper, Stephen Pagones, and then refused to pay the judgment that the latter won against him in a defamation suit?
Here is just a thumbnail sketch of the man who has been embraced with such fervor by Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro and Eric Holder and Vice President Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.:
Among the earliest and clearest voices to condemn Trent Lott’s benighted remarks last month were those of conservatives and Republicans, who were repelled by his nostalgia for segregation and quick to call for his ouster. When will liberals and Democrats show the same maturity and forcefully repudiate the noxious racial lout in their own tent, New York demagogue Al Sharpton?
And when will the media, which aggressively mined Lott’s racial history and prominently reported the results, show a similar interest in digging into Sharpton’s record — a record far more shameful and egregious than anything Lott has to answer for.
This is a subject of more than idle interest. Al Sharpton says he is running for president. He has no hope of landing the White House, the Democratic nomination, or more than a handful of convention delegates, but that won’t stop him from getting plenty of ink and air time. And maybe it shouldn’t; presidential campaigns have often been enlivened and even enlightened by candidates who had no more chance of winning the presidency than they did of winning the Preakness.
But it is impossible to imagine, say, David Duke running for president as a Republican and not being shunned by every leading figure in the party. Impossible to imagine his campaign appearances being covered in news accounts that made no mention of his history in the Ku Klux Klan and his links to neo-Nazis. Impossible to imagine that he would be treated as just another candidate, albeit one with a “controversial” past. No one would roll over for Duke. Why are they rolling over for Sharpton?
After all, Sharpton’s résumé is at least as vile as Duke’s.
1987: Sharpton spreads the incendiary Tawana Brawley hoax, insisting heatedly that a 15-year-old black girl was abducted, raped, and smeared with feces by a group of white men. He singles out Steve Pagones, a young prosecutor. Pagones is wholly innocent — the crime never occurred — but Sharpton taunts him: “If we’re lying, sue us, so we can . . . prove you did it.” Pagones does sue, and eventually wins a $345,000 verdict for defamation. To this day, Sharpton refuses to recant his unspeakable slander or to apologize for his role in the odious affair.
1991: A Hasidic Jewish driver in Brooklyn’s Crown Heights section accidentally kills Gavin Cato, a 7-year-old black child, and antisemitic riots erupt. Sharpton races to pour gasoline on the fire. At Gavin’s funeral he rails against the “diamond merchants” — code for Jews — with “the blood of innocent babies” on their hands. He mobilizes hundreds of demonstrators to march through the Jewish neighborhood, chanting, “No justice, no peace.” A rabbinical student, Yankel Rosenbaum, is surrounded by a mob shouting “Kill the Jews!” and stabbed to death.
1995: When the United House of Prayer, a large black landlord in Harlem, raises the rent on Freddy’s Fashion Mart, Freddy’s white Jewish owner is forced to raise the rent on his subtenant, a black-owned music store. A landlord-tenant dispute ensues; Sharpton uses it to incite racial hatred. “We will not stand by,” he warns malignantly, “and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business.” Sharpton’s National Action Network sets up picket lines; customers going into Freddy’s are spat on and cursed as “traitors” and “Uncle Toms.” Some protesters shout, “Burn down the Jew store!” and simulate striking a match. “We’re going to see that this cracker suffers,” says Sharpton’s colleague Morris Powell. On Dec. 8, one of the protesters bursts into Freddy’s, shoots four employees point-blank, then sets the store on fire. Seven employees die in the inferno.
If Sharpton were a white skinhead, he would be a political leper, spurned everywhere but the fringe. But far from being spurned, he is shown much deference. Democrats embrace him. Politicians court him. And journalists report on his comings and goings while politely sidestepping his career as a hatemongering racial hustler.
When Sharpton came to Boston to promote his campaign last week, for example, the news coverage was uniformly upbeat. The Boston Herald noted the “joyous singing and thunderous applause” that greeted the “civil rights leader,” whose “energetic visit left many enthusiastic about his presidential bid.” The Globe announced the arrival of “the colorful and controversial 48-year-old community activist” with a story listing the places and times of his public appearances. The only allusion to his ugly record was a vague quote from a local minister: “He obviously has a lot of history and controversy to overcome.” That was quickly countered by Sharpton’s own self-description as a man known “for my fights against racial profiling and discrimination.”
Well, that isn’t what Steve Pagones or the family of Yankel Rosenbaum or the loved ones of those who were burned alive at Freddy’s Fashion Mart know him for. As they can testify, Sharpton is a vicious liar and a dangerous bigot. As a matter of moral hygiene, his party and the press should be able to say so, too. (Al Sharpton: The Democrat’s David Duke; see also Michelle Malkin, Where was Bozo the VP today?)’
It is only natural that professional race-baiters and agitators who must seek to tarnish and make illegitimate any criticism of them or their policies and positions by playing the race card so that they can proceed to break the laws of God and man.
See how the race-baiters and true haters and agitators love each other:
As I have noted so many times on this site, images such as the one just above are but the logical rotten fruit of the work of the men a founding hatred for Christ the King and their founding principles that have convinced men that they can establish a social order without regard to any religion, no less the true religion, which is the very premise of Judeo-Masonry.
Even the concept of natural justice under the likes of Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro and Eric Holder has become somewhat analogous to the “Ministry of Justice” in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics from its earliest days of operation. Nikolai Krylenko, who would rise eventually to the post of “Commissar of Justice” under Joseph Stalin in 1929 and served in this position until 1931, was the chief prosecutor of Moscow in 1923 during the show trial of Archbishop Jan Cieplak, of the countless numbers of Catholic martyrs of the Soviet Union that was so admired by Barack Hussein Obama’s Marxist mentor, Frank Marshall Davis. It was during ths unjust prosecution of Archbishop Cieplak that Krylenko made a bold pronouncement, which is contained in the following paragraph about the persecution of Christians by the Soviets:
Krylenko, who began to speak at 6:10 PM, was moderate enough at first, but quickly launched into an attack on religion in general and the Catholic Church in particular. “The Catholic Church”, he declared, “has always exploited the working classes.” When he demanded the Archbishop’s death, he said, “All the Jesuitical duplicity with which you have defended yourself will not save you from the death penalty. No Pope in the Vatican can save you now.” As the long oration proceeded, the Red Procurator worked himself into a fury of anti-religious hatred. “Your religion”, he yelled, “I spit on it, as I do on all religions, — on Orthodox, Jewish, Mohammedan, and the rest.” “There is no law here but Soviet Law,” he yelled at another stage, “and by that law you must die.” (Francis McCullagh, The Bolshevik Persecution of Christianity, E. P. Dutton Company, New York, New York, 1924, p. 221.)
It is also by Soviet “law” that Nikolai Krylenko died as he was executed after a twenty minute show trial on July 29, 1938. And it is by such “law” that we are governed at this time.
Imagine if Catholics held the same attitudes of resentment about the harsh, violent and sometimes murderous treatment accorded their forbears by Protestants and Freemasons in this country in the Nineteenth Century as the Obamas and Eric Holder and their ideological brethren do about the injustices that have been done to “their” people. Consider this vignette provided by none other than that great evangelizer and patron of the American Indians, Father Pierre-Jean De Smet, S.J.:
The Carbonari, then numerous in America, received their orders direct from European lodges. They edited a paper, L’Eco d’Italia, and labored unceasingly to prejudice the people against the Church and trammel the authority of the Bishops. In the hope of recovering their waning influence, the Protestant ministers made common cause with the revolutionaries. This was the beginning of a vast conspiracy, which imperiled, for a time, Catholic liberty in the United States.
The Know-Nothings, a new society, began to be organized about 1852. Theirs was a secret order, which bound its members by a solemn oath. It was formed, ostensibly, to defend the rights of the poor against European invasion. “America is for Americans” was its slogan. With this object in view, they endeavored to have severe naturalization laws enacted against the new arrivals from Europe, and exclude citizens born of foreign parents from holding public offices. In reality, these fanatics combated no so much the foreign immigration. as the fidelity of Europeans, especially the Irish, to the Church of Rome. To base calumnies they added murder, pillage, incendiarism, and, before long, found an occasion for opening the campaign. In the spring of 1853 the Papal Nuncio to Brazil, Archbishop Bedini, arrived in New York, bringing the Sovereign Pontiff’s blessing to the faithful in the Untied States. He was charged, moreover, to investigate the conditions of Catholicism in the great Republic.
The Know-Nothings saw in this mission a grave attack upon American liberties. Their newspapers denounced the perfidious and ambitious intrigues of Rome. The apostate priest Gavazzi came from London and placed his eloquence at the service of his follow-socialists and friends. for several months he followed the Envoy form one city to the other, vomiting forth lies, threatening him with dire reprisals, and through fiery denunciation endeavored to stir up the masses against the “Papists.”
From vituperation and abuse there was but one step to action. On Christmas day in Cincinnati a band of assassins attempted to do way with the Nuncio. Driven off by the police, they revenged themselves by burning him in effigy. This odious scene was enacted in several towns. Conditions pointing to renewed attacks, Archbishop Bedini was forced to depart after a short sojourn in the United States. But the hostilities did not cease with the departure of the Nuncio. The campaign lasted for three years, attended by violent outrages and attacks, and armed forces had presently to interfere to defend life and property. A witness of these disorders, Father De Smet draws a gloomy picture of existing conditions in his letters. “The times are becoming terrible for Catholics in these unhappy States. Nowhere in the world do honest men enjoy less liberty.”
“European demagogues, followers of Kossuth, Mazzini, etc., have sworn to exterminate us. Seven Catholic churches have been sacked and burned; those courageous enough to defend them have been assassinated.” “The future grows darker, and we are menaced from every side. If our enemies succeed in electing a President from ranks–until now the chances have been in their favor–Catholics will be debarred from practicing their religion; our churches and schools will be burned and pillaged, and murder will result from these brawls. During this present time  over twenty thousand Catholics have fled to other countries seeking refuge from persecution, and many more talk of following them. The right to defame and exile is the order of the day in this great Republic, now the rendezvous of the demagogues and outlaws of every country.”
No laws were enacted for the protection of Catholics, and in some States the authorities were openly hostile. “The legislators of New York and Pennsylvania are now busy with the temporal affairs of the Church, which they wish take out of the hands of the Bishops. These States have taken the initiative, and others will soon follow. In Massachusetts, a mischief-making inquisition has just been instituted, with the object of investigating affairs in religious houses. In Boston, a committee of twenty-four rascals, chosen from among the legislators, of which sixty are Protestant ministers, searched and inspected a convent of the Sisters of of Notre Dame de Namur.”
While making a tour of the Jesuit houses with the Provincial, Father De Smet more than once braved the fury of the fanatics. In Cincinnati, a priest could now show himself in the street without being insulted by renegade Germans, Swiss, and Italians. In Louisville, thirty Catholics were killed in an open square and burned alive in their houses. Those who attempted to flee were driven back into the flames at the point of pistols and knives. Even in St. Louis, several attempts were made in one week upon the lives of citizens. The Jesuits were not spared. At Ellsworth, Maine, Father Bapst was taken by force from the house of a Catholic where he was hearing confessions, was covered with pitch, rolled in feathers, tied, swung by his hands and feet to a pole, and carried through the city to the accompaniment of gross insults. (Father E. Lavaille, S.J., The Life of Father De Smet, S.J. (1801-1873): Apostle of the Rocky Mountains, published originally in 1915 by P. J. Kenedy & Sons, New York, New York, and reprinted by TAN Books and Publishers in 2000 with the additions and the subtitle, “Apostle of the Rocky Mountains.” pp. 262-265.)
No, those persecuted Catholics were not the “people” of Barack and Michele Robinson Obama and Eric Holder, which is why they have sought to demonize what they think are the authorities of the Catholic Church in the United States of America who expressed opposition to caesar’s mandate requiring all employers, including religious institutions, to provide coverage for contraceptive pills and devices and sterilization. “Their” “people” are only those who “look” like they do and, secondarily, those others who, regardless of their skin color or creed, are “enlightened” enough to agree with them on every prescription of public policy they issue to be followed without a whimper by the unwashed masses who they hold in such utter and complete contempt, which is why they must use demagoguery much in the manner of the Know-Nothings” in order to keep those masses from recognizing them for what they are: tyrannical racialists and race-baiters and Marxist ideologues of the first order.
While they will work with “Catholics” of the ilk as Kathleen Sebelius and Nancy Patricia D’Alesandro Pelosi, the Obamas and Holder have a hated for believing Catholics, especially, as mentioned before in this article, the “white Irish-Catholic power structure” in Cook County, Illinois:
The Chicago Sun-Times’s Lynn Sweet picked out an interesting morsel in Jodi Kantor’s book about the Obama family:
“When Michelle Obama worked in Mayor Daley’s City Hall in the early 1990s, she was ‘distressed’ by how a small group of ‘white Irish Catholic’ families — the Daleys, the Hynes and the Madigans — ‘locked up’ power in Illinois.
“She particularly resented the way power in Illinois was locked up generation after generation by a small group of families, all white Irish Catholic — the Daleys in Chicago, the Hynes and Madigans statewide.”
Obama White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley, one of those hated white Irish Catholics, resigned the same weekend the book’s juiciest tidbits leaked out.
It is probably all just a coincidence, but sometimes coincidences reveal bigger truths.
And the bigger truth is that Bill Daley left the White House because he lost to Valerie Jarrett and to the president’s wife in the battle for the philosophical direction of the Obama White House.
I don’t know if Michelle Obama’s antipathy toward white Irish Catholics finally became too much of a barrier to Daley or not. But I do know that Daley was only ineffective because his boss would not let him be effective.
Bill Daley is a political pragmatist. He cuts deals. Like his father and his brother, he is not a left-wing ideologue; nor is he a Republican in Democratic clothing.
He is a pro-business Democrat, an increasingly rare breed these days in Washington.
Obama is not a pro-business Democrat. His wife is not a pro-business Democrat. They don’t like the business community. They don’t trust the free market. They want to spread wealth around (other people’s wealth, I might add). (Obama’s real reelection problem.)
As was predictable, however, Barack Obama/Barry Soetoro, had no re-election problem in 2012. After all, he was “opposed’ by yet another laughably obsequious servant of Judeo-Masonry, Wilard Mill Romney (take a look after Holy Week at an eight-part video series: An Case Against Obama and Romney part 1, A Case Against Obama and Romney part two, A Case Against Obama and Romney part 3, A Case Against Obama and Romney, part four, A Case Against Obama and Romney, part five, A Case Against Obama and Romney, part six, A Case Against Obama and Romney part seven and A Case Against Obama and Romney, part eight).
Father De Smet accurately described the persecution of Catholics. Unfortunately, however, he believed that the very thing that produced this persecution, the insanity of “freedom of conscience,” would save the day for Catholics, who would cheer mightily when their liberties were respected by all others. The logic of the evil of “liberty of conscience” is such, however, that the very thing exalted by so many Catholics, including the courageous, zealous, indefatigable apostle of souls, Father Pierre-Jean De Smet, was bound to wind up infecting the minds of Catholics worldwide, producing a false religion, conciliarism, that sees “good” in all false religions and believes that Catholics can “learn” from the differing beliefs of others. Father De Smet did not understand that the ultimate expression of “liberty of conscience” would be the likes of the Obamas and Eric Holder.
Popes Gregory XVI and Pius IX had issued warnings about “liberty of conscience” that were never repeated to Catholics in the “free” United States of America:
“This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. “But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error,” as Augustine was wont to say. When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly “the bottomless pit” is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws — in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty. (Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)
For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of “naturalism,” as they call it, dare to teach that “the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones.” And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that “that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require.” From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an “insanity,” viz., that “liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way.” But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching “liberty of perdition;” and that “if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling.”
And, since where religion has been removed from civil society, and the doctrine and authority of divine revelation repudiated, the genuine notion itself of justice and human right is darkened and lost, and the place of true justice and legitimate right is supplied by material force, thence it appears why it is that some, utterly neglecting and disregarding the surest principles of sound reason, dare to proclaim that “the people’s will, manifested by what is called public opinion or in some other way, constitutes a supreme law, free from all divine and human control; and that in the political order accomplished facts, from the very circumstance that they are accomplished, have the force of right.” But who, does not see and clearly perceive that human society, when set loose from the bonds of religion and true justice, can have, in truth, no other end than the purpose of obtaining and amassing wealth, and that (society under such circumstances) follows no other law in its actions, except the unchastened desire of ministering to its own pleasure and interests?” (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864.)
Father De Smet may not have seen these encyclical letters or have applied them to the situation in the United States of America. Father De Smet did, however, recognize that the Cross of the Divine Redeemer was necessary to civilize any peoples. His tireless work in converting and instructing the Indians prompted them to trust him more than the representatives of the government of the United States of America. Father De Smet had instructed representatives of various tribes gathered at the Fort Laramie Council in September of 1851 about the terms of a treaty that had been proposed by the United States government, writing the following after he had made his presentation:”
“Promises, threats, firearms, and swords,” said he, “are less effective than the Black Robe’s words of peace and the civilizing banner of the cross.” (Letter from Father De Smet to the editor of the Brussels Journal, June 30, 1853, as quoted in (Father E. Lavaille, S.J., The Life of Father De Smet, S.J. (1801-1873): Apostle of the Rocky Mountains, published originally in 1915 by P. J. Kenedy & Sons, New York, New York, and reprinted by TAN Books and Publishers in 2000 with the additions and the subtitle, “Apostle of the Rocky Mountains.” p. 235.)
The Cross of the Divine Redeemer, Christ the King, can even civilize the likes of the Obamas and Eric Holder. It can always civilize us once and for all if we resolve to quit our sins and make reparation for them as the consecrated slaves of Our Royal Messias through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of His Most Most Blessed Mother.
It is, therefore, with great humility that we must recognize how many times we have been on the wrong of the Cross. It is with great gratitude that we most approach the Paschal Triduum of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’s Passion, Death and Resurrection, recognizing, of course, that we have denied Him as did Saint Peter, that we have washed our hands of our own guilty as did Pontius Pilate, that we have sold Him out for thirty pieces of silver rather repeatedly as Judas Iscariot did just once on this very day, Spy Wednesday. We must never kid ourselves into believing that we have not played–and sometimes continue to play–the roles of a Saint Peter or a Pontius Pilate or a Judas Iscariot in our lives. What matters, of course, is that we recognize the fact of betrayals and get ourselves to a true bishop or a true priest in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance every week if at all possible.
As we make reparation each and every day for our own many sins, we must make sure to pray–and by name–for the conversion of those who in public life who use the “race card” so shamelessly as they support one objective moral evil after another under cover of law, oblivious to the fact that social and economic conditions must worsen in any nation where such evils are protected under cover of law and promoted in every aspect of its popular culture. To this end, of course, we must pray as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit, entrusting all to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.
The Neros and Diocletians and Trajans of Modernity will pass from the scene upon the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. They–and their conciliar enablers, starting with Jorge Mario Bergoglio–will be but footnotes in history. We may not live to see this day. Not to worry. The Apostles did not see the glory of the first Christendom with their own bodily eyes. They were content to plant the seeds for its glories. We can do no less in our own day as the totally consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, asking for all of the graces we need each day so that we will not fold like cheap cameras when it comes to our defense of the Catholic Faith, including our defense of the Social Reign of Christ the King.
May Our Lady help us to be led out of the prison of our own sins and selfishness and the lies of Modernity and Modernism as we are enlightened at all times by the Light Who is her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, King of men and their nations. May the day come soon when He is recognized by the Constitution of the United States of America as the King of this nation as He is of all nations.
Vivat Christus Rex! Viva 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.
Saints Caspar, Melchior and Balthasar, pray for us.
Saint Jerome Emiliani, pray for us.
Saint Margaret, Virgin and Martyr, pray for us.