One of the Greatest and Most Divisive Demagogues of Them All: Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton

Perhaps it is no exaggeration to state that Madame Defarge, aka Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton, is one of the greatest dividers in American history, which includes a lot of outright demagogues, class warfare warriors such as Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, Indian-hating racialists such as Andrew Jackson, the Know-Nothing likes of Millard Fillmore and anti-Catholic bigots such as James G. Blaine and Woodrow Wilson up to the recent decades with the open anti-Catholicism of the late Dianne Feinstein, Mazie Hirono, and a certain Kamala Harris.

Although some of the root causes of the demagogic hatred that so many members of the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist “left” will be discussed later in this commentary, a bit of time needs to be spent focusing on some recent comments made by the sorest of all sore losers, Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton, on the very day after there was a second attempt on the life of former President Donald John Trump under circumstances that raise a number of questions, not the least of which is how Ryan Wesley Couch knew that the former president was going to be his Trump International Golf Course in West Palm, Florida:

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Monday that Donald Trump is a “danger to our country and the world” — just one day after a gunman was foiled in his bid shoot the former president.

The 2016 Democratic presidential nominee made the remark during an interview with MSNBC primetime host Rachel Maddow.

“The late great journalist Harry Evans one time said that journalists should try to achieve objectivity,” Clinton said.

“The object in this case is Donald Trump. His demagoguery. His danger to our country and the world,” she added, claiming that the press was “merciless” in going after President Biden, but treated Trump with kid gloves.

Trump, 78, was playing a round of golf at the Trump International Golf Club West Palm Beach in Florida on Sunday when a Secret Service agent on advance patrol spotted a gun barrel protruding from the tree line. . . . Trump’s allies blasted Clinton’s comments, accusing her of upping the chance of political violence.

“Hillary Clinton knows exactly what she’s doing here. Just a day after a Democrat donor and Kamala Harris supporter tried murdering my dad, she is purposely fanning the violent leftwing flames to put his life further in danger,” Donald Trump Jr. wrote on X.

“This is evil,” Trump campaign adviser Tim Murtaugh wrote. “The day after Trump survived a second assassination attempt, Hillary Clinton is out trying to stir up a third one.” (Hillary Clinton calls Trump 'danger to our country and the world' — just one day after second assassination attempt.)

What can one say?

Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., has been criticized “mercilessly” by the press while Donald John Trump has been treated with “kid gloves.”

Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton, who oversaw the disparagement of Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick, and Monica Lewinsky, among so many other women, her husband, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, exploited for his own nefarious purposes so that she, Hillary Clinton, could ride her husband’s coattails into the White House for what she called during the 1992 campaign "get two for the price of one,” and from there to build a base for her own and as of yet unfulfilled presidential ambitions.

To believe that the current President in Name Only, Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., has been treated in a “merciless” manner by the press and that Trump has been treated with “kid gloves” is to invert reality by turning it on its head.

Then again, Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton has always been capable of doing this as she reiterated her “vast ring conspiracy” slogan in 2015 seventeen years after using it to dismiss initial reports of her faithless husband’s relationship with the scheming Monica Lewinsky:

Anderson Cooper: Do you still believe there’s a vast right-wing conspiracy?

Hillary Clinton: Don’t you? (laughter)

Anderson Cooper: I’m asking you.

Hillary Clinton: Yeah. It’s gotten even better-funded. They brought in some new multi-billionaires! … They want to rig the economy so they continue to get richer and richer!

Yes, the woman who was paid $675,000 to give three speeches to Goldman Sachs denounced the greed of other people.

Let’s go back to those famous words…

Matt Lauer: “You have said, I understand, to some close friends, that this is the last great battle, and that one side or the other is going down here.”

Hillary Clinton: Well, I don’t know if I’ve been that dramatic. That would sound like a good line from a movie. But I do believe that this is a battle. I mean, look at the very people who are involved in this — they have popped up in other settings. This is — the great story here for anybody willing to find it and write about it and explain it is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president.

If she meant people on the Right disagreed with and opposed her husband, then yes. Then again, GOP opposition to Bill Clinton was neither shadowy nor secret. Clinton made the charge while echoing her husband’s false denial of an inappropriate sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Hillary Clinton had made a similar claim in 1992:

Kroft: She is alleging and has described in some detail in the supermarket tabloid what she calls a 12-year affair with you.

Bill Clinton: That allegation is false.

Hillary Clinton: When this woman first got caught up in these charges, I felt as I’ve felt about all of these women: that they . . . had just been minding their own business and they got hit by a meteor . . . . I felt terrible about what was happening to them. Bill talked to this woman every time she called, distraught, saying her life was going to be ruined, and . . . he’d get off the phone and tell me that she said sort of wacky things, which we thought were attributable to the fact that she was terrified.

Bill Clinton: It was only when money came out, when the tabloid went down there offering people money to say that they had been involved with me, that she changed her story. There’s a recession on.

Kroft: I’m assuming from your answer that you’re categorically denying that you ever had an affair with Gennifer Flowers.

Bill Clinton: I said that before. And so has she.

For those of you who have forgotten: “The Presidential deposition released today confirmed several revelations reported earlier, including Mr. Clinton’s confirmation, after years of denial, that he had had sex with Gennifer Flowers, a one-time Arkansas worker.”

The Clintons lie, and they lie, and they lie, and then they lie some more. And if you call them out on those lies, they call you part of a conspiracy.  (The Return of Hillary Clinton's 'Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy' Excuse.)

The Clintons have always blamed others for the problems and scandals that are entirely of their own making. Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton has always been in the business of demonizing her political enemies.

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 when they lived together in sin before they got married in 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 girlfriend 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 in 2008 during her Democratic Party presidential campaign against then United States Senator Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro (D-Illinois even after it has been disproven 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. ou 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.

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 a 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.)

7. Chinagate. A few words need to be written about this betrayal of American 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 realize his policy of "leveling" the playing field internationally in a "global" world. Consider this May 27, 2003, Newsmax.com 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.) 

Additionally, of course, then United States Secretary of State Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton personally covered-up the terrorist attack at the American compound in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans and had the audacity to declare before a Congressional committee investigating the scandal that it did not matter whether the attack had been planned or was, as the Obama administration kept claiming, the result of a film that portrayed the false prophet Mohammed even though this claim was palpably false even at the time of the attack on September 12, 2012:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took umbrage with Senator Ron Johnson’s line of questioning during the hearings on Benghazi this morning. Secretary Clinton’s sharp reply to Senator Johnson’s question about why the narrative about a spontaneous demonstration over the Prophet Muhammed video was not corrected was, “With all due respect, the fact is, we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or because of guys out for a walk one night who decide to kill some Americans, what difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator.” (Hillary Clinton: "What Difference At This Point Does It Make?!')

Then, of course, there is the matter of Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton’s illegal use of a home-brewed computer server to store confidential documents from her tenure as the United States Secretary of State and then her efforts to cover-up her crimes with the full support and active cooperation of the United States Ministry of Injustice’s Federal Bureau of Investigation:

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 many said to themselves—others—“This is it!— it’s curtains for the Clintons” eight years ago because of the United States Department of State’s Inspector General’s report that was released on Wednesday, May 25, 2016, I was unconvinced. After all, very few people seem to cared about the fact that Hillary Rodham Diane Clinton supported 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.

As we know all too well, Hillary Rodham Clinton skated in July of 2016 by the noxious aribter of what constitutes moral fitness, James Brien Comey, the then Director of the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation in July of 2016, whereupon Madame Defarge pivoted perfectly to concoct a scheme meant to tar Donald John Trump as a stooge of Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin to divert attention from her criminal destruction of evidence proving her guilt in the email scandal to prevent Trump’s election and to forever damage him as a veritable Manchurian Candidate. With the help of Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., Susan Rice, Samantha Powers, James Brien Comey, John Brennan, James Clapper, and a whole host of other deep state schemers, Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton’s 2016 big lie crippled the presidency of Donald John Trump by means of the Robert Mueller effort to conduct a “legal coup” against him, was a major contributing factor to the Democratic Party’s takeover of the United States House of Representatives in 2018 and thus to his first impeachment.

Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton is such a deplorably divisive demagogue that she believes the point of George Orwell’s 1984 was to prove that the totalitarian government portrayed in 1984 was right to suppress dissent!

Amidst all the shocks of the 2024 presidential race, who expected Hillary Clinton to ride in like Joan of Arc to rescue truth — or at least to call for the crushing of government critics?

On Monday, Hillary declared on Rachel Maddow’s MSNBC talk show that the federal government should criminally prosecute Americans who share “propaganda” — which she made no effort to define.

Hillary has long been one of America’s foremost censorship advocates. In 2022, she wailed that “tech platforms have amplified disinformation and extremism with no accountability” and endorsed European Union legislation to obliterate free speech.

But as we’ve seen, “disinformation” is often simply the lag time between the government pronouncing something a falsehood and the government getting debunked.

That awkward fact didn’t deter Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, now the Democratic vice presidential nominee, from declaring, “There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy.”

Who knew the North Star State’s version of the First Amendment has a loophole bigger than Duluth?

After The New York Post shot down Biden’s Disinformation Governance Board in 2022, Biden appointed Kamala Harris as chief of a White House task force to protect “women and LGBTQI+ political leaders . . . and journalists” from vigorous criticism on the Internet (or as the administration preferred to call it, from “online harassment and abuse”).

The Harris-Biden censorship schemes have been denounced by federal courts and by Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC), chair of the House Cybersecurity Subcommittee, sent the White House a letter last week noting that the administration had repeatedly “advertised its willingness to manipulate the content of social media sites.” Mace called for the cessation of federal censorship that might taint the 2024 election and requested copies of all official “communications with social media companies . . . concerning the concealment or suppression of information on their sites.”

The odds of the White House complying with that request are on par with the New York Giants winning the Super Bowl this season.

Meanwhile, Hillary’s own career is that of a political elitist out to righteously blindfold all Americans but herself.

When she was secretary of state from 2009 to 2013, Clinton exempted herself from federal records requirements and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), setting up a private server in her New York mansion to illegally handle her official email. 

The State Department ignored 17 FOIA requests for her emails and said it would need 75 years to release the messages of her top aides in response to a GOP lawsuit. 

The Federal Bureau of Investigation shrugged it off when Hillary’s aides used a program called BleachBit to destroy 30,000 of her emails that a congressional committee had subpoenaed. Federal Judge Royce Lamberth labeled the Clinton email cover-up “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.”

Pirouetting as a champion of candor is a novel role for the former senator. Shortly before the 2016 election, a Gallup poll found that only 33% of voters believed Hillary was honest and trustworthy, and only 35% trusted Donald Trump.

The Clinton-Trump tag team made “post-truth” the Oxford English Dictionary’s 2016 word of the year

Hillary believes the lesson of George Orwell’s “1984” is that good citizens should shut up and grovel: In her 2017 memoir, she claimed that the book warned of the dangers posed by critics of the establishment who “sow mistrust toward exactly the people we need to rely on: our leaders, the press, experts who seek to guide public policy based on evidence.”

Does she imagine Orwell dedicated his novel to Stalin?

And now, to sanctify censorship of Trump and his supporters, Hillary is yet again invoking the Russian peril.

This despite the 316-page report released last year by Special Counsel John Durham, who confirmed that in mid-2016, as she suffered a public shellacking over her email scandal, Clinton “approved a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisors to tie Trump to Russia as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.”

President Barack Obama was briefed on the Clinton proposal “to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security services.” FBI officials relied on the “Clinton Plan” to target the Trump campaign — even though no FBI personnel took “any action to vet the Clinton Plan intelligence,” the Durham report noted.

Hillary’s scams were even too much for federal scorekeepers: The Federal Election Commission in 2022 levied a $113,000 fine on her 2016 campaign and the Democratic National Committee for their deceptive FEC filings that covered up their role in manufacturing the Steele dossier, which spurred the FBI’s illegal surveillance of Trump campaign officials.

Is the charge of “disinformation” becoming simply another stick that rulers can use to flog uppity citizens?

But if politicians have no obligation to disclose how they use their power, and can persecute citizens who expose their abuses, how in Hades can American freedom survive? (Queen of disinfo Hillary Clinton's phony censorship campaign.)

The commentary quoted just above was written from a secular perspective its author, James Bovard, asked a telling question as to how “how in Hades can American freedom survive” “if politicians have no obligation to disclose how they use their power, and can persecute citizens who exposes their abuses.” Although this is a pertinent question, of course, the answer is to be found in the fact that those who do not live in the shadow of Christ the King’s Holy Cross as it must be held high by Holy Mother Church are doomed to be governed by “infallible” autocrats who believe that the citizens have “rights” only at the government’s sufferance, “rights” which do not including questioning the secular high priests and priestesses and their secular orthodoxy du jour.

Nonetheless, however, a country founded upon one anti-Incarnational, Pelagian, and Calvinist/Judeo-Masonic naturalistic errors can only produce ever increasing doses of demagoguery and the violence that comes with it as ordinary citizens who have lived their entire lives in a sewer of errors come to make a religion out of their ignorantly bigoted presuppositions.

To be sure, demagoguery, including a fierce hatred of Catholicism, was perhaps the most important driving force behind the convening of the Second Continental Congress in 1775 that led to the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. As is pointed out in Conversion in Reverse, many leading colonists, including Alexander Hamilton, were very alarmed that Quebec Act granted toleration to Catholics in what had been a French colony prior to 1763. It was fear of men such as Hamilton that such “toleration” might be extended to the American colonies, and it was this fear that was a principle motivating factor in the formation of the First Continental Congress in 1774

It was this hatred of Catholics that caused colonists to consider the Quebec Act as “intolerable” as it was a sign, at least to them, that the British were beginning to slacken in their resolve against “popery” when the truth of the matter was the act demonstrated British pragmatism in the face of a populace more numerous and prosperous than were the Acadians who were dispersed in Nova Scotia.

Robert Leckie described the flames of hatred that were fanned by anti-Catholic propagandists in the colonies in the immediate aftermath of the Quebec Act:

This piece of legislation had not only confirmed the French in the free exercise of their religion and the practice of their native law, it had also granted the Quebec government those lands in the west which the English colonies claimed. Now, the colonists fancied themselves surrounded by French-speaking Catholics, the old enemy of former years, and their rage was so unbounded that on October 21, 1774, the [First] Continental Congress addressed a letter to the British people admonishing them for tolerating in America a religion which “has deluged your island in blood, and dispersed impiety, bigotry, persecution, murder and rebellion through every part of the world.”

One again, it was popular to quote Samuel Adams, who had said six years earlier [that is, in 1768]: “I did verily believe, as I do still, that much more is to be dreaded from the growth of popery in America, than from the Stamp Act or any other acts destructive of civil rights. . . .” Once again, the popular press picked up the old anti-Catholic cudgels, and one journal went so far as to predict: “We may live to see our churches converted into mass houses and our lands plundered by tythes for the support of the Popish clergy. The Inquisition may erect her standard in Pennsylvania and the city of Philadelphia may yet experience the carnage of St. Bartholomew’s Day.” Others, misrepresenting the truth of the Quebec Act, insisted that it actually established Romanism as an official religion, and warned: ‘If Gallic Papists have a right To worship their own way Then farewell to the liberties Of poor America.’

Ministers, of course, were in full voice once more, but so also were John Adams, apparently recovered from his momentary lapse into tolerance, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, the inevitable Samuel Adams, and none other than Washington’s protégé and confidante, Alexander Hamilton, who thundered: “If [Parliament] had any regard to the freedom and happiness of mankind they would not have done it. If they had been friends to the Protestant cause, they would never have provided such a nursery for its greatest enemy . . . They may as well establish Popery in New York and the other colonies as they did in Canada!”

More than the Stamp Act, perhaps more than any other act by Parliament or any British minister, the Quebec Act was a direct cause of the American Revolution. It so inflamed colonial hatred of the mother country that even that staunch and solid Protestant, King George III, was accused of being a Jesuit in disguise, and his statues, from which the rebels later were to melt so many serviceable bullets, were adored with mocking rosaries. Meanwhile, patriots such as Paul Revere did a brisk business in scurrilous engravings which depicted His Majesty and his Ministers clothed in the livery of the Pope of Rome. To the Catholics of colonial America–who actually represented no more than 1 per cent of the total population of three million persons–it appeared that it was time to pull tight the shutters again, and it was this furor of anti-Catholic sentiment that rose about the ears of Father John Carroll when he returned to his native Maryland in 1774. (Robert Leckie, American and Catholic, Doubleday, 1970, pp. 45-47.)

Look at those names. John Adams. Samuel Adams. Alexander Hamilton. Paul Revere. These are not men to admire. They hated Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and His true Church, she that is the one and only means of personal salvation and social order, a hatred that was expressed by John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison both before and after the adoption of the Constitution of the United States of America in 1788:

The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.

Unembarrassed by attachments to noble families, hereditary lines and successions, or any considerations of royal blood, even the pious mystery of holy oil had no more influence than that other of holy water: the people universally were too enlightened to be imposed on by artifice; and their leaders, or more properly followers, were men of too much honour to attempt it. Thirteen governments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favour of the rights of mankind. (President John Adams: "A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America," 1787-1788)

"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away {with} all this artificial scaffolding…" (11 April, 1823, John Adams letter to Thomas Jefferson, Adams-Jefferson Letters, ed. Lester J. Cappon, II, 594).

Can a free government possibly exist with the Roman Catholic religion? (John Adams, Letter to Thomas Jefferson, May 19, 1821)

I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced! (John Adams, Letter to Thomas Jefferson, quoted in 200 Years of Disbelief, by James Hauck)

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect."—James Madison, letter to William Bradford, Jr„ April I, 1774

". . . Freedom arises from the multiplicity of sects, which pervades America and which is the best and only security for religious liberty in any society. For where there is such a variety of sects, there cannot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the rest."—James Madison, spoken at the Virginia convention on ratification of the Constitution, June 1778

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution."—-James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance," addressed to the Virginia General Assembly, 1785

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes. (Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Alexander von Humboldt, December, 1813.)

May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all) the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. That form which we have substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God. These are grounds of hope for others. For ourselves, let the annual return of this day forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them. (Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Roger Weigthman, June 24, 1826, ten days before Jefferson's death. This letter is quoted in its entirety in Dr. Paul Peterson’s now out-of-print Readings in American Democracy. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall-Hunt, 1979, pp. 28-29.)

It takes a lot of dodging on the part of those who have made demigods out of the framers of the Constitution of the United States of America to refuse to admit that it is entirely logical for contemporary jurists and elected officials such as Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., Kamala Harris, and Merrick Garland have little regard for the plain meaning of the words contained in that document's text as Protestants and modernist Catholics have shown for the plain meaning of the words of Sacred Scripture as they have been given and explained to us by the infallible teaching authority of the Catholic Church. Why should we have any more reverence for the words of mere men, whose bodies have long since decayed after their deaths, when the written Word of God can be deconstructed of Its plain meaning to suit the arbitrary whims of men?

It is important to remember this fact as the Constitution is utterly defenseless against being misinterpreted as its framers did not accept the fact that there is an ultimate teaching authority to be found in the Catholic Church to guide men as they pursue the common temporal good in light of man's Last End: the possession of the glory the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. Although Holy Mother Church leaves it to the prudence of men to form the specific institutional arrangements by which they will govern themselves in a particular body politic, she does insist that men defer to her in all that pertains to the good of souls and that they seek to pursue virtue in their own lives by cooperating with the graces won for them by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ on the wood of the Holy Cross that flows into their hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces.

Men who do not accept this, however, will find that all of their efforts to provide for a just social order, no matter how well-intentioned, will decay over the course of time. The fact that the specific institutional arrangements found in the Constitution of the United States of America, none of which is objectionable in se to the Catholic Faith, have been used to pursue more and more manifest injustices that are at odds even the words found in the document's text and are opposed to written thought of the framers themselves is the result of the anti-Incarnational premises which formed their intellectual perspectives. We are witnessing only a more open and thus obvious collapse of the order that was meant to be provided by the Constitution for a variety of reasons, including, of course, the fact that there has been a deprivation of Sanctifying and Actual Graces in the world as a result of the doctrinal and liturgical revolutions of conciliarism.

The proximate root cause of this decay was caused by the false premises of the American founding that have led jurists and politicians to make as much short work of the text of the Constitution as the plain words of Holy Writ have been made by the Scriptural and dogmatic relativism that Protestantism let loose on the world nearly five hundred years ago. The framers of the American Constitution were but the victims of Protestantism's revolution against the objective nature of Revealed Truth.

Just as Democrats and Republicans agree on the basic naturalistic, anti-Incarnational, religiously indifferentist and semi-Pelagian principles of the American founding, disagreeing on the specifics as to the conduct of public policy in light of those principles, so is it the case that "liberal" and "conservative" Catholics accept those same false principles as they diverge on the specifics of public policy according to the political "camp" which they believe represents the best means of achieving various goals. Both "liberal" and "conservatives" Catholics are as one in rejecting these simple truths of the Catholic Faith as binding upon their consciences and that they apply to the concrete circumstances to be found in the United States of America, believing that their naturalistic or non-denominational ideas and plans and strategies can "win the day" for their respective cause.

Things have reached such a point that truth of any kind, whether natural or supernatural, in a world where so many people identify themselves principally not as redeemed creatures but tribally as members of a certain race or political party, which is why those in public life such as the Clintons or the Obamas or the Bidens or the Harris’s consider themselves to be above the laws of God and the just laws of men. Such ne’er-do-wells can rationalize all their lies, their machinations, their hypocrisy, and all the acts of calumny and demonization of those who stand in the way of accomplishing, augmenting, and cementing their career ambitions and political ends.

Those who hold the Eighth Commandment of account—if they even know that there is an Eighth Commandment or what it says!—will find it easy to lie in their own lives and to accept lies told by others with whom they agree personally and/or politically in order to prevent someone from the “hated” “destroyers” of the demigod of democracy from gaining elected office or doing much it except be investigated for crimes they did not commit after their election.

Martin Luther’s lie of “salvation by [a profession of] faith alone,” which is nothing other than the sin of Presumption, one of two unforgivable sins against the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, has led large numbers of people who think themselves to “Bible believers” into believing that no sin they commit, no matter how grave, can jeopardize their eternal salvation after they have made a profession of faith in the Name of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Luther hated the Ten Commandments, and that hatred has made itself manifest a world today where most people do not even know those Commandments, their proper enumeration, or their true meaning as entrusted exclusively to His own Holy Catholic Church that He Himself founded upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope.

Men, whether acting individually or collectively, deceive themselves if they think that they can make the world a "better" place absent a profound devotion to Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary. Our Lady told us in the Cova da Iria near Fatima, Portugal, ninety-four years ago that we must pray the Rosary to console the good God and to make reparation for our sins as we pray for the conversion of poor sinners and for the faithful fulfillment of her Fatima Message. This is a work of the Mercy of the Divine Redeemer, Who is giving us every chance to repent and convert. Why do men still persist in their obstinate refusal to take Our Lady's Fatima Message seriously and to organize Rosary processions and rallies to counter the naturalism of the day and to serve as valiant champions of Christ the King?

Let me reiterate some passages that I wrote over seven months ago now:

The following words of Pope Pius XI, contained in his first encyclical letter, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922, are eternally true as it is impossible for the falsehoods of naturalism to do anything other than to worsen the situation of men and their nations:

Because men have forsaken God and Jesus Christ, they have sunk to the depths of evil. They waste their energies and consume their time and efforts in vain sterile attempts to find a remedy for these ills, but without even being successful in saving what little remains from the existing ruin. It was a quite general desire that both our laws and our governments should exist without recognizing God or Jesus Christ, on the theory that all authority comes from men, not from God. Because of such an assumption, these theorists fell very short of being able to bestow upon law not only those sanctions which it must possess but also that secure basis for the supreme criterion of justice which even a pagan philosopher like Cicero saw clearly could not be derived except from the divine law. (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.) 

We are fighting the forces of darkness that can be defeated only if we base our efforts in the temporal realm upon a firm, unshakable and uncompromising commitment to the Social Reign of Christ the King and a tender reliance upon her Most Holy Rosary and fidelity to her Fatima Message. Anyone who believes in political ecumenism, mixing false religious beliefs with the tenets of the true Faith or with Freemasonry and outright atheism, has no business speaking to Catholics about "solutions" to the social problems that have been caused, proximately speaking, by the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King wrought by the Protestant Revolt and the rise of Judeo-Masonry.

How can any Catholic not take seriously these words of Saint Augustine, quoted by Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832, concerning the fact that there must no place whatsoever for errors concerning First and Last Things in our lives?

This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error," as Augustine was wont to say. When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly "the bottomless pit" is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws -- in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty. (Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)  

Error kills the soul. Catholicism makes it possible for one to save his immortal soul. 

Pope Leo XIII, writing in Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890, explained that there is a never a time when a Catholic can speak as a naturalist or as a political ecumenist. We must speak and think and act always as Catholics:

The chief elements of this duty consist in professing openly and unflinchingly the Catholic doctrine, and in propagating it to the utmost of our power. For, as is often said, with the greatest truth, there is nothing so hurtful to Christian wisdom as that it should not be known, since it possesses, when loyally received, inherent power to drive away error. (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890.) 

We must be champions of Christ the King and Our Lady, she who is our Immaculate Queen, champions of the Catholic Church in this time of apostasy and betrayal, champions of the truth that Catholicism is the and only foundation of personal and social order. Those who disagree do so at the peril to the nation they say they love but for which they have a false sense of nationalistic pride that impedes her conversion to the true Faith, which is what Our Lord Himself mandates for each nation on the face of this earth.

We must not be distracted by the side shows of naturalism or conciliarism. We must serve as champions of Christ the King through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, especially by praying as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits, refusing to march along in the parade of the blood-stained midget naturalists.

On the Feast of Saint Januarius and His Companions

Januarius is ever preaching the Gospel to every creature; for his miraculous blood perpetuates the testimony he bore to Christ. Let those who say they cannot believe unless they see, go to Naples; there they will behold the martyr’s blood, when placed near his head which was cut off sixteen hundred years ago, to liquefy and boil as at the moment it escaped from his sacred veins. No; miracles are not lacking in the Church at the present day. True, God cannot subject Himself to the fanciful requirements of those proud men, who would dictate to Him the conditions of the prodigies they must needs witness ere they will bow before His infinite Majesty. Nevertheless, His intervention in interrupting the laws of nature framed by Him and by Him alone to be suspended, has never yet failed the man of good faith in any period of history. At present there is less dearth than ever of such manifestations. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, The Liturgical Year, Feast of Saint Januarius, September 19.)

The Divine Office for today’s feast provides us with a summary of Saint Januarius’s life, work, and martyrdom:

At that time the Emperors Diocletian and Maximian were furiously raging against Christians, Januarius, Bishop of Benevento, was taken to Nola, to Timothy, President of Campania, on the charge of professing the Christian faith. There his firmness was tried diverse ways, and he was cast into a burning fiery furnace, but came forth thence unhurt, for neither upon his raiment nor upon the hairs of his head did the flame take any hold. Thereupon the wrath of the President was enkindled, and he commanded the martyr to be torn limb from limb. But in the meanwhile Januarius' Deacon Festus and his Reader Desiderius were taken, and the whole three were led in bonds to Puzzuoli in front of the President's carriage, and there thrown into the same prison wherein were already held four other Christians condemned to be devoured by wild beasts, that is to say, Sosius, a Deacon of Miseno Proculus, a Deacon of Puzzuoli and two laymen, named respectively Eutyches and Acutius.

The next day all seven were exposed to the wild beasts in the amphitheatre, but these creatures forgot their natural fierceness, and lay down at the feet of Januarius. Timothy would have it that this came from charms, and commanded the witnesses of Christ to be beheaded. Thereupon he became of a sudden blind, until Januarius had prayed for him by the which miracle nearly five thousand persons were turned to Christ. But this good turn roused up no gratitude in the President, yea, rather, the conversion of so many drave him wild, and in his hot fear to obey the decrees of the Emperors he commanded that the holy Bishop and his companions should be smitten with the sword.

The cities of those coasts strove to obtain their bodies for honourable burial, so as to make sure of having in them advocates with God. By God's will the relics of Januarius were taken to Naples at last, after having been carried from Puzzuoli to Benevento, and from Benevento to Monte Vergine; when they were brought thence to Naples, they were laid in the chief Church there, and there have been famous on account of many miracles. Among these is remarkable the stopping of eruptions of Mount Vesuvius, whereby both that neighbourhood and also places afar off have been like to have been brought to desolation. It is also well known, and is the plain fact, seen even unto this day, that when the blood of Januarius, kept dried up in a small glass phial, is put in sight of the head of the same martyr, it is used to melt and bubble in a very strange way, as though it had but freshly been shed. (Matins, The Divine Office, Feast of Saint Januarius.)

Dom Prosper Gueranger’s prayer to Saint Januarius and his Companions begs them to offer to “Christ the King the growing faith of all who pay you honor”:

O holy martyrs, and thou especially, O Januarius, the leader no less by thy courage than by thy pontifical dignity, your present glory increases our longing for heaven; your past combats animate us to fight the good fight; your continual miracles confirm us in the faith. Praise and gratitude are therefore due to you on this day of your triumph; and, we pay this our debt in the joy of our hearts. In return, extend to us the protection, of which the fortunate cities placed under your powerful patronage are so justly proud. Defend those faithful towns against the assaults of the evil one. In compensation for the falling away of society at large, offer to Christ our King the growing faith of all who pay you honour. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Feast of Saint Januarius and His Companions, September 19.)

May this be so even in our own lives as we continue to ask Our Lady for our own daily conversion and for the conversion of the United States of America and the world to the Catholic Faith, which alone can defeat error and thus unite men in the truths which can see men truly free from the world, the flesh, and the devil and thus equip them to lift high the Holy Cross of the Divine Redeemer, Christ the King, and to always proclaiming our public fealty to His Most Blessed Mother, she who is our Immaculate Queen as we pray as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits.

Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and at the hour of our death.

Our Lady of La Salette, 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 Januarius and his Companions, pray for us.