Sober Up, 2026 Edition

Hundreds upon hundreds of protracted commentaries on this website have discussed the absurdity of naturalism, which is the ideology that bases all upon human actions and social policy upon merely natural considerations without regard even the existence of a supernatural order no less the immutable truths contained therein.

Naturalism is a tool of the devil to convince even believing Catholics that there is a way to retard the evils he advances in individual souls and thus in societies-at-large other than the reform of lives in cooperation with the graces won for us by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday and that flow into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of His Most Blessed Mother, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces.

Naturalism leaves no place for the face of the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity in the public lives of men and their nations, and it leads inevitably to abject religious indifferentism that gives truth and error equal rights and paves the way for the triumph of atheism in fact if not in name as the lowest common denominator of social life.

As it is of the nature of man to believe in something above him, however, the naturalism begotten of Judeo-Masonry, itself the fruit of the Protestant Revolution and the rise of the so-called Enlightenment, spawns all manner of secular belief systems (secular ‘isms, if you will) that are premised upon ignoring the simple facts of Special Creation, Original Sin, Actual Sin, and Our Lord’s Incarnation and Redemptive Act on the wood of the Holy Cross. These secular belief systems become the means to “improve” the world by a strict adherence to various dogmas that are pronounced by various “wise men” as beyond question, and it is the conflict between these belief systems that gives rise to all the endless agitation and strife that characterize social life and public policy in the United States of America and elsewhere in the so-called “civilized” world.

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

Moreover, most Americans believe in the Pelagian falsehood of self-redemption by embracing the the American “exceptionalist” myth that “Americans can do anything they want to do as long as they set their minds to a given enterprise. Not even Catholics care about the simple words of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Himself, “Without Me, you can do nothing.”

There is a particular irony in all of this as “constitutionalists,” “federalists, “originalists” and “conservatives talk and write incessantly about adhering to the true meaning of the plain words of the Constitution of the United States of America without realizing that a document that admits of no higher authority than its own text will be as easy for legal positivists, relativists and institutionalists (see, Roberts, John Glover) to distort, misinterpret, misrepresent, deconstruct or ignore altogether as it has been for Protestants and Modernist Catholics to distort, misinterpret, misrepresent, deconstruction altogether the plain words of Sacred Scripture, to say nothing of doing the same with Sacred (Apostolic) Tradition.

Catholics must be good citizens. Granted. However, it is very important to remember that the American founding was the secular byproduct of the Protestant Revolution and the subsequent rise of the naturalist ideologies that continue to serve as the sterile substitute for the true Faith as the only guiding light and common bond for men and their nations. All the errors of Modernity have paved the way clear for what I have long called the “illusion of secular salvation,” an illusion that now turns every headline into a cause of major division involving the use of vile invectives hurled at the “unenlightened” by the “woke.”

From Authoritarian Protestant England to the Totalitarian United States of America

The abuses of power by English monarchs, including the subjugating of Ireland and the persecution of Catholics in the Land of Saints and Scholars who refused to defect from the true Church, a persecution that would last until 1921 and still persists in Northern Ireland, led to all manner of social unrest in England, especially as those Anglicans who were followers of John Calvin sought to eradicate all remaining vestiges of Catholicism from Anglican "worship" and "doctrine" (removing Latin from certain aspects of the heretical Anglican liturgy, smashing statues, eliminating high altars in favor of tables, things that have been undertaken in the past forty years in many formerly Catholic churches that are now in the custody of the counterfeit church of conciliarism). This unrest produced the English Civil Wars of the 1640s and the establishment in 1649 of what was, for all intents and purposes, a Calvinist state under the control Oliver Cromwell that became a Cromwellian dictatorship between the years of 1653 to 1660 until the monarchy under the House of Stuart was restored in 1660. Oh yes, King Charles I lost his head, quite literally, in 1649 as the "Roundheads" of Oliver Cromwell came to power in 1649 following seven years of warfare between "parliamentarians" and "royalists." Revolutions always wind up eating their own. The English monarchy itself was eaten up by the overthrow of the Social Reign of the King of Kings by Henry VIII of the House of Tudor in 1534.

King James II, who had converted to Catholicism in France in 1668 while he was the Prince of York under his brother, King Charles II of the restored monarchy, acceded to the English throne on June 6, 1885, following his brother's death, which occurred after Charles II himself had converted to the Faith on his deathbed. Suspicious that the property that had been acquired and the wealth that had been amassed as a result of Henry VIII's social-engineering land grab of 150 years before would be placed in jeopardy, Protestant opponents of King James II eventually forced him to abdicate the throne in 1688, his rule having been declared as ended on December 11 of that year. The abdication of King James, whose second wife, Mary of Modena, had been assigned Blessed Father Claude de la Colombiere as her spiritual director when she was the Princess of York, is referred to by Protestant and secular historians as the "glorious revolution," so-called because it ushered in the penultimate result of the Protestant Revolution, the tyranny of the majority.

It was to justify the rise of majoritarianism that John Locke, a Presbyterian (Calvinist) minister, wrote his Second Treatise on Civil Government. Locke believed, essentially, that social problems could be ameliorated if a majority of reasonable men gathered together to discuss their situation. The discussion among these "reasonable men" would lead to an agreement, sanctioned by the approval of the majority amongst themselves, on the creation of structures which were designed to improve the existing situation. If those structures did not ameliorate the problems or resulted in a worsening of social conditions then some subsequent majority of "reasonable men" would be able to tear up the "contract" that had bound them before, devising yet further structures designed to do what the previous structures could not accomplish. Locke did not specify how this majority of reasonable men would form, only that it would form, providing the foundation of the modern parliamentary system that premises the survival of various governments upon the whims of a majority at a given moment.

In other words, England's "problem" in 1688 was King James II. The solution? Parliament, in effect, declared that he had abdicated his throne rather than attempt to fight yet another English civil war to maintain himself in power as the man chosen by the parliamentarians to replace him, his own son-in-law William of Orange, who was married to his daughter Mary, landed with armed forces ready to undertake such a battle. The parliamentary "majority" had won the day over absolutism and a return to Catholicism.

Political ideologues capitalized on the divisions caused the Martin Luther’s, John Calvin’s, Ulrich Zwingli and Henry VIII’s respective breaks from Rome.

A writer of the Italian Renaissance, Niccolo Machiavelli provided the “philosophical muscle,” so to speak, that was used by political ideologues (those who subscribed to the allegedly “salvific” power of a political belief system, whether it be liberalism, conservatism, socialism, communism, fascism, utilitarianism, statism, materialism, legal positivism, libertarianism, etc.) to do away with all reference to the supernatural in order to emphasize the merely natural aspects of human existence. By doing this, you see, the political ideologues sought to empower individual rulers with a “blank check” to rule as they believed that had to rule in order to acquire, retain and increase their own raw political power.

To this end, Machiavelli wrote two works in the late-Fifteenth Century that were instrumental in shaping the minds of political rulers after Martin Luther broke with the Catholic Church and thus made it possible for princes and kings and emperors to rule without what they saw as the sort of “interference” from a pope or a kingdom’s local bishops to observe the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law. Those two works were as follows: and A Discourse on Livy.

The essence of Machiavelli’s teaching was to separate the practice of politics from all objective moral norms. Machiavelli believed that there was no need for a prince to agonize over the morality of particular decisions. All that such a prince needs to do is to determine what is expedient for his own ends. In other words, a prince may use whatever means he deems, including, lying, cheating and, if necessary, killing, to realize whatever end he has set for himself. This is known as “amorality,” the belief that human actions can be undertaken without regard to their inherent morality or lack thereof. “The ends justify the means.” If one has to cheat, cheat. If one has to lie, lie. If one has to kill, kill. This is the foundation of the policies of almost every country in the world today as those in public office seek to advance their own ends by using whatever means it takes to realize them. We see this with particular clarity in the conduct of election campaigns and in efforts by presidential administrations to cover-up crimes that “had” to be committed in order to preserve their “legitimacy” and “credibility” with the public.

No matter the influence Machiavelli, however, it was John Locke who was the father of political ideology. Locke is the father of the political ideology of “liberalism,” which contends that social problems may be resolved by the creation of structures, sanctioned by the majority, and that such structures may be reformed or enlarged by subsequent majorities over the course of time. All political ideology is, as Russell Kirk noted in The Roots of American Order, inverted religion, an effort to replace Christianity as the foundation of social life by convincing mere creatures that they, by their own unaided powers, can make the world “better” without ever addressing the root causes of those problems.

As noted above, John Locke wrote The Second Treatise on Civil Government, which established his understanding of democracy as being a form wherein the people voluntarily relinquished their claim to total liberty in order to enjoy the protection of their basic rights and liberties (life, liberty and property) by a government they create, elect and participate in.

Locke based his philosophy upon the following premises:

1. The human being lived originally in a “state of nature,” where there was to be found no law, no organized society and thus no order. In such a situation, the human being was incapable of realizing the protection of his basic rights of life, liberty and property.

2. As noted above, in the state of nature everyone was “free” to do as he pleased.

3. Such “freedom,” though, carried risks within the “state of nature” as some human beings used their freedom to violate the rights of others.

4. Lacking any organized means to deal with the risks that existed in the state of nature, Locke hypothesized, without specifying when this happening or how, that a majority of “reasonable” men gathered together to perfect the state of nature in which the human beings were at risk of losing their rights to life, liberty and property.

5. These “reasonable men” conclude that the state of nature was defective and that the human being had to be taken out of it in order to be governed by a government created by and with the consent of those to be governed.

6. The price of protecting basic rights and liberties would be the forfeiture of the claim to total liberty. That is, human beings must voluntarily relinquish (give up) their claim to “total liberty” in order to enjoy the protection of their rights to life, liberty and property by a government of their own creation.

7. Thus it is that Locke believed government was not part of the very nature of things, that is was an artificial “imposition” upon the human being that could, if left unchecked, serve as a threat to the human being.

8. The supposed “safeguard” in Locke’s construct would be the creation of a government by a “majority” of reasonable men, who would devise, whether in a formal (or written) manner or an informal (unwritten) manner a “social contract” to bind the community together in a set of rules to be administered by elected officials serving in government structures.

9. If, however, the problems sought to be ameliorated or resolved by the government created by the social contact continue or, worse yet, worsen, then another reasonably majority of men could arise to revised or expand existing structures and/or to create new ones to “fix” that which had gone unresolved.

This is the essence of liberalism, therefore, and its influence is vast on both the so-called “left”
and “right” in the United States of America today. Lockeanism also influenced some, although not all, of the framers of the Constitution of the United States of America. Lockeanism convinces human beings, who are mere contingent beings, that is, beings who did not create themselves, and whose bodies are destined for the corruption of the grave until the General Judgment of the living and the dead on the Last Day. In other words, political ideology convinces men that they are “gods” who can decide for themselves how to “improve” or “perfect” a world brought into disorder caused by their own sins. Remember, even Plato and Cicero, pagans who did not believe in Divine Revelation, understood the connection between order in the soul and order in society.

The flaws of the John Locke’s ideology are as follows:

1. The “state of nature” never existed. There never existed a time when human beings lived in a moral vacuum, devoid of hierarchy and of any means of external governance over them. Again, even pagans understood this from the use of reason. Christians understand that God Himself, the Most Blessed Trinity, is the true Governor of men Who has ordained laws to govern the physical properties of the universe and Who has ordained laws to govern men in the moral choices they make. The “state of nature” is pure mythology.

2. All human problems, therefore, are the result of man’s fallen nature, something that many of the founders understood:

A principal difference between the American Revolution and the French Revolution was this: the American revolutionaries in general held a biblical view of man and his bent toward sin, while the French revolutionaries in general attempted to substitute for the biblical understanding an open optimistic doctrine of human goodness advanced by the philosophes [the false philosophers] of the rationalistic Enlightenment. The American view led to the Constitution of 1787; the French view, to the Terror and to a new autocracy [Napoleon Bonaparte]. The American Constitution is a fundamental law deliberately meant to place checks upon will and appetite. The French innovations would endure no such checks upon popular impulses; they ended under a far more arbitrary domination. (Russell Kirk, The Roots of American Order, p. 29.)

3. Importantly, Locke confused liberty with license. Having the physical ability to perform an act does not mean that one has the moral right to commit it. Thus, one does not have the freedom morally to push his neighbor in front of an oncoming subway train. How can it be said, therefore, that one is giving up his “freedom” not to commit an act that is of its nature morally wrong.

4. Locke thus conclude erroneously that government is an artificial imposition upon human society that takes men out of the state of nature in order to protect their rights to life, liberty and property that he said were at risk in the state of nature. Government is not an artificial imposition upon human society. As noted in number two, supra, government and hierarchy are simply part of the nature of things.

5. Locke trusted naively in the infallible reasonableness of the majority. Locke could not conceive of a circumstance whereby a majority would be composed of anyone other than reasonable men. As we know, of course, the crowd is often wrong. The crowd on Good Friday, motivated by our sins having transcended time, cried out for Barabbas and called for the Crucifixion of their very Redeemer. The mere fact that a majority supports or opposes something at a given point in time means nothing if what is supported or opposed is wrong in and of its nature. Democracy is not about giving the “majority” whatever it wants. This is same as mobocracy.

6. Locked believed wrongly in the ability of mere structural reform to solve perfect the “state of nature,” that is, to “resolve” social problems once and for all. Such a belief, while held most sincerely by most people alive today, treats the symptoms of problems rather than the root cause of those problems. Without understanding that the root cause of social problems is fallen human nature—and hence remediable only by constant conversion to holiness on a daily basis), the human being becomes convinced that he can create THE solution to the problems of war, poverty, homelessness, economic injustice, racism, greed, environmental pollution, and the like. The fact that such problems remain, if not worsen, does nothing to convince Lockeans of the rightness of their position.

Similarly, there are those who believe that the mere expenditure of funds on social problems will result in the resolution of those problems. The failure of such programs to work (urban poverty remains high, teen unemployment rates, especially in urban areas, remains high, drug abuse is on the rise across all segments of society, many schools produce students who are functionally illiterate and are unable to speak in grammatically correct English, being ignorant, through no fault of their own, in basic facts of world and American history) does nothing to cause such ideologues to rethink their basic premises. The same is true of those who believe that the mere expenditure of money will produce a stronger defense of the nation (or those who think that the elimination of weapons by itself will produce peace). There were wars long before there were modern weapons.

The belief in structural reforms as the means to resolve social problems leads the human being to believe in self-redemption. This is the same thing as the heresy of Pelgianism, the belief that human beings can more or less “save” themselves by stirring up within the souls graces necessary to “do” whatever it is they set their minds to doing without any type of supernatural assistance.

7. Locke’s system leads to frustration. If one believes that structural reform in and of itself is the means to resolve social problems, then one is bound to lead a life of utter frustration. The person who believes that “others” are responsible for their problems are rootless and restless, constantly searching for “external” solutions to ease their sense of unhappiness (an unhappiness that originates interiorly within themselves). Similarly, a society seeking in good faith to deal with serious problems will find itself quite frustrated when the problems remain despite the “best” efforts to eradicate them. New solutions are therefore proposed as the “next step” to resolve problems that will only worsen over times. Karl Marx, for example, saw the failure of liberalism while living in London, England, and proposed what he thought was the ultimate solution: communism, which was to produce “peace and justice” by killing off the bourgeoisie (the capitalists) and redistributing their wealth so that a “classless” society could emerge wherein all no cause for envy, war or competition would exist.

Locke’s influence on modern thought is profound even though most of the men who framed the Constitution of the United States of American had made a break with some of Locke’s simple-minded majoritarian formulae for secular self-redemption. As a practical political matter, however, Locke’s ideas—and those of the French Revolution—became the basis of American politics, public-policy making and jurisprudence.

Unfortunately for Locke, you see, social problems cannot be ameliorated merely by the creation of structures devised by “reasonable men” and sanctioned by the majority.

All problems in the world, both individual and social, have their remote causes in Original Sin and their proximate causes in the Actual Sins of men. There is no once-and-for-all method or structure by which, for example, “peace” will be provided in the world by the creation of international organizations or building up or the drafting of treaties.

There is no once-and-for-all method or structure by which, for example, “crime” will be lessened in a nation by the creation of various programs designed to address the "environmental" conditions that are said to breed it.

The only way in which social conditions can be ameliorated is by the daily reformation of individual lives in cooperation with the graces won for men by the shedding of the Most Precious Blood of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ upon the wood of the Holy Cross and that flow into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces. And to the extent that social structures can be effective in addressing and ameliorating specific problems at specific times in specific places, those who create and administer them must recognize their absolute dependence upon God's graces and that there is no secular, non-denominational or inter-denominational way to provide for social order. Social order and peace among nations depend entirely upon the subordination of the life of every person and the activities of every nation to the Social Reign of Christ the King as it is exercised by the Catholic Church.

The modern state is founded on the specific and categorical rejection of the Social Reign of Christ the King as it is exercised by the Catholic Church. There is thus the need for modern man for find sterile ideologies or philosophies to substitute for the true Faith so as to guide him in the course of daily life. The failure of the social structures fashioned after the Lockean model to effect an amelioration of the problems they were intended to address does nothing to deter “true believers” from continuing to persist in the blindness that led them to reject the true Faith and to trust in their own cooked-up schemes.

No, the “true believers” in liberalism or conservatism or capitalism or socialism or communism or fascism or Nazism or utilitarianism or pragmatism or positivism (or any and all other brands of secular “isms”) must spend their entire lives searching for a “better way” to realize the goals of their particular ideology or philosophy or economic system. It cannot possibly be, they have convinced themselves, that their initial premises were wrong from the outset. No, the problem must be in the implementation and/or in the communication of their ideas, not in the false nature of the ideas upon which they have based all of their truly delusional hopes.

The Lockean construct for the resolution of social problems is but one part of the Revolution, as it was termed by Popes Pius VI, VII, VIII, Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII, and Saint Pius X, against the Faith. The Lockean construct preceded the rise of contemporary Freemasonry in England by twenty-nine years, fitting in nicely with the Judeo-Masonic desire to obliterate the necessity of subordinating all things in personal and social life to the reality of the Incarnation by stressing the conviction that the “universal brotherhood of men” can put aside “denominational differences” to pursue the “common good” Locke's belief that men could resolve their social problems by the creation of structures, in essence the self-redemptive heresy of Pelagianism, also dovetailed into the Judeo-Masonic belief that men can pursue “civic virtue” on their own without belief in, access to or cooperation with sanctifying grace. These false beliefs lead men and their societies into complete and utter chaos, which is the goal of the chief revolutionary, the devil himself, who desires the minds of men to be locked up by the blindness engendered by their narcissism and pride.

The Lockean construct leads to many mutations, all of which have one common theme: the ability of man to better his lot in life on his own without subordinating himself to the Deposit of Faith that the God-Man has entrusted to His true Church.

In the United States, for example, the Lockean construct has produced a situation where liberalism had to give way to the socialism that has been creeping up on us in the past century since the administrations of Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Thomas Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Lyndon Baines Johnson, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, and, at the present time, Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.

The failure of incremental, structural “reforms” to improve social conditions led to an increase in the size and the power of government at all levels (state, local, national) and a reduction in the legitimate natural law rights of citizens to be free from the tyranny of governmental leaders possessed of the notion that secular salvation comes from the state.

Thus, the New Freedom of Woodrow Wilson was actually a descent into statism, especially as represented by the creation of the Federal Reserve System, expedited by the New Deal of Franklin Delano Roosevelt (and by many of the policies of his immediate predecessor, Herbert Clark Hoover), and expanded by Lyndon Baines Johnson's “Great Society” and “War on Poverty” programs. The attempts to “engineer” the better society through government programs has reached such a stage that even though itself is being punished at the state law (and laws are pending on the national level to make criticism of the behavior of certain people a “hate” crime). A land born in the delusional belief that man can ever be "free" without Our Lord and His Holy Church produces all to logically and inexorably a new caste of slaves, most of who are so diverted by bread and circuses that they protest nary a bit as their legitimate freedoms and property are taken away from them bit by bit under one pretext or another. All of this, however, was but a prelude to the socialism of the present moment, including stimulus packages, ObamaDeathCare, Biden’s “infrastructure” boondoggle, and the pork-barreling that squanders so many billions of taxpayer dollars (pork-barreling goes by the more commonly known name of “earmarks” today).

Elsewhere, however, the Lockean construct leads to a degree of violent frustration. That is, the failure of structural reforms to, say, “end” poverty or to “end” wars convinced a number of visionaries that violent, bloody revolutions were necessary to overthrow the remaining vestiges of Catholicism in order to replace it all at once with a man-made paradigm for peace and justice on earth. The French Revolutionaries, the Mexican Revolutionaries, the plotters of the Italian Risorgimento, Otto von Bismarck's Kulturkampf in Germany, the Bolshevik, and Maoist Revolutionaries—and scores upon scores of others—believed that their revolutions would bring about a new age for mankind. The failure of even those “once-and-for-all” revolutions, however, to produce their expected results led to attempts to revitalize the revolutionary zeal, a "reform of the reform," if you will. And it will ever be thus in the minds of those who have rejected the simple truth that Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order as they have been shaped by the demonically inspired naturalistic, religiously indifferentist, semi-Pelagian delusions of Modernity.

When “Democracy” Means a Tyranny of Ideology That Must Repress All Others by the Brute Force of the Civil State

Tyranny can take many forms (one man, a ruling elite, a military junta, a particular political party, popular or legislative or judicial majorities). However, the Protestant Revolution was indeed a recipe for all contemporary forms of statist tyranny, which now includes defining “democracy” as meaning denouncing efforts to secure election integrity as “racist” in se in order to make it appear that anyone who opposes the “received” agenda of the moment is a “threat” to democracy whose henforcement and national security bureaucracy. includes requiring Catholics and others who oppose sodomy to submit the new order of things or risk some kind of penalty, including the closure of their very businesses.

As one who was the target of many “leftist” colleagues who could not abide my teaching of undergraduate and graduate political science courses from the perspective of Catholic teaching, I have long known that those of the false opposite of the naturalist “left” believe that all opposition to their dogmas is illegitimate, thus making necessary, as they see it, ad hominem attacks upon those who profess “proscribed” beliefs and ideas. All the talk of “saving democracy” at this time means one thing: making it possible for the degenerate process called elections in the United States of America to produce permanent one-party rule that is premised upon the silencing, if not imprisonment, of opposition voices once and for all.

We all know that the former President in Name Only, Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., had a double standard of condemning Donald John Trump’s handling of “classified” and “top secret” documents even though his own mishandling of such documents to which, as a then former vice president, he was not entitled to keep, no less take home with him to Delaware, and that he was forever claiming himself to be a “defender of democracy” while seeking to crush all opposition to him and his policies.

Here are two reminders of Biden’s blatant hypocrisy and his efforts at imposing a Red Chinese-style level of authoritarianism against “conservatives” and those particularly “dangerous” people, “radical traditional Catholics,” among whom I was listed specifically in the infamous Richmond, Virginia, field office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation memorandum:

For years, former President Joe Biden has fought to prevent the release of tapes acquired by former special counsel Robert Hur in his investigation. After those efforts collapsed this month, it became clear why Biden and his aides were so determined to keep the public from seeing the evidence.

In addition to showing Biden’s mental diminution even before he was elected president, the tapes show that Biden effectively confessed to the crimes Hur would later excuse on the grounds of his mental infirmity.

Biden’s interviews with his biographer, Mark Zwonitzer, conducted four years before he would be elected president, show that Biden was already having trouble remembering names and dates.

Hur was tasked with determining whether Biden had committed the same crimes that led later to charges against President Trump — retaining classified material, mishandling such material, and related crimes.

It turns out that Biden had already admitted to these alleged crimes, years before the documents were found in various offices and the garage of his home.

I wrote for years about Biden’s absurd denials after files were found in offices where he was working on his book. There was also evidence that the material had been divided, distributed, and transported between different locations.

Despite all the evidence of knowledge and use of the classified materials, Biden and his aides suggested that no one had been aware of its removal and repeated transfer. In the meantime, after the raid on Mar-a-Lago to search for classified material removed by Trump, the Justice Department granted Biden and his team every possible accommodation.

Then came the searches of his home, with the pictures of files in his garage, office, and other locations. These included clearly marked classified material.

Hur then issued his report, concluding that there was evidence of the crimes, but that he would still not charge Biden as Special Counsel Jack Smith had done with Trump. The report stated that “President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen.” It further stated that the clearly marked classified material was “stored in unsecure places” and posed a risk of “serious damage to America’s national security.”

For his part, Biden was defiant and, when confronted about the documents, insisted that “They’re mine,” and that other presidents had done what he did. This was the same president who condemned Trump for retaining classified information. Biden mocked Trump’s defense and asked CBS 60 Minutes how “anyone could be that irresponsible.”

We now know that Biden himself was that irresponsible, if not more so. Biden not only kept classified material longer and in even less secure locations, but he did nothing to protect the material even as he attacked Trump over Mar-a-Lago.

Nevertheless, Hur declared that he would not bring a single charge because Biden “would likely present himself to a jury, as he did in our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory.”

The tapes show Biden struggling to give answers even before he announced his candidacy for the presidency, despite denials from key aides such as Jen Psaki and Karine Jean-Pierre. However, Hur had actual tapes showing that Biden had clear memory and knowledge of his retention of classified material. Combined with Biden’s later public statements, the combination would have been deadly at trial.

In the interview, Biden read “nearly verbatim” from notebooks containing sensitive national security and foreign policy information, according to Hur. On the tapes, Biden is heard saying, “So this was, I early on, um, in ’09 I just found all the classified stuff downstairs.” At another point, he states, “Some of this may be classified, so be careful with it.” He repeatedly mentions that some of the items in his office and home may be classified.

He even brags to his ghostwriter, in a report made on Oct. 10, 2016, that “I have extensive notes over this period of time … They didn’t know I have this.”

Once again, the Justice Department had already declared and defended in court the idea that such removal and retention of classified material did constitute a federal crime by a president, let alone a vice president. Where Trump acknowledged his retention of classified material and agreed to security measures that the FBI requested, Biden did not inform anyone of his classified materials and kept them in his garage long after the Mar-a-Lago raids. Meanwhile, in public, he expressed shock that any president would act as recklessly as Trump.

It is hard to see how any of that would present “a sympathetic, well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory.” It sounds more like a cynical, shrewd politician with poor ethics. It also sounds like it would have been a strong foundation for a prosecution.

For many, the tapes will reinforce the view of a two-tier legal system, long maintained by the Justice Department, whereby key Democratic figures including Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden were given favorable treatment while others were indicted for similar conduct.

What is truly galling for some of us is that Biden knew all of this when he went public to attack Hur for suggesting that he had knowingly retained classified material and showed diminished mental faculties— even forgetting when his son Beau died. Biden savaged Hur at the time for even raising this issue, famously demanding, “How the hell dare he raise that?” Even that was a lie, because it was Biden who had raised Beau’s death in the interview.

Even after the report, Biden was still denying that he had retained classified material, even though he had discussed that classified material with his ghostwriter years earlier and had admitted as much to Hur. But before the public, Biden declared, “I’ve seen headlines since the report was released about my willful retention of documents. This assertion is not only misleading, it’s just plain wrong.”

Biden’s interviews with his biographer, Mark Zwonitzer, conducted four years before he would be elected president, show that Biden was already having trouble remembering names and dates.

It turns out that Biden had already admitted to these alleged crimes, years before the documents were found in various offices and the garage of his home.

Then came the searches of his home, with the pictures of files in his garage, office, and other locations. These included clearly marked classified material.

He even brags to his ghostwriter, in a report made on Oct. 10, 2016, that “I have extensive notes over this period of time … They didn’t know I have this.”

The record is now largely complete. So is the inescapable conclusion: Biden lacked clarity on most everything but his alleged crimes. His deception and culpability were established in both the Zwonitzer and Hur interviews. Biden gave Hur a virtual confession, and Hur gave him a pass. (Joe Biden confessed to his crimes, and now we have the tapes.)

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has released a report on the targeting and investigation of traditional Catholics as a national security threat under the Biden administration.

The 230-page document charts how it came to be that a single agent working in the FBI’s Richmond Field Office concocted a memo which cast suspicion on many Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) Catholics as radical extremists, with the seeming intent of weaponizing U.S. law enforcement against them.

“On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14147 to eliminate the political weaponization of federal agencies,” notes a statement from the DOJ. “To many Americans, the Richmond Domain Perspective came to embody the misuse and weaponization of government power.”

The FBI memo focused on what it called “Radical Traditionalist Catholics” (RTCs) to identify its chosen target group.

The thesis of the Richmond Catholic memo linked the “interest of racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists” to “radical-traditionalist” Catholic ideology,” according to the DOJ report. “To support the Memo then, FBI needed to define the term ‘radical traditionalist Catholic.’ The FBI ultimately ‘characterized’ that term in footnote (a) of the Memo, stating:

RTCs are typically characterized by the rejection of the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II) as a valid church council; disdain for most of the popes elected since Vatican II, particularly Pope Francis and Pope John Paul II; and frequent adherence to anti-Semitic, anti-immigrant, anti-LGBTQ, and white supremacist ideology.”

The memo further asserted that “radical-traditionalist Catholics compose a small minority of overall Roman Catholic adherents and are separate and distinct from ‘traditionalist Catholics’ who prefer the Traditional Latin Mass and pre-Vatican II teachings and traditions, but without the more extremist ideological beliefs and violent rhetoric.”

“To arrive at this sweeping generalization — filled with political and religious viewpoints — the FBI devoted time to studying and even building a presentation titled ‘Traditionalist Catholicism Overview,’” the DOJ report explains. The presentation included slides that the Field Office believed constituted core beliefs of these potentially dangerous ‘nonmainstream Catholics'”:

A slide titled “Core Ideology and Beliefs” mentions supporting:

Traditional Latin Mass (AKA Tridentine Rite), practices
Conservative family values/roles
Rejection of modernity
“Discontinuity and Disrupture”
Tendency toward isolationism

A slide titled “On Earth as it is in Heaven” mentions:

Belief in the creation of a totalitarian, anti-pluralist Catholic nation, a “confessional state”
Rejection of religious neutrality and right to religious freedom
Subordination of the state to Catholic principles

The slide also made the shocking claim that “traditionalist Catholicism” is “comparable to Islamist ideology.”

In discussing so-called RTCs — including specific discussion of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) and its offshoots — the slides focused on doctrinal and political issues.

Ominously titled “A Step Further,” one of the slides claimed that the RTCs

Believe that “mainline Catholicism is ‘illegitimate’”

Hold “hardline positions on abortion, LGBTQ matters, and interreligious dialogue”

Display “eschatological/apocalyptic overtones”

Adhere to “rigid fundamentalism”

Possess an “undertone of anti-Semitism”

A slide defined the SSPX by reference to their relationship with the Vatican (i.e., not “fully separate nor in full communion”) and emphasized that they are “named after Pope Pius X, who rejected ‘modernism,’” the DOJ report stated.

Another slide discussed a group of dissenting SSPX priests, known as the “SSPX Resistance Movement,” describing the group as having a “vocal acceptance of conspiracy theories.”

“History will rightly judge the Richmond Catholic Memo as a grave failure of the FBI Richmond Field Office to uphold that responsibility,” concluded the lengthy DOJ report. “The FBI personnel involved in the creation of the Richmond Catholic Memo have been terminated from their positions.”

“This Department of Justice will not tolerate a weaponized bureaucracy that chills First Amendment activity,” said Attorney General Todd Blanche. “The individuals who developed the Richmond Domain Perspective are no longer with the Department, and our Working Group’s efforts to investigate weaponization under the previous Administration will continue.”

“Weaponization will never be tolerated at this FBI,” said FBI Director Kash Patel. “Even while those who developed the unacceptable Richmond Catholic memo under the previous administration have been held accountable, releasing information to the public about what occurred under the prior regime is an important part of the process.”

Read the DOJ report here. (Scathing DOJ report denounces Biden FBI memo targeting traditional Catholics.)

Yes, we all know that the fake, phony, fraud Biden Family Crime Syndicate sought to hide old Plugs’s declining cognitive powers, suppress opposition voices, especially those documenting the harm caused by the Wuhan Virus de-population jabs, and to enrich themselves aplenty in the process with one dirty deal after another.

Well, the more things change….

President Donald John Trump, playing into the caricature of himself as an authoritarian, endlessly denounces those who oppose his policies as “traitors” and denounces even truthful reporting about the depletion of American munitions caused by unjust, immoral, and unconstitutional war against Iran that began at the behest of the genocidal Benjamin Netanyahu, and is overseeing the enrichment of the Trump Family Syndicate with an even greater shamelessness than that of the shameless Biden Family Crime Syndicate:

It was bad when the Bidens did it, and it’s just as bad when the Trumps do it.

Insider deals, finders’ fees and backdoor introductions to family members are business-as-usual in Third World banana republics, but these slimy practices have now been normalized in the White House, to the shame of the nation.

The New York Times reports that Eric and Donald Trump Jr., sons of President Trump, and Kyle and Brandon Lutnick, sons of Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, are tied to a billion-dollar tungsten mining deal that the US government is financing in Kazakhstan.

The prez himself actually called in to a meeting between Secretary Lutnick and Kazakhstan’s president as the deal was being finalized.

Cantor Fitzgerald, the investment banking company founded by Lutnick and now run by his sons, has long been a prominent underwriter of global mining projects.

Lutnick himself has stepped away from the company. But Cantor Fitzgerald’s interests have certainly not been harmed by having its founder in Trump’s cabinet: Cantor is an adviser or underwriter for at least 13 mining companies that have or are in the process of getting major financing or contracts from the federal government.

The Trump sons, meanwhile, are part-owners or investors in companies neck-deep in a key defense contract to mine tungsten reserves in Central Asia.

It stinks to high heaven.

If a president’s family making bank from obscure resource companies in the former Soviet Union sounds familiar, maybe that’s because Hunter Biden’s lucrative connection to Burisma — a Ukrainian gas company — was a major scandal in the 2020 election and beyond.

Republicans, including Donald Trump, were justifiably outraged at the obvious influence-peddling.

Hunter Biden’s role as Biden family bagman — the one who collected money on behalf of the “Big Guy” — became the emblem of a rotten, damaged Oval Office.

True, no one thought of Trump & Co. as unblemished saints, but who would’ve thunk that he, his kin and associates were going to use the Biden family template — virtually backing up the truck and stealing the carpets and silver — as a model of ethical behavior?

The Lutnick and Trump boys have been sloshing around in the muck since their dads came to power 18 months ago.

They’ve profited handsomely from cryptocurrency deals while the government their fathers control was setting crypto policy.

Democrats in Congress are pressing for an investigation into Trump sweetheart deals.

If they take the House in the midterms, these hearings are surely coming.

It would behoove the Trump administration, and the nation as a whole, if the president gets ahead of the growing scandal, acts transparently and cleans up the whole mess before it swamps his final two years in office — and defines his legacy. (Hunter Biden-style sleaze is just as slimy when the Trump boys do it.)

The tendency of fallen men to act as malignly and as corruptly as others have done even though is not unique to the American system of government, but the purpose of my citing the articles above is to remind readers that there are the supposed “good guys” in American politics usually wind up being so convinced of their nonexistent invincibility that they conduct themselves in such an openly hypocritical manner that does nothing else than help the “bad guys” portray themselves as the “good guys” and thus to seize back a measure of power within the Federal government.

Naturalistic Democracy is the Problem

The founding fathers of the United States of America were naturalists to the core of their being. They expected that their system of governance would be conducive to the creation and sustenance of a “civic virtue” wherein men would present themselves for public office who exhibited statesmanship by explaining their positions to the voters during elections and then, if elected, defending their actions while in office without regard to their own electoral survival but solely on the basis of what they believe constituted the common temporal good. Unfortunately for them, however, leaving aside the fact that many of the founders descended to the depths of demagoguery during the administration of President George Washington and thereafter following the formation of what became permanently established political parties, it is impossible for men to pursue or to sustain virtue on a merely natural level over time, something that Pope Leo XIII noted in Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae, January 22, 1899:

Nor can we leave out of consideration the truth that those who are striving after perfection, since by that fact they walk in no beaten or well-known path, are the most liable to stray, and hence have greater need than others of a teacher and guide. Such guidance has ever obtained in the Church; it has been the universal teaching of those who throughout the ages have been eminent for wisdom and sanctity-and hence to reject it would be to commit one’s self to a belief at once rash and dangerous.

A thorough consideration of this point, in the supposition that no exterior guide is granted such souls, will make us see the difficulty of locating or determining the direction and application of that more abundant influx of the Holy Spirit so greatly extolled by innovators To practice virtue there is absolute need of the assistance of the Holy Spirit, yet we find those who are fond of novelty giving an unwarranted importance to the natural virtues, as though they better responded to the customs and necessities of the times and that having these as his outfit man becomes more ready to act and more strenous in action. It is not easy to understand how persons possessed of Christian wisdom can either prefer natural to supernatural virtues or attribute to them a greater efficacy and fruifulness. Can it be that nature conjoined with grace is weaker than when left to herself?

Can it be that those men illustrious for sanctity, whom the Church distinguishes and openly pays homage to, were deficient, came short in the order of nature and its endowments, because they excelled in Christian strength? And although it be allowed at times to wonder at acts worthy of admiration which are the outcome of natural virtue-is there anyone at all endowed simply with an outfit of natural virtue? Is there any one not tried by mental anxiety, and this in no light degree? Yet ever to master such, as also to preserve in its entirety the law of the natural order, requires an assistance from on high These single notable acts to which we have alluded will frequently upon a closer investigation be found to exhibit the appearance rather than the reality of virtue. Grant that it is virtue, unless we would “run in vain” and be unmindful of that eternal bliss which a good God in his mercy has destined for us, of what avail are natural virtues unless seconded by the gift of divine grace? Hence St. Augustine well says: “Wonderful is the strength, and swift the course, but outside the true path.” For as the nature of man, owing to the primal fault, is inclined to evil and dishonor, yet by the help of grace is raised up, is borne along with a new greatness and strength, so, too, virtue, which is not the product of nature alone, but of grace also, is made fruitful unto everlasting life and takes on a more strong and abiding character.

This overesteem of natural virtue finds a method of expression in assuming to divide all virtues in active and passive, and it is alleged that whereas passive virtues found better place in past times, our age is to be characterized by the active. That such a division and distinction cannot be maintained is patent-for there is not, nor can there be, merely passive virtue. “Virtue,” says St. Thomas Aquinas, “designates the perfection of some faculty, but end of such faculty is an act, and an act of virtue is naught else than the good use of free will,” acting, that is to say, under the grace of God if the act be one of supernatural virtue.

He alone could wish that some Christian virtues be adapted to certain times and different ones for other times who is unmindful of the apostle’s words: “That those whom He foreknew, He predestined to be made conformable to the image of His Son.”- Romans viii, 29. Christ is the teacher and the exemplar of all sanctity, and to His standard must all those conform who wish for eternal life. Nor does Christ know any change as the ages pass, “for He is yesterday and to-day and the same forever.”-Hebrews xiii, 8. To the men of all ages was the precept given: “Learn of Me, because I am meek and humble of heart.”-Matt. xi, 29.

To every age has He been made manifest to us as obedient even unto death; in every age the apostle’s dictum has its force: “Those who are Christ’s have crucified their flesh with its vices and concupiscences.” Would to God that more nowadays practiced these virtues in the degree of the saints of past times, who in humility, obedience and self-restraint were powerful “in word and in deed” -to the great advantage not only of religion, but of the state and the public welfare. (Pope Leo XIII, Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae, January 22, 1899.)

The “civic virtue” that existed in the minds of the American founding fathers was and remains illusory. We need the help of the graces won for us by Christ the King during His Passion and Death of the Holy Cross to be virtuous and to climb the ladder of sanctity with every beat of our hearts, consecrated as they must be to His own Sacred Heart through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary out of which It was formed.

Democratic republics—and the globalist unions they make with one another--are bound to fall apart because they are founded upon a welter of errors that must degenerate into chaos and open conflict sooner or later.

Dom Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, the great Dominican foe of Modernism and the Twentieth Century’s greatest exponent of the works of Saint Thomas Aquinas, explained the flaws inherent in democracies that lead to their decay and dissolution over time:

Democracy is an imperfect regime, as a regime in ratione regiminis, as a result of the lack of unity and continuity in the direction of interior and exterior affairs. Also this regime should only be for the perfect already capable of directing themselves—those virtuous and competent enough to pronounce as is fitting upon the very complicated problems on which the life of a great people depends. But it is always true to say as Saint Thomas noted that these virtuous and competent men are extremely rare; and democracy, supposing such perfection among subjects, cannot give it to them. From this point of view, democracy is a bit in politics what quietism is in spirituality; it supposes man has arrived, at the age or the state of perfection, even though he still may be a child. In treating him as a perfect person, democracy does not give him what is required to become one.

Since true virtue united to true competence is a rare thing among men, since the majority among them are incapable of governing and they have a need of being led, the regime which is the best for them is the one which can make up for their imperfection. This regimen perfectum in ratione regiminis, by reason of unity, continuity, and efficacy of direction towards a single end which is difficult to achieve is monarchy. Above all a tempered monarchy which is always attentive to the different forms of national activity. It is better than democracy or than the feudal regime. Monarchy assures the interior and exterior peace of a great nation, and permits her to long endure. (Dom Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, “On Royal Government: translated by Andrew Strain, On Royal Government)

Perhaps the events unfolding before our very eyes will be used by Our Lord, Christ the King, to bring about the coming of the Great French Monarch who will unite men around the standard of the Holy Faith and who will do battle with Antichrist before he is killed, thus preparing the way for the final battle between Our Lord Himself and the great deceiver. However, it is my own personal belief that there will have to be many more chastisements have to take place before we the great French monarch comes forward. The current circumstances, however, do show us very clearly that the anti-Incarnational civil state of Modernity is capable only of producing disorder and of being led by people who are utterly unable to see the events of the world in light of First and Last Things.

Here is a summary of the major principles that explain why naturalism is incapable of providing the framework for social order and must yield to the forces of barbarism over the course of time:

1) There are limits that exist in the nature of things beyond which men have no authority or right to transgress, whether acting individually or collectively in the institutions of civil governance.

2) There are limits that have been revealed positively by God Himself in his Divine Revelation, that bind all men in all circumstances at all times, binding even the institutions of civil governance.

3) A divinely-instituted hierarchy exists in man’s most basic natural unit of association: the family. The father is the head of the family and governs his wife and children in accord with the binding precepts of the Divine positive law and the natural law. Children do not have the authority to disobey the legitimate commands of their parents. Parents do not have the authority to issue illegitimate and/or unjust commands.

4) Our Lord Himself became Incarnate in Our Lady’s virginal and immaculate womb, subjecting Himself to the authority of His creatures, obeying his foster-father, Saint Joseph, as the head of the Holy Family, thus teaching us that all men everywhere must recognize an ultimate authority over them in their social relations, starting with the family.

5) Our Lord instituted the Catholic Church, founding it on the Rock of Peter, the Pope, to be the means by which His Deposit of Faith is safeguarded and transmitted until the end of time. The Church is the mater, mother, and magister, teacher, of all men in all nations at all times, whether or not men and nations recognize this to be the case.

6) The Pope and the bishops of the Church have the solemn obligation to proclaim nothing other than the fullness of the truths of the Faith for the good of the sanctification and salvation of men unto eternity and thus for whatever measure of common good in the temporal real, which the Church desires earnestly to promote, can be achieved in a world full of fallen men.

7) It is not possible for men to live virtuously as citizens of any country unless they first strive for sanctity as citizens of Heaven. That is, it is not possible for there to be order in any nation if men do not have belief in access to and cooperation with sanctifying grace, which equips them to accept the truths contained in the Deposit of Faith and to obey God’s commands with diligence in every aspect of their lives without exception.

8) The rulers of Christendom came to understand, although never perfectly and never without conflicts and inconsistencies, that the limits of the Divine positive law and the natural law obligated them to exercise the powers of civil governance with a view towards promoting man’s temporal good in this life so as to foster in him his return to God in the next life. In other words, rulers such as Saint Louis IX, King of France, knew that they would be judged by Our Lord at the moment of his Particular Judgment on the basis of how well they had fostered those conditions in their countries that made it more possible for their subjects to get to Heaven.

9) The rulers of Christendom accepted the truth that the Church had the right, which she used principally through her Indirect Power over civil rulers by proclaiming the truths of the Holy Faith, to interpose herself in the event that a civil ruler proposed to do something or had indeed done something that violated grievously the administration of justice and thus posed a grave threat to the good of souls.

10) The Social Kingship of Jesus Christ may be defined as the right of the Catholic Church to see to it that the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law are the basis of the actions of civil governance in all that pertains to the good of souls and that those who exercise civil power keep in mind man’s last end, the salvation of his immortal soul as a member of the Catholic Church. Civil leaders must, therefore, recognize the Catholic Church as the true Church founded by God Himself and having the right to reprimand and place interdicts upon those who issue edicts and ordinances contrary to God’s laws.

This is but a brief distillation of the points contained in the brilliant social encyclical letters of Popes Leo XIII, St. Pius X, and Pius XI, in particular, although Popes Gregory XVI and Pius IX also contributed to their reiteration and explication. I have spent much time in the past twenty-five years or so illustrating these points with quotations from these encyclical letters, which contain immutably binding teachings that no Catholic may dissent from legitimately (as Pope Pius XI noted in Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio in 1922).

The Modern State, including the United States of America, is founded on a specific and categorical rejection of each of these points. Consider the following:

1) Martin Luther himself said that a prince may be a Christian but that his religion should not influence how he governs, giving rise to the contemporary notion of “separation of Church and state,” condemned repeatedly by Popes in the Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries.

2) Martin Luther planted the seeds of contemporary deconstructionism, which reduces all written documents to the illogical and frequently mutually contradictory private judgments of individual readers, by rejecting the Catholic Church as the repository and explicator of the Deposit of Faith, making the “private judgment” of individuals with regard to the Bible supreme. If mutually contradictory and inconsistent interpretations of the Bible can stand without correction from a supreme authority instituted by God, then it is an easy thing for all written documents, including a Constitution that makes no reference at all to the God-Man or His Holy Church, to become the plaything of whoever happens to have power over its interpretation

3) The sons of the so-called Enlightenment, influenced by the multifaceted and inter-related consequences of the errors of the Renaissance and the Protestant Revolt, brought forth secular nations that contended the source of governing authority was the people. Ultimately, all references to “God” were in accord with the Freemasonic notion of a “supreme intelligence” without any recognition of the absolute necessity of belief in and acceptance of the Incarnation and of the Deposit of Faith as it has been given to Holy Mother Church for personal happiness and hence al social order.

4) The Founding Fathers of the United States of America did not believe that it was necessary to refer all things in civil life to Christ the King as He had revealed Himself through His true Church, believing that men would be able to pursue “civic virtue” by the use of their own devices and thus maintain social order in the midst of cultural and religious pluralism. This leads, as Pope Leo XIII noted of religious indifferentism, to the triumph of the lowest common denominator, that is, atheism.

5) As the Constitution of the United States of America admits of no authority higher than its own words, it, like the words of Holy Writ are for a Protestant or to a Modernist, is utterly defenseless when the plain meanings of its words are distorted and used to advance ends that its framers would have never thought imaginable, no less approved in fact. The likes of Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro and Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton have no regard for the words of the Constitution or for the just laws passed by Congress, and Donald John Trump is plainly ignorant of some of the fact that there are seven articles in the Constitution and twenty-seven amendments to it since its ratification in 1788. We are governed by men who are contemptuous or law or wholly ignorant of it. Quite a state of affairs.

6) This is but the secular version of Antinomianism: the belief advanced by those who took the logic of Luther’s argument of being “saved by faith alone” to its inexorable conclusion that one could live a wanton life of sin and still be saved. Luther himself did not see where the logic of his rejection of Catholic doctrine would lead and fought against the Antinomians. In like manner, you see, the Constitutionalists and Federalists of today do not see that what is happening today in Federal courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States, is the inexorable result of a Constitution that rejects Christ the King and the Catholic Church. These Constitutionalists and Federalists will fight time and time again like Sisyphus pushing the bolder up a hill. They will always lose because they cannot admit that the thing they admire, the Constitution, is the proximate problem that has resulted in all of the evils they are trying to fight.

A nation founded on false premises, no matter the "good intentions" of those whose intellects were misinformed by several centuries of naturalist lies and Protestant theological heresies and errors, is bound to degenerate more and more over time into a land of materialism and hedonism and relativism and positivism and utilitarianism and naturalism and paganism and atheism and environmentalism and feminism and barbarism. Many evils, including the daily carnage against the preborn, both by surgical and chemical means, continue to be committed in this country. American "popular culture" destroys souls and bodies both here and abroad. Full vent is given each day to a panoply of false ideas that are from Hell and confuse even believing Catholics no end as they try to find some "naturalist" hero or idea by which to win the "culture wars," oblivious to the fact that it is only Catholicism that can do so.

Widespread vote fraud must, you see, become even more widespread and universal. After all, Americans who are not concerned about the daily slaughter of the preborn have shown themselves all too willing to overlook such "minor" things as undeclared wars, unconstitutional executive orders and directives, unjust judicial decisions, a ceasless surrender of legitimate national sovereignty, and illegal actions that put into jeopardy the nation's national security interests. Why should vote fraud matter at all to people willing overlook crimes against God and man from which they, whether or not they realize it, must suffer as the state of the nation worses over time?

It was in his first encyclical letter, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922, that Pope Pius XI described the true nature of modern political parties:

To these evils we must add the contests between political parties, many of which struggles do not originate in a real difference of opinion concerning the public good or in a laudable and disinterested search for what would best promote the common welfare, but in the desire for power and for the protection of some private interest which inevitably result in injury to the citizens as a whole. From this course there often arise robberies of what belongs rightly to the people, and even conspiracies against and attacks on the supreme authority of the state, as well as on its representatives. These political struggles also beget threats of popular action and, at times, eventuate in open rebellion and other disorders which are all the more deplorable and harmful since they come from a public to whom it has been given, in our modern democratic states, to participate in very large measure in public life and in the affairs of the government. Now, these different forms of government are not of themselves contrary to the principles of the Catholic Faith, which can easily be reconciled with any reasonable and just system of government. Such governments, however, are the most exposed to the danger of being overthrown by one faction or another. (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.)

We must remember that Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order, a point made by so many of our true popes in the past two hundred years, including Pope Pius XI in Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio:

Because the Church is by divine institution the sole depository and interpreter of the ideals and teachings of Christ, she alone possesses in any complete and true sense the power effectively to combat that materialistic philosophy which has already done and, still threatens, such tremendous harm to the home and to the state. The Church alone can introduce into society and maintain therein the prestige of a true, sound spiritualism, the spiritualism of Christianity which both from the point of view of truth and of its practical value is quite superior to any exclusively philosophical theory. The Church is the teacher and an example of world good-will, for she is able to inculcate and develop in mankind the "true spirit of brotherly love" (St. Augustine, De Moribus Ecclesiae Catholicae, i, 30) and by raising the public estimation of the value and dignity of the individual's soul help thereby to lift us even unto God.

Finally, the Church is able to set both public and private life on the road to righteousness by demanding that everything and all men become obedient to God "Who beholdeth the heart," to His commands, to His laws, to His sanctions. If the teachings of the Church could only penetrate in some such manner as We have described the inner recesses of the consciences of mankind, be they rulers or be they subjects, all eventually would be so apprised of their personal and civic duties and their mutual responsibilities that in a short time "Christ would be all, and in all." (Colossians iii, 11)

Since the Church is the safe and sure guide to conscience, for to her safe-keeping alone there has been confided the doctrines and the promise of the assistance of Christ, she is able not only to bring about at the present hour a peace that is truly the peace of Christ, but can, better than any other agency which We know of, contribute greatly to the securing of the same peace for the future, to the making impossible of war in the future. For the Church teaches (she alone has been given by God the mandate and the right to teach with authority) that not only our acts as individuals but also as groups and as nations must conform to the eternal law of God. In fact, it is much more important that the acts of a nation follow God's law, since on the nation rests a much greater responsibility for the consequences of its acts than on the individual.

When, therefore, governments and nations follow in all their activities, whether they be national or international, the dictates of conscience grounded in the teachings, precepts, and example of Jesus Christ, and which are binding on each and every individual, then only can we have faith in one another's word and trust in the peaceful solution of the difficulties and controversies which may grow out of differences in point of view or from clash of interests. An attempt in this direction has already and is now being made; its results, however, are almost negligible and, especially so, as far as they can be said to affect those major questions which divide seriously and serve to arouse nations one against the other. No merely human institution of today can be as successful in devising a set of international laws which will be in harmony with world conditions as the Middle Ages were in the possession of that true League of Nations, Christianity. It cannot be denied that in the Middle Ages this law was often violated; still it always existed as an ideal, according to which one might judge the acts of nations, and a beacon light calling those who had lost their way back to the safe road.

There exists an institution able to safeguard the sanctity of the law of nations. This institution is a part of every nation; at the same time it is above all nations. She enjoys, too, the highest authority, the fullness of the teaching power of the Apostles. Such an institution is the Church of Christ. She alone is adapted to do this great work, for she is not only divinely commissioned to lead mankind, but moreover, because of her very make-up and the constitution which she possesses, by reason of her age-old traditions and her great prestige, which has not been lessened but has been greatly increased since the close of the War, cannot but succeed in such a venture where others assuredly will fail. (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.)

Pope XI noted the futility of seeking solutions for the evils of the world in the realm of secular politics:

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.)

This is what has been happening before our very eyes as various sets of naturalists sought to “replace” a statist takeover of the healthcare industry with something that was based on acceptance of the false premises upon which the takeover had been premised in the first place. Goodies once instituted become impossible to rescind. Dependency constituencies get created each time such goodies are bestowed, and professional politicians want to do nothing to jeopardize such goodies upon which large numbers of their constituents depend.

This site exists to promote Catholic truth in order to help its few remaining readers to rise above the agitation.

We must remember these words, inspired directly by the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, contained in Saint Paul's 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.)

Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary is a weapon, and her Brown Scapular of Mount Carmel is our shield in this time when the forces of Antichrist in the worlds of Modernity and Modernism have rigged things against the Holy Faith and those who adhere to it despite their own sins.

The worst thing that can happen to us is the loss of our immortal souls for all eternity, not the transitory schemes of those whose ascent to power has been rigged by the devil himself to tempt us into the throes of despair.

May the Rosaries we pray help us to plant the seeds for the conversion of men and their nations to the true Faith, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order.

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat 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.

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

You are here

Sober Up, 2026 Edition

Support Christ or Chaos