Unable Even to Recognize That There is Nothing to Save from the Existing Ruins

Yet so many Catholics continue to believe in the political equivalent of the tooth fairy.

Millions upon millions of Catholics continue to look for the “next election” to “save” the country without even bothering to consider the farce that is the modern, religiously indifferentist democratic republic wherein citizens are divided on matters of objective truth that demand our assent and, as such, are inarguable, and wherein these words of Pope Pius XI, written in his first encyclical letter, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922, never seem to penetrate the intellects of even otherwise rational Catholics, who keep thinking that they can indeed “save” the country politically as it deteriorates more and more morally:

Men today do not act as Christians, as brothers, but as strangers, and even enemies. The sense of man's personal dignity and of the value of human life has been lost in the brutal domination begotten of might and mere superiority in numbers. Many are intent on exploiting their neighbors solely for the purpose of enjoying more fully and on a larger scale the goods of this world. But they err grievously who have turned to the acquisition of material and temporal possessions and are forgetful of eternal and spiritual things, to the possession of which Jesus, Our Redeemer, by means of the Church, His living interpreter, calls mankind.

22. It is in the very nature of material objects that an inordinate desire for them becomes the root of every evil, of every discord, and in particular, of a lowering of the moral sense. On the one hand, things which are naturally base and vile can never give rise to noble aspirations in the human heart which was created by and for God alone and is restless until it finds repose in Him. On the other hand, material goods (and in this they differ greatly from those of the spirit which the more of them we possess the more remain to be acquired) the more they are divided among men the less each one has and, by consequence, what one man has another cannot possibly possess unless it be forcibly taken away from the first. Such being the case, worldly possessions can never satisfy all in equal manner nor give rise to a spirit of universal contentment, but must become perforce a source of division among men and of vexation of spirit, as even the Wise Man Solomon experienced: "Vanity of vanities, and vexation of spirit." (Ecclesiastes i, 2, 14)

23. The same effects which result from these evils among individuals may likewise be expected among nations. "From whence are wars and contentions among you?" asks the Apostle St. James. "Are they not hence from your concupiscences, which war in your members?" (James iv, 1, 2)

24. The inordinate desire for pleasure, concupiscence of the flesh, sows the fatal seeds of division not only among families but likewise among states; the inordinate desire for possessions, concupiscence of the eyes, inevitably turns into class warfare and into social egotism; the inordinate desire to rule or to domineer over others, pride of life, soon becomes mere party or factional rivalries, manifesting itself in constant displays of conflicting ambitions and ending in open rebellion, in the crime of lese majeste, and even in national parricide.

25. These unsuppressed desires, this inordinate love of the things of the world, are precisely the source of all international misunderstandings and rivalries, despite the fact that oftentimes men dare to maintain that acts prompted by such motives are excusable and even justifiable because, forsooth, they were performed for reasons of state or of the public good, or out of love for country. Patriotism -- the stimulus of so many virtues and of so many noble acts of heroism when kept within the bounds of the law of Christ -- becomes merely an occasion, an added incentive to grave injustice when true love of country is debased to the condition of an extreme nationalism, when we forget that all men are our brothers and members of the same great human family, that other nations have an equal right with us both to life and to prosperity, that it is never lawful nor even wise, to dissociate morality from the affairs of practical life, that, in the last analysis, it is "justice which exalteth a nation: but sin maketh nations miserable." (Proverbs xiv, 34)

26. Perhaps the advantages to one's family, city, or nation obtained in some such way as this may well appear to be a wonderful and great victory (this thought has been already expressed by St. Augustine), but in the end it turns out to be a very shallow thing, something rather to inspire us with the most fearful apprehensions of approaching ruin. "It is a happiness which appears beautiful but is brittle as glass. We must ever be on guard lest with horror we see it broken into a thousand pieces at the first touch." (St. Augustine de Civitate Dei, Book iv, Chap. 3)

27. There is over and above the absence of peace and the evils attendant on this absence, another deeper and more profound cause for present-day conditions. This cause was even beginning to show its head before the War and the terrible calamities consequent on that cataclysm should have proven a remedy for them if mankind had only taken the trouble to understand the real meaning of those terrible events. In the Holy Scriptures we read: "They that have forsaken the Lord, shall be consumed." (Isaias i, 28) No less well known are the words of the Divine Teacher, Jesus Christ, Who said: "Without me you can do nothing" (John xv, 5) and again, "He that gathereth not with me, scattereth." (Luke xi, 23)

28. These words of the Holy Bible have been fulfilled and are now at this very moment being fulfilled before our very eyes. Because men have forsaken God and Jesus Christ, they have sunk to the depths of evil. They waste their energies and consume their time and efforts in vain sterile attempts to find a remedy for these ills, but without even being successful in saving what little remains from the existing ruinIt was a quite general desire that both our laws and our governments should exist without recognizing God or Jesus Christ, on the theory that all authority comes from men, not from God. Because of such an assumption, these theorists fell very short of being able to bestow upon law not only those sanctions which it must possess but also that secure basis for the supreme criterion of justice which even a pagan philosopher like Cicero saw clearly could not be derived except from the divine law. (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.)

That last paragraph, number twenty-eight, says it it all. The gist of the two hundred thirty-seven articles linked at the top of this article can be summarized in the following words written by Pope Pius XI  nearly ninety years ago:

They waste their energies and consume their time and efforts in vain sterile attempts to find a remedy for these ills, but without even being successful in saving what little remains from the existing ruin. (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.)

Sadly, many Catholics continue to waste their energies and consume their time and efforts (if not money!) in vain sterile efforts to find a remedy for the ills of Modernity without even being successful in saving what little remains from the existing ruin.

Despite all the handwringing, all the agitation, all the sleepless nights as ballots were being counted or manufactured at the last minute courtesy of drop-off boxes and mail-in voting, which has become the gold standard of Twenty-first Century and always almost impossible to prove election fraud to replace the Nineteenth Century’s “stuffing the ballot box” and the Twentieth Century’s fixing the old analog voting machines, the hapless set of naturalists who comprise the organize crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist “right” managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory once again. Democrats will control the United States Senate and, as it appears at this writing, Republicans will win a slender majority in the United States House of Representatives.

Inflation is soaring at rates not seen since days of James Earl “The Appeaser” Carter in the late 1970s.

Violent crime is soaring in many major cities in the United States of America, including in the City of New York, New York, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Baltimore, Maryland, Washington, District of Columbia, Detroit, Michigan, Chicago, Illinois, Saint Louis, Missouri, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Los Angeles, California, San Francisco, California, Portland, Oregon, and Seattle Washington, among many other smaller locations.

Acting in full violation of the constitutional separation of powers, Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., has continued the tradition of the man, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, of bypassing Congress by issuing executive fiats, including the so-called “student loan forgiveness” program that Federal Judge Mark Pitman of the United States District Court for North Texas rightly termed unconstitutional (see Texas judge strikes down Biden's student relief program).

Federal spending on one give-away program after another has resulted in a national debt that now stands at $31.3 and an annual budget deficit of over $1 trillion (see U.S. National Debt Clock).

So-called “green energy” programs, including Biden’s revocation of leases to drill for petroleum and natural gas on public lands and the cancellation of a segment of the Keystone Pipeline, have caused energy prices to soar while the serial liar from Delaware by way of Scranton, Pennsylvania, places the blame on anyone and everyone else other than himself and his globalist policies.

American military personnel and Afghani nationals who assisted them were left to suffer the consequences of Biden’s botched Afghan pullout in August of 2021 (see As the Revenge Killings in Afghanistan Commence ).

American’s concentration camps (see Public Schools Are Fatal to Men and Their Nations) have, after decades of subtle indoctrination, become open instruments of Marxism marketed as “critical race theory” and agents of every bit of moral degeneracy imaginable, including the systematic efforts to confuse children about the existence of two genders and encouraging many impressionable youngsters to undergo the surgical and chemical mutilation of their bodies to do the ontologically impossible, that is, to “change” their gender.

Waves of illegal immigrants are overwhelming small communities in south Texas as most of the lawbreakers get a free pass from the administration of Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., and Kamala Harris, who violate their constitutional oath to uphold the law by encouraging the law to be broken.

The President of the United States of America is a callow, demagogic, cognitively demented tool of the “woke” mob, who has the audacity, to borrow a phrase from the man in whose administration he served as vice president, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, as a Catholic in perfectly good standing with “Pope Francis” to say the following about the slicing and dicing of innocent babies in their mothers’ wombs while knowing full well that absolutely nothing will happen to him either politically or, much more importantly, ecclesiastically for doing so:

And as I said, women in America made their voices heard, man.  (Applause.)  I said it last year that one of the most extraordinary things about the Dobbs decision is what was about to challenge American women when the Justice said, let’s — “They have it in their power…”  Basically saying, “Let’s see what they’re going to do.”

Well, guess what?  (Laughter.)  Y’all showed up and beat the hell out of them.  (Applause.)

Look, I said it then: Those who support ripping away the rights to choose don’t have a clue about the power of women in America, but now I think they do.  And we’re — and, by the way, no one worked harder to get that message across America than this lady right here
.  (Applause.) (Remarks by Biden and Harris at a Democratic National Committee Event.)

Biden the Reprobate does not care about babies, who have committed no crime as they have been conceived as the natural end of the human gift of generation, whether used within or without the context of a valid marriage, being ripped out of their mothers’ wombs. He cares about what he terms with all his demagogic ardor as “ripping away” the nonexistent “right” to kill innocent human beings in full violation of the Fifth Commandment’s binding injunction, “Thou shalt not kill.”

Yes, it really was the case that many American women voted as they did on or abouts (or even slightly thereafter, of course) on November 8, 2022, because they were angry about the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Thomas E. Dobbs, Mississippi State Health Officer v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, June 24, 2022, that did not end the killing of all preborn children in the United States of America but simply stated that it was up to the “people” and their elected representatives at the state level to do what they have no authority from the true God of Divine Revelation to do, namely, to “decide” whether to permit the deliberate, intentional taking of innocent human life in the womb. Even Scott Stewart, the Mississippi Solicitor General, boasted of “robust exceptions” in the Mississippi state act when he argued before the Court on December 1, 2021 (see The Supreme Masters of Sophistry: Unable to Admit the Fifth Commandment Exists (Combined Parts One and Two), Roe v. Wade is Gone, Baby-Killing Will Continue, part one, Roe v. Wade is Gone, Baby-Killing Will Continue, part two, and Roe v. Wade is Gone, Baby-Killing Will Continue, part three) even though the Fifth Commandment admits of no exceptions to the direct, intentional taking of an innocent human life, a little concept that almost no so-called “pro-life” public official understands, accepts, or has the courage to admit publicly.

Anyone who thinks that the rearguard efforts at this time to forestall the advance of “transgenderism,” “critical race theory,” “woke” district attorneys who indemnify violent criminals, criminalize political differences, and victimize innocent victims of crime, globalism and its adjunct, environmentalism, or any of the other panoply evils that are now protected by the civil law and/or have gained currency in and have become mainstreamed into what passes for “popular culture” are going to be successful is not thinking supernaturally. Naturalism cannot be fought with naturalism. Secularism cannot be fought with secularism. The evils of naturalism and secularism can be fought only by means of Catholicism. Nothing else.

Yet it is that otherwise sane, rational Catholics continue to believe that, despite major demographic changes, including the rise of 18- to 29-year-old voters who have known nothing other than full acceptance of baby-killing, the ever-evolving agenda of the homosexual collective and its allies in rank perversity, statism, globalism, hedonism, materialism, and godlessness, “things will be different in 2024.” They will not.

Older generations of Americans are dying off. Even many in my own baby-boom generation that embraced the cultural, liturgical, and theological revolutions of the 1960s are beginning to die off, and millions upon millions of Americans born after 1964 have been so thoroughly infused with the cult of egoism and instant gratification will remain a factor over the course of the next few decades barring a miracle of direct, Divine intervention. The generations born after 1982 have helped to prepare the way for those born after 2001.

Look at a summary of exit polling data in the event that a reader or two might think that I am exaggerating the situation:

Sixty-eight percent of unmarried women favored Democrats in the U.S. House midterm elections compared to 31 percent who favored Republicans, according to exit poll data.

In comparison, 52 percent of unmarried men favored Republicans over 45 percent who favored Democrats.

For married men, 59 percent said they supported a Republican candidate compared to 39 percent who supported a Democrat, while 56 percent of married women supported a Republican candidate compared to 42 percent who supported a Democrat.

Overall, 59 percent of unmarried voters supported Democrats compared to 39 percent who supported Republicans, whereas 58 percent of married voters supported Republicans compared to 41 percent who supported Democrats.

Married men and women each made up 30 percent of the respondents (60 percent), while nonmarried women made up 23 percent of the respondents, and nonmarried men made up 16 percent.

Furthermore, 55 percent of women without children favored Democrats compared to 44 percent who favored Republicans. However, 57 percent of male voters with no children favored Republicans compared to 45 percent who preferred Democrats. Women with no children made up 39 percent of the respondents, while men with no children made up 33 percent.

Even women with children were more likely to support Democrats over Republicans by 51 percent to 47 percent, while men with children broke for Republicans over Democrats by 54 percent to 42 percent.

The exit polling data also showed that abortion was a major driver in motivating women to vote Tuesday.

Thirty-three percent of women said that abortion was their most important issue, with 77 percent of those respondents supporting Democrat candidates compared to 22 percent supporting Republican candidates. The next most important issue for women was inflation at 28 percent, followed by crime, gun policy, and immigration, which were all equal at ten percent.

A majority of women (67 percent) also said they were either angry or dissatisfied with Roe v. Wade being overturned, with 72 percent of women who supported Democrat candidates agreeing, compared to 27 percent who supported Republicans. On the other hand, 30 percent of women were either enthusiastic or satisfied with Roe being overturned, with a majority supporting Republicans (84 percent) compared to Democrats (15 percent).

For men, only 22 percent said abortion was their most import issue compared to 35 percent who said inflation. Moreover, 13 percent of men stated crime was their most important issue, followed by gun policy at 12 percent and immigration at 11 percent.

As of Wednesday night, Republicans are favored to take control of the U.S. House, while the U.S. Senate remains up in the air as votes are still being counted in Arizona and Nevada. The Georgia U.S. Senate race is slated to go to a runoff in December.

The national exit poll was conducted by Edison Research in conjunction with major networks across the nation. Those surveyed included 18,571 respondents nationwide that voted in a U.S. House race — with 8,688 being men and 9,797 being women. The exit polls were last updated on November 9 at 2:14 p.m. Eastern. (Exit Poll: 68% of Unmarried Women Favored Democrats in Midterms.)

Here is another sobering set of figures about the state of national electorate concerning the surgical and chemical assassination of the innocent preborn under cover of the civil law:

Which comes closest to your position? Abortion should be:

Legal in all cases (29%)



Legal in most cases (30%)



Illegal in most cases (26%)



Illegal in all cases (10%)



Which comes closest to your position? Abortion should be:

Legal (60%)



Illegal (37%)



How do you feel about the Supreme Court decision on abortion this year that overturned Roe v. Wade:

Enthusiastic (16%)



Satisfied, but not enthusiastic (21%)



Dissatisfied, but not angry (21%)



Angry (39%)



How do you feel about the Supreme Court decision on abortion this year that overturned Roe v. Wade:

Enthusiastic or satisfied (37%)



Dissatisfied or angry (61%)


27%  (Live exit polls 2022: Election Day exit polls for Democrats vs Republicans.)

Sixty percent of American believe that the chemical and surgical execution of the innocent preborn should continue, albeit with differences concerning up to what stage of a child’s development he can be killed, under the cover of law.

These are grim figures when one considers the fact that these numbers will grow over time and thus, as they are concentrated principally although not exclusively in urban/suburban areas in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the States of Maine, Rhode Island, Vermont, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, California, Washington, and Hawaii. It will be almost impossible for any member of the organized crime family of the naturalist “right” to win statewide election in these states, and I will go so far as to say that it will be absolutely impossible to do so in Illinois, Washington, Oregon,  California, Maine, Vermont, New York, where African-American voters voted overwhelmingly for the accidental governor, Kathleen Hochul, New Jersey, Maryland, or Delaware unless, that is, Republicans field a pro-abortion candidate (such as for years was the case with Olympia Snow, since retired, and Susan Collins in Maine, Philip Scott in Vermont, Larry Hogan in Maryland, Thomas Ridge in Pennsylvania, George Elmer Pataki in New York, or Arnold Schwarzenegger in California).

Although there are some “pro-life” and/or “conservative” commentators who consider it a “victory” for United States Representative Lee Zeldin to have won forty-seven percent of the vote against incumbent Governor Kathleen Hochul, a pro-abortion Catholic who disparaged Zeldin’s concern about soaring violent crime, in the State of New York, Zeldin, who claims to be “pro-life” with “exceptions,” made it a point to say that there was nothing he could do about abortion given the fact that the Democratic Party controls both houses (Assembly and Senate) of the New York State Legislature and he also made it a point—along with fifty-six other Republicans, including Elsie Stefanik,  Nicole Malliotakis. And Andrew Garbarino—in the United States House of Representatives to vote for the so-called “marriage equality act” that would have codified the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, June 26, 2015, in support of the nonexistent “right” of people to “marry” people of their own gender (see House codifies same-sex marriage, 47 GOP reps vote yes, 157 GOP reps vote 'no'). No one who supports perversity is “pro-life,” and I won’t waste anyone’s time indulging in the fantasy that the election of a Republican sodomite on Long Island to a seat in the United States House of Representatives represents “political progress" simply because he took a seat away from the Democratic Party.

Additionally, most of those self-styled "conservative" candidates and public office-holders who claim to be "pro-life" and/or are enabled in that false claim by the The National Not-So-Right-Life Committee and its state affliates do not oppose contraception and are, with the exceptions of United States Senators Ronald Johnson (R-Wisconsin) and Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) and a handful of House members, in the hip pocket of Big Pharma's entire agenda, including the "vaccines" for the coronavirus that are continuing to cause sudden deaths from heart attacks in people of all ages, especially the young and physically fit, and killing untold thousands upon thousands of people around the world.

As slaves of the Big Pharma's contributions, of course, most of these so-called "pro-life" candidates support the medical industry's manufactured, money-making myth of "brain death" for purposes of human organ vivisection as well as the whole "quality of life" program that has been institutionalized globally into the health care industry and of which "palliative care"/hospice is the end result to expedit the deaths of those with terminal illnesses and to cause the deaths of those deemed to be suffering from diseases that are manageable and involve great suffering even though they are not close to dying. 

No Catholic should, therefore, permit themselvs to use the "pro-life" label cheaply when referring to professional politicians, especially those who make "exceptions" to the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment as matters of principle and not legislative expediency.

The United States of America is deeply divided by error at this time because its founding principles themselves were erroneous, giving rise to a multiplicity of factions, which James Madison, who is considered to be the “Father of the Constitution,” believed would be a protection against any one faction gathering enough strength to run roughshod over the others and thus create a tyranny of the majority, which does exist in the above named states today precisely because Madison, who hated and mocked Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and the true Faith, believed in that which was and remains erroneous. Naturalism of the “rightist” variety can never withstand the onslaughts of naturalism of the “leftist” variety, something that Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn stated a little differently in his famous commencement, “A World Split Apart,” at Harvard University on June 8, 1978:

As humanism in its development became more and more materialistic, it made itself increasingly accessible to speculation and manipulation at first by socialism and then by communism. So that Karl Marx was able to say in 1844 that "communism is naturalized humanism.'

This statement turned out not to be entirely senseless. One does see the same stones in the foundations of a despiritualized humanism and of any type of socialism: endless materialism; freedom from religion and religious responsibility, which under communist regimes reach the stage of anti-religious dictatorship; concentration on social structures with a seemingly scientific approach. (This is typical of the Enlightenment in the Eighteenth Century and of Marxism). Not by coincidence all of communism's meaningless pledges and oaths are about Man, with a capital M, and his earthly happiness. At first glance it seems an ugly parallel: common traits in the thinking and way of life of today's West and today's East? But such is the logic of materialistic development.

The interrelationship is such, too, that the current of materialism which is most to the left always ends up by being stronger, more attractive and victorious, because it is more consistent. Humanism without its Christian heritage cannot resist such competition. We watch this process in the past centuries and especially in the past decades, on a world scale as the situation becomes increasingly dramatic. Liberalism was inevitably displaced by radicalism, radicalism had to surrender to socialism and socialism could never resist communism. The communist regime in the East could stand and grow due to the enthusiastic support from an enormous number of Western intellectuals who felt a kinship and refused to see communism's crimes. When they no longer could do so, they tried to justify them. In our Eastern countries, communism has suffered a complete ideological defeat; it is zero and less than zero. But Western intellectuals still look at it with interest and with empathy, and this is precisely what makes it so immensely difficult for the West to withstand the East. (Dr. Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, A World Split Apart. June 8, 1978.)

As I have noted repeatedly in my three decades as a college professor of political science, in my lectures around the nation, and in my writing—and as I will never tire of reminding the few who bother to pay any further attention to my work, Catholicism is the only force that can withstand naturalism of any kind, and it is precisely because the counterfeit church of conciliarism has made its happy “reconciliation” with the Judeo-Masonic, anti-Incarnational principles of Modernity, including Marxism itself under the current Bergoglian regime, that many Catholics in the United States and around the world have fallen prey to the false allures of slogans to defend baby-killing, sodomy and all its perverse variations, statism, full-force raids on the homes of the regime’s opponents, including peaceful pro-life Americans who are a prayerful presence in front of abortuaries, environmentalism, globalism, and the entire panoply of ideological indoctrination contained within “critical race theory” programs.

Alas, not even those politicians who call themselves “pro-life” in the “red states” even though they support exceptions to the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment understand that naturalism of the “leftist” bent cannot be fought with any other kind of naturalism, including constitutionalism as the Constitution of the United States of America, admitting of no higher authority for its meaning than the text of its own words, is defenseless against those who mean to deconstruct its text in the same manner than Protestants and Modernist Catholics deconstruct, distort, and mispresent the words of Sacred Scripture to justify sins of heresy, blasphemy, infidelity, apostasy, impurity, immodesty and indecency. Constitutionalism is no defense against moral evils Catholicism alone provides such a bulwark:

Just as Christianity cannot penetrate into the soul without making it better, so it cannot enter into public life without establishing order. With the idea of a God Who governs all, Who is infinitely Wise, Good, and Just, the idea of duty seizes upon the consciences of men. It assuages sorrow, it calms hatred, it engenders heroes. If it has transformed pagan society--and that transformation was a veritable resurrection--for barbarism disappeared in proportion as Christianity extended its sway, so, after the terrible shocks which unbelief has given to the world in our days, it will be able to put that world again on the true road, and bring back to order the States and peoples of modern times. But the return of Christianity will not be efficacious and complete if it does not restore the world to a sincere love of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. In the Catholic Church Christianity is Incarnate. It identifies Itself with that perfect, spiritual, and, in its own order, sovereign society, which is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and which has for Its visible head the Roman Pontiff, successor of the Prince of the Apostles. It is the continuation of the mission of the Savior, the daughter and the heiress of His Redemption. It has preached the Gospel, and has defended it at the price of Its blood, and strong in the Divine assistance and of that immortality which has been promised it, It makes no terms with error but remains faithful to the commands which  it has received, to carry the doctrine of Jesus Christ to the uttermost limits of the world and to the end of time, and to protect it in its inviolable integrity. Legitimate dispenser of the teachings of the Gospel it does not reveal itself only as the consoler and Redeemer of souls, but It is still more the internal source of justice and charity, and the propagator as well as the guardian of true liberty, and of that equality which alone is possible here below. In applying the doctrine of its Divine Founder, It maintains a wise equilibrium and marks the true limits between the rights and privileges of society. The equality which it proclaims does not destroy the distinction between the different social classes. It keeps them intact, as nature itself demands, in order to oppose the anarchy of reason emancipated from Faith, and abandoned to its own devices. The liberty which it gives in no wise conflicts with the rights of truth, because those rights are superior to the demands of liberty. Not does it infringe upon the rights of justice, because those rights are superior to the claims of mere numbers or power. Nor does it assail the rights of God because they are superior to the rights of humanity. (Pope Leo XIII, A Review of His Pontificate, March 19, 1902.)

It is remarkable that believing Catholics do not understand or accept this truth at this late date.

What is even more disconcerting is the fact that voters in California, Oregon, Washington, and Maryland voted to enshrine baby-killing as a “right” protected by state law and that voters in the Commonwealth of Kentucky and the State of Kansas turned down efforts to provide legal protection to most, although not all, preborn children. Voters in the State of Montana went so far as to reject the “Born Alive Infant Protection Act” that would have required baby-killers to keep children who survived their efforts to kill them alive after their birth. Calling Montezuma. Calling Montezuma.

To be sure, partly pro-life, partly pro-abortion candidates won major victories in gubernatorial and legislative elections in the States of Florida, Tennessee, South Carolina, Texas, Ohio, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Iowa, and South Dakota, Nevada, New Hampshire, and Nebraska. Many of those who identify as “pro-life,” however, think that conditional bans on baby-killing after the detection of heartbeat and/or after fifteen weeks of a child’s development in his mother’s womb are “pro-life” measures when they are nothing of the sort.

Moreover, one should remember that Ohio Governor Michael DeWine bought the Wuhan/CCP/Red Chinese/Covid-19/Coronavirus narrative peddled by the Centers for Disease Control and the fiend named Dr. Anthony Fauci hook, line, and sinker to lock down the State of Ohio as tight as any so-called “blue state” governor did, and United States Senator-elect J.D. Vance said that he has always believed in “reasonable exceptions” to the inviolability of innocent human life. These are not “profiles in courage” as even Ronald Wilson Reagan, who gave us George Herbert Walker Bush, Sandra Day O’Connor, and Anthony McLeod Kennedy and endorsed the pro-abortion United States Senator Robert Packwood against a pro-life challenger in 1986,, was willing to risk his re-election in 1984 with the publication in book form of his 1983 article, “Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation,” in Human Events:

The squeamish approach of establishment Republicans to the Texas abortion law is reminiscent of a similar approach taken by establishment Republicans to President Reagan’s strong anti-abortion position in the run-up to the 1984 election against Democrat Walter Mondale. Steven Hayward, the preeminent chronicler of the age of Reagan, recalled that when Reagan proposed to write an article about abortion for the Human Life Review in 1983, many of his political advisers “were nervous about publishing such an article so close to his reelection campaign.” Reagan replied to them: “I might not be reelected. We’re going with it now.”

Reagan’s article, “Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation,” appeared in the February issue of the Human Life Review and made headlines throughout the country. Then in January 1984 — even closer to the election — the article was reprinted in book form under the same title. The book included Reagan’s original article and similar anti-abortion pieces by Dr. C. Everett Koop and Malcolm Muggeridge.

Reagan began the article by condemning the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade as an unconstitutional act of “raw judicial power” (quoting Justice Byron White’s dissent). “We cannot diminish the value of one human life — the unborn — without diminishing the value of all human life,” Reagan wrote. He compared Roe v. Wade to the infamous Dred Scott decision, which similarly devalued human life. “When we talk about abortion,” Reagan continued, “we are talking about two lives — the life of the mother and the life of the unborn child.” Human life, Reagan said, begins at conception, but the real question posed by abortion is “What is the value of human life?” The tiny life in the womb, Reagan emphasized, has “a God-given right to be protected by the law.” (Remembering Reagan’s ‘Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation’.)

Even though Reagan was a naturalist whose administration could have done far more to promote the inviolability of innocent life in the womb, he at least spoke unapologetically about the issue of baby-killing regularly and came to reject all exceptions by the end of his presidency, and it was during his debate with independent presidential candidate United States Representative John B. Anderson (Republican, Rockford, Illinois) in Baltimore, Maryland, on September 21, 1980, that the then former Governor of California said the following:

With regard to the freedom of the individual for choice with regard to abortion, there is one individual who is not being considered at all, and that is the one who is being aborted. And I have noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born. (Ronald Reagan and John Anderson Presidential Debate.)

Today’s crop of naturalists, controlled as most of them are by political consultants and polling, are incapable of speaking in such clear terms even on the natural level, which is why there has been such an emphasis on “let the people decide” rather than on the necessity of creatures obeying their Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier—the Most Blessed Trinity.

This is all but the logical consequence of the Protestant Revolution’s overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King, something that Dr. George O’Brien noted a century ago and that Father Edward Leen noted in The Holy Ghost seventy years ago:

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 Effects of Protestantism.)

A shudder of apprehension is traversing the world which still retains its loyalty to Jesus expressing Himself through the authority of His Church. That apprehension has not its sole cause the sight of the horrors that the world has witnessed in recent years in both hemispheres. Many Christians are beginning to feel that perhaps all may not be right with themselves. There is solid reason for this fear. The contemplation of the complete and reasoned abandonment of all hitherto accepted human values that has taken place in Russia and is taking place elsewhere, causes a good deal of anxious soul-searching. It is beginning to be dimly perceived that in social life, as it is lived, even in countries that have not as yet definitely broken with Christianity, there lie all the possibilities of what has become actual in Bolshevism. A considerable body of Christians, untrained in the Christian philosophy of life, are allowing themselves to absorb principles which undermine the constructions of Christian thought. They do not realise how much dangerous it is for Christianity to exist in an atmosphere of Naturalism than to be exposed to positive persecution. In the old days of the Roman Empire those who enrolled themselves under the standard of Christ saw, with logical clearness, that they had perforce to cut themselves adrift from the social life of the world in which they lived--from its tastes, practices and amusements. The line of demarcation between pagan and Christian life was sharp, clearly defined and obvious. Modern Christians have not been so favorably situated. As has been stated already, the framework of the Christian social organisation has as yet survived. This organisation is, to outward appearances, so solid and imposing that it is easy to be blind to the truth that the soul had gradually gone out of it. Under the shelter and utilising the resources of the organisation of life created by Christianity, customs, ways of conduct, habits of thought, have crept in, more completely perhaps, at variance with the spirit of Christianity than even the ways and manners of pagan Rome.

This infiltration of post-Christian paganism has been steady but slow, and at each stage is imperceptible. The Christian of to-day thinks that he is living in what is to all intents and purposes a Christian civilisation. Without misgivings he follows the current of social life around him. His amusements, his pleasures, his pursuits, his games, his books, his papers, his social and political ideas are of much the same kind as are those of the people with whom he mingles, and who may not have a vestige of a Christian principle left in their minds. He differs merely from them in that he holds to certain definite religious truths and clings to certain definite religious practices. But apart from this there is not any striking contrast in the outward conduct of life between Christian and non-Christian in what is called the civilised world. Catholics are amused by, and interested in, the very same things that appeal to those who have abandoned all belief in God. The result is a growing divorce between religion and life in the soul of the individual Christian. Little by little his faith ceases to be a determining effect on the bulk of his ideas, judgments and decisions that have relation to what he regards as his purely "secular" life. His physiognomy as a social being no longer bears trace of any formative effect of the beliefs he professes. And his faith rapidly becomes a thing of tradition and routine and not something which is looked to as a source of a life that is real.

The Bolshevist Revolution has had one good effect. It has awakened the averagely good Christian to the danger runs in allowing himself to drift with the current of social life about him. It has revealed to him the precipice towards which he has was heading by shaping his worldly career after principles the context of which the revolution has mercilessly exposed and revealed to be at variance with real Christianity. The sincerely religious--and there are many such still--are beginning to realise that if they are to live as Christians they must react violently against the milieu in which they live. It is beginning to be felt that one cannot be a true Christian and live as the bulk of men in civilised society are living. It is clearly seen that "life" is not to be found along those ways by which the vast majority of men are hurrying to disillusionment and despair. Up to the time of the recent cataclysm the average unreflecting Christian dwelt in the comfortable illusion that he could fall in with the ways of the world about him here, and, by holding on to the practices of religion, arrange matters satisfactorily for the hereafter. That illusion is dispelled. It is coming home to the discerning Christian that their religion is not a mere provision for the future. There is a growing conviction that it is only through Christianity lived integrally that the evils of the present time can be remedied and disaster in the time to come averted. (Father Edward Leen, The Holy Ghost, published in 1953 by Sheed and Ward, pp. 6-9.)

Father Leen’s hope that the spell of Marxism would awaken Catholics to integrate the Holy Faith into every aspect of their lives did not anticipate the effective support that Marxist spirit would receive a decade later at the “Second” Vatican Council that has matured over time into a full embrace of every Marxist synonym (globalism, environmentalism, collectivism, economic justice, “shared responsibility,” sustainable development goals, population control, etc.) in the past nine years, eight months under Jorge Mario Bergoglio. Most Catholics, no matter where they fall along the vast expanse of the ecclesiastical divide in this time of apostasy and betrayal, are less and less indistinguishable from non-Catholics and even abject atheists, which why many Catholics have no problem at all supporting the “woke” movement and almost anything else that Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., says and does.

The spirit of conciliarism has thus helped to contributed mightily to the degeneration that has taken place in the past sixty years. The paucity of a superabundance of Sanctifying and Actual Graces caused by the conciliar sect’s sacramentally barren liturgical rites has robbed Catholics of the sensus fidei to such an extent that this more difficult for many of them now to even consider viewing the world and the events in it with equanimity through the supernatural of the Holy Faith. Catholics are more prone than ever before to believing in what I have calling the “illusion of secular salvation” since the earliest days of my college teaching career in January of 1974.

How many Catholics care about the simple truth stated by Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910?

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

No Catholicism, no just social order. It's that simple.

The Agitation Will Continue Nevertheless

These words will be read by only a handful of people. They will have no influence on the course of how most Catholics will continue to permit themselves to be agitated by the farce of naturalism that will shift its focus as soon as Tuesday evening, November 15, 2022, the Feast of Saint Albert the Great, when former President Donald John Trump

Trump is doing this after foisting upon Republican voters in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania a Mohammedan named Dr. Mehmet Oz, who up until earlier this year was completely pro-abortion:

When the Supreme Court heard arguments last week for a case that could upend abortion rights nationwideMehmet Oz—the TV doctor and accused “quack” turned Republican candidate for Senate in Pennsylvania—suggested he was at peace that the Supreme Court could overturn Roe v. Wade.

But only two years earlier, Oz characterized efforts to overturn Roe as a misleading and possibly conspiratorial crusade. Not only was Oz supportive of abortion rights, he seemed puzzled that people would spend time fighting abortion rights—going so far as to say that, as a physician, he was “really worried” about the anti-abortion movement and that eliminating Roe would have negative effects on women’s health.

“It’s, as a doctor—just putting my doctor hat on—it’s a big-time concern,” Oz said in the 2019 interview, which aired on the Breakfast Club radio show. “Because I went to medical school in Philadelphia, and I saw women who had coat-hanger events. And I mean really traumatic events that happened when they were younger, before Roe v. Wade. And many of them were harmed for life.”

Oz conceded that abortion “is a hard issue for everybody,” and he said that, on “a personal level,” he disliked abortion and would not want anyone in his family to have one. But he took a common pro-choice position in 2019 that his belief should not be forced onto others. He would not want to “interfere with everyone else’s stuff,” he said, “because it’s hard enough to get into life as it is.”

Oz’s defense of abortion wasn’t just a passing question. He held forth for seven minutes in this 2019 interview about the practice and was highly critical of anti-abortion advocates who argue that life begins at conception. His tone throughout the entire segment on abortion was one of concern that legislators might be passing abortion restrictions, and he seemed to endorse viability—generally thought of as about 24 weeks—as a popular limit for abortion.

When the Supreme Court heard arguments last week for a case that could upend abortion rights nationwideMehmet Oz—the TV doctor and accused “quack” turned Republican candidate for Senate in Pennsylvania—suggested he was at peace that the Supreme Court could overturn Roe v. Wade.

But only two years earlier, Oz characterized efforts to overturn Roe as a misleading and possibly conspiratorial crusade. Not only was Oz supportive of abortion rights, he seemed puzzled that people would spend time fighting abortion rights—going so far as to say that, as a physician, he was “really worried” about the anti-abortion movement and that eliminating Roe would have negative effects on women’s health.

“It’s, as a doctor—just putting my doctor hat on—it’s a big-time concern,” Oz said in the 2019 interview, which aired on the Breakfast Club radio show. “Because I went to medical school in Philadelphia, and I saw women who had coat-hanger events. And I mean really traumatic events that happened when they were younger, before Roe v. Wade. And many of them were harmed for life.”

Oz conceded that abortion “is a hard issue for everybody,” and he said that, on “a personal level,” he disliked abortion and would not want anyone in his family to have one. But he took a common pro-choice position in 2019 that his belief should not be forced onto others. He would not want to “interfere with everyone else’s stuff,” he said, “because it’s hard enough to get into life as it is.”

Oz’s defense of abortion wasn’t just a passing question. He held forth for seven minutes in this 2019 interview about the practice and was highly critical of anti-abortion advocates who argue that life begins at conception. His tone throughout the entire segment on abortion was one of concern that legislators might be passing abortion restrictions, and he seemed to endorse viability—generally thought of as about 24 weeks—as a popular limit for abortion.

“Just being logical about it,” he said, “if you think that the moment of conception you’ve got a life, then why would you even wait six weeks? Right, then an in vitro fertilized egg is still a life.”

Oz also questioned why restricting abortion access was so important to some people.

“There’s so much we gotta do already to take care of each other. To start picking fights on this—I always wonder about it,” he said. “It happens periodically. There are these moral issues that almost on purpose are inflamed.”

And yet, despite his full-throated support for abortion access in 2019, Oz said last week during an interview on WGAL in Lancaster that he was “OK with the Supreme Court making the right decision” on Roe, “based on what they think the Constitution says.”

Earlier that day, the high court heard arguments regarding a challenge to Mississippi’s prohibitive abortion law, with conservative justices signaling they were prepared to scrap Roe entirely.

But in the discussion with the Breakfast Club—hosted by rapper and political pundit “Charlamagne tha God”—Oz devoted several minutes to explaining why the resurgent anti-abortion movement concerned him as a physician, and why Roe was valuable and should not be overturned.

When The Daily Beast called Dr. Oz for comment, he picked up his phone and immediately ended the call. He then did not reply to a text message asking about his remarks in the abortion discussion.

But asked in 2019 about prohibitive laws like the near-total ban Alabama Republican Gov. Kay Ivey had signed earlier that month—a so-called “heartbeat” bill which outlawed abortion in almost every instance starting six weeks after conception—Oz denounced the idea as dangerous, unfair to women, and premised on misleading information.

At one point in the conversation, Oz, who has been vocal about his own Christian faith, also questioned why anti-abortion advocates cared so much in the first place.

“Is this really the way they want to spend their time?” he wondered. “There’s so much we gotta fix in the world.”

While the physician and herbal weight-loss supplement salesman acknowledged that true believers “gotta be heard,” he said “that doesn’t mean that’s what the rule of the land is.”

“If people thought about it and logically work through it, most Americans sort of already agree on what the right answer is”—a position that appears directly at odds with the conservative majority on the Court.

Asked by tha God whether he thought prohibitive anti-abortion laws were “healthy,” Oz replied, “I’m really worried about it,” and invoked his professional experience.

“I’ve taken care of a lot of women who had issues around childbirth. The problem with the [Alabama] law as it stands now—and I think the law was really only passed to generate a Supreme Court challenge—but most women don’t know they’re pregnant,” he said, taking specific aim at the bad-faith effort to overturn Roe. “It’s two weeks past your last period when you have to decide by,” Oz explained, referencing the six-week line.

Oz, who rose to fame in the 2000s as a regular guest on Oprah Winfrey’s daytime television show, claimed he had guests on his own show “all the time” who did not know they were pregnant even “when they’re delivering.”

“So you’re asking women to decide almost instantaneously if they’re pregnant or not,” Oz said. “And it’s also banned in cases of incest and rape. So I don’t quite get it as a doctor.”

He then went to lengths to dismantle the spurious six-week “heartbeat” talking point.

“There are electrical exchanges at six weeks, but the heart’s not beating,” Oz said.

“If you’re going to define life by a beating heart, then make it a beating heart, not little electrical exchanges in the cell that no one would hear or think about as a heart,” he continued. To do otherwise, he said, misleads the average person into “envisioning a little acorn heart beating in there, and that’s not what’s going on at six weeks.”

The Mississippi law currently before the court is not as extreme as Alabama’s 2019 bill, banning abortions after 15 weeks, not six. But hours ahead of Oz’s interview, the conservative justices signaled they were open to a broad ruling that would legalize six-week bans.

Chief Justice John Roberts was the lone conservative to raise the question of a narrow decision, saying, “The thing that is at issue before us today is 15 weeks.” But Roberts would need to pick off at least two other conservatives, and none appeared eager to join him.

One of those justices, Samuel Alito, mused that “the only real options we have” are to uphold or overturn Roe.

And while Oz now seems fine with a conservative majority overturning Roe, as he faces a GOP primary field of anti-abortion Republicans, Oz was explicitly concerned by that prospect in 2019, and suggested abortion bans could result in a “big sucking sound of businesses leaving” states. (Inside Dr. Oz’s Shameless Flip-Flop on Abortion.)

Donald John Trump alone bears responsibility for the election of John Fetterman by insisting that Dr. Mehmet Oz, who has been willing to transplant hearts vivisected from living human beings declared to “brain dead” specifically for that purpose, be the Republican nominee for United States Senator from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. who could not defeat a brain-damaged, tattooed, hooded caricature of leftist propaganda, John Fetterman, and after diminishing himself, Trump, yet again by taking swipes at the governors of Florida, Ronald DeSantis, and Virginia, Glenn Younkin, in an effort to “clear the path” for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, showing himself once more to be bereft of any self-awareness of how 2016 was an anomaly not to be repeated as even some of his hard core supporters have tired of the insults, threats, bullying and outright dissemination of mangled facts, constitutional illiteracy, his disregard for simple decency even on the natural level by criticizing and/or firing his own appointees on social media platforms, and a belief that he can make something so by simply “thinking” that it is so (see   Trump Makes His Indictment a Certainty).

Few of his “true believers,” however, will ever tire of Trump’s putting his own interests first above that of the nation even on a natural level (see  Put Not Your Trust in Princes: In the Children of Men in Who There is No Salvation and True Last Year, True This Year, True Forever: Put Not Your Trust in Princes, in the Children of Men in Whom There is No Salvation, 2022 Edition.)

Let me reprise a good summary as to why the former president is unfit to hold office again and is incapable of replicating the narrow victories he eked out in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan in 2016 when just enough voters were sick and tired of Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton:

Trump was incapable of accepting the reality [in January of 2021] that he had run an aimless, disorganized and seemingly disinterested campaign for reelection [in 2020] wherein no one on his campaign staff seemed to have taken seriously the efforts on the part of the vast array of Democratic Party attorneys, led by the notorious Marc Elias, to exploit the Wuhan/CCP/China/SARS Cov-2/Covid-19/Coronavirus to extort “consent agreements” from governors and attorneys general in the “swing states” to permit unlimited “mail-in” voting that proved to be very successful in producing Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.’s margin of "victory” in those states. The time to have dealt with the likes of Marc Elias was when these “consent agreements” were being obtained, not after the election when the time between counting of the popular vote and the certification of slates of electors in the various states does not permit for very effective legal challenges, and certainly not the sort of willy-nilly, throw-it-against-the-wall-and-see-if-sticks challenges brought by the cartoon figures that Rudolph William Giuliani and Sydney Powell made of themselves in this sad process.

Then President Trump demonstrated poor personal judgment in begging State of Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger into “finding” 11,000 votes in Georgia and in trying to get someone in the United States Department of Justice into declaring the election to have been corrupt even though elections take place in the states and there is no constitutional or statutory authority for anyone in the Department of Justice to make such a declaration. Even worse, though, if it is really the case—and it may not be—that Trump knew he lost and still wanted someone in the Justice Department and Vice President Michael Richard Pence to overturn the election, then he demonstrated a terrible lack of concern for how such unilateral decisions would have caused open civil unrest and bloodshed throughout the country and, given the onerous Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley’s readiness to unconstitutionally usurp the civilian chain of command to monitor the president’s actions between November 3, 2020, and January 20, 2020, the pretext to throw him out of the White House in chains. Trump reacted viscerally, not rationally, as he flailed about in the two months between the election and January 6, 2021, as he was unable to recognize that he had contributed to his loss in the “swing” states by stitching together a campaign team unable to compete with the cutthroat Democratic elections lawyers and then not having the foresight to understand that a strategic, gracious retreat would have enabled him to be in a better position to prepare for a 2024 run. What he did on January 6, 2021, was morally indefensible, but it was not a crime except in the minds of those who did everything they could to keep him from being elected and then to undermine his presidency to the point of defeat.

Instead, however, Trump listened to all the wrong people and when the relatively small group of mostly nonviolent supporters went into the Capitol building on January 6, 2021, many with the full prodding of the Capitol Police, to interrupt a process during which various Republican Senators and Representatives were prepared to present  the evidence of electoral irregularities in the swing states during the electoral vote counting process, he refused to intervene in any way for several hours as he rejected pleas from his daughter, Ivanka Trump Kushner and her mother, the late Ivana Trump, Jared Kushner, and his own 2016 campaign manager, Kellyanne Fitzpatrick Conway, to do something before the corrupt, hateful, and vindictive demagogue named Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., could claim the moral high ground, which he did most happily and sanctimoniously. This behavior gave his enemies yet another pretext to wage war against him on grounds of fomenting an “insurrection” even though many of them tried to thwart his own election and some even used the same processes outlined in the 1887 Electoral Vote Count Act to challenge his election on January 6, 2017, that some within the United States Ministry of Injustice consider to be “proof” of Republican “collusion” with Trump’s “insurrection” because they raised objections to the results in those “swing” states.”

The events of January 6, 2021, vitiated the efforts of Republicans to make any kind of case at all other than enter objections, which were then voted down without debate or discussion and thus without being able to present any of the evidence that had been amassed. While it is true that the presentation of the evidence would not have changed the outcome of the electoral vote count, it would have placed the evidence in public viewing. Alas, Trump’s passions got the better of him and he refused to see that there are times in the human order of things when standing down in order to fight again on the electoral battlefield in the future is prudent and just.

Even some of the very few readers of this site will refuse to believe that Trump is unelectable while others will hope that Ronald DeSantis, who is pro-vaccine but without the vaccine mandates and has stood his ground in the rearguard effort to stop the inculcation of the sodomite agenda in Florida’s public schools, will be able to carry the day in 2024 without realizing that the same nogoodniks in charge of elections in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona, Nevada, and Michigan this year will be in charge of elections in 2024. As I noted six years ago, The System Has Been Rigged Since July 4, 1776.

What Will Happen in the Next Two Years?

What will happen in the next two years?

Well, what happened in 2011 after Republicans regained control of the United States House of Representatives after two terms in the minority and as then President Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro used his phone and his pen to do circumvent both the legislative process and Congressional oversight?

House Republicans held show votes to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that they knew would not be passed by the United States Senate, which was then in the control of the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist “left.”

House Republicans investigated Lois Lerner for slow walking the applications of “conservative” organizations as nonprofit organizations under the regulations of the Internal Revenue Service of the United States Department of the Treasury.

Lois Lerner was held in contempt of Congress.

Nothing happened to Lois Lerner.

What happened in 2013 and 2015 as Republicans investigated the Fast and Furious gun-running scandal and held then Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress?


What happened in 2013 and 2015 as Republicans investigated the Benghazi tragedy that unfolded on the watch of then Secretary of State Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton on September 12, 2012?


Going back even farther in time, what happened when Republicans investigated Whitewater, Filegate, and Chinagate from 1995 to 1997?


Even the impeachment of then President William Jefferson Blyth Clinton for the perjury he committed in the deposition taken by lawyers for Paula Jones about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky backfired badly,

Why does anyone think that the Republican House majority that will be sworn in on January 3, 2023, will get different results with investigations into the botched Afghanistan withdrawal, the origins of the Wuhan/CCP/Red Chinese/Covid-19/Coronavirus, and into the Biden Family Crime Syndicate’s connections with the Red Chinese as well as Ukrainian and Russian oligarchs?

They won’t.

It’s always the same, ladies and gentlemen as the adversary wants people to believe that the “bad guys” are going to get “theirs” while the “good guys” keeping fighting on his own naturalistic terms.

To Trust in Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary

Yet it is that so many Catholics will try to save the little that remains from the existing ruins without realizing that their steady acceptance of the so-called “lesser of two evils” has made possible the institutionalization of grave moral evils whose advance will continue, either incrementally or exponentially, as long as men refuse to take serious these words written by Saint Paul the Apostle in his Epistle to the Ephesians:

Put you on the armour of God, that you may be able to stand against the deceits of the devil. For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high place. Therefore take unto you the armour of God, that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and to stand in all things perfect. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of justice, And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace:

In all things taking the shield of faith, wherewith you may be able to extinguish all the fiery darts of the most wicked one. And take unto you the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit (which is the word of God). By all prayer and supplication praying at all times in the spirit; and in the same watching with all instance and supplication for all the saints. (Ephesians 6: 11-18.)

All the tribulations in this vale of tears will be over in a blink of an eye. It is most likely that we will stand before Christ the King, Our Divine Judge, long before He is finished with chastising this world filled with men who prefer the stench of their sins to the sweet aroma of Sanctifying Grace.

We must stand firm on behalf of our Catholic Faith at all times and in all situations as we recall the following words from Pope Pius XII’s Christmas Message to the world’s Catholics on December 24, 1943:

The path of humanity in the present confusion of ideas has been a path without God, indeed against God; without Christ, indeed against Christ. With this we do not want or intend to offend the wanderers; they are and remain our brothers.

However, it is appropriate that Christianity also considers that part of the responsibility, which falls to her in today's trials. Or haven't many Christians also made concessions to those false ideas and directions of life, so often disapproved by the magisterium of the Church?

Every lukewarmness and every rash bargaining with human respect in the profession of faith and its maxims; every pusillanimity and vacillation between good and evil in the practice of the Christian life, in the education of children and in governing the family; any hidden or manifest sin; all of this, and what more could be added, was and is a mournful contribution to the disaster which today is ravaging the world. And who would ever have the right to consider himself innocent of any fault? Reflection on yourselves and your works and the humble acknowledgment of this moral responsibility will make you perceive and feel in the depths of your soul how dutiful and holy a prayer and an action that appeases and implores the mercy of God and help to save the brothers; giving that honor back to God. (Pope Pius XII, Christmas Radio Message to the Peoples of the Whole World, December 24, 1943.)

We must make reparation for our own sins, which have worsened the state of the world-at-large and that of the Church Militant on earth far, far more than we might be willing to understand or to accept, which is why it is necessary for us to offer up all our works, prayers, and sufferings to the Throne of the Most Blessed Trinity by surrendering ourselves freely as the consecrated slaves of the Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity made Man, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

We may not live long enough to see a happy resolution to the problems that afflict the world because of the sins of men who are either contemptuous of the laws of God or reject them outright. However, it is our duty to pray ceaselessly for the conversion of all men to the true Faith and to exhort them according to time and circumstances of our dealings with others to develop a profound love for Our Lady, the Queen of the Most Holy Rosary, and a total consecration to her Divine Son through her Immaculate Heart.

Our Lady’s Most Holy Rosary is the key to getting us out of the mess that the world is in now, something that Pope Pius XII noted in Ingruentiam Mallorum, September 15, 1951:

We do not hesitate to affirm again publicly that We put great confidence in the Holy Rosary for the healing of evils which afflict our times. Not with force, not with arms, not with human power, but with Divine help obtained through the means of this prayer, strong like David with his sling, the Church undaunted shall be able to confront the infernal enemy, repeating to him the words of the young shepherd: “Thou comest to me with a sword, and a spear, and with a shield; but I come to thee in the name of the Lord of Hosts, the God of armies . . . and all this assembly shall know that the Lord saveth not with sword and spear, for this is his battle, and he will deliver you into our hands” (I Kings 17, 45-47)

16. For this reason, We earnestly desire, Venerable Brethren, that all the faithful, following your example and your exhortation should respond solicitously to Our paternal exhortation, uniting their hearts and their voices with the same ardor of charity. If the evils and the assaults of the wicked increase, so likewise must the piety of all good people increase and become ever more vigorous. Let them strive to obtain from our most loving Mother, especially through this form of prayer, that better times may quickly return for the Church and society.

17. May the very powerful Mother of God, moved by the prayers of so many of her sons, obtain from her only Son — let us all beseech her — that those who have miserably wandered from the path of truth and virtue may, with new fervor, find it again; that hatred and rivalry, which are the sources of discord and every kind of mishap, may be put aside, and that a true, just, and genuine peace may shine again upon individuals, families, peoples, and nations. And, finally, may she obtain that, after the rights of the Church have been secured in accord with justice, its beneficent influence may penetrate without obstacle the hearts of men, the social classes, and the avenues of public life so as to join people among themselves in brotherhood and lead them to that prosperity which regulates, preserves, and coordinates the rights and duties of all without harming anyone and which daily makes for greater and greater mutual friendship and collaboration. (Pope Pius XII noted in Ingruentiam Mallorum, September 15, 1951.)

We must trust in Our Lady’s Most Holy Rosary and pray that our fidelity will bear good fruit for ourselves and for the whole world as we await the day when the Triumph of her Immaculate Heart will made manifest and as her Divine Son, Christ the King, takes His rightful place among men and their nations once again.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!

Viva Cristo ReyVivat Christus Rex!

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us

Saint Albert the Great, pray for us.