Bordering on the Borderless, part two

The train wreck that was addled Addison Mitchell McConnell’s ham-handed effort to “solve” a border crisis created by Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., and Alex Mayorkas, has demonstrated once again the farce of American politics. There are not two political parties divided by principles. There is only one main organized crime family of naturalism, the Uniparty, that seeks to increase government power, grow the Federal budget, outsource controversial decision-making to unelected apparatchiks, increase the national policing power over the thoughts, financial transactions, and movements of ordinary Americans, give Big Pharma whatever it wants as long as those campaign contributions keep flowing into their coffers, and to fund never-ending wars that fuel the might of the Military-Industrial Complex by placing American military personnel in harm’s war in conflicts that do not have any bearing upon legitimate American national security interests. These goals define the leadership of the false opposite of the naturalist “right” and “left, and they leave no room for consideration of dissenting viewpoints.

Indeed, United States Senator Raphael Edward Cruz (R-Texas) noted in a press conference about the Senate Republican Caucus had met to discuss the so-called border security act that is designed to us American taxpayer dollars to protect the failing Ukrainian regime while assuring that the lawless Biden administration can continue its open borders policy with the full legal authority granted by the Congress of the United States of America that it is only the Republican leadership that is willing to work with Biden by advancing his agenda while there was not one occasion in 2017 and 2018 when Democrats worked with then President Donald John Trump and the Republican majorities in the United States Senate and United States House of Representatives to support Trump’s agenda. Cruz is right, and old man McConnell was left speechless when asked directly by Cruz what hill McConnell would fight and die on rather than surrender to Biden and his chief Senate stooge, the camera-hogging demagogue named Charles Schumer. The Old Crow was speechless as he is just a variation of the hapless, mercurial, inarticulate cut-a-deal careerist named Robert Joseph Dole, Jr.

Senator Cruz put the matter bluntly as the First Grifter, Don Vito Biden, blames Republicans for refusing to “solve” a crisis he created:

Meanwhile, Republicans are also hanging onto a post Murphy posted on X on Sunday after the text was released, which read, "The border never closes, but claims must be processed at the ports." Cruz contended the Biden administration already has the ability to shut down the border and turn migrants away under the current immigration laws. 

"His first week in as president, he halted construction on the border wall, he reinstated the disastrous policy of 'catch and release' and he pulled out of the unbelievably successful remain in Mexico agreement that caused this explosion," Cruz said. "It also means Joe Biden could solve it tomorrow by reversing those three decisions." 

The only way, Cruz said, the border bill would make it across the finish line in the national supplemental package is if the Senate passed H.R.2 – the GOP-led House's immigration bill passed last year – which includes Trump-era style expulsions and security measures. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has already deemed the bill a "nonstarter" in the Senate.

Meanwhile, the House has repeatedly called the Senate's border bill "dead on arrival" – making it a near-impossible scenario that a border security bill gets passed. (GOP senators call for McConnell to step down.)

The editor of The American Conservative, Scott McKay, has written a strong condemnation of the Old Crow from Kentucky, who tried to promote a bill that would have ceded total judicial oversight of immigration of the lefitst stronghold that the is the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, thus preventing the constitutionalists on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, Louisiana, from having any say on the matter whatsoever. That's a "deal," Mitch?

Mitch McConnell has to be finished as the caucus leader for the Republicans in the Senate. Now. He has to resign, and if he won’t, then that caucus needs to get together and force him out.

Now. Not next week, not next month, not after this election cycle. Now.

McConnell gave a speech Monday demanding a “yes” vote on that atrocious border bill that Melissa Mackenzie and I both wrote about here at The American Spectator on Tuesday and discuss in the next episode of The Spectacle podcast. By now you already know how utterly awful a bill it was. And after McConnell blathered on for a while about what a good bill it was, the public outrage over the bill was so white-hot that three hours later McConnell relented:

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell recommended that Republicans vote against the $118 billion border security bill, at least for now. Even Oklahoma Senator Jim Lankford, one of the bill’s authors, indicated that it was too soon to bring the bill to a vote. The sudden about-face on the part of the GOP caucus left Democrat Brian Shatz saying on X, “Just gobsmacked. I’ve never seen anything like it. They literally demanded specific policy, got it, and then killed it.”

The cloture vote scheduled for Wednesday is certain to fail. Without the momentum of its much-anticipated release and the tactical advantage of not giving anyone time to read it, it seems that if the bill does pass, it is unlikely to resemble the atrocity unveiled Sunday night.

I quoted this from Ace of Spades in the open to The Spectacle episode, and I think it bears repeating here:

McConnell’s determination to ram through yet another Comprehensive Amnesty will have several terrible aftereffects.

On the strictly political side, it gives Biden and Schumer what they actually wanted all along: A way to blame Republicans for the Democrats’ border catastrophe. Democrats will claim the solution to the open border crisis was at hand, but Republicans rejected it for political reasons.

Indeed, turncoat “Republican” liberal James Lankford is going out on all the political talk shows making exactly that case.

On the policy side, Democrats will now insist that this weak “deal” establish the contours of any future “deal.” In other words: The Republicans have announced that they seek only the tiniest breadcrumbs in exchange for mass amnesty; why would Democrats ever agree to offer more than breadcrumbs in any “deal”? McConnell has committed us, out to the medium future, to sharing the Democrats’ Amnesty First, Security Last (or Never) agenda.

The “deal,” by the way, contained a Very Special Betrayal for conservatives: The bill would make the ultra-liberal DC Circuit Court the only court empowered to decide questions about immigration and border enforcement. We’ve seen some good rulings coming out of the Fifth Circuit on the border; this “deal” would take all cases away from any conservative-tilted court and give them all to the leftwing DC circuit.

This is a “deal.” You guys are excited by this “deal,” right?

Ace has it exactly right.

What McConnell has done in taking an issue that had gone absolutely, utterly septic for the Democrat Party — an issue that held the promise to ruin Democrats in all federal (and quite a few state) elections this fall — and offer a Solyndra-style bailout in the form of that border bill has been to utterly and completely neutralize the issue.

Because Republican voters now know that the GOP candidate running for the Senate in their states is utterly worthless on the issue no matter what he or she says.

They know this because they now know that the Republican leadership is completely willing to sell them out on the border issue. But for the public outcry, they’d have already done it with this atrocity of a bill. That would have gone straight to the House floor, and it would have been up to Speaker Mike Johnson and his leadership team to keep it from getting a vote while being pulverized by the Washington media and political class.

Johnson has all of 219 votes in his caucus. There is little reason to believe he could hold that slim majority together to kill that bill if it came over to the House.

And McConnell was more than happy to jam up Johnson and keep him from having a policy win. McConnell was quite happy to stab Johnson in the throat the way he repeatedly stabbed John Boehner in the throat before Boehner realized it was better to join the D.C. slimeball cabal than to attempt to fight it (and, yes, that didn’t take very long, to be sure).

Maybe Johnson is made of sterner stuff. But maybe we’ve been through enough of this crap.

Maybe it’s time that there are consequences to this kind of Failure Theater.

McConnell is a cat with nine-times-nine lives. But the abject mess he made with this border bill, which has Democrats like Schatz pointing and guffawing like drunken hillbillies at a cockfight, should be enough to finish him.

Certainly because every member of the Senate GOP caucus who didn’t publicly trash this bill now looks like an utter buffoon — most especially James Lankford — or, perhaps more appropriately, James Walktheplankford, given what McConnell did in sending him out to commit political suicide in “negotiating” this utter surrender. These are the people who have remained loyal to McConnell, by far the least popular politician in Washington and the one constant factor in the Republican Party’s thorough underachievement in election after election in every cycle since 2008.

By now they can’t possibly miss the fact that McConnell is an anchor dragging the whole party down. Even if they’re establishment hacks like he is, they have to recognize that whatever magic the Turtle once offered has evaporated, so much so that this week’s debacle is the future of their caucus’ performance until new blood comes in.

Most importantly, though, what Ace said is the most important reason McConnell has to go. Because of the terrible border deal McConnell had Lankford craft in concert with the execrable Chuck Schumer and his flunkies Chris Murphy and Kyrsten Sinema, the GOP is now locked in a box of its own making. They’re in no position to refuse various forms of amnesty or even encouragement of further migrant invasions — because GOP leadership has already agreed to those.

There is only one option available to break out of that box, and that is to replace McConnell and the GOP leadership. The same people cannot present different conditions for negotiation.

The good news is that in Johnson and the House leadership, you have something to build from. The House already passed a legitimate border security bill nine months ago. Sure, Schumer says it’s a non-starter in the Senate, but a new Republican Senate leadership that was actually interested in representing Republican voters could force Schumer to the table with the House bill as the starting point.

And when — not if, when, because Chuck Schumer has never negotiated in good faith in his entire miserable life — he refuses to do a deal with a newly unified GOP on Capitol Hill, at least we can return to our natural point of origin.

Which is an understanding that Biden’s border invasion was no accident, that it’s the result of a deliberate policy agenda the Democrats have intended for a long time, that it’s an intentional disregard of our national security, and that the people most damaged by it are core Democrat voters. And that what Republicans are asking for is a return to the successful policies of the Trump administration, which had slowed illegal immigration to a near-standstill before Biden blew up that status quo.

That understanding is honest, and it’s truthful. We don’t have it right now because of what McConnell has done. That it has blown up in his face must carry political consequences of the most severe kind.

He has to go. Now. Beat it, Mitch — you’ve done enough damage. (This Has to Be the End of the Road for Mitch McConnell.)

The likes of Addison Mitchell McConnell and Willard Mitt Romney are out of touch with the reality of what the criminal element among the millions of illegal immigrants that have been given free entry into this country is doing to innocent Americans and their property:

On the streets of New York, two police officers are beaten by a gang of eight migrant asylum seekers. Five of them are released without bail, one of them literally flipping the finger at the American public as he goes. The other three simply disappear.

On the streets of London, a woman and her two young children are doused with lethal chemicals. The suspect was twice denied asylum in the U.K. but managed to stay and was convicted of a serious sexual assault, then was granted asylum on appeal. The victims are left with life-altering injuries. A member of Parliament from the governing Conservative Party tells a television audience that this is a warning about the consequences of “microaggressions” that women face every day.

In Sweden a gang war between rival groups of migrants is unleashing havoc on the citizens of what was once a global model of social harmony. The European media descend on the country and publish dark warnings about the rise of “far right” anti-immigrant parties.

In Chicago, a “sanctuary city” recently inundated with illegal migrants, and where gang crime (most of it not migrant-related) is rampant, the City Council rouses itself from its indifference to pass a resolution that calls for antagonists to put down their arms—in Gaza.

It is tempting to look at these recent events across two continents and conclude that we in the West aren’t a serious civilization anymore, that our commitment to liberal principles, openness and tolerance have inured us to our peril; that our values are no longer fit for purpose in an open world of existential threats.

The deeper reality is that it isn’t our values that have failed. We are witnessing instead the most powerful indictment of a political and cultural elite whose hegemony is long overdue to meet its nemesis. The demographic reality of an overpopulated and still immiserated global south that is disgorging hundreds of millions of people to the wealthy north is making chaos of the attitudes and decisions of a ruling elite that—by design or accident—seems hell-bent on the West’s self-annihilation.

Perhaps I exaggerate. But the scale of the migration crisis in the west—more than the rise of China, the challenge of new technologies or the climate—seems to me the issue that will increasingly define the politics of our age.

Let’s be clear about migrants and crime. It has been pointed out that there is no evidence of greater criminal activity among illegal migrants than among the general population. There’s limited data on the subject but a 2020 study found that illegal immigrants in Texas are less likely to be arrested for a felony than native-born citizens or legal immigrants.

This makes sense. If you are here illegally you live life in a demimonde defined by evading detection, and therefore might be more likely to be drawn into crime. But it is also true that if you are here illegally you have an especially strong incentive to avoid doing anything that gets you into an encounter with law enforcement.

But the argument spectacularly misses the point. Of course the overwhelming majority of migrants here illegally don’t beat up cops or throw toxic substances at innocent women. But one single crime committed by one perpetrator who is in the country without legal leave is an especially heinous reality. One innocent victim whose life was ended or ruined by someone who should have been prevented from being in the country in the first place is a particularly noxious form of crime that naturally enrages citizens and immigrants who are here lawfully.

It is the blithe response to these shocking episodes of criminality that reveals the dysfunctions of which we are all victims, a response rooted in the idea that the rest of the world has as much right to be in our country as everyone else. This attitude, prevalent on the left, might once have been attributable to a misguided but understandable human empathy—what we used to call bleeding-heart liberalism. It is after all derived from the most fundamental Christian ideal—our obligation to take in and support our disadvantaged fellow humans.

But it seems now, in the post-Christian west, much more of an ideological postnationalism. You don’t have to believe in theories about a “great replacement” to see that the policies in the U.S. and Europe that have unleashed mass immigration in the past few years aren’t born of neglect or incompetence but are a deliberate choice to open their nations to all comers.

Unless we turn back now, the consequences of all this will overwhelm us. Migrant crime will surely get worse, our drug epidemic will widen, our exposure to terrorism will increase. Also in the U.K. this week, a leading Conservative who represents a constituency with a sizable Jewish population announced he was leaving Parliament because he can no longer deal with the death threats he has been facing from Islamists.

If we don’t act in the face of this building demographic wave to seize back control of our borders, the day is coming when we will no longer even be able to affirm the primacy of our values. (The Elites Opened the Doors to Migrants—and Chaos.)

Yes, one innocent victim of immigrant crime is too much.

Then again, most people in this country do not give any thought at all to the thousands of innocent children in their mothers’ wombs who continue to be killed every day by chemical and surgical means. It is a relatively easy thing for elitists such as Addison Mitchell McConnell and Willard Mitt Romney to be uninterested in the suffering of those who have lost loved ones to the immigrant gangs when they are not in the least discomfited by the continuing slaughter of the innocent preborn and when they, the paid stooges of Big Pharma, pay no attention at all to the thousands upon thousands of people being injured and killed by the “vaccines” developed to “protect” against a virus that was never a real threat except to the elderly and those with preexisting comorbidities and that was mismanaged by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s one-size-fits-all cookie-cutter “protocols” that derided early intervention and the use of vitamins, mineral supplements, and certain drugs used at a physician’s discretion and according to the health history of an infected patient.

However, the author the article cited just above is myopic when he speaks of restoring the “primacy of our values” when it is the “values” of pluralism that have brought us to the point of national dissolution at the hands of the neo-Marxist globalist social engineers who blame Christianity for causing the problems of the world just as much as the Roman statists did the first centuries of Holy Mother Church. Pope Leo XIII’s refutation of the efforts on the part of the Roman emperors and their administrative hatchet men to blame Christianity for the problems caused by Roman decadence, statism, and needless foreign adventures is relevant to our own situation today:

The Catholic Church, that imperishable handiwork of our all-merciful God, has for her immediate and natural purpose the saving of souls and securing our happiness in heaven. Yet, in regard to things temporal, she is the source of benefits as manifold and great as if the chief end of her existence were to ensure the prospering of our earthly life. And, indeed, wherever the Church has set her foot she has straightway changed the face of things, and has attempered the moral tone of the people with a new civilization and with virtues before unknown. All nations which have yielded to her sway have become eminent by their gentleness, their sense of justice, and the glory of their high deeds.

2. And yet a hackneyed reproach of old date is leveled against her, that the Church is opposed to the rightful aims of the civil government, and is wholly unable to afford help in spreading that welfare and progress which justly and naturally are sought after by every well-regulated State. From the very beginning Christians were harassed by slanderous accusations of this nature, and on that account were held up to hatred and execration, for being (so they were called) enemies of the Empire. The Christian religion was moreover commonly charged with being the cause of the calamities that so frequently befell the State, whereas, in very truth, just punishment was being awarded to guilty nations by an avenging God. This odious calumny, with most valid reason, nerved the genius and sharpened the pen of St. Augustine, who, notably in his treatise, “The City of God,” set forth in so bright a light the worth of Christian wisdom in its relation to the public wealth that he seems not merely to have pleaded the cause of the Christians of his day, but to have refuted for all future times impeachments so grossly contrary to truth. The wicked proneness, however, to levy like charges and accusations has not been lulled to rest. Many, indeed, are they who have tried to work out a plan of civil society based on doctrines other than those approved by the Catholic Church. Nay, in these latter days a novel conception of law has begun here and there to gain increase and influence, the outcome, as it is maintained, of an age arrived at full stature, and the result of progressive liberty. But, though endeavors of various kinds have been ventured on, it is clear that no better mode has been devised for the building up and ruling the State than that which is the necessary growth of the teachings of the Gospel. We deem it, therefore, of the highest moment, and a strict duty of Our apostolic office, to contrast with the lessons taught by Christ the novel theories now advanced touching the State. By this means We cherish hope that the bright shining of the truth may scatter the mists of error and doubt, so that one and all may see clearly the imperious law of life which they are bound to follow and obey. (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)

This what is happening here and now in the United States of America and elsewhere in the world. The Protestant Revolution’s overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King and the subsequent rise and triumph, albeit temporary, of Judeo-Masonry cannot be stopped by means merely natural. We are being chastised for our sins, our lukewarmness, our lack of fidelity to our prayers, and our constant compromises with worldliness. It is thus necessary to be fortified by the armor of the Holy Faith by doing penance for our sins and praying for our own daily conversion as well as that of all others without fearing the powers of the civil state as our battle is not with them but with the principalities and powers of the lower world:

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.)

We just have to be about the business each day of pleasing God as He has revealed Himself to us through His true Church, seeking, wherever possible, to get to true offerings of Holy Mass by true bishops and true priests who make no concessions to conciliarism, spending time in prayer before Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament, praying as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit, praying to our Guardian Angels, who behold the very Beatific Vision of the Most Blessed Trinity as they serve us here on earth, to help us keep aware of the Divine Presence at all times, praying to Saint Joseph, the Patron of the Universal Church and the Protector of the Faithful, to help us see the Providence of God in all of the events of our lives, recognizing that our lives could be demanded of us this night (cf. Luke 12: 20: " But God said to him: Thou fool, this night do they require thy soul of thee: and whose shall those things be which thou hast provided?").

The devil and his minions are spying on us every day to find ways to trap us into losing our souls.

As noted in part one of this two-part series, there can be sense of what is true and just absent the Holy Faith, which is why that which is false and unjust passes for “common sense” “solutions,” including the handing out of debit cards and funny money to those who have entered here illegally and who expect to be rewarded for doing so:

New York City will soon launch a $53 million pilot program to hand out pre-paid credit cards to migrant families housed in hotels, according to a report.

The New York Post, citing city records, reported that 500 migrant families at the Roosevelt Hotel will receive pre-paid cards to help them buy food. The program is intended to replace the current food service provided there, the Post reported.

"Not only will this provide families with the ability to purchase fresh food for their culturally relevant diets and the baby supplies of their choosing, but the pilot program is expected to save New York City more than $600,000 per month, or more than $7.2 million annually," a spokesperson for New York City Mayor Eric Adams told the paper in a statement.

City Hall did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 

The pre-paid cards may only be used at bodegas, grocery stores, supermarkets and convenience stores. Migrants eligible for the program must sign an affidavit stating they will only spend the funds on food and baby supplies, or else they would lose access to the funds, the report said. 

The amount available to each migrant family depends on their size and how much income they are receiving, according to the contract reviewed by the Post. A family of four might be provided nearly $1,000 each month, or $35 per day for food, the Post reported. The cards are replenished every 28 days. 

New Jersey company Mobility Capital Finance has partnered with the city to run the program.

"MoCaFi looks forward to partnering with New York City to disburse funds for asylum seekers to purchase fresh, hot food," MoCaFi CEO and founder Wole Coaxum told the Post. "MoCaFi’s goal is to expand access to financial resources for individuals excluded from banking, such as asylum seekers, while helping the local economy."

City officials said that if the pilot program is a success with the initial 500 migrant families, it will be expanded to all migrant families staying in hotels, which is 15,000 currently.

More than 150,000 migrants have arrived in New York City since 2022, overwhelming city resources as officials have struggled to find housing for them. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has bused asylum-seekers to New York and other cities in an effort to assist them in traveling to sanctuary jurisdictions and also highlight the crisis that border communities face on a daily basis. 

Mayor Adams has decried the arrivals as a humanitarian crisis and said that providing food and housing for the migrants will cost the city about $12 billion over three years. 

In October, the mayor traveled to Latin America on a tour to dissuade potential migrants in Mexico, Colombia and Ecuador from attempting to come to the city, saying the city is "at capacity." 

Critics, however, have said that New York City's sanctuary policies and handouts to migrants will only encourage more immigration.

"If I were promoting an event and wanted to attract the biggest possible crowd without worrying about losing money, I'd make admission free and give everyone complimentary pizza and beer," Knox County Mayor Glenn Jacobs, a Tennessee Republican and former WWE wrestler, posted on X, commenting on the New York Post report. "That's kinda immigration policy right now." (New York City launch $53 million migrant food program.)

The City of Chicago announced on Tuesday that it has partnered with community groups and nonprofits to invest nearly $18 million in Black and brown businesses to feed illegal migrants. 

According to city officials, by the end of 2023, the Food Depository’s 17 contracted restaurants and caterers were serving 18,000 daily hot meals across 21 shelter sites to illegal migrants.

"We believe food is a basic human right and our mission is to end hunger," Kate Maehr, executive director and CEO of the Food Depository, said in a press release. "Achieving our mission means we provide food for anyone who needs support today, while creating solutions to address the root causes of hunger – poverty, systemic inequity and structural racism. Our work to feed new arrivals gave us the opportunity to meet an urgent demand while creating economic impact and living wage jobs. (Chicago invests nearly $18M to feed illegal migrants amid homeless crisis.)

This is madness, but this madness would receive Federal assistance if the negotiated-in-secret without any committee hearings and public testimony bill surrendering to Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.’s deliberate decision to create an immigrant crisis that he is now trying to blame on Donald John Trump in particular and Republicans in general is passed by the Congress of the United States of America and signed into law by Biden:

The legislation also includes billions of dollars of spending to bail out local governments and nongovernmental organizations so they can continue to provide housing, food, clothing, education, and healthcare for immigrants.

These bailouts are the real motivation for the Senate border bill; money often is the key. Biden was already implementing catch-and-release policies without this legislation. What he really wanted was not the codification of catch and release, which he was already doing, but access to the congressional checkbook. Now Sens. James Lankford (R-OK), Thom Tillis (R-NC), and Mitch McConnell (R-KY) are giving Democrats the border bailout they so desperately wanted. (Biden border bailout bill will only make crisis worse.)

bama Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel once said, “never let a crisis go to waste.”

The Biden administration goes one better: “Never create a crisis and let it go to waste.”

Panicked by alarmingly bad poll numbers on immigration, Senate Democrats are attempting to use the border emergency caused by President Biden’s immigration policies as an excuse to ram through a nearly 400-page bill with no hearings and only a few days to even read it.

The president, who repealed every Trump-era policy that had stabilized the border, is utterly shameless about this.

In a statement Sunday night, when the text of the backroom deal was finally released, he said, “If you believe, as I do, that we must secure the border now, doing nothing is not an option.” 

“Chutzpah” doesn’t even begin to describe this level of audacity.

While the president has sufficient authority to stabilize the border, as evidenced by Trump’s success, there’s certainly a need for legislative changes. That’s why the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2 last year, which plugged many loopholes that make it hard to control the border.

But that bill would also restrict the president’s ability to release into the country foreigners who have no right to be here.

Despite President Biden’s newfound urgency to control the border, this was unacceptable to Democrats.

So, instead, they found easy marks among Senate Republicans to try to solve their political problem. GOP leader Mitch McConnell has said that funding for Ukraine (which is the main purpose of this bill) “is the number one priority for the United States right now,” so he was predisposed to agree to almost anything, like the guy who walks into a car dealership with his heart so set in a snazzy new sportscar that he’s talked into to the undercarriage coating and the paint protection package.

Even worse, McConnell selected James Lankford of Oklahoma as the lead negotiator for the border deal.

While Lankford’s voting record on immigration hasn’t been bad, he and his staff have little familiarity with the issue.

The result? Lankford got pantsed by the Democrats.

While there actually are a few provisions in the bill released Sunday that would be useful, the whole package is based on the Democrats’ priorities and goals.

The bill contains a raft of items from the Democratic wish-list that have nothing to do with securing the border, some of which would actually make things worse.

For instance: Why does a border-security bill increase green cards? The Lankford bill boosts family-based green cards by 32,000 a year for five years, and employment-based ones by 18,000 a year. Gallup last year found that 72 percent of Americans wanted the level of immigration reduced or kept the same.

The bill also gives automatic work permits to the relatives of certain temporary workers and others, speeds the issuance of work permits to illegal aliens seeking asylum (thus increasing the incentive to come), and provides taxpayer-funded lawyers to certain illegal aliens, which is currently prohibited by law.

But even worse is the fact that even the actual border provisions reflect the Democrats’ perception of the problem. It’s not that too many foreigners are using asylum claims as a gambit to illegally move here, which is how most people see it.

Rather, the problem for the administration and Democrats in Congress is a political one driven by damaging news coverage of chaotic conditions at the border.

The Republicans supporting this bill have bought into to the idea that everyone in the developing world has a right to be let into to the United States to make an asylum claim.

It’s just that they prefer it happen in “a safe and orderly process” through the ports of entry, so as to avoid news footage of hundreds of people climbing through or around the fence and camping out waiting for their Border Patrol ride to show up.

That’s why, for instance, even when the border is “shut down” by the new emergency power the bill creates, it mandates the admission of “a minimum of 1,400 inadmissible aliens each cal Back in 2013, Sen. Marco Rubio was recruited by his Democratic colleagues to be the Republican face of their agenda during the Gang of Eight amnesty fight, and he paid a terrible political price. Sen. Lankford has made the same mistake.endar day” through the ports of entry.

It also effectively codifies an unlawful asylum process the Biden administration is already using, which reduces protections against fraud and incentivizes more bogus asylum claims.

Ironically, the Biden rule this bill would codify is being challenged in court by 20 states, including McConnell’s Kentucky and Lankford’s Oklahoma!

Along those same lines, the many blue cities burdened by illegal aliens let in by Biden have been demanding, not a change in policy, but a bailout from Washington.

And, sure enough, that’s what this border bill does – it provides billions for NGOs and local governments to deal with the streams of illegal aliens who will keep coming. (Border bill is terrible, and a way for Biden to dodge blame for not enforcing the law.)

Nations bereft of right principles must descend into chaos and disarray. Error begets error, and the multiplicity of errors in the Judeo-Masonic paradigm of pluralism must canonize error while demonizing all truth, supernatural and natural.

The confusion that exists in the minds of most men in the world at this time has, of course, been exacerbated by the apostasies of Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, which has made its "reconciliation" with the naturalistic, anti-Incarnational, religiously indifferentist and semi-Pelagian (the belief that human beings can more or less "save themselves" by "stirring up" graces in their own immortal souls) principles of Modernity. Long before conciliarism came to light at the "Second" Vatican Council, however, even the minds of many, if not most, Catholics were deformed as a result of living in a world of pluralism and unfettered "free speech" and "freedom of the press" and "freedom of religion," resulting in most of them accepting the premises of naturalism most uncritically as both natural and normal and as perfectly compatible with the truths of the Catholic Faith.

It is either Christ or chaos. There is nothing in between. Nothing at all.

The Incarnation has occurred.

The Word has become Flesh and dwelt amongst us.

Christ the King, the Word made Flesh in his Most Blessed Mother’s Virginal and Immaculate Womb by the power of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, has redeemed us by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross.

The Divine Redeemer has risen from the dead and has ascended to the right hand of His Co-Equal, Co-Eternal God the Father in Heaven.

God the Holy Ghost hath descended upon the Apostles, Our Lady and the others gathered in the Upper Room in Jerusalem on Pentecost Sunday.

The Holy Gospel of Christ the King has been preached to every quarter of the world.

Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order, and our situation must get worse and worse as men not only remain steeped in their sins but then celebrate them publicly, browbeat others into accepting them and are ever ready to bring litigation to defend their “right” to be instruments of their own eternal perdition and social decay.

As the then Monsignor Fulton J. Sheen noted in “A Plea for Intolerance” eighty-nine years ago:

America, it is said, is suffering from intolerance. It is not. It is suffering from tolerance: tolerance of right and wrong, truth and error, virtue and evil, Christ and chaos. Our country is not nearly so much overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded. The man who can make up his mind in an orderly way, as a man might make up his bed, is called a bigot; but a man who cannot make up his mind, any more than he can make up for lost time, is called tolerant and broadminded. A bigoted man is one who refuses to accept a reason for anything; a broadminded man is one who will accept anything for a reason—providing it is not a good reason. It is true that there is a demand for precision, exactness, and definiteness, but it is only for precision in scientific measurement, not in logic. The breakdown that has produced this unnatural broadmindedness is mental, not moral. The evidence for this statement is threefold: the tendency to settle issues not by arguments but by words, the unqualified willingness to accept the authority of anyone on the subject of religion, and, lastly, the love of novelty….

Religion is not an open question, like the League of Nations, while science is a closed question, like the addition table. Religion has its principles, natural and revealed, which are more exacting in their logic than mathematics. But the false notion of tolerance has obscured this fact from the eyes of many who are as intolerant about the smallest details of life as they are tolerant about their relations to God. In the ordinary affairs of life, these same people would never summon a Christian Science practitioner to fix a broken windowpane; they would never call in an optician because they had broken the eye of a needle; they would never call in a florist because they hurt the palm of their hand, nor go to a carpenter to take care of their nails. They would never call in a Collector of Internal Revenue to extract the nickel swallowed by the baby. They would refuse to listen to a Kiwanis booster discussing the authenticity of a painting, or to a tree‐surgeon settling a moot question of law. And yet for the all‐important subject of religion, on which our eternal destinies hinge, on the all‐important question of the relations of man to his environment and to his God, they are willing to listen to anyone who calls himself a prophet. And so our journals are filled with articles for these “broadminded” people, in which everyone from Jack Dempsey to the chief cook of the Ritz Carlton tells about his idea of God and his view of religion. These same individuals, who would become exasperated if their child played with a wrongly colored lollipop, would not become the least bit worried if the child grew up without ever having heard the name of God….

The nature of certain things is fixed, and none more so than the nature of truth. Truth maybe contradicted a thousand times, but that only proves that it is strong enough to survive a thousand assaults. But for any one to say, ʺSome say this, some say that, therefore there is no truth,ʺ is about as logical as it would have been for Columbus, who heard some say, ʺThe earth is round,ʺ and other say, ʺThe earth is flat,ʺ to conclude: ʺTherefore there is no earth at allʺ…. 

The giggling giddiness of novelty, the sentimental restlessness of a mind unhinged, and the unnatural fear of a good dose of hard thinking, all conjoin to produce a group of sophomoric latitudinarians who think there is no difference between God as Cause and God as a ʺmental projectionʺ; who equate Christ and Buddha, St. Paul and John Dewey, and then enlarge their broad‐mindedness into a sweeping synthesis that says not only that one Christian sect is just as good as another, but even that one world‐religion is just as good as another. The great god ʺProgressʺ is then enthroned on the altars of fashion, and as the hectic worshipers are asked, ʺProgress towards what?ʺ The tolerant answer comes back, ʺMore progress.ʺ All the while sane men are wondering how there can be progress without direction and how there can be direction without a fixed point. And because they speak of a ʺfixed point,ʺ they are said to be behind the times, when really they are beyond the times mentally and spiritually.

In the face of this false broad‐mindedness, what the world needs is intolerance. The mass of people have kept up hard and fast distinctions between dollars and cents, battleships and cruisers, ʺYou owe meʺ and ʺI owe you,ʺ but they seem to have lost entirely the faculty of distinguishing between the good and the bad, the right and the wrong. The best indication of this is the frequent misuse of the terms ʺtoleranceʺ and ʺintolerance.ʺ There are some minds that believe that intolerance is always wrong, because they make ʺintoleranceʺ mean hate, narrow‐ mindedness, and bigotry. These same minds believe that tolerance is always right because, for them, it means charity, broad‐mindedness, American good nature.

What is tolerance? Tolerance is an attitude of reasoned patience towards evil, and a forbearance that restrains us from showing anger or inflicting punishment. But what is more important than the definition is the field of its application. The important point here is this: Tolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons. Tolerance applies to the erring; intolerance to the error….

Tolerance does not apply to truth or principles. About these things we must be intolerant, and for this kind of intolerance, so much needed to rouse us from sentimental gush, I make a plea. Intolerance of this kind is the foundation of all stability. The government must be intolerant about malicious propaganda, and during the World War it made an index of forbidden books to defend national stability, as the Church, who is in constant warfare with error, made her index of forbidden books to defend the permanency of Christʹs life in the souls of men. The government during the war was intolerant about the national heretics who refused to accept her principles concerning the necessity of democratic institutions, and took physical means to enforce such principles. The soldiers who went to war were intolerant about the principles they were fighting for, in the same way that a gardener must be intolerant about the weeds that grow in his garden. The Supreme Court of the United States is intolerant about any private interpretation of the first principle of the Constitution that every man is entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and the particular citizen who would interpret ʺlibertyʺ in even such a small way as meaning the privilege to ʺgoʺ on a red traffic‐light, would find himself very soon in a cell where there were no lights, not even the yellow — the color of the timid souls who know not whether to stop or go. Architects are as intolerant about sand as foundations for skyscrapers as doctors are intolerant about germs in their laboratories, and as all of us are intolerant of a particularly broad‐minded, ʺtolerant,ʺ and good‐natured grocer who, in making our bills, adds seven and ten to make twenty.

An Interjection:

No matter his correctness about the necessity of an intolerance for evil and vice, Bishop Fulton J. Sheen was an Americanist, and the passages highlighted immediately above about the Supreme Court’s intolerance was even wrong in its day as the Court had endorsed the immoral practice of mandatory sterilization for career criminals and imbeciles in the case of Buck v. Bell, May 2, 1927, that was championed by the legal positivist named Associate Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes:

The judgment finds the facts that have been recited and that Carrie Buck 'is the probable potential parent of socially inadequate offspring, likewise afflicted, that she may be sexually sterilized without detriment to her general health and that her welfare and that of society will be promoted by her sterilization,' and thereupon makes the order. In view of the general declarations of the Legislature and the specific findings of the Court obviously we cannot say as matter of law that the grounds do not exist, and if they exist they justify the result. We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 , 25 S. Ct. 358, 3 Ann. Cas. 765. Three generations of imbeciles are enough. [274 U.S. 200, 208]   But, it is said, however it might be if this reasoning were applied generally, it fails when it is confined to the small number who are in the institutions named and is not applied to the multitudes outside. It is the usual last resort of constitutional arguments to point out shortcomings of this sort. But the answer is that the law does all that is needed when it does all that it can, indicates a policy, applies it to all within the lines, and seeks to bring within the lines all similarly situated so far and so fast as its means allow. Of course so far as the operations enable those who otherwise must be kept confined to be returned to the world, and thus open the asylum to others, the equality aimed at will be more nearly reached. (See the text of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of  Buck v. Bell)

Oliver Wendell Holmes's view of law was indeed based on "experience" and not "logic." He used the discredited, diabolical precepts of utilitarianism (public policy must be based upon the "greatest good" for the "greatest number" even if "traditional" concepts of morality are violated in the process) and the sort of Social Darwinism that was near and dear to the heart of the woman who started the Birth Control League, Margaret Sanger (whose motto was, "More from the fit, less from the unfit; that is the chief issue of birth control"), as the foundation for his decision in the case of Buck v. Bell. Indeed, Holmes's overt rejection of the Natural Law as the foundation of jurisprudence (legal reasoning) and the civil law in favor of legal positivism extended quite explicitly to a rejection of the inviolability of innocent human life under of cover of the civil law, as Holmes made clear in a 1918 essay against the Natural Law in the Harvard Law Review:

The most fundamental of the supposed preexisting rights—the right to life—is sacrificed without a scruple not only in war, but whenever the interest of society, that is, of the predominant power in the community, is thought to demand it. Whether that interest is the interest of mankind in the long run no one can tell, and as, in any event, to those who do not think with Kant and Hegel it is only an interest, the sanctity disappears. I remember a very tender-hearted judge being of opinion that closing a hatch to stop a fire and the destruction of a cargo was justified even if it was known that doing so would stifle a man below. It is idle to illustrate further, because to those who agree with me I am uttering commonplaces and to those who disagree I am ignoring the necessary foundations of thought. The a priori men generally call the dissentients superficial. But I do agree with them in believing that one’s attitude on these matters is closely connected with one’s general attitude toward the universe. Proximately, as has been suggested, it is determined largely by early associations and temperament, coupled with the desire to have an absolute guide. Men to a great extent believe what they want to—although I see in that no basis for a philosophy that tells us what we should want to want.

Now when we come to our attitude toward the universe I do not see any rational ground for demanding the superlative—for being dissatisfied unless we are assured that our truth is cosmic truth, if there is such a thing—that the ultimates of a little creature on this little earth are the last word of the unimaginable whole. If a man sees no reason for believing that significance, consciousness and ideals are more than marks of the finite, that does not justify what has been familiar in French skeptics; getting upon a pedestal and professing to look with haughty scorn upon a world in ruins. The real conclusion is that the part cannot swallow the whole—that our categories are not, or may not be, adequate to formulate what we cannot know. If we believe that we come out of the universe, not it out of us, we must admit that we do not know what we are talking about when we speak of brute matter. We do know that a certain complex of energies can wag its tail and another can make syllogisms. These are among the powers of the unknown, and if, as may be, it has still greater powers that we cannot understand, as Fabre in his studies of instinct would have us believe, studies that gave Bergson one of the strongest strands for his philosophy and enabled Maeterlinck to make us fancy for a moment that we heard a clang from behind phenomena—if this be true, why should we not be content? Why should we employ the energy that is furnished to us by the cosmos to defy it and shake our fist at the sky? It seems to me silly. (Natural Law by Oliver Wendell Holmes)  

One of the many paradoxes found in a system where a nation's constitution and civil laws, whether passed at the Federal or state levels, do not explicitly acknowledge the primacy of the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law as these have been entrusted to the infallible teaching authority of the Catholic Church, is that it spawns competing teams of naturalists and positivists to vie with each other as to whether they will be bound by a “strict constructionist” approach to the interpretation of the words of the Constitution of the United States of America or bound only by a general, Rousseauean\

 sense of "experience" that was described as follows by the late Father Denis Fahey in The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World:

Rousseau carries on the revolution against the order of the world begun by Luther. Luther’s revolt was that of our individuality and sense-life against the exigencies of the supernatural order instituted by God. It was an attempt to remain attached to Christ, while rejecting the order established by Christ for our return to God. Rousseau’s revolt was against the order of natural morality, by the exaltation of the primacy of our sense-life.  

The little world of each one of us, our individuality, is a divine person, supremely free and sovereignly independent of all order, natural and supernatural. he state of Liberty or of sovereign independence is the primitive state of man, and the nature of man demands the restoration of that state of liberty. It is to satisfy this-called exigency that ‘Father of modern thought’ invented the famous myth of the Social Contract.    

The Social Contract gives birth to a form of association in which each one, while forming a union with all the others, obeys only himself and remains as free as before. Each one is subject to the whole, but he is not subject to any man, there is no man above him. He is absorbed in the common Ego begotten in the pact, so that obeying the law, he obeys only himself. Each citizen votes in order, that by the addition of the number of votes, the general will, expressed by the vote of the majority, is, so to say, a manifestation of the ‘deity’ immanent in the multitude. The People are God (no wonder we have gotten used to writing the word with a capital letter). The law imposed by this ‘deity’ does not need to be just in order to exact obedience. In fact, the majority vote makes or creates right and justice. An adverse majority vote can not only overthrow the directions and commands of the Heads of the Mystical Body on earth, the Pope and the Bishops, but can even deprive the Ten Commandments of all binding force.  

To the triumph of those ideals in the modern world, the Masonic denial of original sin and the Rousseauist dogma of the natural goodness of man have contributed not a little. The dogma of natural goodness signifies that man lived originally in a purely natural paradise of happiness and goodness and that, even in our present degraded state, all our instinctive movements are good. We do not need grace, for nature can do for what grace does. In addition, Rousseau holds that this state of happiness and goodness, of perfect justice and innocence, of exemption from servile work and suffering, is natural to man, that is, essentially demanded by our nature. Not only then is original sin nonexistent, not only do we not come into the world as fallen sons of the first Adam, bearing in us the wounds of our fallen nature, is radically anti-natural. Suffering and pain have been introduced by society, civilization and private property. Hence we must get rid of all these and set up a new form of society. We can bet back the state of the Garden of Eden by the efforts of our own nature, without the help of grace. For Rousseau, the introduction of the present form of society, and of private property constitute the real Fall. The setting up of a republic based on his principles will act as a sort of democratic grace which will restore in its entirety our lost heritage. In a world where the clear teaching of the faith of Christ about the supernatural order of the Life of Grace has become obscured, but were men are still vaguely conscious that human nature was once happy, Rousseau’s appeal acts like an urge of homesickness. We need not be astonished, then, apart from the question of Masonic-Revolutionary organization and propaganda, at the sort of delirious enthusiasm which takes possession of men at the thought of a renewal of society. Nor need we wonder that men work for the overthrow of existing government and existing order, in the belief that they are not legitimate forms of society. A State not constructed according to Rosseauist-Masonic principles is not a State ruled by laws. It is a monstrous tyranny, and must be overthrown in the name of "Progress" and of the "onward march of democracy.’ All these influences must be borne in mind as we behold, since 1789, the triumph in one country after another or Rousseauist-Masonic democracy. (Father Denis Fahey, The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World.)

Behold the monstrous tyranny that is upon us.

With this, good readers, we turn our attention once again to the then Monsignor Sheen’s essay:

Now, if it is right — and it is right — for governments to be intolerant about the principles of government, and the bridge builder to be intolerant about the laws of stress and strain, and the physicist to be intolerant about the principles of gravitation, why should it not be the right of Christ, the right of His Church, and the right of thinking men to be intolerant about the truths of Christ, the doctrines of the Church, and the principles of reason? Can the truths of God be less exacting than the truths of mathematics? Can the laws of the mind be less binding than the laws of science, which are known only through the laws of the mind? Shall man, gifted with natural truth, who refuses to look with an equally tolerant eye on the mathematician who says two and two make five and the one who says two and two make four, be called a wise man, and shall God, Who refuses to look with an equally tolerant eye on all religions, be denied the name of ʺWisdom,ʺ and be called an ʺintolerantʺ God?…

Why, then, sneer at dogmas as intolerant? On all sides we hear it said today, ʺThe modern world wants a religion without dogmas,ʺ which betrays how little thinking goes with that label, for he who says he wants a religion without dogmas is stating a dogma, and a dogma that is harder to justify than many dogmas of faith. A dogma is a true thought, and a religion without dogmas is a religion without thought, or a back without a backbone. All sciences have dogmas. ʺWashington is the capital of the United Statesʺ is a dogma of geography. ʺWater is composed of two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygenʺ is a dogma of chemistry. Should we be broad‐minded and say that Washington is a sea in Switzerland? Should we be broad‐minded and say that H2O is a symbol for sulfuric acid? …

But it is anything but progress to act like mice and eat the foundations of the very roof over our heads. Intolerance about principles is the foundation of growth, and the mathematician who would deride a square for always having four sides, and in the name of progress would encourage it to throw away even only one of its sides, would soon discover that he had lost all his squares. So too with the dogmas of the Church, of science, and of reason; they are like bricks, solid things with which a man can build, not like straw, which is ʺreligious experience,ʺ fit only for burning.

A dogma, then, is the necessary consequence of the intolerance of first principles, and that science or that church which has the greatest amount of dogmas is the science or the church that has been doing the most thinking. The Catholic Church, the schoolmaster for twenty centuries, has been doing a tremendous amount of solid, hard thinking and hence has built up dogmas as a man might build a house of brick but grounded on a rock. She has seen the centuries with their passing enthusiasms and momentary loyalties pass before her, making the same mistakes, cultivating the same poses, falling into the same mental snares, so that she has become very patient and kind to the erring pupils, but very intolerant and severe concerning the false. She has been and she will always be intolerant so far as the rights of God are concerned, for heresy, error, untruth, affect not personal matters on which she may yield, but a Divine Right in which there is no yielding. Meek she is to the erring, but violent to the error. The truth is divine; the heretic is human. Due reparation made, she will admit the heretic back into the treasury of her souls, but never the heresy into the treasury of her wisdom. Right is right if nobody is right, and wrong is wrong if everybody is wrong. And in this day and age we need, as Mr. [G. K.] Chesterton tells us, ʺnot a Church that is right when the world is right, but a Church that is right when the world is wrong.ʺ

The attitude of the Church in relation to the modern world on this important question may be brought home by the story of the two women in the courtroom of Solomon [see 3 Kings 3:16-28]. Both of them claimed a child. The lawful mother insisted on having the whole child or nothing, for a child is like truth — it cannot be divided without ruin. The unlawful mother, on the contrary, agreed to compromise. She was willing to divide the babe, and the babe would have died of broad‐mindedness. (Monsignor Fulton Sheen, Old Errors and New Labels. New York, New York, The Century Company, 1931. Although I have the book itself, this excerpt was taken from Novus Ordo Watch Wire .)

Monsignor Sheen’s observation that “The truth is divine; the heretic is human. Due reparation made, she will admit the heretic back into the treasury of her souls, but never the heresy into the treasury of her wisdom” describes why the counterfeit church of conciliarism cannot be the Catholic Church as its false “popes” have quite indeed welcomed heresy into the treasury of its teaching by means of dogmatic evolutionism. The legal positivists use a similar method of evolutionism (“the living constitution”).

The cardinal “sin” of conciliarism is thus the same as that found in the world of Judeo-Masonic naturalism: to make people feel “uncomfortable” or “guilty” about their sins. The corollary perverse commandment of conciliarism: Thou shalt make everyone feel happy and welcomed—other than those who believe in Catholic truth, including that of the Social Reign of Christ the King.

The late Louis-Edouard-François-Desiré Cardinal Pie of Poitiers, France, put the matter as follows in the Nineteenth Century:

Neither in His Person," Card, Pie said in a celebrated pastoral instruction, "nor in the exercise of His rights, can Jesus Christ be divided, dissolved, split up; in Him the distinction of natures and operations can never be separated or opposed; the divine cannot be incompatible to the human, nor the human to the divine. On the contrary, it is the peace, the drawing together, the reconciliation; it is the very character of union which has made the two things one: 'He is our peace, Who hat made both one." (Eph. 2:14). This is why St. John told us: 'every spirit that dissolveth Jesus is not of God. And this is Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh: and is now already in the world' (1 John 4:3; cf. also 1 John 2:18, 22; 2 John: 7). "So then, Card. Pie continues, "when I hear certain talk being spread around, certain pithy statements (i.e., 'Separation of Church and State,' for one, and the enigmatic axiom 'A free Church in a free State,' for another) prevailing from day to day, and which are being introduced into the heart of societies, the dissolvent by which the world must perish, I utter this cry of alarm: Beware the Antichrist." (Selected Writings of Cardinal Pie of Poitiers, pp. 21-23.)

Why can't we recognize once and for all that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ must reign as King over men and their nations and that all “compromises” with this truth are from the devil?

All common sense, yes, even on matters such as protecting a nation’s borders, must crumble when men do not submit themselves to the sweet yoke of Christ the King and the teaching authority of His Holy Catholic Church.

We must always be champions of Christ the King and Our Lady, she who is our Immaculate Queen, as we pray her Most Holy Rosary and strive to make repareation for the blasphemous rejection of Our King's Social Reign over men and their nations by the conciliar “popes” and their confederates, mindful of our need to make reparation for our own sins of pride, for our own refusal to let Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to reign as the King over every single aspect of our hearts and souls without any exception whatsoever.

On the Feast of Saint Romuald

Today is the Feast of Saint Romuald, a Benedict abbot who lived one hundred twenty years and who had learned who early in his life to be detached from the things, people, and places of this passing, mortal vale of tears in which we have not a permanent dwelling nor a lasting city.

Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., wrote the following hagiography of his fellow Benedictine, Saint Romuald, who used his extraordinarily long live to glorify God and to live penitentially to win souls for Him through His true Church:

The Calendar’s list of Martyrs is interrupted for two days; the first of these is the Feast of Romuald, the hero of penance, the Saint of the forests of Camaldoli. He is a son of the great Patriarch St. Benedict, and, like him, is the father of many children. The Benedictine family has a direct line from the commencement, even to this present time; but, from the trunk of this venerable tree there have issued four vigorous branches, to each of which the Holy Spirit has imparted the life and fruitfulness of the parent stem. These collateral branches of the Benedict Order are: Camaldoli, by Romuald; Cluny, by Odo; Yallombrosa, by John Gualbert; and Citeaux, by Robert of Molesmes.

The saint of this seventh day of February is Romuald. The martyrs whom we meet with on our way to Lent give us an important lesson by the contempt they had for this short life. But the teaching offered us by such holy penitents as the great abbot of Camaldoli is even more practical than that of the martyrs. “They that are Christ’s,” says the apostle, “have crucified their flesh, with its vices and concupiscences;” and in these words he tells us what is the distinguishing character of every true Christian. We repeat it: what a powerful encouragement we have in these models of mortification, who have sanctified the deserts by their lives of heroic penance! How they make us ashamed of our own cowardice, which can scarcely bring itself to do the little that must be done to satisfy God’s justice and merit His grace! Let us take the lesson to heart, cheerfully offer our offended Lord the tribute of our repentance, and purify our souls by works of mortification. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Feast of Saint Romuald, February 7.)

The Divine Office contains the following summary of Saint Romuald’s long life and his truly heroic labors in the vineyard  of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and His true Church:

The holy Abbot Romuald was the son of one Sergius, of a noble family of Ravenna. While he was still very young, he went to a neighbouring monastery at Classis to do penance. While he was there he heard a discourse by a monk, which stirred him up strongly to aim at godliness of living; and he had afterwards in the Church by night two visions in which the blessed servant of God Apollinaris foretold to him that he should become a monk himself. He accordingly did so; and soon afterwards betook himself to one Marinus, whose holy life and strict discipline were then much noised about in all the coasts of the Venetians, that he might by his teaching and guidance attain towards the hard and lofty point of perfection.

The more he was assailed by the wiles of Satan and the unkindness of men, the more did he exercise himself in lowliness, with continual fasting and prayer, and rejoice in thinking of heavenly things, with abundance of tears. And all the while he bore so bright a face as gladdened all who looked on him. He was held in great honour by princes and kings, and his counsel moved many to leave the blandishments of the world and withdraw to the desert. He had such a burning desire to obtain the crown of martyrdom that he set out for Pannonia on purpose to seek it, but, falling into sickness whenever he went forward though growing strong again whenever he drew back, he behoved to return home.

God worked miracles by him both during his life and after his death, and likewise gave him the gift of prophecy. Like the Patriarch Jacob, he saw a ladder reaching from earth to heaven, and men in white garments ascending and descending upon it, in whom he marvellously knew were represented the monks of the Camaldolese Institute, of which he was the founder. At the age of 120 years, of which he had spent 100 in serving God in great hardness, he passed into His Presence, in the year of Salvation 1027. Five years after his death his body was found incorrupt, and laid in a magnificent grave in the Church of his order at Fabriano. (Matins, The Divine Office, Feast of Saint Romuald.)

Most of us are not going to have Saint Romuald's length of years, but we can pray to Our Lady to send us the graces to love penance, including those of being brought low in the sight of men by enduring humiliation and calumny with serene acceptance of the path by which God may seek to chastise and purify us, so as to be able desire to die to self for love of her Divine Son and His true Church, yes, up to and including the point of actual martyrdom for the Holy Faith, making the following prayer to Saint Romuald composed by the Abbot of Solesmes, Dom Prosper Gueranger:

Faithful servant and friend of God! how different was thy life from ours! We love the world and its distractions. We think we do wonders if we give, each day, a passing thought to our Creator, and make him, at long intervals, the sole end of some one of our occupations. Yet we know, how each hour is bringing us nearer to that moment, when we must stand before the divine tribunal, with our good and our evil works, to receive the irrevocable sentence we shall have merited. Thou, Romuald, didst not thus waste life away. It seemed to thee as though there were but one thought and one interest worth living for: how best to serve thy God. Lest anything should distract thee from this infinitely dear object, thou didst flee into the desert. There, under the Rule of the great Patriarch, St. Benedict, thou wagedst war against the flesh and the devil; thy tears washed away thy sins, though so light if compared with what we have committed; thy soul, invigorated by penance, was inflamed with the love of Jesus, for whose sake thou wouldst fain have shed thy blood. We love to recount these thy merits, for they belong to us in virtue of that Communion which our Lord has so mercifully established between Saints and Sinners. Assist us, therefore, during the penitential Season, which is soon to be upon us; Divine Justice will not despise our feeble efforts, for he will see them beautified by the union he allows them to have with such glorious works as thine. When thou wast living in the Eden of Camaldoli, thy amiable and sweet charity for men was such, that all who came near thee, were filled with joy and consolation: what may we not expect from thee, now that thou art face to face with the God of Love? Remember, too, the Order thou hast founded; protect it, give it increase, and ever make it, to those who become its children, a Ladder to lead them up to heaven. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Feast of Saint Romuald, February 7.)

Well, we are just seven days away from Ash Wednesday. A Catholic understands that this is the time to begin thinking about the penances he will take upon himself in addition to those mandated by Holy Mother Church, and the example of Saint Romuald provides us with a perfect opportunity today to detach ourselves more and more from the world, especially from the raging conflicts between the opposing organizing crimes of naturalism who are, despite all their differences, are united as one in rejecting the Social Reign of Christ the King and thus of the necessity of men and their nations submitting themselves to Him in all humility and docility in everything that pertains to the good of souls.

May our prayers to Our Lady, especially through her Most Holy Rosary, convert the hearts of men to unite themselves to the sweet yoke of her Divine Son and thus to recognize that the only true standard of human liberty is His Holy Cross, beneath which she stood so valiantly as our sins m having transcended time, cause Our Divine King to suffer in His Sacred Humanity and to pierce her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart through and through with the Fourth through Seventh Swords of Sorrow.

May her Divine Son, Christ the King, have mercy on us all.

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us. 

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us. 

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior and Balthazar, pray for us. 

Saint Romuald, pray for us.