Divided By Error. Period.
Thomas A. Droleskey
"I can't believe what I am hearing from this administration. It's what I heard in Poland. It's word-for-word. It's why we left there to come here."
"I can't believe what I am hearing from this administration. It's the same speeches, the same slogans, the same methods used in The Ukraine. It's why we left there."
These comments were made about eight years apart in different locations of the United States of America by two people who had lived behind the Iron Curtain during the height of the Cold War.
The first was made around 2005 by a woman who owned a campground with her husband somewhere along our many travels, which I do not miss in the slightest.
The second was made by a native of The Ukraine to a friend of ours last week.
The first person was speaking about the administration of President George Walker Bush and Vice President Richard Bruce Cheney.
The second person was speaking about the administration of President Barack Hussein Obama and Vice President Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.
Two different administrations.
Two different political parties.
Yet it is that two people who had lived under the iron thumb of Communist rule recognized signs of statist propaganda and methods as being identical to what they had experienced in their native lands.
Why is it so difficult for us to do so?
Well, the answer is simple. The civil state of Modernity is founded in the belief that it is possible for men of different religious and philosophical beliefs, including agnosticism and atheism, can live together as "brothers" in the pursuit of the common temporal good as they "unite" on what is "essential" and just "agree to disagree" on all the rest.
The Incarnation of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the Virginal and Immaculate Womb of His Most Blessed Mother by the power of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost?
Our Lord's Redemptive Act on the wood of the Holy Cross?
The Deposit of Faith that Our Lord deposited exclusively in His Catholic Church for Its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication?
None of that means anything to naturalists of the false opposites of the "left" and the "right."
Pope Pius XI described the battle between political parties as follows in his first encyclical letter, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922:
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
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.)
The proper working of any form of government depends ultimately upon its founding principles and whether those who govern do so in light of First and Last Things. When citizens, however, are divided over First and Last Things and have been convinced by Protestantism and its natural offshoot, the Judeo-Masonic spirit of naturalism, to believe that social order can be premised on anything other than the right ordering of souls in cooperation with Sanctifying Grace, a gradual, unstoppable slide into the abyss takes hold. Men become convinced that they can make "things" better in the nation and the world on their own powers without subordinating their lives to the infallible teaching authority and supernatural helps provided by Holy Mother Church.
I will save a detailed discussion of all of this, which has been covered so many times in hundreds upon hundreds of articles on this site and in lectures around the nation, until after the farce of naturalism has run its course on Tuesday, November 6, 2012 (assuming that it does end on that date), as the passions of the moment are inflamed to such a point that many Catholics, relying upon the writing of the Americanist bishops of the Nineteenth Century who extolled many of the same propositions that resulted in conciliarism, are incapable of examining the realities facing us in light of what a presbyter in a Motu community said so brilliantly in 2001 was the "manifestation of the perfection of the inherent degeneracy of the founding principles." What I do want to point out at the beginning of this article, however, is that just as the restoration of the Church Militant on earth will not be effected by a combination or coexistence of truth and error, so is it the case that even the simple restraint of the advances made by statism in the past century will not be effected by a combination or coexistence of truth and error.
As I keep trying to point out (such articles Y2K's Lesser Evil Has Brought Us Great Evils, Go Tell Iraq's Catholics--and American Babies--About The "Lesser of Two Evils" and, among zads of others, Want to Reconsider the Lesser of Two Evils Business, Folks? don't sit well with most readers), the devil has taken full advantage of the trap of false "opposites" that he has laid for us in order to keep us agitated into believing that some kind of "action" is going to "save" the day.
I am not alone, though, in this regard. Mr. Hugh Akins, the author of many fine books devotes Chapter Sixteen of his newest book, Synagogue Rising, to an examination of what the "lesser of two evils" mantra that has simply resulted in acclimating people to an acceptance of increasingly higher and higher doses of the so-called "lesser evil" in order to "defeat" the supposedly "greater" evil. Readers of my own work will find that Mr. Akins's analysis of George Walker Bush, John Sidney McCain III, Willard Mitt Romney, et al., to be identical to what they read on this site (the capitalization in the passages below are those found in Mr. Akins text; I have inserted information about the bishop cited below for the sake of the readers of this site, setting that off in brackets; the other bracket at the beginning of the material from that bishop is that found in the text of the book):
Discussion of the "lesser evil" brings to the fore the question of the tolerance of evil. Pope Leo writes: "But to judge aright, we must acknowledge that, the more a state is driven to tolerate evil, the further is it from perfection; and that the tolerance of evil which is dictated by political prudence should be strictly confined to the limits which its justifying cause, the public welfare, requires. Wherefore, if such tolerance would be injurious to be the public welfare, and entail greater evils on the state, it would not be lawful; for such case the motive of is wanting." (Pope Leo XIII, Libertas Praestantissimum, June 20, 1888.)
Bp. [Geraldo de Proenca] Sigaud [the Bishop of Jacarezinho, Parana, Brazil, from January 1, 1947, to December 20, 1960, and the Archbishop of Diamantina, Minas Gerais, Brazil, from December 20, 1960, to September 10, 1960] gives fair warning about how the Revolution infiltrates and permeates the Church and Christian society through the "lesser evil" tactic. "Among the many ways the Revolution permeates surreptitiously into the stronghold of the Church, the first door is called the 'lesser evil.' This tactic may be compared with the famous Trojan Horse. Catholic doctrine teaches that if we cannot avoid some evil we may choose to permit some lesser evil in order to avoid the greater evil on condition we do not directly commit evil ourselves.
"(1) The liberals think a lesser evil is a small evil that is not worth fighting against;
"(2) Very many Catholics and even priests are of the opinion that conflict harms the Church as if She were not by Her very nature militant. This is why they allow evil to occupy without combating it under the pretext of prudence, charity, and apostolic diplomacy.
"(3) THEY DO NOT REALIZE THAT EVIL--EVEN A LESSER EVIL-IS ALWAYS AN EVIL, and that is why they do not seek to limit or suppress it. They live daily with the"lesser evil" and thus they forget the greater good as something horrible. For example, the separation of Church and State and that divorce be allowed among Catholics." (Bishop Geraldo de Proenca Sigaud, as cited by Hugh Akins in Synagogue Rising.)
Another example, of course, and no bout the more grievous one, is in lending invaluable support and assistance by means of backing the "lesser evil," to the Synagogue of Satan in its total war against the Mystical Body of Christ. Some Catholics who've made a habit of voting the "lesser evil" will continue to do so until they vote into office, on the world scene, the Antichrist himself, who being wholly sanitized by the corrupt Zionist-controlled media, will be portrayed before the unsuspecting peoples of earth as the most moderate and hopeful, least radical and most compassionate, and least corrupt candidate, compared to the raving lunatics competing with him. Antichrist could just as easily be a Republican conservative, a Christian Zionist, a Masonic "anti-Communist," even a Conciliarist "Catholic" wholeheartedly endorsed by the pope in Rome. He might even present himself a "traditionalist," cheered on by the many "lesser evil" traditionalists who see-no-evil in the likes of Benedict, Bush, McCain, Santorum, Gingrich, the Talmud, Israel, Zionism or Holaucastism.
It is by this shameless compromising that evil is ever moving forward, every advancing, ever conquering. "All tepidity and every thoughtless compromise," says Pius XII, "all pusillanimity and every vacillation between good and evil...all that, and all that can be added to it. has been and is a deplorable contribution to the evil which today is shaking world." (Pope Pius XII, radio message Ancora ua quinta volta, to the world, December 24, 1943, quote in Directives to Lay Apostles.) (Hugh Akins, Synagogue Rising, Catholic Action Resource Center, 2012, pp. 694.695. Mr. Akins recommends a write-in vote for Ron Paul. Readers of this site are familiar with my critiques of him. I suggest, however, that those who are participating in the gala on November 6, 2012, to cast a write-in vote for one of the greatest champions of Christ the King alive today, Mr. Hugh Akins.)
No, it's not just crazy Droleskey, who, after all, knows nothing after having received three degrees in political science, teaching at the college level for thirty years, giving peer reviewed papers at professional conferences, running for public office and having served as a surrogate speaker in two different presidential campaigns. No, no, no. Don't listen that nut, Droleskey, whose articles on these very topics once had a wide circulation in established print journals before--eegads--he came to recognize that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and his four immediate predecessors as spiritual robber barons who are enemies of Christ the King and of the souls He redeemed by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood.
There are, though, others apart from the crazy sedevacantist Droleskey who understand the hard realities of a political system founded on false principles and how efforts to "hold back the tide" politically by enabling the so-called "lesser of two evil" result always and invariably in the further institutionalization of evil--and silence about it--from well-meaning citizens, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, who live their lives in terrified fright of some supposed "greater evil." I simply do not know many many more times the points made in Devils Without Tails can be repeated.
Nonstop Dog and Pony Shows
Police State to the Naturalist Left, Police State to the Naturalist Right: Much commentary has been written about the brown-shirted thugs with badges who spirited away the alleged producer of the video that mocks the blasphemer Mohammed, an Egyptian-American Coptic man by the name of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, from his home in California on Saturday, September 15, 2012, for "questioning" him to determine if he had violated the terms of his parole of pleading no contest to charged of Federal bank fraud in 2010, terms that prohibited him from accessing the internet or using a computer without the approval of his parole officer. It was for on these flimsy grounds that brown-shirted thugs spirited away in the dark for "questioning."
One wonders if the producers of blasphemous motion pictures about Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ or if alleged artists who paint unspeakably scandalous garbage to displayed in public will be rounded up anytime soon. No, not in this land of political correctness and great "sensitivity" to the tender feelings of anyone and everyone who denies the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ (Talmudists, Mohammedans, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, animists, etc.). Our newspapers are "free" to publish every blasphemous contention about Our Lord based on forged documents presented as scholarly "findings" in order to attempt the shake the faith of Catholics (see Historian Says Piece of Papyrus Refers to Jesus' Wife).
Oh, just as an aside, of course, this is not "news" to Willard Mitt Romney as this utter blasphemy is exactly what is taught by his false religion, Mormonism, which is gaining more and more visibility and acceptance as a result of his candidacy.
Just as yet another aside, Catholics do not take to the streets in violent protests or fire rockets into buildings to kill people when Our Lord or His Most Blessed Mother are blasphemed. They may take to the streets, but only to pray Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary in reparation for the crimes of blasphemy and for the conversion of the blasphemers and their enablers and apologists. Believing Catholics do not demand that storm troopers be sent to round up blasphemers. They accept the chastisement of the moment and do what they can to help their co-religionists who are utterly indifferent to such blasphemies to be rightly outraged about blasphemies and to join them in prayer and acts of reparation, especially before Our Lord's Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament. And, of course, Catholics get as outraged by the blasphemies, sacrileges and apostasies of the conciliar revolutionaries, including Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, as they do about those propagated by worldlings.
Insults against the mass murderer and blasphemer known as Mohammed? Well, anyone who even thinks about doing this must be questioned by Federal authorities and spirited away in the middle of the night. Never mind the fact that the confidence man Nakoula's Innocence of Muslims is not responsible for the current wave of violence in the Middle East or that the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on Tuesday, September 11, 2012, was premeditated having been planned for weeks in advance, something that administration of President Barack Hussein Obama has denied and and denied and denied and then admitted, kind of, sort of, perhaps, maybe, was "self-evidently" premeditated before Obama himself went back to the "spontaneous demonstration" claim while being very silent about offenses about Christ the King (see Carney says 'self evident' Benghazi attack was terrorism, Lawmakers to Obama:
Get Your Story Straight and White House silent over demands to denounce controversial Christ exhibit).
Many who fashion themselves as adherents of the false opposite of the naturalist "right" have been very critical of the storm-trooper tactics used to round up Nakoula Basseley Nakoula in order to placate the Mohammedan mobs out of central casting from Laurel and Hardy's Beau Hunks who can be told to be outraged at a moment's notice by their leaders (see Staged Events) in the Middle East who, if you haven't noticed, refuse to be placated by Obama the Appeaser's words or by staged events as the interrogation of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula. All well and good to express criticism of Nakoula's being taken away in the middle of the night. There is, however, one tiny problem with this criticism: Willard Mitt Romney, the supposed "lesser evil" du jour, has not said a blessed word about this interrogation, has he? He has been as silent about Nakoula's "questioning" as he has been about the Inspector General's report on the Fast and Furious scandal.
The arrest and questioning of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, though, is nothing unique in the history of the United States of America. It is sewn into the very fabric of fascism that has been a part of this land of "freedom" ever since before the War for Independence.
America's "freedom fascists"
do not take any sort of criticism about the mythologies of the United
States of America very well at all. It is as though they believe that
the United States of America is the "last, best hope of mankind," not
the true Church that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ founded
upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope. Anyone dissenting in the slightest
from the mythologies of American nationalism must must be denounced in
the most bitter, strident terms. Obviously, there is long tradition of
such denunciation, which manifests itself every once in a while in the
use of physical violence against party-poopers who will not assent to
the demigods of Americanism. It was not uncommon, for example, for
colonists who were neutral in the American Revolutionary War to
be beaten up and harassed by "patriots" who were incensed by their
neutrality, to say nothing of the plight of Tories who actually
supported the British, of all things.
You mean to say that a case
could be made in defense of King George III? Well, let's re-cast the
issue a bit, please. A case could be made that the abuses attributed to
King George III were insufficient to launch a revolt on the part of
English-speaking colonists in the colonies up and down the Atlantic
seaboard. This is a matter open to debate and interpretation. Looking at
the matter in retrospect, however, one sees that American citizens at
present are living under far more oppressive conditions and with an
amount of taxation and government regulation of even the legitimate use
of one's own private property now than King George III could have ever
imagined was possible for any government to impose upon its subjects (or
citizens). And there were some colonists at the time in the 1760s and
early 1770s who made cogent arguments against a break with England for a
variety of quite legitimate reasons. The mania of the mythology of
American nationalism has, however, cast most of these arguments into the
Orwellian memory hole as being unworthy of even being acknowledged as
having existed, no less reading them carefully so as to come to a
realization that the Declaration of Independence does not tell the full
story concerning how colonists viewed the matter of revolution.
One of those who was the most
vocal in arguing against a break from the United Kingdom was an
Episcopalian preacher by the name of Jonathan Boucher, who lived between
1738 and 1804. He spent much of his time in the the Colony of Maryland,
packing two pistols to protect himself from angry crowds who were livid
with him for using his pulpit to denounce any break from the English
Crown no matter what injustices had been visited upon the colonists.
Boucher had to flee back to his native England in 1775 because of the
fascistic hostility to his very well-reasoned sermons. Mind you,
Boucher's arguments in opposition to revolts against duly constituted
authority are incomplete as he did not realize that those same arguments
could be applied to Martin Luther and John Calvin and Henry VIII, the
founder of his own heretical and schismatic sect, and Thomas Cranmer and
others. However, a review of one of Boucher's sermons, On Civil Liberty, Passive Obedience, and Nonresistance, will demonstrate that he raised serious issues, some of them reflecting a
thoroughly Catholic understanding of the nature of authority and the inequality of persons, that were met with scorn by the irrational multitudes
The sort of irrational scorn faced by Jonathan Boucher before the American Revolution was heaped upon the twenty
percent or so of the colonists in the thirteen English colonies who
remained loyal to United Kingdom of Great Britain. The Loyalists were harassed and
hounded by self-styled "patriots" during the war, forcing some to flee to Canada. No, the United States of America has never been a land of "tolerance."
It was within a decade of the inauguration of the
first President of the United States of America, George Washington, that
a Congress controlled by Federalist Party members during the
administration of Washington's successor, the Catholic-hating John Adams
(see A Founding Hatred for Christ the King),
who was, of course, the first Vice President of the United States of
America, that Alien and Sedition Acts were passed on July 14, 1798, made
it a crime to publish "false, scandalous, and malicious" writing against the government of the United States of America and its officials.
The sixteenth President of the United States of
America, Abraham Lincoln, did not exactly "cotton" to political
opposition during the War Between the States from 1861 to 1865, as he
intimidated judges, shut down newspapers, suspended the writ of habeas
corpus without an Act of Congress, held opponents in prison without trial and put civilians on trial in military courts at a time
when civilian courts were open. And this is just a partial listing of
what led John Wilkes Booth to cry out, "Sic temper tyrannous!" as he
jumped onto the stage of the Ford Theater in Washington, District of
Columbia, on Good Friday, April 14, 1865, from the balcony where he had
just shot Lincoln in the head, a wound that would take Lincoln's life
early the next morning, Holy Saturday, April 15, 1865.
Suppression of opposition to American involvement in
World War I under the administration of President Thomas Woodrow Wilson
was so extensive that Senator Hiram Johnson of California, who had run
as former President Theodore Roosevelt's Vice Presidential running-mate
on the Progressive (Bull Moose) Party ticket in 1912 when Wilson was running for his first
term as President against Roosevelt and then President William Howard
Taft, who had defeated Roosevelt, to say on the floor of the United
States Senate: "It is now a crime for anyone to say anything or print
anything against the government of the United States. The punishment for
doing so is to go to jail" (quoted in Dr Paul Johnson's Modern Times). The same was true under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt during World War II and has been carried on, to a greater or lesser extent, by every president after this thirty-third degree Masonic stooge of Josef Stalin died on April 12, 1945 in Warm Springs, Georgia.
The very man whose "global war against terror" and whose "compassionate conservatism," George Walker Bush, the supposedly "lesser evil" in 2000, used the tragic events of Tuesday, September 11, 2001, to make every single one of us potential "terrorists" in the all-seeing-eyes of Big Brother State by means of the so-called Patriot Act (short for the act's official Orwellian title, Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001), which he signed into law on October 26, 2001.
Paralyzed by political correctness and the fear of offending those who are used, perhaps without their knowing it, by agents provocateurs from a certain country adjacent to Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon), to attack American interests form Mohammedan countries thus requires us to be body-searched at airports and to undergo grilling when opening bank accounts or engaging in various business activities even though we have never committed a crime. The events of September 11, 2001, gave our minders in Big Brother State the excuse that they desire to pass a monstrous act that created the truly Orwellian United States Department of Homeland Security, which has been headed by three successive pro-abortion secretaries (Thomas Ridge, a Catholic, Michael Chertoff, a Talmudist, and Janet Napolitano, a feminist). We are supposed to believe that a three hundred forty-two page bill with a mountain of regulations and "directives" that gave bureaucrats a license to monitor much of our daily activities just "appeared" out of nowhere thirty-eight days after the events of September 11, 2001? This so-called "Patriot Act" was planned for some time by the neoconservative war hawks of Bush the Lesser's administration, and it was cheered with great enthusiasm by the well-paid "conservative" blatherers on radio and television.
Most "conservatives" nodded up and down like living bobblehead dolls when the "Patriot Act" was signed into law. It is a little disingenuous for them to get so outraged about the arrest of an obscure filmmaker whose claim to fame is having produced a video that was seen by none of those who took to the streets in Egypt and Libya eleven days ago when the current wave of anti-American protests started. For the sake of emphasis, my friends, Willard Mitt Romney has said not one word about the manner in which Nakoula Basseley Nakoula was dragged away from his house by the local brown-shirted authorities at the behest of Barack Hussein Obama and Janet Napolitano.
What's the big deal? There's police state to the naturalist "right" and there's police state to our naturalist "left." And the really sad part of this is that most citizens don't mind this at all. Why should they? Most citizens do not care that nearly four thousand babies each day are killed by surgical means under the cover of the civil law. Why should they care about the arrest of an American citizen who produced a film that has been used for the pretext of the "spontaneous protests" in the Mohammedan world right now. They not.
Remember, how many "conservatives" complained when the "No Fly List" caused inconveniences for some vocal opponents of the unjust, immoral, unconstitutional invasion and occupation of Iraq by the armed forces of the United States of America:
One of the most prominent names on the Transportation Security
Administration's 44,000-person no-fly list is that of constitutional law
scholar and emeritus politics professor Walter Murphy. Whether the ban
is a case of mistaken identity or a reaction to Murphy's recent public
criticism of the Bush administration, as Murphy alleges, is unclear.
tried to check in at the curb after arriving at the airport in
Albuquerque, N.M., where he lives in retirement. An airline employee
told him he couldn't be issued a boarding pass because he was on the
TSA's no-fly list and put forth some conjectures on why.
the two people I talked to said, 'Yes, you're on the list. Did you
participate in any speech or marches?' " Murphy said in an interview.
"And then before I could respond, he said, 'We ban a lot of people from
flying for that.' "
Murphy told the employee that he had recently
given a speech criticizing the Bush administration. "That'll do it," the
Murphy then offered proof that he is a former
U.S. Marine colonel, showing his retirement card to TSA officials. Ten
minutes later, he was on his way.
Murphy's initial reaction was one of rage.
didn't [go public with the information] for three-plus weeks because
the steam was coming out of my ears, and I did not want to simply shout
invectives," he said. "I waited until I could laugh at parts of it;
there is, after all, a comic value to a group of draft dodgers telling a
war veteran that he can't get on an airplane."
could not "confirm or deny whether an individual is on the consolidated
terror watchlist," FBI spokeswoman Cathy Milhoan said in an email,
citing the sensitivity of the intelligence on which the list is based.
declined to address whether public dissent against the administration
could land someone on the list or whether the TSA frequently sees cases
of mistaken identity.
The incident could be a case of mistaken identity, but Murphy attributes it to a September 2006 speech on campus in which he blasted the Bush administration for "systematically undermining the Constitution." The lecture was televised and posted online.
Murphy added that it could be a coincidence — "if you believe in the Easter bunny, yeah" — but said he doesn't think that it is.
coincidences are multiplying," he said. He cited the "outing" of CIA
agent Valerie Plame immediately after her husband's public questioning
of the rationale behind the war in Iraq and two of his personal
acquaintances, who are critics of the Bush administration and are also
on the no-fly list.
"It begins to strain credulity," he said.
no-fly list was radically expanded and put under the aegis of the TSA,
part of the Department of Homeland Security, as one of the new airline
security measures instituted after Sept. 11, 2001. There have been
several high-profile cases of mistaken identity in the past, including
those involving a Marine returning from Iraq and at least two elected
Computer science professor Ed Felten, who was part of a
government advisory group on airline security, said that the no-fly
database has to be matched with the relatively scarce information on
passengers collected by airlines.
"Given a name like Walter Murphy, which is not a highly unusual name, it was most likely a mistake," Felten said.
added that airlines are not told why a passenger is placed on the
no-fly or watch lists and said he interpreted the airline employee's
remarks as "a sort of guess ... rather than an authoritative statement
on why he got on the list."
Murphy doesn't think that his name —
which, he points out, is half-German, half-Irish — is common enough to
suggest a case of mistaken identity.
"I've only known of one other Walter Murphy, and that was a rock guy back in the '70s," he said.
Murphy said, there's little doubt in his mind that the airline ban is
an annoyance deliberately devised for him by the government, albeit one
that he has found amusing. "I was always sorry I didn't make Nixon's
hit-list, but making Bush's hit-list is almost as good," he joked.
On his flight back from Newark to Albuquerque, Murphy said that he had no problems checking in, but his luggage was lost. (Constitutional law scholar on no-fly list.)
Professor Walter Murphy was far from the only person to have felt the
sting of Bush the Lesser's White House during the forty-third
president's prosecution of the "global war on terror." Evidence is now
emerging that, contrary to Federal law, the Bushies sought to use the
Central Intelligence Agency to "get dirt" on a critic of the Iraq War:
WASHINGTON — A former senior C.I.A. official says that officials in the Bush White House sought damaging
personal information on a prominent American critic of the Iraq war in
order to discredit him.
Glenn L. Carle, a former Central Intelligence Agency officer who was a
top counterterrorism official during the administration of President George W. Bush,
said the White House at least twice asked intelligence officials to
gather sensitive information on Juan Cole, a University of Michigan
professor who writes an influential blog that criticized the war.
In an interview, Mr. Carle said his supervisor at the National
Intelligence Council told him in 2005 that White House officials wanted
“to get” Professor Cole, and made clear that he wanted Mr. Carle to
collect information about him, an effort Mr. Carle rebuffed. Months
later, Mr. Carle said, he confronted a C.I.A. official after learning of
another attempt to collect information about Professor Cole. Mr. Carle
said he contended at the time that such actions would have been
It is not clear whether the White House received any damaging material
about Professor Cole or whether the C.I.A. or other intelligence
agencies ever provided any information or spied on him. Mr. Carle said
that a memorandum written by his supervisor included derogatory details
about Professor Cole, but that it may have been deleted before reaching
the White House. Mr. Carle also said he did not know the origins of that
information or who at the White House had requested it.
Intelligence officials disputed Mr. Carle’s account, saying that White
House officials did ask about Professor Cole in 2006, but only to find
out why he had been invited to C.I.A.-sponsored conferences on the
Middle East. The officials said that the White House did not ask for
sensitive personal information, and that the agency did not provide it.
“We’ve thoroughly researched our records, and any allegation that the
C.I.A. provided private or derogatory information on Professor Cole to
anyone is simply wrong,” said George Little, an agency spokesman.
Since a series of Watergate-era abuses involving spying on White House
political enemies, the C.I.A. and other spy agencies have been
prohibited from collecting intelligence concerning the activities of
American citizens inside the United States.
“These allegations, if true, raise very troubling questions,” said
Jeffrey H. Smith, a former C.I.A. general counsel. “The statute makes it
very clear: you can’t spy on Americans.” Mr. Smith added that a 1981
executive order that prohibits the C.I.A. from spying on Americans
places tight legal restrictions not only on the agency’s ability to
collect information on United States citizens, but also on its retention
or dissemination of that data.
Mr. Smith and several other experts on national security law said the
question of whether government officials had crossed the line in the
Cole matter would depend on the exact nature of any White House requests
and whether any collection activities conducted by intelligence
officials had been overly intrusive.
The experts said it might not be unlawful for the C.I.A. to provide the
White House with open source material — from public databases or
published material, for example — about an American citizen. But if the
intent was to discredit a political critic, that would be improper, they
Mr. Carle, who retired in 2007, has not previously disclosed his
allegations. He did so only after he was approached by The New York
Times, which learned of the episode elsewhere. While Mr. Carle, 54, has
written a book to be published next month about his role in the interrogation of a terrorism suspect, it does not include his allegations about the
White House’s requests concerning the Michigan professor.
“I couldn’t believe this was happening,” Mr. Carle said. “People were
accepting it, like you had to be part of the team.”
Professor Cole said he would have been a disappointing target for the
White House. “They must have been dismayed at what a boring life I
lead,” he said. (Ex-Spy Alleges Bush White House Sought to Discredit Critic.)
It will be different under "President" Willard Mitt Romney? Sure. Anything you say. We're not in a devil's trap of naturalism. right? If that's what makes you "feel goo," well, then be of good cheer.
Of Forty-Seven Percent and the Man Who Wants to Change Washington from the "outside" while in the White House: Republican presidential candidate Willard Mitt Romney has had a rough stretch of things in the past several weeks, including all kinds of campaign in-fighting and finger-pointing of the sort that took place at this point in the month of September during the disastrous presidential campaigns of Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., in 1996 and John Sidney McCain III in 2008. Men who do not believe in anything will always have difficulty on the natural level speaking as clear, articulate and coherent human beings.
This is why Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., was no match for President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton in 1996. It is why John Sidney McCain III was no match for Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetero in 2008. It is why Willard Mitt Romney, speaking purely on the natural level, has had such difficulty in his campaign against Obama/Soetero this year. Those who believe in nothing take a lot of "prepping" for them to be able to stand up to the likes of Obama/Soetero, who believes that he has a mission to "change Washington" from the"outside," meaning that that he has to use his thuggish methods of "community organizing" to get the country to rally behind him.
Although the three presidential debates and one vice presidential debate this year will be more determinative than they were four years ago, that the election remains reasonably close, although favoring Obama/Soetero, in a weak economy is a product of not only changing demographics and the long-term effects of ideological programming in America's Concentration Camps, but of the inherent weaknesses of a man who has changed his positions on issues so many times for the sake of political opportunism, Romney. This is "hard," Mrs. Romney, because your husband has nothing of any real substance to say that is not programmed for him in advance (see Ann Romney To GOP Critics: "Stop It. This Is Hard).
Time will tell whether the ubiquitous polls, particularly those taken in the "swing states" where the election be decided, are correct or whether the "needle" changes much after the dog and pony shows called debates. One thing remains very clear. Neither Obama or Romney have any understanding of why problems exist in the world and how they can be ameliorated.
To wit, Willard Mitt Romney hasn't a clue in the world to why that forty-seven percent of the people he said, probably very correctly, four months ago at a private fund raiser will vote for Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetero (see Romney Secret Fund Raising Video), noting further that these hard-core Obama/Soetero voters:
There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the
president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with
him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are
victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for
them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to
housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government
should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter
what…These are people who pay no income tax. . . [M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll
never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care
for their lives." (Romney Secret Fund Raising Video.)
Sure, the point is mostly valid, at least as far as it goes. Romney was describing in what called later an "inelegant manner" the actual state of the electoral divide at this time.
What he does not understand, however, is that the reason so many people are dependent upon government programs is because of the systematic breakdown of the family by means of contraception (which, remember, Romney believes "working well"), divorce and abortion that have been advanced and implemented by the organized forces of Judeo-Masonic naturalism. Destroy the family, control banking and the monetary supply, permit the spread of evil in the name of "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press," take children away from their parents to brainwash them in state-controlled schools, programs citizens to believe in slogans and rob them of the ability to think logically on the natural level and diverts them with bread and circuses, you see, and you make them utterly dependent upon government programs to "help" them while their masters in Big Brother State get their votes and their loyalty in return.
The divide in the nation that exists has been explained on this site in hundreds of articles, including most recently in Appealing To Everything But Christ The King. Suffice it for the moment to help newer readers and to remind longtime readers, few in number though they may be, to provide a brief review of the simple fact that we face at this time is the logical end-result of the Protestant Revolution against the Social Reign of Christ the King and the subsequent rise and triumph, albeit temporary, of the forces of Judeo-Masonic naturalism. The entire socio-politico-economic-cultural divide at the present time is thus explicable, including how the two strands of naturalism to emerge from the Protestant Revolution, the Calvinist materialism and individualism that is so near and dear to the heart of the money-making Mormon, Mitt Romney, and the Communism that has shaped the collectivism of Obama/Soetero:
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
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
The science of economics is the science of
men's relations with one another in the domain of acquiring and
disposing of wealth, and is, therefore, like political science in
another sphere, a branch of the science of ethics. In the Middle Ages,
man's ethical conduct, like his religious conduct, was under the
supervision and guidance of a single authority, which claimed at the
same time the right to define and to enforce its teaching. The
machinery for enforcing the observance of medieval ethical teaching was
of a singularly effective kind; pressure was brought to bear upon the
conscience of the individual through the medium of compulsory periodical
consultations with a trained moral adviser, who was empowered to
enforce obedience to his advice by the most potent spiritual sanctions.
In this way, the whole conduct of man in relation to his neighbours was
placed under the immediate guidance of the universally received ethical
preceptor, and a common standard of action was ensured throughout the
Christian world in the all the affairs of life. All economic
transactions in particular were subject to the jealous scrutiny of the
individual's spiritual director; and such matters as sales, loans, and
so on, were considered reprehensible and punishable if not conducted in
accordance with the Christian standards of commutative justice.
The whole of this elaborate system for the
preservation of justice in the affairs of everyday life was shattered by
the Reformation. The right of private judgment, which had first been
asserted in matters of faith, rapidly spread into moral matters, and the
attack on the dogmatic infallibility of the Church left Europe without
an authority to which it could appeal on moral questions. The
new Protestant churches were utterly unable to supply this want. The
principle of private judgment on which they rested deprived them of any
right to be listened to whenever they attempted to dictate moral
precepts to their members, and henceforth the moral behaviour of the
individual became a matter to be regulated by the promptings of his own
conscience, or by such philosophical systems of ethics as he happened to
approve. The secular state endeavoured to ensure that dishonesty
amounting to actual theft or fraud should be kept in check, but this was
a poor and ineffective substitute for the powerful weapon of the
confessional. Authority having once broken down, it was but a single
step from Protestantism to rationalism; and the way was opened to the
development of all sorts of erroneous systems of morality. (Dr. George
O'Brien, An Essay on the Economic Efforts of the Reformation, IHS Press, Norfolk, Virginia, 2003.)
Dr. O'Brien went on to state
that true pope after true pope has stated concerning the necessity of
men and their nations subordinating themselves to the Catholic Church as
they pursue the common temporal good in light of man's Last End:
There is one institution and one
institution alone which is capable of supplying and enforcing the social
ethic that is needed to revivify the world. It is an institution at
once intra-national and international; an institution that can claim to
pronounce infallibly on moral matters, and to enforce the observance of
the its moral decrees by direct sanctions on the individual conscience
of man; an institution which, while respecting and supporting the civil
governments of nations, can claim to exist independently of them, and
can insist that they shall not intrude upon the moral life or fetter the
moral liberty of their citizens. Europe possessed such an institution
in the Middle Ages; its dethronement was the unique achievement of the
Reformation; and the injury inflicted by that dethronement has never
since been repaired. (George O'Brien, An Essay on the Economic Effects of the Reformation, first published in 1923, republished by IHS press in 2003, p. 132.)
Dr. George O'Brien, writing in complete agreement with the teaching of our true popes, thus explained ninety years in advance of our time the differences that exist within the United States of America, differences that Willard Mitt Romney and Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetero mirror in their respective ways.
It really is Christ or chaos. Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order.
We are divided error, lots of it, period.
Enjoy the dog and pony shows, includes headlines of possible White House knowledge of the immoral activities of members of the United States Secret Service in the country of Colombia (come on, folks, over two-thirds of the people in this country admire, yes, admire William Jefferson Blythe Clinton--see What Kind of Country Do I Want to Live In?; do you really think that they are going to be upset with what happened in Colombia?). No matter who gets elected on Tuesday, November 6, 2010, emigres from different countries behind the "former" Iron Curtain, which has moved a little to the west, I believe that it is far to state, will be saying variations of the following:
"I can't believe what I am hearing from this administration. It's what I heard in Poland. It's word-for-word. It's why we left there to come here."
"I can't believe what I am hearing from this administration. It's the same speeches, the same slogans, the same methods used in The Ukraine. It's why we left there."
The march of statism is inexorable in any nation and each nation that rejects the Social Reign of Christ the King as It must be exercised by His Catholic Church.
No human document, including the Constitution of the United States of America that is premised upon the ability of men to pursue the common temporal good without regard to the Sacred Deposit of Faith that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has entrusted exclusively to His Catholic Church for Its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication, and upon the belief that men can pursue "civic virtue" without belief in, access to and cooperation with Sanctifying Grace, can retard the march of statism as human documents that do not recognize Christ the King become just a much a fungible plaything in the hands of mere mortals as have the Words of Sacred Scripture at the hands of Protestants and Modernist Catholics (see the appendix below for a summary of these facts that have been outlined on this site hundreds upon hundreds of times and are treated at some length in Volume I of Conversion in Reverse: How the Ethos of Americanism Converted Catholics and Contributed to the Rise of Conciliarism).
The ultimate triumph of the forces of Judeo-Masonic naturalism over believing Catholics is silence when the supposedly "lesser evil" advances the same agenda as had been advanced by a vanquished "greater evil." "Don't criticize Romney. You don't want Hillary, do you? You don't want Obama, Act II. Just wait until Vice President Paul Ryan gets his chance in 2020. We can make 'progress' then, see?" Pardon me while I yawn (and I am very tired, by the way, too tired to have gone to the post office box as doing so every this week save for Monday was a waste of gasoline).
This is the exact same thing that has happened to Catholics caught in the the trap that is Summorum Pontificum (July 7, 2007) Silence in defense of the Holy Faith when it is attacked by the great "reconciler" with the principles of the Revolution, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict, in order to have access to a version of the Immemorial Mass that will be further "modernized" in a few months. That's how the "lesser evil" works, slowly and imperceptibly to rob Catholics of their sensus Catholicus, making them feel right at home in a Country Full of Boiled Frogs).
Father Edward Leen Has a Message for Willard Mitt Romney and Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetero
Perhaps it might be wise to give Willard Mitt Romney and Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetero, who are, of course, midget naturalists of the false opposite of the "right," a memorandum from Father Edward Leen's book, The Holy Ghost (published in 1953 by Sheed and Ward), to explain that our own form of naturalism is just a different kind of expression in the penultimate naturalist ideology, Bolshevism, as the anti-Incarnational civil state of Modernity must wind produce a situation of total state control over men as there is no naturalist means on the face of this earth (no, not constitutions or laws or elections or this or that naturalist or secularist or nondenominational ideology or "philosophy) that can stop it. Here are Father Leen's words of wisdom:
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.)
Once again, you see, no, just not crazy old Droleskey who writes these things. This much hated and reviled writer is only attempting to give voice, however poorly, to the simple Catholic truth summarized so clearly by Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique on 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.)
Father Edward Leen was simply giving expression in 1953 to simple, timeless and immutable truths that true pope after true pope had reiterated time and time again in the last three centuries now. No Catholicism, no social order. It's that simple. It is incomprehensible that Catholics who claim to be opposed to conciliarism, which is founded in no small measure in a blithe acceptance of the tenets of Modernity, remain as undiscerning now as Catholics were in the 1950s at the time of Father Leen.
We must be champions of Christ
the King and Mary our Immaculate Queen, champions of the Catholic
Church in this time of apostasy and betrayal, champions of the truth
that Catholicism is the and only foundation of personal and social
order. Those who disagree do so at the peril to the nation they say they
love but for which they have a false sense of nationalistic pride that
impedes her conversion to the true Faith, which is what Our Lord Himself
mandates for each nation on the face of this earth.
You can believe and act as you want. No one ever voted their way out of a chastisement. Alas, a chastisement is what we will continue to suffer no matter what happens in forty-five days.
We must serve as champions of Christ the King through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, especially by praying as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits, refusing to march along in the parade of the midget naturalists.
We can only stand tall, that is, to stand above the midgets of naturalism, if we stand uncompromisingly with Christ the King as the consecrated slaves of Mary our Immaculate Queen.
Our Lord was not born for us in Bethlehem to be King of our hearts alone. He was born for us to be King of all nations, including, yes, the United States of America, which is under a solemn obligation to recognize and obey her true Monarch, Christ the King, and the authority of her true Church lest her multiple sins and offenses bring her to the ruin of the Roman Empire itself.
Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!
Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us!
Saint Joseph, Patron of Departing Souls, 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.
See also: A Litany of Saints
Errors of the Naturalists (as adapted from earlier articles for inclusion in this article.)
1) It is impossible to fight naturalism with naturalism. The statism of the elitist named Barack Hussein Obama, who believes that he has a right to stifle dissent and to limit press "unfavorable" press coverage of his administration (see Dangerous Precedent for Press), is but the other side of the false opposite of naturalism that is the so-called "right" as it is impossible to retard the growth of the size, the scope and power of the civil state over the course of the long term by any means other than a due subordination of men and their nations to the Social Reign of Christ the King as It must be exercised by Holy Mother Church. No amount of advertence to "constitutional principles" will "save the day" as a written constitution that admits of no ultimate authority for its proper interpretation in light of man's Last End, the possession of the glory of the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost in Heaven for all eternity, will be as utterly defenseless against positivists in the civil realm as the words of Holy Writ are in the hands of Protestants and modernist Catholics. We need Catholicism, my friends. We need the Social Reign of Christ the King.
2) Neither Willard Mitt Romney or Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetero understand the principal purpose of civil government. It is impossible to "restore" order in a society steeped in the madness of naturalism, emphasizing material well-being as the ultimate end of human existence without realizing that material prosperity is transitory and is only a by-product of right-living by citizens in conformity with the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law and of the pursuit of justice in the civil realm by public officials who are mindful that they must govern according to the Mind of Christ the King as He has discharged It exclusively in the Catholic Church. Our popes have taught us this very clearly, teaching us that the only end result that can occur when Our Lord is not recognized as King is the pursuit of material well-being and that public life would be stained by crime:
For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this
time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious
and absurd principle of "naturalism," as they call it, dare to teach
that "the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress
altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without
regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones." And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that "that
is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized,
as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties,
offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace
may require." From which totally false idea of social
government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal
in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls,
called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity," viz., that
"liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which
ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted
society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute
liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether
ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to
manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of
mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they
rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are
preaching "liberty of perdition;" and that "if human arguments are
always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men
who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of
human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus
Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most
And, since where religion has been removed
from civil society, and the doctrine and authority of divine revelation
repudiated, the genuine notion itself of justice and human right is
darkened and lost, and the place of true justice and legitimate right is
supplied by material force, thence it appears why it is that some,
utterly neglecting and disregarding the surest principles of sound
reason, dare to proclaim that "the people's will, manifested by what is
called public opinion or in some other way, constitutes a supreme law,
free from all divine and human control; and that in the
political order accomplished facts, from the very circumstance that they
are accomplished, have the force of right." But who, does not
see and clearly perceive that human society, when set loose from the
bonds of religion and true justice, can have, in truth, no other end
than the purpose of obtaining and amassing wealth, and that (society
under such circumstances) follows no other law in its actions, except
the unchastened desire of ministering to its own pleasure and interests? (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864.)
So, too, the liberty of thinking, and of publishing, whatsoever each one
likes, without any hindrance, is not in itself an advantage over which
society can wisely rejoice. On the contrary, it is the fountain-head and
origin of many evils. Liberty is a power perfecting man, and hence
should have truth and goodness for its object. But the character of
goodness and truth cannot be changed at option. These remain ever one
and the same, and are no less unchangeable than nature itself. If the
mind assents to false opinions, and the will chooses and follows after
what is wrong, neither can attain its native fullness, but both must
fall from their native dignity into an abyss of corruption. Whatever,
therefore, is opposed to virtue and truth may not rightly be brought
temptingly before the eye of man, much less sanctioned by the favor and
protection of the law. A well-spent life is the only way to
heaven, whither all are bound, and on this account the State is acting
against the laws and dictates of nature whenever it permits the license
of opinion and of action to lead minds astray from truth and souls away
from the practice of virtue. To exclude the Church, founded by
God Himself, from the business of life, from the making of laws, from
the education of youth, from domestic society is a grave and fatal
error. A State from which religion is banished can never be well
regulated; and already perhaps more than is desirable is known of the
nature and tendency of the so-called civil philosophy of life and
morals. The Church of Christ is the true and sole teacher of virtue and
guardian of morals. She it is who preserves in their purity the
principles from which duties flow, and, by setting forth most urgent
reasons for virtuous life, bids us not only to turn away from wicked
deeds, but even to curb all movements of the mind that are opposed to
reason, even though they be not carried out in action. (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)
This generative and conservative power of
the virtues that make for salvation is therefore lost, whenever morality
is dissociated from divine faith. A system of morality based
exclusively on human reason robs man of his highest dignity and lowers
him from the supernatural to the merely natural life. Not but that man is able by the right use of reason to know and to obey certain principles of the natural law. But
though he should know them all and keep them inviolate through life-and
even this is impossible without the aid of the grace of our
Redeemer-still it is vain for anyone without faith to promise himself
eternal salvation. "If anyone abide not in Me, he shall be cast forth as
a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up and cast him
into the fire, and he burneth" john xv., 6). "He that believeth not shall be condemned" (Mark xvi., 16). We
have but too much evidence of the value and result of a morality
divorced from divine faith. How is it that, in spite of all the zeal for
the welfare of the masses, nations are in such straits and even
distress, and that the evil is daily on the increase? We are told that
society is quite able to help itself; that it can flourish without the
assistance of Christianity, and attain its end by its own unaided
efforts. Public administrators prefer a purely secular system of
government. All traces of the religion of our forefathers are daily
disappearing from political life and administration. What blindness!
Once the idea of the authority of God as the Judge of right and wrong is
forgotten, law must necessarily lose its primary authority and justice
must perish: and these are the two most powerful and most necessary
bonds of society. Similarly, once the hope and expectation of eternal
happiness is taken away, temporal goods will be greedily sought after.
Every man will strive to secure the largest share for himself. Hence
arise envy, jealousy, hatred. The consequences are conspiracy, anarchy,
nihilism. There is neither peace abroad nor security at home. Public
life is stained with crime. (Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900.)
That the State must be separated from the Church
is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is,
on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult,
it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the
Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves
their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only
a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides,
this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits
the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this
life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and
it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to
it) with their ultimate object which is man's eternal happiness after
this short life shall have run its course. But as the present
order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man's
supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not
only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in
effecting it. The same thesis also upsets the order
providentially established by God in the world, which demands a
harmonious agreement between the two societies. Both of them, the civil
and the religious society, although each exercises in its own sphere its
authority over them. It follows necessarily that there are many things
belonging to them in common in which both societies must have relations
with one another. Remove the agreement between Church and State, and the
result will be that from these common matters will spring the seeds of
disputes which will become acute on both sides; it will become more
difficult to see where the truth lies, and great confusion is certain to
arise. Finally, this thesis inflicts great injury on society itself,
for it cannot either prosper or last long when due place is not left for
religion, which is the supreme rule and the sovereign mistress in all
questions touching the rights and the duties of men. Hence the Roman
Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and
condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State. (Pope Saint Pius X, Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906.)
By the way, one of the correlative proofs of how the conciliar "popes" have defected from the Catholic Faith is that they have done what our true Roman Pontiffs have never ceased to do, to "refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State. To refresh your memories on this point, please see Mocking Pope Saint Pius X and Our Lady of Fatima.
3) Each of two naturalists running for president now support one or more grave evils under cover of the civil law. Each supports contraception, thereby denying the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity marriage. Both support support the direct, intentional killing of innocent human beings in their mothers' wombs in some "exceptional" circumstances. Both nominees are full-throated supporters of the fascism represented by the "Patriot Act" to fight the "Global War on Terror."
One, Romney, is a bought-and-paid-for stooge of Israel. Neither of them would understand that the legitimacy of their own candidacies is sunk by these words, written in the Sixteenth Century by Silvio Cardinal Antoniano and quoted by Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929, because they believe in and support various evils that have caused the very social and economic disorder that they seek to redress by means of their candidacies:
The more closely the temporal power of a nation aligns itself with the
spiritual, and the more it fosters and promotes the latter, by so much
the more it contributes to the conservation of the commonwealth. For it
is the aim of the ecclesiastical authority by the use of spiritual
means, to form good Christians in accordance with its own particular end
and object; and in doing this it helps at the same time to form good
citizens, and prepares them to meet their obligations as members of a
civil society. This follows of necessity because in the City of God, the
Holy Roman Catholic Church, a good citizen and an upright man are
absolutely one and the same thing. How grave therefore is the error of
those who separate things so closely united, and who think that they can
produce good citizens by ways and methods other than those which make
for the formation of good Christians. For, let human prudence
say what it likes and reason as it pleases, it is impossible to produce
true temporal peace and tranquillity by things repugnant or opposed to
the peace and happiness of eternity. (Silvio Cardinal Antoniano, quoted by Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.)
4) Romney and Obama each fails to recognize that they need to be openly devoted to and publicly reliant upon the Mother of God, the Queen of Heaven and of earth, to advance the common temporal good in light of man's Last End. Orestes Brownson discussed this exact point in the middle of the Nineteenth Century:
I have spoken of the influence of devotion to Mary in elevating
maternity and with it, womanhood. The nations are in need of this
influence still. Christendom is lapsing anew into heathenism, and the
abominations I have referred to as existing in heathen nations, are
reviving in nations that profess to be Christian, and even to a
lamentable extent in the bosom of nations that call themselves Catholic.
Faith has become weak, charity has given way to a watery philanthropy,
and the worship of Mary is branded as idolatry or as besottish
superstition. Every thing is Profaned, the church, the state, God, man,
and woman; and society, while boasting of its progress, seems to be
rapidly lapsing into barbarism. Never did the nations more need the
church, or the pastoral authority of the vicar of Christ; never was
there a greater need of the prayers and intercession of her whom we
invoke as Health of the Weak, Refuge of Sinners, Comforter of the
Afflicted, and Help of Christians. No small part of the world, once
Christian, and adoring the Cross, needs converting anew. The crescent
profanes the sacred dome of Saint Sophia, and more than two-thirds of
the population of the globe are infidels or pagans; while heresy,
schism, incredulity, indifferentism, dishonor Christ and our Lady in
fair lands that still retain the Christian name. The work of converting
and purifying the world is not finished, and is apparently, to a great
extent, to be done over again.
If there is any truth in the view I
have presented of the moral and social influence of devotion to the
virgin-mother of God, it is to that devotion, as a powerful means of
reconverting and repurifying Christian nations, and of converting and
purifying heathen nations, that we must have recourse. The enemy of man
to be overcome, is the same old enemy of God. Man would be God, not in
God's way, but in his own; he would stand on himself, and suffice for
himself. In the pride of his strength, and the light of his own
intellect, he refuses to bend to the Highest, and to learn of the
Wisest, and his strength turns to weakness, his light to darkness, and
his manhood disappears. He loses heart, and likens himself to a worm,
and crouches, and grovels. What can restore him? Not to-day need we fear
an excess of faith, an excess of devotion. The enemy is a cold,
freezing rationalism, which, pretending to be reason, becomes lifeless
materialism. Nothing can overcome him but devotion to her who, as the
mother of God, was to crush the serpent's head. We must call on Mary to
call on God with us, and for us, to help us as he did the first
In conclusion, I will say that efforts to increase
devotion to the Blessed Virgin are, to me, among the most encouraging
signs that God has not forgotten us; that there are still faith and love
on the earth, and that there is still a recuperative principle in
Christian society. I thank God, for society itself, that there are still
those who delight to call themselves children of Mary, and to keep
alive in our cold, heartless world, the memory of her virtues. While she
is loved and reverenced there is hope for society, and most grateful am
I to God that the hard reasonings of this reasonless age, and the
chilling sneers of the proud, the conceited, the worldly, the corrupt,
have not frightened all out of their deep, ardent, and simple devotion
to her who is blessed among women. If I have not been able to speak fit
words in honor of our Lady, as I fear I have not, let me at least avow
that I honor and cherish, in my heart of hearts, an who honor her, and
show their devotion to her, by imitating her virtues. They are the real
philanthropists they are tile real moral, the true social reformers, and
are doing more for society, for the progress of virtue, intelligence,
wisdom, than all our statesmen and philosophers put together. They love
and honor God, in loving and honoring his mother, and I love and honor
them, and, all unworthy as I am, I pray them to have the charity to
implore her to bestow on me a mother's blessing, and to obtain for me
the grace, when my life's pilgrimage is ended, to behold the face of her
divine Son, my Lord, and my God. (Orestes Brownson, Moral and Social Influence of Devotion to Mary.)
5) Whether of the "left" or of the "right," the men who govern us are Pelagians, people who think that human beings are more or less self-redemptive, that they can stir up the graces within themselves that are necessary to correct wrongs and to change course of history. Consider once again Father Frederick William Faber's explosion of this heresy:
All devotions have their
characteristics; all of them have their own theological meanings. We
must say something, therefore, upon the characteristics of the devotion
to the Precious Blood. In reality the whole Treatise has more or less
illustrated this matter. But something still remains to be said, and
something will bear to be repeated. We will take the last first.
Devotion to the Precious Blood is the devotional expression of the
prominent and characteristic teaching of St. Paul. St. Paul is the
apostle of redeeming grace. A devout study of his epistles would be our
deliverance from most of the errors of the day. He is truly the apostle
of all ages. To each age doubtless he seems to have a special mission.
Certainly his mission to our is very special. The very air we
breathe is Pelagian. Our heresies are only novel shapes of an old
Pelagianism. The spirit of the world is eminently Pelagian. Hence it
comes to pass that wrong theories among us are always constructed round a
nuclear of Pelagianism; and Pelagianism is just the heresy which is
least able to breathe in the atmosphere of St. Paul. It is the age of
the natural as opposed to the supernatural, of the acquired as opposed
to the infused, of the active as opposed to the passive. This is what I
said in an earlier chapter, and here repeat. Now, this exclusive
fondness for the natural is on the whole very captivating. It takes with
the young, because it saves thought. It does not explain difficulties;
but it lessens the number of difficulties to be explained. It takes with
the idle; it dispenses from slowness and research. It takes with the
unimaginative, because it withdraws just the very element in religion
which teases them. It takes with the worldly, because it subtracts the
enthusiasm from piety and the sacrifice from spirituality. It takes with
the controversial, because it is a short road and a shallow ford. It
forms a school of thought which, while it admits that we have an
abundance of grace, intimates that we are not much better for it. It
merges privileges in responsibilities, and makes the sovereignty of God
odious by representing it as insidious. All this whole spirit, with all
its ramifications, perishes in the sweet fires of devotion to the
The time is also one of libertinage; and a time of libertinage is always, with a kind of practical logic, one of infidelity. Whatever
brings out God's side in creation, and magnifies his incessant
supernatural operation in it, is the controversy which infidelity can
least withstand. Now, the devotion to the Precious Blood does
this in a very remarkable way. It shows that the true significance in
every thing is to be found in the scheme of redemption, apart from which
it is useless to discuss the problems of creation. (Father Frederick
Faber, The Precious Blood, written in 1860, republished by TAN Books and Publishers, pp. 258-259.)
Those who want to think that we will make "progress" in 2012 will do so they get all worked up about debt ceilings and Medicare reform and repealing ObamaCare and the state of the economy without for one moment recognizing that men must do penance for their own sins that have worsened the state of the world and made them sad in their own lives as they have become the mere creatures of the state more and and more. We are living in a time of major chastisement as the lords of conciliarism who present themselves as officials of the Catholic Church, who should be looked to by the powerful in the world for leadership are but laughing stocks who have enabled moral and civil crimes while they have committed crimes against God by means of blasphemous speech and the promotion of heretical doctrines, have played their their own insidious role in helping to reaffirm men and their nations that something short of Catholicism is "good enough" in the eyes of God to please Him. It is not.
Each set of naturalists has this or that "plan" to improve the economy or to secure the nation or to reform this or that program. No one but one believes in the Divine Plan that God Himself instituted to effect man's return to Him through the Catholic Church as each is a son or daughter of the rotten fruit of that Divine Plan's violent overthrow wrought by the Protestant Revolution and institutionalized by the forces of Judeo-Masonry that are committed to the elimination of the Holy Name of the Divine Redeemer, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, from public discourse as all manner of evils become accepted gradually over time as "regrettable realities" about which we can do very little. After all, we have to win an election. right? Things will get "better" after that. This is but sheer deception.
Men, whether acting individually or collectively, deceive themselves if they think that they can make the world a "better" place absent a profound devotion to Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary. Our Lady told us in the Cova da Iria near Fatima, Portugal, ninety-four years ago that we must pray the Rosary to console the good God and to make reparation for our sins as we pray for the conversion of poor sinners and for the faithful fulfillment of her Fatima Message. This is a work of the Mercy of the Divine Redeemer, Who is giving us every chance to repent and convert. Why do men still persist in their obstinate refusal to take Our Lady's Fatima Message seriously and to organize Rosary processions and rallies to counter the naturalism of the day and to serve as valiant champions of Christ the King?
Let me reiterate some passages that I wrote over seven months ago now:
The following words of Pope Pius XI, contained in his first encyclical letter, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922, are eternally true as it is impossible for
the falsehoods of naturalism to do anything other than to worsen the
situation of men and their nations:
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 ruin. It
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.)
Error divides. Catholicism unites.
Protestantism has divided into a welter of warring,
contradictory sects, numbering well over thirty-three thousand. Its
errors have influenced the development and progression of conciliarism,
which has seen a situation arise where the divisions between formerly
Catholic parishes are so pronounced that many "conservative" and
traditionally-minded Catholics attached to the conciliar structures go
to great lengths to avoid the "ultra-progressive" revolutionaries who
believe in a different faith than they do. Catholicism is supposed to
speak with one voice, una voce, as it is the voice of Christ
the King, Who has but one voice. It is no accident that our nation and
the world is seeing more overt manifestations of evil and error when the
lords of conciliarism have made their own "reconciliation" with the
principles of Modernity, starting with religious liberty and separation
of Church and State.
Error divides. Catholicism unites.
We are fighting the forces of darkness that can be
defeated only if we base our efforts in the temporal realm upon a firm,
unshakable and uncompromising commitment to the Social Reign of Christ
the King and a tender reliance upon her Most Holy Rosary and fidelity to
her Fatima Message. Anyone who believes in political ecumenism, mixing
false religious beliefs with the tenets of the true Faith or with
Freemasonry and outright atheism, has no business speaking to Catholics
about "solutions" to the social problems that have been caused,
proximately speaking, by the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the
King wrought by the Protestant Revolt and the rise of Judeo-Masonry.
How can any Catholic not take seriously these words of Saint Augustine, quoted by Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos,
August 15, 1832, concerning the fact that there must no place
whatsoever for errors concerning First and Last Things in our lives?
This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must
be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil
affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest
impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error,"
as Augustine was wont to say. When all restraints are removed by which
men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already
inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly "the bottomless pit"
is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and
out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes
transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things
and holy laws -- in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state
than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities
renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this
single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free
speech, and desire for novelty. (Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)
Error kills the soul. Catholicism makes it possible for one to save his immortal soul.
Pope Leo XIII, writing in Sapientiae Christianae,
January 10, 1890, explained that there is a never a time when a
Catholic can speak as a naturalist or as a political ecumenist. We must
speak and think and act always as Catholics:
The chief elements of this duty consist in
professing openly and unflinchingly the Catholic doctrine, and in
propagating it to the utmost of our power. For, as is often said, with
the greatest truth, there is nothing so hurtful to Christian wisdom as
that it should not be known, since it possesses, when loyally received,
inherent power to drive away error. (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890.)