One Scandal Too Many?

One Scandal Too Many?

Submitted by Dr. Thomas A. D… on Sat, 05/28/2016

[Yah, by Tom Droleskey – and from his Christ of Chaos website – but without any BLEEPery]

Although there is not much new in this commentary that I did not say in the 1990s during the time of William Jefferson Blythe’s presidency, I thought it important to put the latest scandal involving the Clintons into a bit of perspective lest the few remaining readers of this site come to believe that Hillary Rodham Diane Clinton’s “E-mail-gate” is going to be her downfall at long last. Perhaps now will be the time that the political careers of the “two for the price of one” Clintons will hit the skids. Having believed in the past that whichever Clinton scandal was breaking at the time would do them in once and for all, I am a very skeptical that we are witnessing the Clintons’ “end game.”

Even if it is their time to “Say goodnight, Gracie,” we are facing an onslaught of evil as never before seen in salvation history. The forces of Modernity in the world and Modernism in the counterfeit church of concilarism have coalesced to produce countries filled with practical atheists and neo-barbarians. The Western world, including the United States of America, has a great price to pay for its crimes against God and His immutable moral laws. This is why we need to live more penitentially as we seek to offer everything we suffer up to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

As one who wrote endless numbers of articles for The Wanderer about the Clintons in the 1990s, I have always found the ability of the “man from Hope, Arkansas” and the woman from Oak Park, Illinois, to avoid legal consequences for their calculated pattern of lying to cover-up their abuse of power, violations of the law, and simple mendacity to be nothing other than preternatural. Nothing seems to dampen their ability to remain completely unfazed by all of the documented evidence that has proved them to be nothing other than arrogant sociopaths who believe that they are above all law while they seek to discredit anyone and everyone who dares to call them to account for their crimes against God and man.

Although I should have known better after all of their previous scandals (see the list below), I did permit myself to think that “this is it!—it’s curtains for the Clintons” when I heard the news about the Drudge Report’s story concerning William Jefferson Blythe Clinton’s deposition in the Paula Corbin Jones civil law suit while waiting in an emergency room at a hospital near the Catholic University of America after spraining an ankle rather severely at the March for Life on January 22, 1998. Indeed, I was in a wheelchair in the emergency room at the time the news was broadcast on one of the national network’s newscasts and said out loud to no one in particular (and to everyone at the same time, which is a trait of New Yorkers), “Goodbye, Bill and Hillary.” I was wrong.

Former President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton remains a respected public figure despite the fact that he entered into a “consent agreement” with Independent Counsel Robert Ray on January 19, 2001, in which he admitted making “misleading” statements in testimony he gave to attorneys representing Paula Corbin Jones on January 17, 1998. Perjury? What’s the big deal? The man continues to milk his Clinton Foundation, whose chief executive officer is none other than the pro-abortion Maronite Rite Catholic named Donna Shalala (who served as the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services from January 22, 1993, to January 20, 2001), for millions upon millions of dollars from the same sort shady international “financiers” to whom overnight visits at the White House Lincoln Room were exchanged for campaign contributions twenty years ago.

Indeed, what is even more telling now, twenty-four years after the then Governor of Arkansas won the Democratic Party presidential nomination against United States Senator Paul Tsongas (D-Massachusetts) and former—and future—Governor of California Edmund Gerald Brown, Jr., is that Hillary Rodham Diane Clinton, is even more respected than her husband despite the fact that her entire public career has been characterized by a pattern of deceit and corruption. While it is true that a large percentage of voters consider her to be untrustworthy, this does not seem to affect her national poll numbers in a significant manner as of yet. Millions of Democratic Party lemmings continue to flock to her, admitting that the hardcore Stalinist named Bernard Sanders, a United States Senator from Vermont by way of Brooklyn and Moscow, has a significant follower among younger voters who are upset with a rigged nomination process and who believe that Mrs. Clinton is not as committed a statist as “Bern,” and there will be many millions more who will vote for her on Tuesday, November 8, 2016, even in the unlikely event that a Federal grand jury indicts her for her decisions ignore Federal law and State Department policies in order to shield her communication from being accessible by means of Freedom of Information requests.

Here is a summary of State Department’s Inspector General’s report as found in an editorial in the New York Post:

A devastating report by the State Department’s inspector general Wednesday shows just why Americans are right to distrust Hillary Clinton.

The 78-page document (by an Obama appointee, no less) concludes that Clinton’s server and email practices as secretary of state violated department policy — and she and her team lied about it repeatedly.

It says she and her inner circle defiantly stonewalled the investigation, despite Hillary’s repeated assurances that she’d “talk to anybody, anytime.” It also says:

Clinton never sought an OK from State’s legal staff to use a private server, as required, and as her aides claimed. If she had, permission would’ve been denied.

Instead, her IT aides were warned “never to speak of the Secretary’s personal email system” — and neither her server nor her Blackberry “met [even] minimum security requirements.”

Despite her repeated denials, there were at least two attempts to hack into her system.

Neither was ever reported to State’s security personnel, as required.

Clinton claimed she used a private system strictly for convenience. But when urged to also use an official email address, she refused, citing the risk that personal emails might become publicly accessible.

Tellingly, Clinton and top aides Huma Abedin, Jake Sullivan and Cheryl Mills refused to be interviewed by the IG.

Here’s the bottom line: Virtually everything Clinton has said about her emails has been a lie. And no longer can supporters laugh off Emailgate so easily.

Hillary’s culpability and her flouting of the law now seem clear. But that leaves one more shoe to drop: Will Attorney General Loretta Lynch indict the Democrats’ presumptive presidential nominee? If she doesn’t, she’ll need a good excuse why. (Damning Report on E-Mailgate Shows that Hillary Cannot Be Trusted.)

Although some may be saying to themselves—others—“This is it!—it’s curtains for the Clintons” because of the United States Department of State’s Inspector General’s report that was released on Wednesday, May 25, 2016, I am unconvinced. After all, very few people seem to care about the fact that Hillary Rodham Diane Clinton supports baby-killing and perversity in direct defiance of the binding precepts of the Fifth, Sixth, and Ninth Commandments. Why should people care about the fact that this calculated liar lied about her private e-mail server as she conspired to keep its existence unknown to the general public and from Freedom of Information requests such as though filed by Judicial Watch? Indeed, it was the lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia that brougt the whole business of Clinton’s non-secured private e-mail server to light in the first place, although the first Freedom of Information request for Clinton’s records had been made by an organization called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

Then again, so few people even know, no less care, about, the fact that the lying and mendacity exhibited by the Clintons are simply symptomatic of a world that has gone into abosolute freefall as a result of Protestantism’s overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King that was cemented in place by the rise of Judeo-Masonry and has been aided and abetted by the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s endorsement of it. Most people today are enjoying their bread and circuses to even stop to take the time to read anything about the true history of Western civilization in order for them to realize that the immorality and decadence that many of them believe are their “rights” must lead to the collapse of all order and thus to the reign of Antichrist over men and their nations.

So few people understand or care that it was Martin Luther’s rebellion against the Divine Plan that God Himself had instituted to effect man’s return to Him through the Catholic Church that divided men over First and Last Things, thus paving the way for the triumph of secular substitutes for religious faith in general just as Luther had substituted his own heretical views of Christianity in the place of the true Faith, which is the only foundation of personal and social order.

Obviously, the amorality that afflicts politicians of both major organized crime families of naturalism in the United States today (and that paralyzes many in the false opposite of the naturalist “right” from taking firm stands against the increasingly bolder attacks of what others have called homofascism) is simply part and parcel of the reality of the anti-Incarnational, Judeo-Masonic world that was made possible by Martin Luther’s revolution against the Divine Plan that God Himself instituted to effect man’s return to Him through the Catholic Church. Pope Pius XI took note of the harsh reality of partisan politics in the world as it exists when he wrote the following in his first encyclical letter, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922:

To these evils we must add the contests between political parties, many of which struggles do not originate in a real difference of opinion concerning the public good or in a laudable and disinterested search for what would best promote the common welfare, but in the desire for power and for the protection of some private interest which inevitably result in injury to the citizens as a whole. From this course there often arise robberies of what belongs rightly to the people, and even conspiracies against and attacks on the supreme authority of the state, as well as on its representatives. These political struggles also beget 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 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.)

Successive generations of American politicians have succeeded in convincing voters that they would provide “prosperity” now and into the future, being so bold, of course, as to lie repeatedly during the campaigns and while they held office. Many, of course, have used their time in office to augment their hold on raw political power as they sought to crush all opposition as illegitimate, something that has been common to all three levels of government (state, local, federal) in the United States of America.

Moreover, the Constitution of the United States of America has been defenseless against efforts by various presidential administrations, staring with that of the second president himself, the anti-Catholic bigot and notorious blasphemer named John Adams, to silence opposition voices by having Congress enact the Alien and Sedition Acts, which were passed on July 14, 1798, and made it a crime to publish “false, scandalous, and malicious” writing against the government of the United States of America and its officials.

The sixteenth President of the United States of America, Abraham Lincoln, did not exactly “cotton” to political opposition during the War Between the States from 1861 to 1865, as he intimidated judges, shut down newspapers, suspended the writ of habeas corpus without an Act of Congress, held opponents in prison without trial and put civilians on trial in military courts at a time when civilian courts were open. And this is just a partial listing of what led John Wilkes Booth to cry out, “Sic temper tyrannis!” as he jumped onto the stage of the Ford Theater in Washington, District of Columbia, on Good Friday, April 14, 1865, from the balcony where he had just shot Lincoln in the head, a wound that would take Lincoln’s life early the next morning, Holy Saturday, April 15, 1865.

Suppression of opposition to American involvement in World War I under the administration of President Thomas Woodrow Wilson was so extensive that Senator Hiram Johnson of California, who had run as former President Theodore Roosevelt’s Vice Presidential running-mate on the Progressive (Bull Moose) Party ticket in 1912 when Wilson was running for his first term as President against Roosevelt and then President William Howard Taft, who had defeated Roosevelt, to say on the floor of the United States Senate: “It is now a crime for anyone to say anything or print anything against the government of the United States. The punishment for doing so is to go to jail” (quoted in Dr Paul Johnson’s Modern Times). (See also my Fascists for Freedom.)

Just as an aside, President Thomas Woodrow Wilson wanted to use the unconstitutional Federal Reserve System, created in an act passed by the Congress of the United States of America and signed into law by Wilson on December 23, 1913, as the means to centralize the banking and monetary systems under the authority of the government of the United States of America in order to restrict the legitimate freedom of Americans to control their own private property and to make private industry dependent upon the “direction” provided it by governmental regulators and overseers. It was for this reason as well that Wilson saw to it that Congress enacted legislation, following the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, to create our current system of confiscatory taxation on our incomes. And it was Wilson, of course, who believed that the Masonic revolutionaries in Mexico, aping the “example” established by the French Revolutionaries, could “build” or “engineer” the “better” society in Our Lady’s country by the killing of thousands upon thousands of Catholics:

Wilson replied [in 1915, to Father Francis Clement Kelley, who was a representative of James Cardinal Gibbons, the Archbishop of Baltimore, for whom Wilson had such contempt that he addressed him as Mister Gibbons]: ‘I have no doubt but that the terrible things you mention have happened during the Mexican revolution. But terrible things happened also during the French revolution, perhaps more terrible things than have happened in Mexico. Nevertheless, out of that French revolution came the liberal ideas that have dominated in so many countries, including our own. I hope that out of the bloodletting in Mexico some such good yet may come.’

“Having thus instructed his caller in the benefits which must perforce accrue to mankind out of the systematic robbery, murder, torture and rape of people holding a proscribed religious conviction, the professor of politics [Wilson] suggested that Father Kelley visit Secretary of State Williams Jennings Bryan, who expressed his deepest sympathy. Obviously, the Wilson administration was committed to supporting the revolutionaries (Robert Leckie American and Catholic, Doubleday, 1970, pp. 274.)

Franklin Delano Roosevelt used the Internal Revenue Service to audit his “enemies.” He contravened the law in numerous ways as he used the legislative powers illicitly given to regulatory agencies by Congress during the Great Depression and during World War II to set the stage for Barack Hussein Obama’s rule by decree and presidential fiat. Roosevelt, the fifth cousin of the Republican statist and fellow thirty-third degree Freemason, Theodore Roosevelt, the uncle of Eleanor Roosevelt, even ordered his Attorney General, Robert Jackson, to engage in domestic espionage. Roosevelt’s directive took the form of a memorandum dated May 21, 1940.

Robert Jackson, who was appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States of America on July 11, 1941, did not like the directive as he believed that Franklin Roosevelt had authorized domestic surveillance on anyone suspected of being subversive. Jackson’s successor, however, Francis Biddle, who took office as the Attorney General of the United States of America on August 25, 1941, had no qualms about the directive, delegating the task of carrying it out to the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, John Edgar Hoover, who was more than happy to run with this new expansion of his authority to investigate anyone at any time for any reason. The history of the Federal government’s surveillance since that time is one of completely unchecked growth.

The Fourth Amendment?

Our minders in the Federal government of the United States of America have, in effect told us, “We don’t need no stinkin’ Fourth Commandment.

Moreover, it has been case for most of this country’s history that our minders in the Federal government of the United States of America have violated the laws of God and of men to suit their sorry purposes whenever they deemed it “necessary” to do so.

Yes, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt misused the powers of the office of the President of the United States of America to investigate and to harass his political opponents, making it no wonder that he had such an affinity for–and was not interested in learning about–the truth of the man he called “Uncle Joe” Stalin, who never moved “kinda slow” at the junction” when it came to dealing with his political opponents, using execution rather than investigation and harassment tactics. Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Baines Johnson did so with reckless abandon. A culture of criminality had been institutionalized in the White House long before Richard Nixon defeated then Vice President Hubert Humphrey and former Alabama Governor George Corley Wallace in 1968 and assembled his administration to take office on January 20, 1969. A nation founded on the combined lies of Protestantism and the naturalism of the “Enlightenment” and Judeo-Masonry must degenerate to the depths of depravity and overt criminality over the course of time.

The Watergate affair, which was born of the amorality of Machiavellianism that helped to launch the era of Modernity during the Renaissance, ruined more careers and reputations than Richard Nixon’s. A number of people went to Federal prison, including former Attorney General of the United States of America John Mitchell, and former White House Chief of Staff Haldeman, former Special Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy John Ehrlichman, and White House aides Charles Colson and George Gordon Liddy, among others.

Yes, there were survivors from the Nixon administration who either continued in government or who maintained, if not increased, their prominence. Just consider these names: Henry Kissinger, Patrick Buchanan, George Herbert Walker Bush, George Schultz, Caspar Weinberger, Alexander Haig, Donald Rumsfeld, and Richard Cheney, whom Rumsfeld recommended to Nixon’s successor, Gerald Rudolph Ford, Jr., to serve as White House Chief of Staff to replace him upon his appointment as Secretary of Defense in 1975. Cheney, showing what a little bit of power could do to a thirty-three three old man in charge of running the White House, wanted to use the United States Department of Justice to exact retribution upon then New York Times reporter Seymour Hersh for publishing articles critical of the Ford administration’s foreign policy. Ah, how things never change.

The Watergate mess wrought by the amorality of Modernity and its lack of concern for obeying God’s laws as He has entrusted them to the teaching authority of the one, true Church that He Himself created upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope, also raised up naturalists on the false opposite known as the political “left” to prominence, including a staff aide to the Judiciary Committee of the United States House of Representatives, a recent graduate of Yale Law School by the name of one Hillary Diane Rodham. She wanted the House Judiciary Committee, chaired by the pro-abortion Catholic Representative Peter Rodino (who died in 2005 at the age of ninety-five–and in perfectly good standing in the counterfeit church of conciliarism), to be completely ruthless in its pursuit of President Nixon, an inveterate supporter of “population control” (see Poster Boy of Modernity) that two recent books (The Real Watergate Scandal: Collusion, Conspiracy, and the Plot That Brought Nixon Down and Being Nixon: A Man Divided) admit was, in effect, a coup d’etat.

Consider this account written by the late Jerome “Jerry” Zeifman, a Democrat, who was a senior attorney on the House Judiciary Committee, “Hillary, As I Knew Her:”

At the time of Watergate I had overall supervisory authority over the House Judiciary Committee’s Impeachment Inquiry staff that included Hillary Rodham — who was later to become First Lady in the Clinton White House. During that period I kept a private diary of the behind the scenes congressional activities. My original tape recordings of the diary and other materials related to the Nixon impeachment provided the basis for my prior book Without Honor and are now available for inspection in the George Washington University Library.

After President Nixon’s resignation a young lawyer who shared an office with Hillary, confided in me that he was dismayed by her erroneous legal opinions and efforts to deny Nixon representation by counsel — as well as an unwillingness to investigate Nixon. In my diary of August 12, 1974 I noted the following:

John Labovitz apologized to me for the fact that months ago he and Hillary had lied to me [to conceal rules changes and dilatory tactics.] Labovitz said. “That came from Yale.” I said “You mean Burke Marshall [Senator Ted Kennedy’s chief political strategist, with whom Hillary regularly consulted in violation of House rules.] Labovitz said, “Yes.” His apology was significant to me, not because it was a revelation but because of his contrition.

At that time Hillary Rodham was 27 years old, She had obtained a position on our committee staff through the political patronage of her former Yale law school professor Burke Marshall and Senator Ted Kennedy. Eventually, because of a number of her unethical practices I decided that I could not recommend her for any subsequent position of public or private trust.

Her patron, Burke Marshal, had previously been Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights under Robert Kennedy. During the Kennedy administration Washington insiders jokingly characterized him as the Chief counsel to the Irish Mafia. After becoming a Yale professor he also became Senator Ted Kennedy’s lawyer at the time of Chappaquiddick — as well as Kennedy’s chief political strategist. As a result, some his colleagues often described him as the Attorney General in waiting of the Camelot government in exile.

In addition to getting Hillary a job on the Nixon impeachment inquiry staff, Kennedy and Marshall had also persuaded Rodino to place two other close friends of Marshall in top positions on our staff. One was John Doar; who had been Marshall’s deputy in the Justice Department – whom Rodino appointed to head the impeachment inquiry staff. The other was Bernard Nussbaum, who had served as Assistant U.S. Attorney in New York – who was placed in charge of conducting the actual investigation of Nixon’s malfeasance.

Marshall, Doar, Nussbaum, and Rodham had two hidden objectives regarding the conduct of the impeachment proceedings. First, in order to enhance the prospect of Senator Kennedy or another liberal Democrat being elected president in 1976 they hoped to keep Nixon in office “twisting in the wind” for as long as possible. This would prevent then-Vice President Jerry Ford from becoming President and restoring moral authority to the Republican Party.

As was later quoted in the biography of Tip O’Neill (by John Farrell) a liberal Democrat would have become a “shoe in for the presidency in 1976” if had Nixon been kept in office until the end of his term. However, both Tip O’Neil and I — as well as most Democrats regarded it to be in the national interest to replace Nixon with Ford as soon as possible. As a result. as described by O’Neill we coordinated our efforts to “keep Rodino’s feet to the fire.”

A second objective of the strategy of delay was to avoid a Senate Impeachment trial in which as a defense Nixon might disclose and assert that Kennedy had authorized far worse abuses of power than Nixon’s effort to “cover up” the Watergate burglary (which Nixon had not authorized known about in advance. In short, the crimes of Kennedy included the use of the Mafia to attempt to assassinate Castro, as well as the successful assassinations of Diem in Vietnam and Lumumba in the Congo.

After hiring Hillary, Doar assigned her to confer with me regarding rules of procedure for the impeachment inquiry. At my first meeting with her I told her that Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino, House Speaker Carl Albert, Majority Leader “Tip” O’Neill, Parliamentarian Lou Deschler. And I had previously all agreed that we should rely only on the then existing House Rules, and not advocate any changes. I also quoted Tip O’Neill’s statement that: “To try to change the rules now would be politically divisive. It would be like trying to change the traditional rules of baseball before a World Series.”

Hillary assured me that she had not drafted, and would not advocate, any such rules changes. However, as documented in my personal diary I soon learned that she had lied. She had already drafted changes, and continued to advocate them. In one written legal memorandum, she advocated denying President Nixon representation by counsel. In so doing she simply ignored the fact that in the committee’s then-most-recent prior impeachment proceeding, the committee had afforded the right to counsel to Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas.

I had also informed Hillary that the Douglas impeachment files were available for public inspection in the committee offices. She later removed the Douglas files without my permission and carried them to the offices of the impeachment inquiry staff — where they were no longer accessible to the public.

Hillary had also made other flawed procedural recommendations, arguing that the Judiciary Committee should: not hold any hearings with – or take depositions of — any live witnesses; not conduct any original investigation of Watergate, bribery, tax evasion, or any other possible impeachable offense of President Nixon; and should rely solely on documentary evidence compiled by other committees and by the Justice Departments special Watergate prosecutor.

Only a few far left Democrats supported Hillary’s recommendations. A majority of the committee agreed to allow President Nixon to be represented by counsel and to hold hearings with live witnesses. Hillary then advocated that the official rules of the House be amended to deny members of the committee the right to question witnesses. This recommendation was voted down by the full House. The committee also rejected her proposal that we leave the drafting of the articles of impeachment to her and her fellow impeachment inquiry staffers.

It was not until two months after Nixon’s resignation that we first learned of still another questionable role of Hillary. On Sept. 26, 1974, Rep. Charles Wiggins, a Republican member of the committee, wrote to ask Chairman Rodino to look into “a troubling set of events.” That spring, Wiggins and other committee members had asked “that research should be undertaken so as to furnish a standard against which to test the alleged abusive conduct of Richard Nixon.” And, while “no such staff study was made available to the members at any time for their use,” Wiggins had just learned that such a study had been conducted – at committee expense – by a team of professors who completed and filed their reports with the impeachment-inquiry staff well in advance of our public hearings.

The report was kept secret from members of Congress. But after the impeachment-inquiry staff was disbanded, it was published commercially and sold in book stores. Wiggins wrote: “I am especially troubled by the possibility that information deemed essential by some of the members in their discharge of their responsibilities may have been intentionally suppressed by the staff during the course our investigation.” He was also concerned that staff members may have unlawfully received royalties from the book’s publisher.

On Oct. 3, Rodino wrote back: “Hillary Rodham of the impeachment-inquiry staff coordinated the work. The staff did not think the manuscript was useful in its present form.” No effort was ever made to ascertain whether or not Hillary or any other person on the committee staff received royalties.

Two decades later Bill Clinton became President. As was later described in the Wall Street Journal by Henry Ruth, the lead Watergate courtroom prosecutor, “The Clintons corrupted the soul of the Democratic Party.”

Although I remained a Democrat, I was in complete agreement with Henry Ruth. I served as pro bono counsel and investigator for Congressman Bob Barr (R GA), who was one of the managers of the House Judiciary Committee in the Senate trial of Clinton’s impeachment proceedings in the Senate trial. (Jerome Zeifman, Hillary as I knew her in 1974. This particular site’s transcription of a chapter from one of Mr. Zeifman’s books has a number of spelling errors. I chose it to link to rather than the one from which the text above was copied as that other site was filled with grossly indecent advertising.)

Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton is a complete product of Modernity. She established her pattern of deceptive, obfuscation and stonewalling in her youth, enabled by men such as Burke Marshall and encouraged by her fellow feminists. She has always had a profound sense of entitlement. She took documents that she had no right to take back in 1974. She held secret meetings to plan HillaryCare in 1993 and 1994, which is one of the principal reasons that Democrats lost both control of houses of Congress in the national elections of Tuesday, November 8, 1994. What is happening now with her having stored classified information on her own personal computer server in full violation of the rules and procedures of the United States Department and State is nothing new whatsoever.

Although some journalists have written that the late Jerome Zeifman’s account is untrue, one of Zeifman’s contemporaries, Franklin Polk, a fellow Democrat who served with Zeifman as a counsel on the House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment proceedings against President Nixon, confirmed substantial parts of Zeifman’s account:

Details of Hillary Clinton’s firing from the House Judiciary Committee staff for unethical behavior as she helped prepare articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon have been confirmed by the panel’s chief Republican counsel.

Franklin Polk backed up major claims by Jerry Zeifman, the general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee who supervised Clinton’s work on the Watergate investigation in 1974, reported columnist Dan Calabrese in a column republished by WND.

Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, called Clinton a “liar” and “an unethical, dishonest lawyer.”

He contends Clinton was collaborating with allies of the Kennedys to block revelation of Kennedy-administration activities that made Watergate “look like a day at the beach.”

Her brief, Zeifman said, was so fraudulent and ridiculous, she would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge.

Polk confirmed Clinton wrote a brief arguing Nixon should not be granted legal counsel due to a lack of precedent. But Clinton deliberately ignored the then-recent case of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, who was allowed to have a lawyer during the impeachment attempt against him in 1970.

Moreover, Zeifman claims Clinton bolstered her fraudulent brief by removing all of the Douglas files from public access and storing them at her office, enabling her to argue as if the case never existed.

Polk confirmed the Clinton memo ignored the Douglas case, but he could not confirm or dispel the claim that Hillary removed the files.

Looking back on the case amid Clinton’s fierce battle with Sen. Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination, Calabrese sees a picture emerging “of a very ambitious young lawyer who was eager to please her political patrons, and was willing to mislead and undermine established committee staff and senior committee members in order to do so.”

The columnist, editor in chief of the North Star Writers Group, noted Zeifman has been “trying to tell his story for many years, and the mainstream media have ignored him.”

Zeifman said Clinton, then 27, was hired to work on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who also was Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick case.

When the Watergate probe concluded, Zeifman said, he fired Clinton from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation. She was one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career, Calabrese pointed out.

Zeifman told the columnist he fired Clinton because she was a liar.

“She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer,” Zeifman said. “She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

Zeifman said Clinton collaborated with several individuals, including Marshall, special counsel John Doar and senior associate special counsel Bernard Nussbaum, who later became counsel in the Clinton White House. Their aim, he said, was the seemingly implausible scheme to deny Nixon the right to counsel during the investigation.

The Kennedy allies, Zeifman said, feared putting Watergate break-in mastermind E. Howard Hunt on the stand to be cross-examined by the president’s counsel. Hunt, according to Zeifman, had evidence of nefarious activities by President John F. Kennedy’s administration, including purportedly using the mafia to attempt to assassinate Cuban dictator Fidel Castro.

Polk regarded Clinton’s memo as dishonest because it tried to pretend the Douglas precedent didn’t exist. But, unlike Zeifman, he considered it more stupid than sinister.

“Hillary should have mentioned [the Douglas case] and then tried to argue whether that was a change of policy or not instead of just ignoring it and taking the precedent out of the opinion,” Polk told Calabrese.

But Zeifman argues that if Clinton, Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar had succeeded, House Judiciary members also would have been denied the right to cross-examine witnesses and denied the opportunity to even participate in the drafting of articles of impeachment against Nixon.

Polk recalls Zeifman told him at the time he believed Clinton’s primary role was to alert Marshall if the investigation was taking a turn against the Kennedys’ liking.

“Jerry used to give the chapter and verse as to how Hillary was the mole into the committee works as to how things were going,” Polk said.

Polk remembered some Democrat committee members, as well as nearly all the Republicans, were upset at the attempt to deny counsel to Nixon.

Zeifman said top Democrats, including then-House Majority Leader Tip O’Neill, believed Nixon clearly had the right to counsel.

“Of course the Republicans went nuts,” Polk said. “But so did some of the Democrats – some of the most liberal Democrats. It was more like these guys – Doar and company – were trying to manage the members of Congress, and it was like, ‘Who’s in charge here?’ If you want to convict a president, you want to give him all the rights possible. If you’re going to give him a trial, for him to say, ‘My rights were denied,’ – it was a stupid effort by people who were just politically tone deaf. So this was a big deal to people in the proceedings on the committee, no question about it.”

Polk said Zeifman rightfully “went nuts,” as well, but “my reaction wasn’t so much that it was underhanded as it was just stupid.”

Calabrese concludes: “Disingenuously arguing a position? Vanishing documents? Selling out members of her own party to advance a personal agenda? Classic Hillary. Neither my first column on the subject nor this one were designed to show that Hillary is dishonest. I don’t really think that’s in dispute. Rather, they were designed to show that she has been this way for a very long time – a fact worth considering for anyone contemplating voting for her for president of the United States.”

The columnist noted Polk recalled something else that started long ago.

“She would go around saying, ‘I’m dating a person who will some day be president,’” Polk said. “It was like a Babe Ruth call. And because of that comment she made, I watched Bill Clinton’s political efforts as governor of Arkansas, and I never counted him out because she had made that forecast.” (Counsel Confirm’s Hillary’s Fraudulent Watergate Brief.)

Every claim made about Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton’s efforts to act above the laws of God and man is met with naysayers and defenders who just cannot believe what is apparent to anyone who has a modicum of common sense: Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton is an exemplar of American politics, which means that she is committed to the amoral pursuit of self-interest above everything else. Mrs. Clinton’s husband may have been unfaithful to her throughout the course of the time together, dating back to they lived together in sin before they got married on 1975. However, they share a single-minded pursuit of their own careers and “reputations,” being willing to destroy anyone and everyone who gets in their way or who dares to criticize them.

Bill Clinton becomes belligerent when questioned about them. Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton is a little more sophisticated, having learned, according to Dr. William Coulson at a regional Wanderer Forum in Albany, New York, in April of 1995, how to handle “reality” by means of the approach of the late Dr. Carl Ransom Rogers, a “humanistic” psychologist who taught people how to be “comfortable” with their perceptions of themselves and the world. Dr. Coulson, who was a disciple of the Rogerian method and, by his own admission in Latin Mass Magazine in the early-1990s, helped to destroy the Immaculate Heart of Mary Sisters by getting them to express their pent-up grievances against each other in “group sessions,” said that one of Mrs, Clinton’s answers in an interview about Whitewater was quintessentially Rogerian. Mrs. Clinton said that she was “very comfortable” with her actions in Whitewater (remember those billing records from her old Little Rock, Arkansas, law firm that wound up in the White House reading room?), which Dr. Coulson said was how someone conversation with Rogerian psychology deals with uncomfortable situations. You just make yourself comfortable, and one can be pretty assured that it will be a “comfortable with herself” Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton who appears before the House Select Committee on Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi on October 22, 2015.

Yes, the Clintons are very “comfortable” with themselves and all of their actions in the above-mentioned situations, which started when Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton made a very calculated choice she chose to follow her boyfriend from Yale Law School, one William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, to Arkansas, knowing full well about his, shall we say, straying eye, instead of running for office on her own.

A girl friend of the then Miss Rodham’s asked her why she would want to endure Clinton’s endless womanizing. As is recounted in David Maraniss’s First in His Class: A Biography of Bill Clinton (Touchstone, 1995), Miss Rodham chuckled a bit in response to her friend’s question and then said, “Bill Clinton’s going to be President of the United States.”

Preternatural knowledge?

One can’t rule it out. After all, anyone who engages in “seances” (Eleanor Roosevelt Roosevelt, call your office) invites the devil and his minions into an intimate alliance with him, whether or not he realizes it. Hillary Diane Rodham gave up a lot to go to Arkansas back in 1974. She was sure that she had found her meal-ticket back to the highest place in all of Washington, D.C., the White House, taking but a mere eighteen years to reach the point where her fellow citizens would have, as she boasted early in her husband’s 1992 campaign for the Democrat Party presidential nomination, “two for the price of one.”

Having endured Clinton’s philandering and living in the State of Arkansas, where she worked very hard to establish herself as an advocate, as she saw it for “children” (disregarding the inconvenient little fact that she also advocates the murder of innocent preborn children), Hillary Rodham Clinton (it took her awhile to adopt her husband’s last name) was not about to let the facts of her husband’s sordid private life get in the way of their going to the White House.

The First Lady of Arkansas took it upon herself to steamroller Gennifer Flowers in early-1992, dismissing the latter’s charges of an illicit relationship with her husband to be “trash for cash.” It was the quintessence of the Saul Alinsky methodology of crushing one’s opponents that she had learned so well at Wellesley College from 1966 to 1970: “Pick the target, free it, personalize it and polarize it.”

Although Hillary Diane Rodham may not have agreed with everything in Saul Alinsky’s ideology, she certainly adopted Alinsky’s methodology when her cherished goal of ultimate power in Washington, D.C., without having to endure the rough-and-tumble of electoral politics appeared to be in jeopardy. She was at one and the same time a victim of an serial-adulterer of a husband and an attack dog to save that same husband’s career, having attached her own future to his in an almost Faustian manner. Topping it all over, she played the role of the martyr when those hapless creatures called Republicans criticized her for anything that she said and did during her husband’s two terms in office.

Then again, one must understand that truth has never mattered to William Jefferson Blythe Clinton or to Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton. Truth is what they say it is. They are the ultimate positivists and relativists.

To wit, then United States Senator Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton (D-New York) asserted in a prepared speech on Monday of Holy Week, March 17, 2008, that she had come under “sniper fire” while on a tarmac in Tuzla, Bosnia, in 1996. Much has been written about this incontrovertible lie, which Mrs. Clinton had told several times before in the past few months, in the past two weeks since it was proven by means of news footage from the Columbia Broadcasting System that she had walked off of a plane with her daughter, Chelsea Clinton, with great calm and was greeted by school children. There was no sniper fire. There was no mad dash to “safety” as she was walking on the tarmac. The whole thing was a lie from beginning to end. (Hillary Clinton Bosnia Trip Exposes by CBS. CBS News Video Contradicts Clinton’s Story, CBS’ Sharyl Attkisson Was On Bosnia Trip – And Got A Warm, Sniper-Free Welcome.)

This is nothing new, as we know. Here is a far from exhaustive list, recited several times on this site over the years, of lies and cover-ups and misfeasance and corruption that have stood out over the years. No one, therefore, should be the least bit surprised about the latest whopper told by Hillary Clinton, who claims that she “misremembered” the Tuzla event:

1. Bill and Hillary Clinton lied in 1992 about Gennifer Flowers. Mrs. Clinton called Flowers’s accusations against her husband to be nothing other than “trash for cash,” although her husband admitted in their famous 60 Minutes interview with Ed Bradley that he had caused “pain” in their marriage. Hillary Clinton did this repeatedly throughout the White House years, thereby demonstrating that she, the “woman of change,” would crush any woman who had been used and/or abused by her husband in order to have her own chance to serve as President of the United States of America.

2. Travelgate and Vince Foster.

3. Filegate.

4. Whitewatergate.

5. Billing records-gate. Does anyone not believe that Mrs. Clinton did not leave the billing records from the Rose Law Firm in the White House reading room?

6. Monicagate, which resulted ultimately in Bill Clinton’s copping that plea agreement with Independent Counsel Robert Ray on January 19, 2001, just before he left office. It should also be noted that the Clintons were ruthless in attempting to destroy the reputation of anyone and everyone who sought to criticize them or to investigate them, making Richard Nixon’s “Plumbers’ Unit” seem like a band of amateurs. Take a look at a very partial list of some of the names of Clinton “enemies” who were “exposed” as having their own personal problems during the midst of Monicagate: United States Representatives Bob Barr, Henry Hyde, Dan Burton, and Bob Livingston. Ah, yes, the compassionate Clintons? Just don’t get in their way. They take no prisoners.

7. Serbiagate: the bombardment of the Serbs to favor the Kosovo Mohammedans in the former Yugoslavia, a bombardment that Clinton directed despite the fact that he had no authorization from the Congress of the United States of America to do so. Thousands of innocent Serbians were killed as a result of the bombing, conducted under the auspices of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (N.A.T.O.)

8. Chinagate. How many nefarious arms merchants and drug dealers and other low life figures slept in the Lincoln Bedroom of the White House and/or had “coffees” with the Clintons in the 1996 election cycle?

Perhaps it is good to revisit a few details of Chinagate as there have been so many Clinton and Obama scandals in the past nineteen years that most of them tend to blur one into the other.

Even though President Richard Nixon authorized all manner of criminality in the misguided effort to protect national security, Bill Clinton, aided by his wife, engaged in illegal campaign fund-raising in 1996 by inviting Red Chinese arms merchants, among others, to the White House for “sleep overs” and coffees” in order to help him get reelected while at the same time realizing his policy of “leveling” the playing field internationally in a “global” world. Translation: weakening the defense, sovereignty and legitimate national security of a sovereign nation, the United States of America.

Consider this May 27, 2003, article on the matter:

China will likely replace the USA as world leader, said Bill Clinton in a recent Washington Post interview. It is just a matter of time. Clinton should know. He has personally done more to build China’s military strength than any man on earth.

Most Americans have heard of the so-called “Chinagate” scandal. Few understand its deadly import, however. Web sites such as “Chinagate for Dummies” and its companion “More Chinagate for Dummies” offer some assistance.

Unfortunately, with a combined total of nearly 8,000 words, these two sites – like so many others of the genre – offer more detail than most of us “dummies” can absorb.

For that reason, in the 600 words left in this column, I will try to craft my own “Idiot’s Guide to Chinagate,” dedicated to all those busy folks like you and me whose attention span tends to peter out after about 750 words.

Here goes.

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, China presented no threat to the United States. Chinese missiles “couldn’t hit the side of a barn,” notes Timothy W. Maier of Insight magazine. Few could reach North America and those that made it would likely miss their targets.

Thanks to Bill Clinton, China can now hit any city in the USA, using state-of-the-art solid-fueled missiles with dead-accurate, computerized guidance systems and multiple warheads.

China probably has suitcase nukes as well. These enable China to strike by proxy – equipping nuclear-armed terrorists to do its dirty work while the Chinese play innocent. Some intelligence sources claim that China maintains secret stockpiles of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons on U.S. soil, for just such contingencies.

In 1997, Clinton allowed China to take over the Panama Canal. The Chinese company Hutchison Whampoa leased the ports of Cristobal and Balboa, on the east and west openings of the canal, respectively, thus controlling access both ways.

A public outcry stopped Clinton in 1998 from leasing California’s Long Beach Naval Yard to the Chinese firm COSCO. Even so, China can now strike U.S. targets easily from its bases in Panama, Vancouver and the Bahamas.

How did the Chinese catch up so fast? Easy. We sold them all the technology they needed – or handed it over for free. Neither neglect nor carelessness is to blame. Bill Clinton did it on purpose.

As a globalist, Clinton promotes “multipolarity” – the doctrine that no country (such as the USA) should be allowed to gain decisive advantage over others.

To this end, Clinton appointed anti-nuclear activist Hazel O’Leary to head the Department of Energy. O’Leary set to work “leveling the playing field,” as she put it, by giving away our nuclear secrets. She declassified 11 million pages of data on U.S. nuclear weapons and loosened up security at weapons labs.

Federal investigators later concluded that China made off with the “crown jewels” of our nuclear weapons research under Clinton’s open-door policy – probably including design specifications for suitcase nukes.

Meanwhile, Clinton and his corporate cronies raked in millions.

In his book “The China Threat,” Washington Times correspondent Bill Gertz describes how the system worked.

Defense contractors eager to sell technology to China poured millions of dollars into Clinton’s campaign. In return, Clinton called off the dogs.

Janet Reno and other counterintelligence officials stood down while Lockheed Martin, Hughes Electronics, Loral Space & Communications and other U.S. companies helped China modernize its nuclear strike force.

“We like your president. We want to see him re-elected,” former Chinese intelligence chief Gen. Ji Shengde told Chinagate bagman Johnny Chung.

Indeed, Chinese intelligence organized a massive covert operation aimed at tilting the 1996 election Clinton’s way.

Clinton’s top campaign contributors for 1992 were Chinese agents; his top donors in 1996 were U.S. defense contractors selling missile technology to China.

Clinton received funding directly from known or suspected Chinese intelligence agents, among them James and Mochtar Riady, who own the Indonesian Lippo Group; John Huang; Charlie Trie; Ted Sioeng; Maria Hsia; Wang Jun and others.

Commerce Secretary Ron Brown served as Clinton’s front man in many Chinagate deals. When investigators began probing Brown’s Lippo Group and Chinagate connections, Brown died suddenly in a suspicious April 1996 plane crash.

Needless to say, China does not share Clinton’s enthusiasm for globalism or multipolarity. The Chinese look out for No. 1.

“War [with the United States] is inevitable; we cannot avoid it,” said Chinese Defense Minister Gen. Chi Haotian in 2000. “The issue is that the Chinese armed forces must control the initiative in this war.”

Bill Clinton has given them a good start. (Richard Poe, The Idiot’s Guide to Chinagate.)

9. Bill Clinton claimed in 1995 that Congressional Republicans wanted to “cut spending” on various domestic entitlement programs, deliberately misrepresenting the truth that his hapless adversaries, whom he could not have conjured up more perfectly than if he had asked Barbara Eden of I Dream of Jeannie to have done so for him (“Jeannie, I want a group of opponents who will be so hapless and so spineless that they will surrender to me the moment I begin to lie about them:”), wanted to cut the projected rate of growth in Federal spending on such programs. Actual spending was going to increase no matter whose budget program, Clinton’s or the Republicans’, wound up being enacted. Clinton represented the Republican plan as a “cut” in actual spending when it was simply a slower rate of increase in spending that the one he was proposing. In other words, Bill Clinton just out-and-out lied.

10.Bill Clinton said in a radio address on June 8, 1996, that “I have vivid and painful memories of black churches being burned in my own state when I was a child.” No such burnings took place during his childhood.

11. Hillary Clinton has claimed that her parents named her after the man who conquered Mount Everest on May 29, 1953, the late Edmund Hillary. Mrs. Clinton’s parents were quite prophetic. She was born on October 26, 1947.

The story is always the same for the Clintons. Always. They are the 1990s show that never ends. Never. And ya know what? Despite all of the recent news stories about the former Secretary of State’s private server and having retained classified intelligence on it, she is still the favorite to win the presidential nomination of the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist “left” next year. What a country.

The saddest part of all, of course, is that the Clintons are both adamant supporters of the unrestricted chemical assassination of the innocent preborn and have served as complete apologists for the baby-killing industry for a very long time now.

Although many believe that the current administration of President Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro and Vice President Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., has been the most pro-abortion regime in the history of the United States of America, It is important to remember once again that some of the very first things that William Jefferson Blythe Clinton did as President of the United States of America on January 22, 1993, was to sign Executive Orders permitting the testing of RU-486, the human pesticide, which Federal testing prompted, according to a report in The New York Times in the summer of 1995, some women to get pregnant deliberately in order to kill their babies with the French abortion pill, and permitting the Federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research, something that was supported at the time by Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., who would run against Clinton in 1996, and by one John Sidney McCain III.

It was President Bill Clinton who signed the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Bill into law, and who authorized then Attorney General Janet “See No Chinagate Evil” Reno to use a special Federal Bureau of Investigation “task force” to intimidate a woman in Toledo, Ohio, in 1995 into never writing again to a baby-killing to whom she had written a letter stating that she, the letter-writer, was praying for her conversion. Oh please, they don’t come more pro-abortion–or more fascistically pro-abortion–than Bill Clinton.

Want more facts? [See also Bill and Hillary’s body-count at ]

Why not?

President Bill Clinton also lied repeatedly about the number of babies killed by means of crushed skull abortion (partial-birth abortion), stating in 1995 when he vetoed, for the first time, the conditional, partial ban on this form of killing innocent babies that “only” around 1,500 babies a year were killed by this method. The Record of Hackensack, New Jersey, to its credit, reported at the time that an abortuary in northern New Jersey killed at least that number every year by means of the procedure known medically as “intact dilation and extraction.”

Want even more facts?

All right.

Here come just a few more.

Who did William Jefferson Blythe Clinton put on the Supreme Court of the United States of America?

Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, both of whom were committed pro-aborts.

William Jefferson Blythe Clinton’s Cabinet included pro-abortion Catholics such as the aforementioned Attorney General Janet Reno and Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala and each of his two Secretaries of Housing and Urban Development, former Mayor of San Antonio, Texas, Henry Cisneros and the future Governor of the State of New York, Andrew Mark Cuomo, and Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson, who served as the Governor of New Mexico from January 1, 2003, to January 1, 2011. The pro-abortion Catholic from Carmel Valley, California, Leon Panetta, served as Clinton’s Director of the Office of Management and the Budget from January 21, 1993, to July 17, 1994, the date on which he became White House Chief of Staff, a position he held until the end of Clinton’s first term on January 20, 1997. Panetta, by the way, just happened to have served as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and as Secretary of Defense in the current administration, and he was praised upon his retirement in 2013 by a “pope” who did not believe that support for baby-killing was a disqualification for the holding of public office, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI.

Furthermore, of course, each of William Jefferson Blythe Clinton’s two Secretaries of State, the dour Warren Christopher and the feminist Madeline Albright, used the State Department as a vehicle to promote “international family planning,” including efforts to convince formerly Catholic nations in Latin America that did not permit surgical baby-killing on demand in most instance to “change” their laws to reflect a “respect” for “women’s reproductive freedom rights.”

Moreover, the scions of Modernity have been in the forefront of pushing the sin of Sodom, something that has become much easier for them to now since Jorge Mario Bergoglio uttered those five little words—“Who am I to judge”—on July 29, 2013, while giving one of his endless interviews when flying back from the travesty that was “World Youth Day” in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The likes of Obama and Biden and Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton know that they will face no opposition from what they think is the Catholic Church.

The gates of Hell have been let loose, and Madame Clinton’s recklessly self-centered disregard for the protection of American national security and classified intelligence information pales into insignificance when one considers the guilt she bears for her many years of supporting the willful murder of the innocent preborn, including her recent unqualified defense of Planned Barrenhood’s Aztec-like savagery, and her full-throated embrace of the agenda of what Mrs. Randy Engel rightly calls the homosexual collective.

These are the real scandals of Modernity, of which the Clintons and Obama and Biden, et al. are prime exemplars. How sad it is that what will decide the 2016 election will be what decides the state of almost every presidential election in the United States of America: the money, the money, the money, the money, and the money. Unlike the Clintons and Obama/Soetoro, who are guided by statism and a committment to the obliteration of national borders as every manner of moral perversity is protected under the cover of the civil law, Donald John Trump has no true core principles. And although he might prevail on November 8, 2016, those who think that the coming election will be a “landslide” for Trump, the fact that remains that between two-fifths and one-half of Americans support statism and the decadence that it has helped to engender, protect, and promote.

Writing one hundred nineteen years ago, that is, in August of 1896, the Archbishop of Venice, Archbishop Giuseppe Melchiorre Sarto, less than seven years away from acceding to the Throne of Saint Peter, explained the bankruptcy of corporate welfare and of statist collectivism:

In August 1896 in Padua, the second Congress of the Catholic Union for Social Studies took place. We have already seen that this organization had been created seven years before by Professor Giuseppe Toniolo, in the presence of the Bishop of Mantua [Giuseppe Melchiorre Sarto]. This time, eight bishops were present and several directors of the Opera del Congressi took part. All the eminent representatives of the Italian Catholic Movement were present (Medolago Pagnuzzi, Alessi and others). Cardinal Sarto’s address attracted considerable notice. Faced with “ardent enemies” (unbelief and revolution) “…menacing and trying to destroy the social fabric,” the Patriarch of Venice invited the participants to make Jesus Christ the foundation of their work: “the only peace treaty is the Gospel.” He warned them against what is now called the “welfare state,” the state which provides everything and provides all socialization: “substituting public almsgiving for private almsgiving involves the complete destruction of Christianity and it is a terrible attack on the principle of ownership. Christianity cannot exist without charity, and the difference between charity and justice is that justice may have recourse to laws and even to force, depending on the circumstances, whereas charity can only be imposed by the tribunal of God and of conscience.” If public assistance and the redistribution of wealth are institutionalized, “poverty becomes a function, a way of life, a public trade…” (Yves Chiron, Saint Pius X: Restorer of the Church. Translated by Graham Harrison. Angelus Press, 2002, p. 100.)

The Cross is the only foundation of peace between nations and right order within them.

Ah, what do professional politicians of the “left” and “right” care about first and foremost?

An economy that has disintegrated because of the effects of sin and the lack of grace in the world, that’s what. Scrape away all of the personalities and the specifics of the issues being discussed, you see, and a dispassionate reader will see that nothing has changed from the nature of the farce that is partisan politics from the days that Orestes Brownson described it in the following terms in 1846:

If we look at the great political questions which agitate the public mind, we shall perceive that they are all questions concerning wealth, the means of facilitating its acquisition, of making it pass, or preventing it from passing, from the few to the many, or from the many to the few. Such are your bank questions, your tariff questions, your land-distribution questions. If you go beyond these, they are questions of the honors and emoluments of office. Not a pert upstart among us who has made his maiden caucus speech, but regards himself as qualified for any office in the gift of the people, from that of village constable up to that of president of the United States, and feels that he suffers great wrong, and adds another striking example of neglected merit, if not rewarded for his disinterested and patriotic exertions by some snug place with a fat salary. Scarcely a man seems contented to remain in private life, to live in obscurity, unheeded by his countrymen, in all humility and fidelity laboring to discharge his duty to his God, and to win the prize of eternal glory. We love the praise of men more than the praise of God; the low and transitory goods of time more than the high and permanent goods of eternity.

If we are poor, we are discontented, we regard ourselves as most miserable, and rail against Providence, who permits inequalities to obtain among brethren. No one is contented with his lot in life. We are all ill-at-ease. We would all be what we are not,- and have what we have not. And yet, with admirable simplicity, we ask, Are we not a great people? Nearly all the action of the American people, collectively or individually, has reference solely to the affairs of, time. Government sinks with us into a joint-stock concern for the practice of thrift. It has no divine authority, no high and solemn moral mission. In education even, the same low and earthly view obtains. We educate for time. We seek to fit our children for getting on, as we call it, in the world, -to make them sharp, bold, enterprising and successful business men. We teach them, indeed, that knowledge is power,-but power to outstrip their fellows in the pursuit of worldly goods. We teach them, indeed, that sloth is a mortal sin,-but sloth in the affairs of time and sense, not sloth in regard to our spiritual duties. We teach them to respect public opinion, to strive to be respectable, to be honored among men; rarely, and almost always ineffectually, to respect the law of God, to see the honor of God, and to despise that of men. Hence, they grow up timid time-servers, trimmers, moral cowards, afraid to say their souls are their own, to avow their honest convictions, if their convictions chance to be unpopular, or to follow God in the faith and worship he has ordained, if not held in repute, or if embraced only by the poor, the simple, of whom the world makes no account. To make a sacrifice for Christ, to give up all, houses, lands, wife, and children, for God, that we may have treasure in heaven, strikes us as something wholly uncalled for, as folly, as madness, worthy only of the dark ages of monkish ignorance and barbarity. To a worldly end conspire all our education, science, literature, and art.

Whatever cannot be pressed into the service of man as a creature of time and sense is by the immense majority of us condemned as useless and mischievous.

That we measure all things by the standard of this life and this world is evinced by the judgments we pass on other nations. In judging others, we always judge ourselves. Tell us what nation you place highest in the scale of nations, and you tell us what are your own views of what constitutes true national greatness. We, as a people, very generally count highest in the scale of contemporary nations those in which the national energy displays itself most exclusively in an industrial direction, and which are most successful in multiplying wealth and luxury. Since the great events in the sixteenth century, which out of courtesy we must call the reformation, although it was any thing but a reformation, there has sprung up a new social order, not known in the middle ages, and not yet universally adopted in Catholic countries. The whole tendency of this order is in an industrial direction. It places this world before the other, time before eternity, the body before the soul, the praise of men before the praise of God. It esteems the riches of this world more than the riches of divine grace, and bids us strive to live, not in the order of grace, but in the order of nature. Under this order the great aim is to be rich, independent, well off in time; to be distinguished, held in high repute one by another. We reverse the maxim of the Gospel, and say, Be not anxious for the soul, take no need to the worship of God, nor to obedience to his laws; but seek first to get on well in this world, look to the main chance, get rich, honestly, of course, if you can, but get rich, be distinguished, and then the kingdom of God and his justice will be added unto you unto you;–or if not, it will be no great matter. (National Greatness)

Orestes Brownson wrote this in the year 1846.

You tell me how any of this has changed.

We have changed for the worse, not the better, as the residual influences of Catholicism have waned–and as the counterfeit church of conciliarism made its own evil “reconciliation” not only with the principles of 1789 but also with those of 1776 and 1787. Indeed, conciliarism’s view of the world and Church-State relations is premised upon the very Americanism that has convinced Catholics to believe that it is through interdenominational and/or nondenominational efforts at the ballot box that “change” is effected in society. The most dangerous person alive today is not Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro or Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton. The man dangerous person alive today is Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who celebrates Modernity, enables hardened sinners, blasphemes Our Blesseed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and His Most Blessed Mother regularly, and said that he felt like saying something heretical before giving an allocution (see “Why Does He Feel Like Saying Something Heretical When He Does It Every Day?“.)

Ours has been been a system of “greater” evils from the very beginning, starting with the contention that men do not need the authority of the Catholic Church to direct them, either personally or socially, and that they can be virtuous on their own without belief in, access to and cooperation with Sanctifying Grace.

Read those passages from Orestes Brownson’s “National Greatness” again and judge for yourself if our “electoral process” has changed anything substantively for the “better” other than convincing Catholics to surrender their Faith to the exigencies of career politicians who believe in multiple errors that offend Our Blessed and Saviour Jesus Christ, the very Second Person of the Blessed Trinity Who became Man in Our Lady’s Virginal and Immaculate Womb by the power of God the Holy Ghost, and are thus harmful, yes, even unto eternity, of the salvation of the souls for whom He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross.

Memories fade over the course of time. Those who think naturalistically and who do not understand that the entire structure of the modern civil state is built on the house of sand constructed by the evils of the Protestant Revolution and the rise of Judeo-Masonry will have a veritable “Pavlov’s Reaction” to the sound of the “election bell,” responding to fund-raising appeals and to petition drives that wind up empowering the naturalists more and more.

We are, as noted just above, suffering through a chastisement that cannot be “defeated” in the voting booth. The evils of the day will only be defeated when the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary is made manifest, which is why we must first of all be about the business of restoring right order in our own immortal soul by spending more and more time, if at all possible, before Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’s Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament and by praying as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits.

We need to accept every single personal penance that comes our way, thanking God for them as we rejoice in our crosses as they are the means by which we can give honor and glory to the Most Blessed Trinity while seeking to do penance for our sins as the consecrated slaves of Christ the King through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary our Immaculate Queen.

It is to keep us humble that God does not permit us to see much, if any, of the fruit that will flower as a result of the seeds that we seek to plant by whatever merits we earn from patiently enduring the personal, social and ecclesiastical crosses of our times. We are, though, to remember these words of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Himself:

[6] And the Lord said: If you had faith like to a grain of mustard seed, you might say to this mulberry tree, Be thou rooted up, and be thou transplanted into the sea: and it would obey you. [7] But which of you having a servant ploughing, or feeding cattle, will say to him, when he is come from the field: Immediately go, sit down to meat: [8] And will not rather say to him: Make ready my supper, and gird thyself, and serve me, whilst I eat and drink, and afterwards thou shalt eat and drink? [9] Doth he thank that servant, for doing the things which he commanded him? [10] I think not. So you also, when you shall have done all these things that are commanded you, say: We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which we ought to do. (Luke 17: 6-10.)

The Bishop Challoner Commentary on the Douay-Rheims Bible explains what Our Lord meant when He called us unprofitable servants for simply doing our duty every day as befits redeemed creatures:

[10] “Unprofitable servants”… Because our service is of no profit to our master; and he justly claims it as our bounden duty. But though we are unprofitable to him, our serving him is not unprofitable to us; for he is pleased to give by his grace a value to our good works, which, in consequence of his promise, entitles them to an eternal reward.

That’s good enough for me.

What about you?

There’s work to do to convert ourselves, others and our nation.

Why murmur about the work given us by Christ the King Himself for us to do in order to save our immortal souls that He redeemed at the cost of shedding every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday?

Our Lady appeared to Jacinta and Francisco Marto and to Lucia dos Santos just a little under seven years after Pope Saint Pius X anticipated the essence of the Triumph of her Immaculate Heart with these telling words:

. . . . For there is no true civilization without a moral civilization, and no true moral civilization without the true religion: it is a proven truth, a historical fact. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

Our Lady of Guadalupe, 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 Mary Magdalene de Pazzi, pray for us.

Get AQ Email Updates

Leave a Reply