FEAR or FAITH? FRIGHT or FLIGHT?
Welcome Eagles to the New Crusade!
Will thou help defend the Fortress of Faith?

TradCatKnight- MOST VIEWED & FOLLOWED Traditional Catholic APOSTOLATE Worldwide!
As Seen on: Gloria.tv, SpiritDaily, Shoebat, Canon212, VeteransToday, Beforeitsnews & many other notable websites
BOOKMARK us & check in DAILY for the latest Endtimes News!
Welcome to my Nest. #EagleoftheFortress
WEBSITE OWNERS: Don't Forget To Add Us On Your Page!
ALEXA- TOP 30K WEBSITE WORLDWIDE

Thursday, October 27, 2016

Elections: In an Oligarchy, Voting is a Tool to Manufacture the Illusion of Consent

Elections: In an Oligarchy, Voting is a Tool to Manufacture the Illusion of Consent

If there’s one thing we’ve learned so far from election 2016 it’s that the American people do not understand their government.
The perception is that we have a democracy, and that in this democracy we the people have vested power in our government which we exercise through the act of voting. ‘Throw the bastards out,’ has long since been the war cry of the impotent democrat, yet we no longer even have a democracy to cling to, and although most people choose to ignore it, this fact of life has been visible for decades.
An oligarchical government is a form of rule in which a small group of wealthy individuals have control over the critical mechanisms of state power, industry and economy. These people are unelected, unaccountable and they exercise control on behalf of their personal financial interests, drawing on the productive power of a nation to support their lifestyles and geopolitical ambitions. The ruling class in such a nation is often comprised of dynastic families who pass the baton of power back and forth between themselves, managing the illusion of change and evolution while never actually ceding their franchise over the masses.

 The Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton phenomenon is a contemporary example of this exchange.
In 2014, a Princeton study in the academic journal Perspectives on Politics published their conclusion that America had officially transitioned to an oligarchy. Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter has even recently made comments to this effect, telling Oprah Winfrey and her audience that ‘now it’s just an oligarchy.’ These two warnings follow decades of comments and public admissions by former presidents and key political figures warning us that our country was being taken over by shadowy financial interests.
Inarguably, there is an invisible government running America, yet we are still urged to cast our vote for president every four years. Why do they allow us to participate in this charade if they know our vote doesn’t make any difference?

George Carlin on Freedom of Choice


Voting as a Tool to Create the Illusion of Consent

Even many true dictatorships hold political elections as tools to manufacture the illusion of consent for their party. Stalin is perhaps the most astounding example of this, for, during his rule, while the people of the nation were being brutalized by The Red Terror, election results came in showing over 99% support for the Communist Party.
Saddam Hussein also used this tactic to great effect in a 1995 in a referendum aimed at creating the illusion of public support for his reign, with 99.9% of the population voting in favor.
China’s Mao, arguably the greatest murderer of all time, also forced his subjects into the ballot booth, using the results as propaganda to support his totalitarianism.
America is not yet a dictatorship, it is but an oligarchy with big dreams of becoming one. As such, we are still transitioning out of the ideology of personal liberty and self-rule, and are still dependent on the ritual of voting as acknowledgment of this heritage, even though selecting a president does nothing to favorably influence the direction of the nation.
The oligarchy still needs us to believe that we are free so that we won’t get serious about revolution, and voting is the best tool for maintaining this illusion. It serves the dual purposes of providing an outlet for our righteous indignation, pacifying our anger and sapping our political drive, and of acting as a survey to determine which policies will meet the least amount of popular resistance.
When we show up on election day, knowing full well the candidates we’ve been presented with do not represent our ambitions for this nation, we are tacitly expressing our willingness to being governed in this manner. We are contributing to the perception that our rulers have our permission to carry on, and by doing such we are acquiescing ever further to their dominion over us.

Final Thoughts

If you’re one of the few Americans who hasn’t already committed yourself, heart and soul, to one of the two majorly phony political parties dominating the U.S., and are still trying to decide which taste of bitters you’ll go for on election day, consider this: there is no Constitutional requirement that you vote.
There is not yet a law in America that obliges you to consent to the corruption, lies, criminality, war-mongering, fear, hate, stupidity, tyranny, surveillance and self-destruction being championed by today’s candidates. You are still free to opt-out and explore the moral highroad of conscientious objection, should your value system be so utterly insulted by the fake election process taking place before us.
The American people are being guilted, bullied, pressured, cajoled, intimidated, terrorized and browbeaten into voting. We’re constantly told to vote because it’s your so-called civic duty, because you have no right to complain about the government unless you vote, because every vote counts, because we must present a unified front, because the future of the nation depends on it, because God compels us to do so, because by not voting you are in fact voting, because the “other” candidate must be defeated at all costs, or because the future of the Supreme Court rests in the balance.
You are under no moral obligation to vote for the lesser of two evils. Indeed, voting for a lesser evil is still voting for evil. ~John W. Whitehead





The System Has Been Rigged Since July 4, 1776

Donald John Trump, the nominee of the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist “right,” has made quite a point of stating that the electoral system is rigged against him. Although he continues to take quite a beating about this allegation, it is nevertheless a simple fact of American political history that voter fraud has been a staple of elections from the time that the first political parties, the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans, were formed at the Congressional level in the early-1790s as a result of various disputes between Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton and Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson.


In order to provide a bit of perspective about the long and fabled history of vote fraud in the history of the United States of America, permit me to dust off an article that I wrote in the aftermath of the electoral stalemate that occurred as the results of the November 7, 2000, presidential election between incumbent Vice President Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., and then Texas Governor George Walker Bush became a matter of various court battles. The brief article, which was entitled “Hey, Al, I Want A Recount, Too,” ran in the printed pages of Christ or Chaos at the time:
The recount of the popular vote for the selection of presidential electors in Florida is going on and on and on as this is being written in Lafayette, Indiana, on Friday, November 10. No end appears to be in sight. As noted in the lead commentary in the current issue of Christ or Chaos, leftists use any and all means available to them to browbeat others into complete and total submission. Vice President Al Gore and his minions are using all manner of ever-shifting arguments to justify their effort to win the presidency by brute intimidation.
The allegations of voting irregularities in Florida are nothing new in the history of American electoral politics. The lowering of the voting age to eighteen has resulted in lots more stupid people going to the polls, joining those already in line. Addle-brained people find it difficult to follow directions in all walks of their daily lives. Many people on the roadways these days cannot follow simple directional signs, especially at toll booths for bridges or tunnels or toll roads. Others find a menu in a restaurant impossible to decipher. Lots of people live in states of continuous bewilderment.
That is partly the result of a lack of intellectual ability, and it is partly the result of the dumbing down of the American populace in our schools and in our popular culture — the cultural degradation owing much to so many Americans’ habit of letting their lives revolve around the television, which has become the new tabernacle of our secular era. And a good many such people want others to indemnify them whenever they make mistakes in their lives, an attitude that many of my college students exhibited rather predictably in the past decade or so. It was my fault, you see, that they did not read the clear directions I placed on the top of each examination. I was wrong for holding all students to one standard of competence.
The claim (not yet established as an actual fact) that some voters in Palm Beach County in Florida were “confused” by a ballot devised by a local Democratic Party election official is yet another example of people seeking to establish a right to “correct” whatever mistakes they make in life. It is frequently the case that we have to live with our mistakes. Indeed, we are supposed to learn from them — learn how not to repeat them over and over again. That is part of what we mean when we talk about the learning process.
But voter mistakes are quite a different thing from allegations of actual fraud and/or voter intimidation. Recall what happened in 1960, when it was fairly evident that Richard Nixon’s election to the presidency was stolen from him by Joseph P. Kennedy Sr., working hand in glove with Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley and Senate majority leader Lyndon Baines Johnson to manufacture the votes necessary to make Kennedy’s eldest surviving son president of the United States (and Johnson vice president). By contrast, the current situation in Florida hinges on a narrow margin between the two major-party presidential candidates produced, in part, by what appears to be simple voter carelessness. Not even Gore campaign chairman William Daley, son of the late Chicago mayor (and brother of Richard M. Daley, the current Chicago mayor), has alleged that George W. Bush’s campaign stole any votes.
Once again, the hypocrisy of the Left is on full display for all to witness. Loretta Sanchez defeated then-Representative Robert K. Dornan in 1996 largely as a result of voter fraud. Resident aliens who were not citizens of the United States were permitted to register as voters and vote for Sanchez. Republicans in Congress, eager to be rid of Dornan, did not investigate the situation vigorously, and U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno said that she knew of no specific laws forbidding resident aliens from voting. Similarly, Woody Jenkins lost to Mary Landrieux in Louisiana’s U.S. Senate race that same year. Charges of wholesale election fraud were dismissed by Senate Republicans, most of whom did not want to be seen as “bashing” another woman just five years after they’d placed Anita Hill under justifiably intense scrutiny during the Judiciary Committee’s confirmation hearings on Clarence Thomas.
Actual election fraud has been a common phenomenon in the history of this nation. The stuffing of ballot boxes was common in the nineteenth century when paper ballots were used. Voters were intimidated by means of physical threats. People voted two or three times. Ballots cast for some candidates were thrown out or burned. Dead people voted, a phenomenon still to be found in certain precincts in the country. Most of the popular vote totals of the nineteenth century are merely advisory. They do not truly reflect the actual votes cast by voters.
The tradition of election fraud has continued into this century. It was somewhat attenuated by the traditional voting machine, which is much more difficult (although not entirely impossible) to tamper with than the paper ballot of yesteryear or the computer punch card now being used by a number of states. But even the old voting machine can be “adjusted” in such a way as to make it difficult for voters to vote for the candidate of their choice.
To wit, on the day of my primary election against Sen. Alfonse M. D’Amato to be the U.S. senatorial nominee of the Right to Life Party, in 1998, I received reports from all over the state of New York indicating that people who wanted to vote for me had difficulty doing so. Eleven or so people told me that the lever they needed to pull down to vote for me did not work. One man, a lawyer from the Borough of the Bronx, said that an election judge refused even to hear the complaint he brought about the situation. Several long-time enrollees in the Right to Life Party were told at their polling places that there was no record of their voter registration.
It was clear that something was happening. Lacking the resources, however, to mount any legal challenge to the results, I just went about my business, accepting the fact that it was entirely possible that the Republican machine in New York found the threat of my candidacy to be so real that it had to place obstacles in the path of voters who desired to support me in the Right to Life Party.
Frequently sloth in the counting of votes is encountered, as was the case when I served as a Republican poll watcher in a voting precinct in Laurel Hollow, New York, on election day in 1972. When official Republican and Democratic registrars came up with different totals from the absentee ballots, they averaged the differences in the vote totals and then went home! (The registrars are employed by the Nassau County Board of Elections to record the names of voters as they cast their ballots, and to count and report the results to the board; poll watchers are party workers who merely observe the work of the registrars and report back to party officials.)
I was also an eyewitness to the counting of the votes in the presidential caucus in Dubuque County, Iowa, on February 12, 1996 (after serving as a surrogate speaker that nightin behalf of Patrick Buchanan’s candidacy). Buchanan won Dubuque County handily over Bob Dole. But the vote totals from Dubuque County were never reported to the Voter News Service by the Iowa Republican Party. The same thing happened in Woodbury County, Iowa. Knowing the extent to which careerist Republicans went to rig the process against Buchanan in 1996, I was not surprised when a similar effort was made against me two years later.
However, in light of what is happening in Florida right now, which could drag on indefinitely, perhaps I should hold a press conference and demand from Al — D’Amato, that is — a recount from the 1998 Right to Life Party primary. I could argue I lacked the resources to investigate the claims but now realize that I have the obligation to see that the vote is counted over and over and over again. If the recount showed that I had won the primary, there would have to be a new election for the seat now held by Sen. Charles Schumer. Trading on my persona as one of the better-known Mets fans in New York, I would defeat Schumer and D’Amato, taking my place in the Senate next to New York’s recently elected senator, some woman named Rodham or Clinton or something like that. If the presidential election in Florida can go on and on and on, why can’t I reopen my primary from two years ago? Indeed, why can’t the estate of the late Richard Nixon reopen the results of the 1960 election?
Vice President Gore and his minions will do anything to hold and acquire power. As is well known, I do not carry any brief for George W. Bush. Gore is demonstrating just how important it is for us to support candidates who are capable of demonstrating the extent to which the Left believes in mobocracy, not representative democracy or the rule of law. Bush fails that test. You can’t blame Buchanan for electing Gore if it turns out that the vice president prevails in the election. Most of Ralph Nader’s Green Party votes would have gone to Gore if Nader hadn’t run, handing him the popular vote by a comfortable margin and giving him Florida’s electoral votes without question. Gore has come close to winning the presidency because he was faced with an opponent who was either unable or unwilling to make the case against him in clear, articulate, and convincing terms.
The answer is quite simple: dishonesty of any sort is prohibited by the Seventh Commandment (“Thou shalt not steal”) and the Eighth Commandment (“Thou shalt not bear false witness”). A nation founded on the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ would be composed of people who understood that we can never steal that which does not belong to us, and we can never misrepresent the truth.
Yes, the only safeguard against election fraud and manipulation is a nation that lives in the shadow of the Cross. A nation immersed in the confusion that prevails all around us, you see, winds up making a religion out of electoral politics. And when politics becomes a religion, its secular foundation justifies the use of Machiavellian means to acquire and retain power. All the more reason to work for the Catholicization of our land, folks. There’s no other way out of this mess.
In the meantime, however, tell Al D’Amato I want a recount! ("Hey, Al, I Want A Recount, Too!", November 10, 2000, from the printed pages of Christ or Chaos.)
Well, that was nearly sixteen years ago now, I am a little wiser, at least about some things, than I was then, especially as pertains to the fact that the entire electoral system is a farce that is designed to convince well-meaning people to accept increasingly higher doses of a so-called “lesser evil” in order to prevent the election of a supposedly “greater evil.” This truly diabolical trap has created a situation this year in which a career criminal, serial liar and unapologetic supporter of unrestricted baby-killing up to and including the day of birth is better received at a supposedly “Catholic” event, the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner, than the self-absorbed naturalist of the “right” who was booed simply for stating cold, hard facts about her.
Although I will have a separate article about that “Al Smith Dinner” in a day or so, suffice it to say for the moment that Madame Defarge (Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton) was not the most anti-Catholic person in attendance last evening, Thursday, October 20, 2016, the Feast of Saint John Cantius. That distinction belongs, of course, to the “happy bishop” who is at war with Catholic doctrine, Timothy Michael Dolan, the arch-ecumenist, enabler of Talmudists, and advocate of the heresy of religious liberty (see Memo To Timothy Michael Dolan: Catholics Never Say "We Used To Say".)
Ah, I have digressed. How unusual for me.
Anyhow, the diabolical electoral system that creates such agitation and division, which is the exact opposite of the peace and unity that is produced by the Catholic Faith, has been rigged from its beginning to be an instrument of disorder and chaos. This is so because the men who founded the United States of America had a contempt for the “old ways” of Catholic Europe in the Middle Ages, believing themselves to be the evangelists, if you will, of what the gnostic political scientist Leo Strauss called “the new science of politics.” This “new science” was designed to blunt the force of the true Faith in public life by convincing one and all that it is “enough” to be “Americans” and that it is possible to pursue the common temporal good without reference to the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law as they are explicated by Holy Mother Church in all that pertains to the good of souls, upon which rests the very fate of nations.
A system of false opposites has evolved over time that attempts to convince voters that they face “real” choices in every election, each of which is said to be the “most important election of our lifetimes,” when the fact is that adherents of the “left” and the “right” are in total agreement about the underlying premise of the American “experiment,” namely, that religious truth is a matter of complete indifference to the welfare of the “well-ordered” republic.
Let me reprise an explanation that has appeared on this site a number of times before:
I refer to the "false opposites" of the "left" and the "right" because, despite their differences over  the powers "government" over that of the "individual," both the "left" and the "right" reject Catholicism as the one and only foundation of personal and social order. The adherents of the "left" and the "right" believe that it is neither prudent or necessary to acknowledge that the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity in the Virginal and Immaculate Womb of His Most Blessed Mother has changed human history. Such adherents also reject any suggestions that both men and their nations must be subordinate to Christ the King and the authority of His true Church on all that pertains to the good of souls and that the civil government has an obligation to pursue the common temporal good in light of man's Last End.
No matter the differences between "conservatives" and "liberals," my friends, they both have one mind and one heart in the belief that man does not need the teaching and sanctifying offices of the Catholic Church to guide them in their private and social lives. This is, of course, the triumph of the Judeo-Masonic spirit of naturalism that was dissected so well by Pope Leo XIII. It matters little as to who is or is not a formally enrolled member of the "lodges" when most Catholics and non-Catholics alike are infected with the ethos of naturalism.
Similarly, any civil leader who believes that can, either by himself or with others, pursue genuine order without the help of Our Lady and the use of her Most Holy Rosary is a fool. We must give public honor to Christ the King and to Mary our Immaculate Queen.
That's the point I try to make repeatedly on this site.
The bifurcation between Catholics of the "left" and Catholics of the "right" in the United States of America is such that the statists on the "left" try to wrap themselves up in the mantle of a perverted and distorted notion of what they think is Catholic Social Teaching as presented by the conciliar "bishops" in this country, many of whom are just unreconstructed socialists who attempt to make various government programs that are said to aid the poor and the suffering appear to be consonant with the Christian precepts of charity.
The truth of the matter, of course, is that individual human beings have been charged by Our Lord, Christ the King, to provide for the needs of those who cannot provide for themselves, not wasteful, duplicative government programs that are created in full violation of the Natural Law principle of subsidiarity, enunciated very clearly by Pope Pius XI in Quadragesimo Anno, May 15, 1931. The very establishment of these programs in this country during the Great Depression and President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's "New Deal" created an entire class of nonelected bureaucratic rulers who have a vested interest in seeing to it that their clients become so dependent upon their programs that they will agitate with great fury if they are threatened in any way so as to scare off elected officials who understand these programs to be boondoggles that enrich only those who administer them.
Even long before the Great Depression and over forty years before the Bolshevik Revolution, Otto von Bismarck, the prototypical socialist and social engineer, sought to make large segments of the German population dependent upon the largesse of the civil state so that the citizenry would be more inclined to look the other way as it, the civil state, increased control of their daily lives over the course of time. The Eurosocialist states are all descended from Otto von Bismarck and Karl Marx, whose "radicalism," as the Freemason Bismarck saw it, he sought to preempt by the creation of his own social welfare state.
"Leftism" in the United States of America has many roots, each of which go back to the Protestant Revolution wrought by Father Martin Luther, O.S.A., against the Divine plan that God Himself instituted to effect man's return to Him through the Catholic Church. 
As has been noted many times on this site, one of the proximate root causes of what can be called "liberalism" is the writing of John Locke, whose views were the direct result of the Protestant Revolution that began in England under King Henry VIII in 1534 and resulted in the proliferation of Protestant sects in a kingdom that had been Catholic for nearly a millennium. Readers of this site know that I care very much about root causes. Well, permit me to remind you of at least one of the roots of the American "left":
The Protestant Revolt engendered murder and mayhem in the German states after it was launched by the hideous, lecherous, drunken Augustinian monk named Father Martin Luther, O.S.A., on October 31, 1517, when he posted his "ninety-five theses" on the door of Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany. Luther himself was aghast to see the almost instantaneous moral degeneration of his "evangelicals" into violent mobs who pilfered and sacked formerly Catholic churches and lived riotously, oblivious to the fact that he was responsible for this degeneration by depriving those who followed his revolution against Christ the King of the Sacraments and of the true teaching that Our King has entrusted to His Catholic Church for Its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication.
In like manner, of course, the the Protestant Revolt in England engendered murder and violence, much of which was state-sponsored as Henry Tudor was responsible between the years of 1534 and 1547 for ordering the executions of over 72,000 Catholics who remained faithful to the Catholic Church following the decree that Parliament has passed that declared him to be the "supreme head of the Church in England as far as the law of God allowed." As was the case in the German states as princes gave Luther protection so that they, the princes, could govern in a Machiavellian manner free of any interference from Rome or their local bishops, so was it the case in England that the Protestant Revolution provided the receipt for the unchecked tyranny of English monarchs.
Indeed, the kind of state-sponsored social engineering that has created the culture of entitlement in England and elsewhere in Europe has its antecedent roots in Henry's revolt against the Social Reign of Christ the King and His Catholic Church in the Sixteenth Century.
Henry had Parliament enact various laws to force the poor who had lived for a nominal annual fee on the monastery and convent lands (as they produced the food to sustain themselves, giving some to the monastery or convent) off of those lands, where their families had lived for generations, in order to redistribute the Church properties he had stolen to those who supported his break from Rome. Henry quite cleverly created a class of people who were dependent upon him for the property upon which they lived and the wealth they were able to derive therefrom, making them utterly supportive of his decision to declare himself Supreme Head of the Church in England. Those of the poorer classes who had been thrown off of the monastery and convent lands were either thrown into prison (for being poor, mind you) or forced to migrate to the cities, where many of them lost the true Faith and sold themselves into various vices just to survive. The effects of this exercise of state-sponsored engineering are reverberating in the world today, both politically and economically. Indeed, many of the conditions bred by the disparity in wealth created by Henry's land grab in the Sixteenth Century would fester and help to create the world of unbridled capitalism and slave wage that so impressed a German emigre in London by the name of Karl Marx. Unable to recognize the historical antecedents of the real injustices he saw during the Victorian Era, Marx set about devising his own manifestly unjust system, premised on atheism and anti-Theism, to rectify social injustice once and for all. In a very real way, Henry of Tudor led the way to Lenin of Russia.
The abuses of power by English monarchs 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 in on June 6, 1885, following his brother's death, which occurred after Charles II himself had converted to the 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 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.
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. 
There is, therefore, amongst American Catholics who adhere to some kind of "leftist" worldview a belief that it is indeed the role of government to "solve" social ills, most of are the result, over and above the after-effects of Original Sin, the systematic, planned breakdown of the stability of the family that was one of the chief goals of Freemasons in state legislatures, starting in North Dakota, in the late-Nineteenth Century to liberalize divorce laws. This systematic, planned breakdown of the family was expedited by the spread of contraception in the 1920s, leading ultimately to an epidemic of divorce and remarriage as spouses felt "free" to be violate the Sixth Commandment injunction against adultery. Husbands abandoned wives. Wives abandoned husbands. Children became lost and confused. Entire classes of people became dependent upon the largesse of the civil state as a result. And this is to say nothing of the direct effort on the part of Margaret Sanger to break down the stability of the families of black Americans so that they could enjoy the benefits of her sort of social engineering, a fact that has been documented on this site many times now.
In reality, therefore, the rigged system in this country has succeeded because so many Catholics have been willing to suspend rationality in order to believe in the illusion of secular salvation. Moreover, the apostates in the “hierarchy” of the counterfeit church of conciliarism in this country have actively suborned vote fraud in order to advance the agenda of the false opposite of the “left,” which is, of course, the same agenda that is near and dear to the heart of the currently reigning universal face of apostasy, Jorge Mario Bergoglio.
As alluded to “Hey, Al, I Want A Recount, Too,” officials in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles and the Diocese of Orange worked with illegal immigrants to oust the outspoken opponent of baby-killing, Robert K. Dornan, from his seat in the United States House Representatives twenty years ago this year in order to elect the pro-abortion Loretta Sanchez-Brixey to Congress:
The case of former United States Representative Robert K. Dornan is quite instructive here. The Immigration and Naturalization Service conducted an investigation of the 1996 general election between Dornan and Sanchez-Brixey and discovered that over 4,000 voters voted without proper documentation. That was not enough, however, for investigators working for the United States House of Representatives, to which Dornan had appealed his "loss" to Sanchez on the grounds of election fraud, because the "fix," was in, as an article in The American Spectator reveals:
A recap, in case you're interested in that long-ago Republican surrender: If you can lay your hands on a recording or a transcript of Michael Reagan's radio show from the night of and the day after the November 1996 elections, you'll hear Reagan interviewing Dornan. Dornan told Reagan he'd been assured by the then-congressional leaders that they'd get to the bottom of the illegal voting that had put Sanchez Brixey in Dornan's rightful seat, and that they'd give Dornan whatever support he needed. After this phone-in interview ended, Reagan resignedly informed the listeners that he himself had spoken to the congressional leaders, who'd confided to Reagan they had no intention of a serious investigation into Sanchez Brixey's illegal "win," and confirming that they had been outright lying to Dornan. For one thing, she was a "double-whammy mammy" -- both Hispanic and female, and the Republicans had no ... uh, "stomach" for refuting false cries they were racist and sexist. Second, then-House Majority Leader Newt Gingrich was attempting to craft a relationship of comity with Bill Clinton, and Dornan had been one of Clinton's fieriest critics. (From The American Spectator.)
National Review article from 1997 provides more details into the way in which Bob Dornan's 1996 election was stolen from him with the help of an Alinsky-based organization that had ties to "Catholic" Charities of the Diocese of Orange and received funding from the "Catholic" Campaign for Human Development:
Ousted Republican Congressman Robert Dornan claims, with considerable justification, that his narrow loss in the Nov 96 election to Loretta Sanchez is due to ballots cast by ineligible voters. The election fraud investigation could lead to a new election in the Orange County, CA district.
A MID January ad in the Washington Blade, a paper for the capital's homosexual community, announced the "Red Ribbon Inaugural Gala," organized by AIDS lobbyist Tom Sheridan. The aim: to aid Loretta Sanchez, the new Democratic congresswoman from Orange County, whose social-issue liberalism gets gay activists cheering almost as robustly as they boo the man she upset on November 5.
The ad described the Red Ribbon affair as a "benefit for Loretta's legal defense against Bob Dornan's continued challenge to overturn his defeat. Let's send him home once and for all."
Five weeks later, that goal of Dornan's foes looks increasingly elusive. Attorneys and investigators working with the ousted nine-term congressman continue to pile up evidence of fraud in an election decided by fewer than one thousand votes. Try as some of them might, journalists in a competitive, two-newspaper county haven't been able to ignore the smell of something rotten in the ballot results. And the Orange County district attorney is on the case.
In short, Miss Sanchez might have need of a few more fundraisers before it's all over -- and even then, there's a real chance that she, not Dornan, could be the one sent "home once and for all."
Dornan's people have compiled a knapsack full of what you might call standard-issue irregularities, the kind that made Cook County famous, and that California's lax election rules, which don't require identification from would-be voters, seem to invite in abundance. Dornan points, for instance, to at least 38 double voters, 128 absentee ballots turned in illegally, and more than 900 ballots for which there are no corresponding names on the county registrar's computer tape which is supposed to indicate who voted. Does that numbers gap reflect clerical error -- or ballot-box stuffing? Or a bit of both?
Most investigation so far has focused on noncitizens allegedly recruited to the polls by the Latino advocacy group Hermandad Mexicana Nacional, which is a sub-contractor providing citizenship classes for the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
The law says you must be a citizen to register to vote, a fact declared prominently, and repeatedly, on registration forms in California. Yet the Los Angeles Times reported on February 8 that 600 resident aliens were signed up to vote through the efforts of Hermandad, and that 407 of those people went on to cast ballots on November 5.
In addition, the paper found 105 apparently illegal aliens who also voted after registering through Hermandad.
In an affidavit produced to get a warrant to search Hermandad's Santa Ana offices, the D.A. quotes five unnamed informants, all noncitizens who were registered to vote by Hermandad. Two of them say that every person who completed an INS interview at Hermandad's headquarters was then registered to vote by Hermandad employees, before any of these registrants had become a citizen.
If that is true, it could mean hundreds or thousands more illegal votes, because as many as 12,000 people went through Hermandad classes in the months prior to the election.
The investigators working on behalf of Dornan's election challenge are frustrated that the INS won't release the citizenship status of voters, or, apparently, won't do any investigating on its own. "If the INS would be open and forthright enough to give us this data, we could get this investigation over with in a couple of days," attorney Michael Schroeder, who heads Dornan's effort, told me in early February.
On Valentine's Day, Schroeder's wish was partially fulfilled -- but not courtesy of INS officialdom. Rather, he was visited on the quiet by an INS agent who angrily complained that the agency acquiesced in illegal voting. The whistleblower brought thousands of names of people who had been enrolled in citizenship classes in Dornan's district -- many of whom hadn't become citizens by November 5. Hermandad was not the only group giving citizenship classes under INS contract. And, the whistleblower claims, Hermandad wasn't the only organization that registered noncitizens.
The Dornan team is now cross-checking the names delivered by this INS Deep Throat against the voter-registration rolls. The number of verifiably illegal votes cast in the 46th district seems certain to climb.
One of the most astute -- and cautious -- members of the Dornan investigative squad has said to me, without qualification, "We've won." He cites four developments that he believes will eventually guarantee that a new election will be called.
First, he sees indications that the district attorney's office isn't conducting a narrow inquiry, but is casting its net beyond Hermandad to other immigrant-activist groups that might have registered people illegally.
Second, the House Oversight Committee seems poised to act aggressively on Dornan's election challenge. Chairman Bill Thomas personally signed a subpoena ordering the D.A.'s office to share with the panel all data it got from its January 14 search of Hermandad's headquarters.
Third, Dornan's people are now empowered to issue their own subpoenas as part of the election-challenge process. And last, there is the stealthy assistance they're getting from INS staffers who allege that their agency was turned into a tool for the Democratic election machine.
On February 24, a subcommittee of Rep. Thomas's oversight panel is due to make an initial decision on how to handle the Dornan case. At some point it could conduct a trial-like hearing in Orange County, calling witnesses and sifting evidence, and present its judgment to the full committee, and ultimately, the full House.
Meanwhile, another House panel -- the Government Reform and Oversight Committee, chaired by Dan Burton of Indiana -- might pay a visit of its own to Orange County. Among its concerns: the millions in federal dollars showered on Hermandad and other immigrant-rights groups that have 501(c)3 tax-exempt status but nevertheless push an openly partisan agenda. (Hermandad's newspaper, for instance, carried endorsements of Clinton and Sanchez.)
Did Loretta Sanchez know anything about noncitizens registering and voting? "I want to see her asked that question under oath by one or more House committees," a local GOP congressman told me.
Some observers doubt that she was in the loop. But her record isn't hound's-tooth clean. The Los Angeles Times, no friend of Dornan, stayed neutral in the November congressional election. It declined to endorse Sanchez because she showed "questionable judgment" in becoming a business associate with Howard O. Kieffer, a Democratic activist sentenced in 1989 to five years in prison for swindling the Federal Government out of more than $200,000. Sanchez even used his office as her campaign headquarters in last March's primary.
The potency of Dornan's challenge can be gauged by the fact that a counter-offensive against investigators has begun. Hermandad supporters have picketed the Los Angles Times each time it has run stories exposing noncitizen voting. And the group's attorney accused the D.A.'s office of "strong-arm" tactics for seizing citizenship-class lists when the search-warrant was served on the group's offices.
Strong-arming? Hermandad might know a thing or two about that concept. Two of the confidential informants quoted in the D.A.'s affidavit asked to have their names withheld out of fear for their safety, according to the affidavit. One of them said, "Hermandad Mexican Nacional is very powerful and would harm [me] if it was known [I] was cooperating with law enforcement."
The affidavit also said Hermandad officials contacted individuals who had signed up to vote, "advising them not to cooperate with anyone who comes to their home asking questions about their citizenship."
There is much hyperventilating from Hermandad sympathizers about their "civil rights" being under siege.
But whose freedoms are really subverted when invalid ballots pollute the system? Surely not the polluters'.
"Hermandad is endeavoring to transmute the First Amendment into a sword to repulse legitimate criminal investigations and the prosecution of those who commit criminal acts," argued Deputy District Attorney E. Thomas Dunn Jr., in response to Hermandad's claim that the search of its offices violated constitutional protections.
Whatever else the Dornan challenge accomplishes, it will perform a service if it reminds us of the genuine civil-rights interest that attends the ballot box: the right of legitimate voters, of all colors, not to have their ballots diluted by the introduction of phony votes.
Bob Dornan never tires of recounting how he participated in the 1963 civil-rights march on Washington. Thirty-four years later, in challenging fraudulent voting, he is essentially singing another chorus of "We shall overcome."
A February 4, 1998, article by David Stout in The New York Times indicates that the investigation by the Ethics Committee of the United States House of Representatives did indeed whitewash the matter of election fraud in the Dornan-Sanchez Brixey race in 1996, although it did find evidence of such fraud, being unable to conclude that there was enough fraud to have changed the results of the election:
Her [Representative Sanchez Brixey's] joy notwithstanding, the task force's decision was not that clear-cut. Its chairman, Representative Vernon J. Ehlers, Republican of Michigan, said tonight that ''an extremely thorough examination'' had shown there was considerable fraud, but that task force members ''could not conclusively prove there were enough illegal votes to vacate the seat or overturn the election.''
Other members of the panel were Representatives Bob Ney, Republican of Ohio, and Steny Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland.
Mr. Dornan, in a statement issued by his lawyer, Michael J. Schroeder, chairman of the California Republican Party, said: ''While I am disappointed that the committee will not call for a special election, nonetheless it is clear that the committee findings vindicated what I have stated all along, which is that the citizens of the 46th Congressional District were victimized by systematic, widespread voter fraud,''Mr. Schroeder said Mr. Dornan had a month until the filing deadline to decide whether to challenge Ms. Sanchez in November.
The task force will give its recommendation to the full Committee on House Oversight on Wednesday. The committee is virtually certain to go along with the task force and ask that the House drop the matter.
Mr. Ehlers said that his panel had found ''substantial voter fraud in the 46th District,'' but that there was no way to know exactly how many votes were illegally cast.
Mr. Dornan had argued unsuccessfully that the election in the 46th was replete with fraud, including voting by noncitizens. The charges infuriated many Hispanic people and helped focus a spotlight on Ms. Sanchez.
A California grand jury investigated the 1996 contest but found insufficient evidence to return indictments.
The nexus linking "Catholic" Charities and "Catholic" Campaign for Human Development with Hermandad Mexicana Nacional was much reported in the wake of the Dornan-Sanchez Brixey race of 1996. Mrs. Block sent the following information that she found in an article written by The Wanderer's Paul Likoudis. Here is part of her note containing that information.
The 5-8-97 Wanderer published an article by Paul Likoudis, "Catholic Charities, Parishes at Hub of Vote Fraud Schemes."  He writes that CC "claims to have distributed 16,000 voter registration forms to groups throughout Orange County and some officials boasted 'that they turned the election.'""

"We have a witness who says he heard a Catholic Charities worker boasting to Auxiliary Bishop Michael Driscoll [of Orange, CA] that they 'turned the election in the 46th district' -- that's my district, and we have further evidence that Catholic Charities passed out voter registrations that contained perjured statements."

Among the source documents I have in my files are papers - I think obtained by Dornan during the legal disclosure process -- that show CC of Santa Ana submitting and then resubmitting the same names (as new voter registrants gathered during the Active Citizenship Campaign) on two consecutive days. (Please see the late Mr. Paul Likoudis's May 8, 1997, report in The Wanderer).
Yes, the system is rigged, and it was rigged by men who hated the Catholic Faith:
The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.
Unembarrassed by attachments to noble families, hereditary lines and successions, or any considerations of royal blood, even the pious mystery of holy oil had no more influence than that other of holy water: the people universally were too enlightened to be imposed on by artifice; and their leaders, or more properly followers, were men of too much honour to attempt it. Thirteen governments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favour of the rights of mankind. (President John Adams: "A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America," 1787-1788)
"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away {with} all this artificial scaffolding…" (11 April, 1823, John Adams letter to Thomas Jefferson, Adams-Jefferson Letters, ed. Lester J. Cappon, II, 594).
Can a free government possibly exist with the Roman Catholic religion? (John Adams, Letter to Thomas Jefferson, May 19, 1821)
I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced! (John Adams, Letter to Thomas Jefferson, quoted in 200 Years of Disbelief, by James Hauck)
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect."—James Madison, letter to William Bradford, Jr„ April I, 1774
". . . Freedom arises from the multiplicity of sects, which pervades America and which is the best and only security for religious liberty in any society. For where there is such a variety of sects, there cannot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the rest."—James Madison, spoken at the Virginia convention on ratification of the Constitution, June 1778
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution."—-James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance," addressed to the Virginia General Assembly, 1785
History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes. (Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Alexander von Humboldt, December, 1813.)
May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all) the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. That form which we have substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God. These are grounds of hope for others. For ourselves, let the annual return of this day forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them. (Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Roger Weigthman, June 24, 1826, ten days before Jefferson's death. This letter is quoted in its entirety in Dr. Paul Peterson’s now out-of-print Readings in American Democracy. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall-Hunt, 1979, pp. 28-29. )
Thomas Jefferson was the principal author of the Declaration of Independence.
John Adams was the first vice president and second president of the United States of America.
James Madison was the secretary of the Constitutional Convention, which met from May 25, 1787, to September 17, 1787, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (and it is in that capacity that he is considered to be the “Father of the Constitution”), and the fourth president of the United States of America after having served as Jefferson's Secretary of State.
Jefferson’s letter to Roger Weightman, written just ten days before his death on July 4, 1826, precisely fifty years to the day after the promulgation of the Declaration of Independence (a date of death his shared with his one-time friend turned adversary and then friend again, John Adams), demonstrates clearly this wretched naturalist’s hope for a world freed from the shackles of what he believed to be “monkish superstition.” It is generally not a good thing to go before Christ the King at the moment of one’s Particular Judgment after having written about “monkish superstition.”
Quite specifically, you see, a nation that is not founded on right principles must degenerate into the barbarism of our present era, having no immutable teaching authority to guide it, choosing to be "guided" by the demigods of national founding fathers and/or by the shifting winds of majoritarian sentiment at any particular point in time. Contradiction and instability are bound to result, as we can see with great clarity today. It is very much beside the point to argue that the "founders" would have opposed this or that social evil. They premised the entire fabric of national life under the Constitution upon the false belief that men could sort out their differences by means of a cumbersome process of negotiation and debate in the national legislative process, believing that there was no single belief that could unite men and guide them in the pursuit of the common good as the supreme and eternal good each man was kept in mind. There is no way, therefore, for naturalists to use a naturalist Constitution to defend against various evils. Evil must win when man does not subordinate himself to the Deposit of Faith that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour entrusted exclusively to the Catholic Church and when men do not have belief in, access to or cooperation with Sanctifying Grace.
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.)
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.
What must matter most of all ot us to defeat the devil and his minions as they attack us in our daily lives, and to do this we need to imitate the lives of the saints, especially those such as Saint Teresa of Avila, Saint Peter of Alcantara, Saint John of Cantius whose feasts have been celebrated within the past six days, who practiced mortifiation as they accepted with serenity God's Holy Will for them in their lives. Indeed, Saint Hilarion, whose feast we celebrate today, Friday, October 21, 2016, practiced heroic mortification that should inspire each of us to die to self and to our sense pleasures more and more each day:
Hilarion was born of heathens at Tabatha in Palestine, (about the year of our Lord 291.) He was sent to study at Alexandria, where he bore a fair name for life and wit. There he embraced the religion of Jesus Christ, and made wonderful head-way in faith and love. He went oftentimes to Church, was careful in fasting and prayer, and set no price upon the pleasures and lusts of the world. When the name of Antony became famous in Egypt, Hilarion made a journey into the desert on purpose to see him. There he dwelt with him two months, to the end that he might learn all his way of life, and then returned home. After the death of his father and mother, he gave all that he had to the poor. Before he had completed the fifteenth year of his age, he went into the desert, and built there a little house, scarcely big enough to hold him, and wherein he was used to sleep on the ground. The piece of sackcloth wherewith alone he clad himself he never washed and never changed, saying that hair-cloth was a thing not worth the trouble of cleanliness. He took great interest in reading and meditating on the Holy Scriptures. His food was a few figs and some porridge of vegetables, and this he ate not before set of sun. His self-control and lowliness were beyond belief. By these and other arms he overcame divers and fearful attacks of the devil, and drave out countless evil spirits from the bodies of men in many parts of the world. He had built many monasteries, and was famous for miracles, when, in the eightieth year of his age, he fell sick. When he was gasping for his last breath, he said Go out what art thou afraid of? Go out, my soul! wherefore shrinkest thou? Thou hast served Christ hard on seventy years and art thou afraid of death? And so with these words he gave up the Ghost. (Matins. The Divine Office, Feast of Saint Hilarion.)
A few figs and a porridge of vegetables! And we are complaining about a soon-to-be forgotten figure of history named Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton?
Come one, the saints were never slow in embracing their crosses, and they never murmured in the midst of them. With Blessed Job they have exclaimed:
And said: Naked came I out of my mother' s womb, and naked shall I return thither: the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away: as it hath pleased the Lord so is it done: blessed be the name of the Lord.  (Job 1: 21.)
We must suffer as did Blessed Job as we know full well that God brings good out of evil and as we look Heavenward to Our Lady to beseech her to shower down upon us the graces her Divine Son won for us by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Blessed Blood during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday so that we can persevere to the end as Catholics who live and die solely as soldiers of Christ the King thruogh her own Sorrowful and Imamculate Heart.
Vivat Christus RexViva Cristo Rey!
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.
Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.
Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.
Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.
Saint Hilarion the Abbot, pray for us.
Saint Ursula and Companions, pray for us.