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.)
A 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).
"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 Rex! Viva 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.