Sober Up, part eight

If one measures success in the Judeo-Masonic world of naturalism by what a particular naturalist, whether of the false opposite of the naturalist “right” or that of the naturalist “left,” sets out to accomplish, then it is an irrefutable fact that Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, whose second term as the forty-fourth President of the United States of America ends at noon, Eastern Standard Time, today, Friday, January 20, 2017, has been very successful. Indeed, he has been one of the most successful presidents in the two-hundred twenty-eight years of American history since the Constitution was by State of New Hampshire ratified the Constitution on June 21, 1788, and became effective on March 4, 1789.

That is, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro sought to engage in “transformative” policy-making, and he did so  with an iron will as he issued unconstitutional and/or illegal executive orders and presidential directives, chose not to enforce the nation’s just immigration laws, presiding over the doubling of the national debt (see National Debt Grows By Nine Billion Dollars Under Obama), conspired with Congressional Democrats to pass the so-called Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act by means of the “reconciliation” process, thereby circumventing both the filibuster rules of the United States Senate and, more importantly, the constitutional requirement (found in Section 8 of Article I) that all bills raising revenue originate in the United States House of Representatives, used the Internal Revenue Service as a means to bludgeon political opponents with tax audits and to harass “conservative” groups applying for tax-exempt status, presided over an administration that misused the Federal government’s regulatory powers, and covered-up such major scandals as the Fast and Furious gun-running scheme, Benghazi, and the Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton’s e-mail server. Mind you, this is only a partial listing of the Caesar Obamus’s successes. A very comprehensive listing of what any reasonable human being would call scandalous violations of the Constitution—but are viewed as “successes” by Obama/Soetoro and his apologists—can be found at A Complete Guide to Obama's Scandals, Gaffes, and Power Grabs.

In other words, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro has been very successful as the most lawless man ever to have served as the nation’s Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief.

Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro was as successful as he was because he was enabled at every turn by his co-conspirators, those who work in the mainslime media, and by his hapless opponents in the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist “right,” who refused to take any real measures to defend the country against this lawless, power-grabbing president for fear of being called “racist.” While noting that Obama/Soetoro and his first Attorney General, Eric Himpton Holder, ceaselessly used the “race card” to take refuge for their crimes against God and man, the political and moral cowardice of Congressional Republicans made it more possible for the soon-to-be former president to legislate as he pleased from the Oval Office in the West Wing of the White House without regard to any true Congressional oversight.

Although it is true that Donald John Trump, who will be sworn in today by Chief Justice John Glover Roberts, and his administration will be able to reverse some of the executive orders, presidential directives and administrative regulations, others, however, will stand the test of time. Indeed, the so-called Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has become the basis of the provision of health care and of health insurance to such an extent that even its pending Congressional repeal and replacement will retain many of its features. It is very hard, if not impossible, humanly speaking, to take away governmental “goodies” once a dependency class has been created, and in this case the entire health insurance industry, not that it was much good beforehand, you understand (see Here To Stay, ObamaDeathCare, and Living in a Completely Post-Legal World), has been restructured. This cannot be undone easily.

To be sure, there is no reason to doubt that the Trump administration will move quickly to undo as much of Obama/Soetoro’s unjust policies, but there will be no effort exerted at all to undo the outgoing administration’s gargantuan promotion and institutionalization of perverse behavior in violation of the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law, and it is in this area, of course, that Obama/Soetoro’s “successes” will endure the test of time until God Himself intervenes to put an end the madness of a world shaped by the lies of Protestantism and Judeo-Masonry.

Repeating Karl Rove’s “Settled Law” Slogan

To illustrate this point, permit me to quote from part four of this series: 

Those with long memories will recall that the business of accepting an unjust decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America as “settled law” was the means by which Dubya Bush’s “Architect,” the amoral Karl Rove, bludgeoned former United States Senator John Ashcroft (R-Missouri) into using when testifying before the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States Senate on January 15, 2001:

Another issue merits specific mention in these opening remarks, and that is the issue that we would identify with the case of Roe v. Wade, which established a woman's constitutional right to an abortion. As is well known, consistent with Republican United States attorneys general before me, I believe Roe v. Wade, as an original matter, was wrongly decided. I am personally opposed to abortion.

But as I have explained this afternoon, I well understand that the role of attorney general is to enforce the law as it is, not as I would have it. I accept Roe and Casey as the settled law of the land. If confirmed as attorney general, I will follow the law in this area and in all other areas. The Supreme Court's decisions on this have been multiple, they have been recent and they have been emphatic.  (Text: John Ashcroft' s Senate Confirmation Hearing, January 20, 2001.)

Ashcroft looked sullen and had his eyes fixed downwards as he mouthed these words that he had been coached to give by Bush the Lesser’s “architect,” Karl Rove, who went to war against United States Representative Todd Aiken (R-Missouri) in 2012 when the latter attempted to defend, albeit clumsily, his opposition to the surgical execution of the innocent preborn in cases where it is alleged that a child had been conceived as a result of a forcible assault upon his mother (see Karl Rove: Self-Anointed Political Godfather.)

I fully expect that President-elect Trump’s nominee to be the next Attorney General of the United States of America, United States Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama), will use the “settled law” slogan in reference to both Roe v. Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges. Other nominees who are known to be partly pro-life and partly pro-death such as United States Representative Thomas Edmunds Price (R-Georgia), who belongs to the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, which correctly and courageously takes issue with various vaccinations (most of which are filled with parts of executed babies), will be instructed use the same canard during their own confirmation hearings. ( Sober Up, part four.)

What follows comes from straight from the "I told you so" or "You heard it here first" files as United States Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama) did indeed cleave to the "settled law" line with respect to the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the cases of Roe v. Wade, January 22, 1973, and Obergefell v. Hodges, June 26, 2015. Although there is no actual transcript of Senator Sessions's confirmation hearings concerning his nomination by then President-elect Donald John Trump to be the next Attorney General of the United States of America, the following press reports demonstrate that, yes, "I told you so" and, yes, "You heard it here first":

You can be absolutely sure that I understand the immense responsibility I would have. I am not naïve. I know the threat that our rising crime and addiction rates pose to the health and safety of our country. I know the threat of terrorism. I deeply understand the history of civil rights and the horrendous impact that relentless and systemic discrimination and the denial of voting rights has had on our African-American brothers and sisters. I have witnessed it. I understand the demands for justice and fairness made by the L.G.B.T. community. I understand the lifelong scars born by women who are victims of assault and abuse.   (Prepared Remarks of United States Senator Jeff Sessions, Delivered Before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Tuesday, January 10, 2017.)

Sessions said in his opening remarks, "I understand the demands for justice and fairness made by the LGBT community."

But the top Democrat on the committee, Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., called Sessions' record "extremely conservative" and emphasized that the next attorney general must enforce the law "equally for all Americans," not advocate for his own beliefs.

She noted that he has taken what she called "deeply concerning" stances, including support for keeping people out of the United States based on their religion, support for "illegal" waterboarding of terrorism suspects and opposition to LGBT rights legislation.

Other critics have also pointed to Sessions' dismay at the Supreme Court's 2015 ruling that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry and his opposition to the Matthew Shepard Act, which expanded the definition of hate crimes to include attacks on people because of their sexual orientation, gender or disability.

Asked during today's hearing whether he believes the issue of same-sex marriage is settled —- now that the Supreme Court has ruled that gay and lesbian couples may marry nationwide —- Sessions said he will "follow that decision." He explained that he opposed the Matthew Shepard Act out of "a concern that it appeared that these cases were being prosecuted effectively in state court" but said that since it has become law and "the Congress has spoken, you can be sure that I will enforce it." (Jeff Sessions Dismisses Racism Claim))

When pressed on his opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage, for example, the conservative senator told Democratic colleagues that both issues had been settled by the Supreme Court and that he would abide by those decisions. Similarly, on the use of waterboarding against terrorism suspects, which Sessions has previously supported, he said Congress had clearly outlawed the practice.  (Feinstein Questions Sessions About Baby-Killing and Sodomite "Marriage".)

10:51 a.m. Feinstein began her questioning of Sessions and discussed a law Congress passed last year that created a fund for women who are victims of sex trafficking to receive comprehensive services including abortion. She pointed out that Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, R-Texas, noted during the debate that the Hyde Amendment (which bans federal funding for abortion except in cases of rape) wouldn’t prevent the availability of abortion services to these victims. Feinstein asked Sessions if he would ensure that the grant funds are not denied to service providers who will assist victims in receiving services like abortion. 

Sessions responded and said that he was “not aware” of the language for the grant program and it is a matter he has “not thought through.” After Feinstein pushed him for a more straightforward answer and explained that what she described is the law, Sessions said, “I understand that and we will follow the law.” 

Feinstein asked Sessions if he still sticks to his view that the Roe v. Wade decision was the wrong one for the Supreme Court to issue in 1973.

“I believe it violated the Constitution and really attempted to set policy and not follow the law,” he said, adding that, “It is the law of the land...it deserves respect and I will respect it and follow it.”  (Senator Jeff Sessions Says That He Will Follow the "Law" on Abortion.)

Settled law?

Well, law “settled” wrongly needs to be “unsettled.”

Who says so?

Well, consider Pope Leo XIII for one:

10. But, if the laws of the State are manifestly at variance with the divine law, containing enactments hurtful to the Church, or conveying injunctions adverse to the duties imposed by religion, or if they violate in the person of the supreme Pontiff the authority of Jesus Christ, then, truly, to resist becomes a positive duty, to obey, a crime; a crime, moreover, combined with misdemeanor against the State itself, inasmuch as every offense leveled against religion is also a sin against the State. Here anew it becomes evident how unjust is the reproach of sedition; for the obedience due to rulers and legislators is not refused, but there is a deviation from their will in those precepts only which they have no power to enjoin. Commands that are issued adversely to the honor due to God, and hence are beyond the scope of justice, must be looked upon as anything rather than laws. You are fully aware, venerable brothers, that this is the very contention of the Apostle St. Paul, who, in writing to Titus, after reminding Christians that they are "to be subject to princes and powers, and to obey at a word," at once adds: "And to be ready to every good work."Thereby he openly declares that, if laws of men contain injunctions contrary to the eternal law of God, it is right not to obey them. In like manner, the Prince of the Apostles gave this courageous and sublime answer to those who would have deprived him of the liberty of preaching the Gospel: "If it be just in the sight of God to hear you rather than God, judge ye, for we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard." (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890.)

But in this same matter, touching Christian faith, there are other duties whose exact and religious observance, necessary at all times in the interests of eternal salvation, become more especially so in these our days. Amid such reckless and widespread folly of opinion, it is, as We have said, the office of the Church to undertake the defense of truth and uproot errors from the mind, and this charge has to be at all times sacredly observed by her, seeing that the honor of God and the salvation of men are confided to her keeping. But, when necessity compels, not those only who are invested with power of rule are bound to safeguard the integrity of faith, but, as St. Thomas maintains: "Each one is under obligation to show forth his faith, either to instruct and encourage others of the faithful, or to repel the attacks of unbelievers.'' To recoil before an enemy, or to keep silence when from all sides such clamors are raised against truth, is the part of a man either devoid of character or who entertains doubt as to the truth of what he professes to believe. In both cases such mode of behaving is base and is insulting to God, and both are incompatible with the salvation of mankind. This kind of conduct is profitable only to the enemies of the faith, for nothing emboldens the wicked so greatly as the lack of courage on the part of the good. Moreover, want of vigor on the part of Christians is so much the more blameworthy, as not seldom little would be needed on their part to bring to naught false charges and refute erroneous opinions, and by always exerting themselves more strenuously they might reckon upon being successful. After all, no one can be prevented from putting forth that strength of soul which is the characteristic of true Christians, and very frequently by such display of courage our enemies lose heart and their designs are thwarted. Christians are, moreover, born for combat, whereof the greater the vehemence, the more assured, God aiding, the triumph: "Have confidence; I have overcome the world." Nor is there any ground for alleging that Jesus Christ, the Guardian and Champion of the Church, needs not in any manner the help of men. Power certainly is not wanting to Him, but in His loving kindness He would assign to us a share in obtaining and applying the fruits of salvation procured through His grace.

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.)

Let's face facts: Democrats are more consistent and more doggedly determined in their unequivocal, unrestricted support for the chemical and surgical execution of the innocent preborn in their mothers' wombs and in their equally determined and uncompromising support for the agenda of the homosexual collective than most Republicans have ever been by conditionally opposing moral evils. Republicans, for example, have never demanded that their presidents choose only those individuals for key positions in their administrations to be pro-life and pro-family.

No, the Republicans have always bent over backwards to do everything possible to demonstrate that they are "open" to "diversity" within their ranks in order to have a "big tent" on those things on which men of "good will" can disagree. The Democrats thus have more raw political courage in their support for moral evils, thus placing Republicans on the defensive, and to go on "defense" in the face of sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance is to yield whatever leverage one might have on the natural level to plant a few seeds to help those viewing such proceedings as confirmation hearings into rethinking their uncritical support for these evils. 

Senator Jeff Sessions undoubtedly is a well-meaning man. As a Protestant, however, he is the inheritor of Martin Luther's belief that a prince may be a Christian but it is not as a Christian that he ought to rule, a falsehood that was and remains a fundamental rejection how the great kings of Christendom, including Saint Louis IX, King of France, Saint Henry the Emperor, Saint Canute, and Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand (who should be canonized!) for the honor and glory of God and the eternal and temporal well-being of their subjects. Sessions believes that he can set aside his "personal" beliefs in order to enforce laws that unjust on their face and are injurious to the welfare of men and their nations. 

Pope Leo XIII explained the falsity of setting aside one's "personal beliefs" in public life:

Hence, lest concord be broken by rash charges, let this be understood by all, that the integrity of Catholic faith cannot be reconciled with opinions verging on naturalism or rationalism, the essence of which is utterly to do away with Christian institutions and to install in society the supremacy of man to the exclusion of God. Further, it is unlawful to follow one line of conduct in private life and another in public, respecting privately the authority of the Church, but publicly rejecting it; for this would amount to joining together good and evil, and to putting man in conflict with himself; whereas he ought always to be consistent, and never in the least point nor in any condition of life to swerve from Christian virtue. (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)

Moreover, Pope Saint Pius X reminded Catholics that they can never just "put aside" their Holy Faith to think, speak or act as naturalists:

3. These are fundamental principles: No matter what the Christian does, even in the realm of temporal goods, he cannot ignore the supernatural good. Rather, according to the dictates of Christian philosophy, he must order all things to the ultimate end, namely, the Highest Good. All his actions, insofar as they are morally either good or bad (that is to say, whether they agree or disagree with the natural and divine law), are subject to the judgment and judicial office of the Church. (Pope Saint Pius X, Singulari Quadam, September 24, 1912.)

There is never a time, no matter the urgency, that requires anyone, Catholic or non-Catholic alike, to set aside a commitment to what they know to be the objectively true moral order to pretend that he can be indifferent about the truth in order to yield to, no less to enforce, "settled law" in violation of the truth.

Alas, it is one of the sad legacies of the Americanist heresy, which is one of the fundamental building blocks of the conciliar view of Church and State, is the ready acceptance of the "separation of Church and State" that has long been used as the means to convince Catholics to set their "personal beliefs" aside in order to pursue the common temporal good without unnecessarily "dividing" those of "good will" who support grave moral evils and want them enshrined in public law and promoted in the popular culture. The twin, inter-related Americanist heresies of "separation of Church and State" and "religious liberty," however, have been responsible for producing generation after generation of Catholics who view the Church through the filters of "democracy" and "egalitarianism" and "majoritarianism" rather than viewing the world through the eyes of the true Faith.

Pope Leo XIII explained to the American bishops in Longiqua Oceani, January 6, 1895, that the Church in the United States of America had grown because of the the grace of God, not because of "separation of Church and State." Indeed, Pope Leo XIII said that the Church int his country would grow more rapidly and would be able to influence the course of public affairs better if it enjoyed the favor and the protecion of the laws.

After praising what he could of the natural virtues of George Washington and of a constitution that was understood at the time to permit Catholics the “freedom” to practice their Faith without state hindrance, Pope Leo XIII reminded the American bishops that the growth of the Faith in the United States of America was not the result of the country’s constitutional structures but of the very fecundity of God’s graces, which could produce even more abundant fruits if the Catholic Church was accorded the favor and protection of the civil state:

The main factor, no doubt, in bringing things into this happy state were the ordinances and decrees of your synods, especially of those which in more recent times were convened and confirmed by the authority of the Apostolic See. But, moreover (a fact which it gives pleasure to acknowledge), thanks are due to the equity of the laws which obtain in America and to the customs of the well-ordered Republic. For the Church amongst you, unopposed by the Constitution and government of your nation, fettered by no hostile legislation, protected against violence by the common laws and the impartiality of the tribunals, is free to live and act without hindrance. Yet, though all this is true, it would be very erroneous to draw the conclusion that in America is to be sought the type of the most desirable status of the Church, or that it would be universally lawful or expedient for State and Church to be, as in America, dissevered and divorced. The fact that Catholicity with you is in good condition, nay, is even enjoying a prosperous growth, is by all means to be attributed to the fecundity with which God has endowed His Church, in virtue of which unless men or circumstances interfere, she spontaneously expands and propagates herself; but she would bring forth more abundant fruits if, in addition to liberty, she enjoyed the favor of the laws and the patronage of the public authority. (Pope Leo XIII, Longiqua Oceani, January 6, 1895.)

As has been examined this site endlessly, the conciliar revolutionaries, following the example of the American bishops of yore, most of whom ignored the Catholic truth of Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical letters, continue to draw what His Holiness called the erroneous “conclusion that in America is to be sought the type of the most desirable status of the Church, or that it would be universally lawful or expedient for State and Church to be, as in America, dissevered and divorced.”

None other than that great “restorer of tradition,” Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, explained on December 22, 2005, that the American model of “religious liberty” and “separation of Church and State” is indeed the model for the counterfeit church of concilarism, something that had to be “learned” over the course of time:

In the meantime, however, the modern age had also experienced developments. People came to realize that the American Revolution was offering a model of a modern State that differed from the theoretical model with radical tendencies that had emerged during the second phase of the French Revolution. (Christmas greetings to the Members of the Roman Curia and Prelature, December 22, 2005.)

Although the "model of a modern State" that emerged from the American Revolution did indeed differ from the "theoretical model with radical tendencies that had emerged during the second phase of the French Revolution," that difference was only a matter of degree, not of kind. The anti-Theism of the French Revolution even in its first phase from 1789 to 1792 was direct, open and violent, although not as bloodthirsty as the second phase's Reign of Terror under Maximilian Robespierre and The Directory. The American Revolution's anti-Theism was more subtle in that it paved the way for our current circumstances of complete chaos by bestowing irreligion with protected "constitutional rights," thus making it impossible to stop such things as the open worship of the devil (as opposed to the more subtle forms of devil worship found in other false religions) in the chapels of the armed forces of the United States of America and elsewhere, and of the advances of the adversary’s agenda (divorce, contraception, abortion, “population control,” “family planning,” environmentalism, statism, and a whole array of unnatural vices.

Pope Leo XIII noted in Libertas Praestantissimum, June 20, 1888, that Holy Mother Church will accommodate herself to the concrete realities in which her children find themselves in the modern civil state in order to continue her work of sanctification and instruction. Holy Mother Church, however, never concedes as a matter of principle the false premises of the modern civil state as she seeks to exhort her children to know their obligations to pray and to work for the conversion of their nations to the true Faith, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order:

But, to judge aright, we must acknowledge that, the more a State is driven to tolerate evil, the further is it from perfection; and that the tolerance of evil which is dictated by political prudence should be strictly confined to the limits which its justifying cause, the public welfare, requires. Wherefore, if such tolerance would be injurious to the public welfare, and entail greater evils on the State, it would not be lawful; for in such case the motive of good is wanting. And although in the extraordinary condition of these times the Church usually acquiesces in certain modern liberties, not because she prefers them in themselves, but because she judges it expedient to permit them, she would in happier times exercise her own liberty; and, by persuasion, exhortation, and entreaty would endeavor, as she is bound, to fulfill the duty assigned to her by God of providing for the eternal salvation of mankind. One thing, however, remains always true -- that the liberty which is claimed for all to do all things is not, as We have often said, of itself desirable, inasmuch as it is contrary to reason that error and truth should have equal rights.

And as to tolerance, it is surprising how far removed from the equity and prudence of the Church are those who profess what is called liberalism.For, in allowing that boundless license of which We have spoken, they exceed all limits, and end at last by making no apparent distinction between truth and error, honesty and dishonesty. And because the Church, the pillar and ground of truth, and the unerring teacher of morals, is forced utterly to reprobate and condemn tolerance of such an abandoned and criminal character, they calumniate her as being wanting in patience and gentleness, and thus fail to see that, in so doing, they impute to her as a fault what is in reality a matter for commendation. But, in spite of all this show of tolerance, it very often happens that, while they profess themselves ready to lavish liberty on all in the greatest profusion, they are utterly intolerant toward the Catholic Church, by refusing to allow her the liberty of being herself free. (Pope Leo XIII, Libertas Praestantissimum, June 20, 1888.)

This is not a matter of ethereal speculation having nothing to with the real lives of human beings. Not at all. The heresy of religious liberty, which is at the heart of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, devastates souls. The belief that those who belong to false religions have a "civil right" to propagate themselves and that their false beliefs can contribute to the betterment of society make it impossible to exclude those false religions from making their presence felt everywhere in society, especially in "educational" institutions, where the tender souls of the young become ready prey to false ideas that are propagandized by charismatic professors. This is true in the United States of America and elsewhere in the allegedly "free" world of "democratic republics, and this is why the Methodist named Jeff Sessions took the "settled law" line the way that John Ashcroft had done sixteen years before.

Roe v. Wade, January 22, 1973, and Obergefell v. Hodges, June 26, 2015, were just the logical results of what happens when men believe that “religious freedom” can result in a “discovery of truth.” It is no accident that the “truth” of “religious freedom” was “discovered by the bishops present at the “Second” Vatican Council, and it is this “discovery that helped to create the “perfect storm,” so to speak, for the coalescence of the forces of Antichrist to march triumphantly to our present day, and those coalesced forces have much on their “do list” before their time expires. 

Although the new administration has, it appears, an aggressive and very commendable plan to cut Federal spending dramatically, the reality is that men and nations who acquiesce to, if not fully support, grave moral evils under the cover of the civil law will try to make themselves "great again" on nothing other than quicksand. The blithe acceptance of the chemical and surgical execution of the innocent preborn and of sodomy and its related deviancies must be punished sooner or later by the just God, and anyone who doubts that this is the case is not thinking clearly.

Consider how support for the homosexual collective has become such a litmus test for most Democrats, the very people who have denounced pro-life litmus tests for Federal judges, that nominees to serve in the new administration have to demonstrate their support for that which they know to be abhorrent. 

Senator Jeff Sessions was not alone in this regard as President Trump's nominee to serve as the United States Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, whose husband is the heir to the materialistic "realize your dreams" Amway pyramid program that is nothing other than pure Judeo-Calvinism, had to state in her own confirmation hearings that she never supported conversion therapy for homosexuals despite providing funds for Protestant groups whose members sought to get sodomites to quit their lives of perverse sins: