Some Reflections, and a Bit of Gloating, on the Presentation of the Mueller Report

A political earthquake occurred last night, my friends.

And although I know it isn't right to gloat over another's misfortune, to enjoy the Schadenfreude moments that occasionally come in life, in this case, I must admit, I gloat.

As was written long ago (Proverbs 11:29):

He that troubleth his own house, shall inherit the winds: and the fool shall serve the wise.

That is being fulfilled today as the coup d'état against President Trump suffers a severe body blow.

So: Gloat, gloat, gloat! 

How could I not?

To quote from the above link:

"...Massive ‘splodey heads (beyond election night level) happening throughout leftist punditry and political analysts...". See as an example of that: Excerpt:

MSNBC’s top Russiagate conspiracy theorist Rachel Maddow burst into tears on Friday — after the past two years of her reporting was revealed to be nonsense.

Chris Matthews was "apoplectic, inconsolable, and irate at the notion the Mueller team will not offer any further indictments in hopes of criminal charges concerning Russian collusion."

At least one Dem congressman, "Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA) stated that Special Counsel Robert Mueller will be subpoenaed by Congress."

 Yeah, Democrats, let's now guillotine Mueller! /sarc

So, as this is a political essay and not a religious one, allow me to savor the moment. To cry: Haha, Hahaha! Crying on air! Apoplectic! Get Mueller!

They deserve a gloat or two. So, indeed, I gloat. :D

Caveat politicus magnus: I hasten to write that while we do not yet know exactly what the Mueller Report actually says, we apparently do know no other indictments are forthcoming. That's the most interesting news. And it's the most brutal news to the "Narrative makers" who tried to sell this false story for the past two years. And of course the very fact that this report was shoved under the door at the EOD (end of business day) on a Friday afternoon! That alone strongly suggests there's just "no there there" as Bill Clinton famously said. Otherwise they'd have released it with much fanfare first-thing Monday morning.

And notice at the initial link above how CNN's Laura Jarret (Valerie's lovely daughter) quickly follows on Wolf Blitzer's query by lining up other federal investigators / prosecutors who could do their own investigations into Trump. Yep, they "never say die!" Keep the torch burning, Kiddo.

Reflections 1

Reflect on all the hue and cry for Trump to fire Mueller that the Democrats talked up the last two years. They kept expecting the "unruly, impulsive, loose cannon" Trump to "do a Nixon" and fire Mueller. Trump was stupid, after all, a buffoon. Trump, the ogre! Trump was stupid and they were smart. Trump was "set up" to do just what they thought he'd do but...but...but...

...He eluded that bait.

Patience is a virtue.

The pain they spread around. And look at all the indictments they inflicted on "friends of Trump" for the past two years. Especially egregious is the way they treated General Michael Flynn. And Paul Manafort got arrested, tried and convicted for the same crimes Clinton friend Tony Podesta (and his brother) did with impunity! Hillary herself is running (er, stumbling) free whereas anyone else who tried what she did with the emails and the "bathroom server" would be in jail. (Actually, she might yet wear the orange jump suit.) It goes on and on.

Historical Reflections: Ways to remove a president

✔All of this was just the latest in a long, long Democrat Party pattern of Removing Republican Presidents. (For a larger picture of what they're up to generally, read Richard Fernandez.)

Permit me a review:

• "There are no coincidences." Obi-wan Kenobi

• Notice the patterns. In 1861, the Democrats refused to continence the election of the first Republican president ever elected, in November 1860, and to protest his election and in effect negate it, they seceded from the Union. When that president, none other than Abraham Lincoln, was re-elected in November 1864 after defeating the traitors in open war, he found himself dead by April of the next year.

• Then 100 years later, the Democrats refused to continence the re-election of someone they absolutely L.O.A.T.H.E.D, "Tricky Dick" Nixon in 1972, and had him out by August 1974 for doing something with private contractors that LBJ used the FBI itself for, i.e. spying on the opposing political campaign (LBJ also used the IRS, etc., as political weapons, just as Obama had against the Tea Party).
• The two-tiered Justice system is: LBJ could do X, Y, and Z, and get off Scot-free; a Republican tries that, he's run outta town. They tried that same trick with Reagan via Iran-Contra, too, if you recall. With Reagan, curiously enough, they hated him so bad there was (coincidentally, if coincidence does exist) BOTH an assassination attempt not long after he took office, and then a removal attempt in his second term.
• They're trying it yet again! LBJ used the FBI to spy on his opposition, and then Hillary stole emails, hid 'em in a bathroom server, then deletes 'em? No crime to see here; move on, folks. Hang that Genr'l Flynn, though and hang Manafort -- and wink at Podesta. Same old same old.

✔Impeachment of Presidents Fails

Of course, the Republicans under Newt Gingrich foolishly impeached and tried to remove Bill "The Rapist" Clinton for lying under oath about a sexual affair, and that absurd attempt, like the earlier impeachment of Andrew Johnson 100 years previously, failed miserably, and just showed the "official" way of removing a president just. doesn't. work.

However, the old tried and true methods (Lincoln's assassination, McKinley's) worked, and were used a number of times.

• I need hardly mention when Garfield was assassinated, July, 1881 (president only four months, and shot by a "disappointed office seeker") nearly 20 years after Lincoln; or
• William McKinley, assassinated in September, 1901 (almost exactly 20 years after Garfield), and as with the case of Lincoln, killed after his re-election (1900). Not part of the pattern was when someone tried to shoot Theodore Roosevelt, McKinley's vice president and successor, this time in October, of 1912, when "T.R." was running on the Bull Moose ticket. But you just couldn't kill T.R.; he had to politically kill himself in 1912, as it were, and then died  in his sleep in 1919. (He was to be nominated for president on the Republican ticket the next year. With T.R. dead, the bigshot Republicans were deadlocked, and they had to settle on that famous fornicator from Ohio, Warren G. Harding, who in his turn died – from his exertions? – and left us the best president of the 20th century, Calvin Coolidge. Had Coolidge run in 1928, he would have handled the 1929 Stock Market crash quite differently than Herbert Hoover did, and we might never have had a Great Depression or the Nazi takeover of Germany. The fate of 100s of millions literally were decided by the single choice of one man.)

• The assassin in McKinley's case, and in T.R.'s attempted assassination, were foreigners (well, Mckinley's assassin was actually born in Michigan of immigrant parents, but was a European-style anarchist), and in the latter case, the assassin, Bavarian John Flammang Schrank, was a saloon keeper, much like Jack Ruby, the nightclub owner to assassinated the assassin of Jack Kennedy.

• Curious, these parallels, aren't they?

✔Reagan, JPII

• Of course, Ronald Reagan was shot, too. And also, again, very early in his term, (March 30, 1981; Reagan had taken the oath on January 20 of the same year).
• Now it is -- so far as I know -- supposed to be universally accepted that Reagan's would-be assassin was a nut (he was "in love" with the Lesbian Jodie Foster!), but then, conveniently, they're all nuts, from John Wilkes Booth, an actor from a very successful acting family, through all the rest to Kennedy's assassin and JPII's Turkish would-be assassination --
• But of course, you'd have to get idiots to do the deed, otherwise everyone would realize what's going on, and come after you. The all-time champion example of that scenario is what happened to the non-nuts Brutus and Cassius (of the lean and hungry look) who took out Caesar! Can't do that again! By Jupiter! Get some Greek or Gaulish slave to do it. Or have the Praetorian Guard to do it in the basement, as was done with Caligula.

The Lone Democrat Assassinated

Jack Kennedy, of course, was assassinated in November 1963, the only Democrat president to be so removed from office, and -- whatever else can be said of Jack, almost all of it negative and all of that true -- he was a true Cold Warrior and his assassination was no doubt a KGB hit job, as was the attempted assassination of John Paul II in May of 1981. (They're bookends, those assassinations, set -- yet again! -- almost 20 years apart.) In Kennedy's case, however, the American media and the Lyndon Johnson administration wanted no part of a "hot" Cold War developing, so they swept all that under the rug, just to crucify the entire country with their idiotic Vietnam debacle. Johnson has to be one of the top three worst presidents in the country's history. (The others being the Democrats James "The Gay Blade" Buchanan, our first homosexual prez, whose failure to take strong and immediate action against the Secessionists forced Lincoln to war, and then either Jimmuh Carter or Pharaoh Obama, as you prefer.)

In any event, there's a pattern in the Democrats rejecting a Republican president: Lincoln, McKinley, and then the "political assassination" of Richard Nixon (to which Nixon himself provided the bullets, of course – Nixon should have known a Republican just can't get away with what a Democrat does!). All three of those men were popular presidents, and Trump's approval rating is trending at about 50 percent: this Mueller news will jolt it upwards of another ten percent or so; BUT TAKE CAREFUL NOTE: at least Trump – right now, I mean as of Friday morning yesterday – is twice or more than twice as popular in his country as are Macron, Merkel, or May (sounds like a Vaudeville troupe) in theirs. (And all three of the Ms are childless, unlike the fecund Trump.)

• Let's pray there's not a third (fourth?) time. The fourth time was what happened to Trump, and has apparently (we must carefully note: apparently) ended. Yet the pattern is there. Since the "Nixon Method" against Trump seems to have failed, Trump had better have the most excellent Secret Service protection! And if he is indeed re-elected in 2020, he'd better keep in mind these previous examples.

Reflection: Quo vadis nunc?

Of course, now that Mueller's report has been filed, Trump is free to release all sorts of hidden, "classified" documents such as the FISA warrants and Congressional investigation transcripts, redacted phone conversations, the lot. Had he done so earlier, the Democrats would have cried foul and "Obstruction of Justice." Now they can't.

Documents galore. You name it. We can expect he will. Bill Barr, I think even the most suspicious pundits aver, is the reason Mueller fired that scoundrel Andrew Weissmann and wrapped up his report as fast as he did. (It's as if the very pages burned Mueller's fingers!)

• If Barr proceeds to investigate this whole mess, just imagine the caterwauling of the Dems! Music, pure dulcet music, to this old Kingon's ears. :D

An Préachán

http://corvinescatholiccorner.blogspot.com

Final Reflection:

The MSM didn't shoot itself in the foot, it shot itself in the head. Roger L. Simon explains.

An Pr.

 

Reflections on the "Ineptocrats", the Electoral College, and "The Democrats have gone full crazy..."

Amici, a Chairde,

Can the American political scene get any stranger? While of course many of "usual suspects" of global punditry continue to excoriate Donald Trump and those uncouth "deplorables" who elected him, still, its the Democrats who have gone mad. Many articles are out there now demonstrating how insane the Democrats have gone. "Insane" in the sense of pushing crazed sexual confusion and dysphoria while concurrently exalting infanticide, promoting a rabidly pro-Muslim position, and to top it off: Socialism; that is, dumping all these full-force on an American public that historically repudiates Socialism, finds the sexual stuff utter madness, and is repulsed by Islam.

• This is quite amazing and indicative of the divide between American "elites", who often have a more "European"-based education, and the non-elites, who are more "American". While the American elites constantly compare themselves to the rest of the world – and most often, they do so from a sense of cultural inferiority and envy – "real" Americans (like "real" Germans and "real" Frenchmen, working class and middle class people slaving away at life) traditionally are not that interested in the rest of the world; we simply don't give a damn what European or Asian elites think of us. The idea that any part of the world is "culturally superior" is an absurdity to them. (That's as true to "average" Americans as it is to "average" Europeans.)
• This opens up another idea: Germans upper classes were, by and large, more or less, far "culturally superior" to the English throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, and into the 20th. Robert (von Ranke) Graves, the British author known mostly for "I, Claudius" today, if he's remembered at all, had written in 1929 a biography titled "Good-bye to All That" about his life, and I actually read part of it at one point. He grew up half in England and half in Germany (pre-WWI Germany) and it was clear the Germans were FAR more "culturally advanced" than the English, and Graves English school mates teased him mercilessly about it – for example, his taste in classical music. Yet ironically enough, it wasn't the English didn't sent six million Jews to the gas chambers, and they would never have thought of such a thing. Clearly, "cultural superiority" is not what it is cracked up to be.

Socialism

But even though "average" Americans aren't interested in the world, even still, a great many "American" Americans know Socialism is a fake thing, a fig-leaf for grabbing power, a sort of pied piper leading the ignorant to slavery: https://amgreatness.com/2019/03/17/socialists-dont-really-believe-in-socialism/

Yet the Democrats embrace Socialism, openly. "Out and Proud," now, as it were. They got Bill Clinton elected in 1992 because Ross Perot split the Republican vote, and they got Obama elected in 2008 because, as Joe Biden himself once said, Obama was a "clean" Black, but their Party has no new ideas. Until this sudden turn toward the Far Left, the Dems were talking like it was 1932 still. Then along came the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez generation. As these began to get elected, things began to change rapidly. From that moment on, commentators have been suggesting that the Democratic Party leadership seems to be surrendering to their radical "base". For example:

https://illinoisfamilyaction.org/2019/02/aoc-is-no-outlier/

Excerpt:

The party’s ostensible centrists are panicking, realizing that unless they can successfully cast AOC et al. as outliers, the party faces an electoral bloodbath in 2020. But there are few remaining Democratic centrists.

In fact, of course, the Party bigwigs (all old, rich, and very white people -- see below about the millionaires in New York City) fully intend on pushing the radicals to the side and inserting in an establishment presidential candidate when the time comes. For example: https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/03/19/cnn-interviews-brad-parscale-then-accidentally-notes-the-dnc-2020-strategy/

Excerpt:

What Tapper notes as the urgent data collection priority of the DNC is specifically the reason why the club has enlisted Beto to draw-in the community they need to harvest.  The Democrats, specifically young democrats, have no idea how the ‘club’ plans to use them.

It is important to remember the DNC and RNC are private clubs. The club rules and processes have have no direct connection to the administration of government.

The DNC and RNC are completely private organizations with the ability to make their own rules, membership terms, conditions and agendas. You’d be surprised how many people do not know that simple point.

Indeed. People are being played. It's an old, old game, but the gamesters are doddering idiots today. Trump outplayed – massively so – the "GOPe" (Republican Party elites) establishment, and ultimately the Democratic establishment. They really, really didn't like that. Hence the endless effort to get Trump thrown out.

However, if this "bait and switch" is indeed the Democrat game, they'll be damned by their "base" on the one hand, and on the other, Trump will eat their establishment candidate alive, like he did GOPe scion Jeb! Bush and the rest of the "Club Men".

Otherwise, to phrase it in a calm, historical-based understanding, one can say the Democrats are trying to recreate the 1972 election for 2020. They went too far Left in 1972 and it cost them. Nixon won big. So they took out Nixon.

They've been desperately trying to take out Trump since 2016. But the more they attack him the more his base solidifies -- because the more desperate the Dems get, the more crazy they get, and we can all see what choice they're giving us. This cartoon below is an instant classic.

This is found at http://allnewspipeline.com/Cortez_Officially_The_Face_Of_Ineptocrats.php, which has the smarts to quote people who live in the U.S. now but who grew up under Communist regimes, people like my wife. These sorts think the U.S. has gone full bonkers. (My wife sure does.)

People who haven't "drunk the cool-aid" understand very well where this is heading, of course. For example, this Comment at: https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/03/20/president-trump-notes-strange-candidate-platform-lower-voting-age-eliminate-electoral-college-increase-scotus-justices/#more-161448

trapper says:

March 20, 2019 at 1:15 am

In your wildest imaginings, think up the ideas that could do the most damage to America. Then wait for them to be proposed by the Democrats. Infanticide? Just wait for the maximum age proposal, because that is what they are going for. Banning meat. Rationing food. Severe restrictions on domestic travel. Mandatory gun turn-ins. Mandatory re-education. Total control over every aspect of everyone’s lives. By those who know best. To save the planet. Wait for it.

That's exactly where this is going. It comes down to a cadre of people who think they know how the rest of us should -- indeed, must -- live, and they're going to see we do as they command or else.

Weirdly, this has happened before in the United States. In 1861, Democrat-controlled satrapies in the American South voted to leave the Union rather than accept the election of a Republican. And notice how, after that upstart Republican had the effrontery to be re-elected, he was assassinated. (I pray the Secret Service is guarding Trump very closely!) Truly, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

That or else today doesn't (yet) involve secession (or, thank God, assassination), of course, but it does involve changing the Constitution to "stack" the Supreme Court https://pjmedia.com/video/three-ways-2020-dems-want-to-remake-the-supreme-court/ and removing the Electoral College.

Importance of the Electoral College

The U.S. wouldn't exist today had it not been for the Electoral College. It would have broken up long ago.

The United States isn't a democracy – "democracy" is just mob rule and it's never worked (or not outside of Switzerland). It has a history. A baleful history. But the American educational system is a Leftist production factory of homo ignorans maximands. This below is a great article on how the Electoral College works, and why: http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/16/the-electoral-college-still-makes-sense-because-were-not-a-democracy/

An excerpt (highlights/boldface mine):

The purpose of the Electoral College is to balance voting power across states so no one region of the country can gain too much control. If a president is elected by a simple majority of votes, a candidate who is wildly popular in one region (e.g., Ted Cruz in Texas, Mitt Romney in Utah) can ignore smaller regions and campaign only where large majorities are possible. Or a candidate who kills in California and New York can write off “flyover country” completely.

If, however, the Electoral College elects a president, a candidate who is wildly popular in one region must also prevail in a number of sub-elections to win. The Electoral College ensures a better result for the country as a whole than the democratic power play wherein 51 percent of us matter and 49 percent of us don’t.

Think of the Electoral College like the World Series. One person-one vote equates to the World Series Champions being determined by total number of runs scored. If the Dodgers win the first game 10-0, and the Yankees win the next four games 1-0, the Dodgers win the series. Even though the Yankees bested the Dodgers in four games, it doesn’t matter because the Dodgers scored 10 runs to their 4. One anomalous game decides the whole series. Without the Electoral College, a few heavily populated states decide the whole election.

So, the poor Electoral College sits condemned before its last meal because its power is misunderstood. How ironic—and tragic if no stay-of-execution arrives—that those who clamor for “one person-one vote” are seeking more power at the expense of power they already have.

What about Hillary winning the popular vote by three million votes?

According to Snopes (which may or may not be telling the truth, depending on which way the pixie dust is blowing), it says of how many counties Trump won vs Hillary: "Vote tallies by county differ depending on the standards used, but an Associated Press tally of the actual ratio pegged it at 2,626 to 487, not 3084 to 57" (Notice that "Vote tallies ... differ depending on the standards used...". I'm sure they do. /sarc)

But the obvious point remains the same: a huge section of the country would be discarded in dumping the Electoral College system for a popular vote. Hillary Clinton had 3 million total more votes than Trump but these came from the Democrat Party-controlled "asphalt plantation" Hell-holes – which is, increasingly, what the entire state of California is. Check this article out: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/03/the_financial_collapse_of_the_democratic_mayors.html

These big cesspool metropolises that are totally controlled by Democrats are bankrupt. (California itself is in meltdown: https://amgreatness.com/2019/03/09/video-victor-davis-hanson-on-california-in-collapse/)

An excerpt from the American Thinker article (highlights and boldface mine):

Recently, non-government organization Truth in Accounting published a report about the financial condition of the 75 largest cities of America.  As it turns out, 63 out of 75 cities in America were not able to pay bills at the end of the fiscal year of 2017.

The final result of this study was the calculation of the burden borne by taxpayers in these American cities.  The formula is simple: the financial balance of the city (positive or negative) is divided by the number of inhabitants.  The result is a good assessment of how effectively the city authorities work, depending on the positive or negative financial balance of the city per capita.

First, it is easy to see that the negative balance of cities at the bottom of a financial abyss exceeds the positive balance of those cities at the top of financial well-being by an order of magnitude.  Secondly, the political preferences of the inhabitants of these cities are quite unambiguous: they prefer almost exclusively Democrats.

For example, in San Francisco (California), the last Republican mayor was elected in 1964, in Honolulu (Hawaii) in 1994, in Philadelphia (Pennsylvania) in 1954, and in Chicago (Illinois) in 1931.  In New York, America's city in the most dramatic financial hole, the last real Republican mayor left the office in 2001.  Republican Rudy Giuliani was replaced by pseudo-Republican Michael Bloomberg, who eventually left the Republican Party.  Since 2014, the mayor of New York has been the communist Bill de Blasio, who methodically injects socialism into the city.

Ron again:

And just remember, friends, that New York boasts more millionaires than any other city in the world: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/18/new-york-city-has-more-millionaires-than-any-other-city-in-the-world.html

These are the places that voted for Hillary. They're the places driving the young generation of Socialists taking over the Democratic Party. They disaster twilight zones, bankrupt, failing, miserable. And their elites do not care. https://amgreatness.com/2019/03/18/the-elite-pulls-up-the-ladders-behind-them/

And the "young Turk" Socialists would turn the whole country into Chicago or Detroit. Or in a word, Venezuela.

And also, we see in California that "vote harvesting" is an outrageous fraud. Even a conservative estimate (by the cautious Tom Fitton, of Judicial Watch) has 900,000 non-citizens voting in the 2018 election. If 2020 turns out to be an electoral jungle "red in tooth and claw" you can expect a full-blown Revolution. There won't be any choice except to "Cry havoc! And let slip the dogs of war". Elections simply must be "purer than Caesar's wife" or ballots will be replaced by bullets.

And Trump is going to win in 2020 because, simply put, he puts "America First" and "rank and file" Americans like that. So, he'll win, unless they take him out by voter fraud or literally take him out. I fervently hope his Secret Service protection is first-rate.

An Préachán

PS Oh, and this:

Pádraig Naofa Saint Patrick

Amici, A Chairde,

I've been to St. Patrick's Purgatory in Loch Derg -- next to living among Irish speakers in the West, it's the best time I've ever had in my years in and out of Ireland and it has to be the most "Celtic" thing I've ever experienced, if I can put it that way. But then, I was praying in Irish the whole time, so perhaps no wonder, that.

As for our glorious Pádraig Naofa, there's no evidence he was consecrated as a bishop or even ordained as a priest. (He might well have been ordained a priest, at least. We don't know. His actual writings are all we have of him that has any certainty, and because of the way he wrote Latin, it is very hard to figure out what he's trying to say.) He certainly didn't come to Ireland with permission. From trying to read his Confession, an apologia pro vita sua work, it appears he wasn't much liked in his own country: post-Roman Britain. 

However, return to Ireland he did, and for love of the Irish people; his return to Ireland was on his own initiative and he wrote his Confession to defend himself doing so. Had his Confession and Letter to the Soldiers of Coroticus not been found in an attic somewhere in the 7th century Armagh, he'd have been totally forgotten. But God wanted him remembered.

As it is, he's unique: the first Catholic missionary going intentionally outside the empire and a Latin author who who was never trained in proper, classical Latin, and thus wrote in the version of Latin he spoke at home. And perhaps he's the only saintly author (certainly from his time) who praised beautiful women, for he praised the beauty of Irish women.

He's unique: we've nothing like his writings anywhere, either in language or sentiment.

Amazing. A true hero of the Faith, and apostle to (at least the northern kingdoms of the ) Irish. He deserves far better than the farrago of a 'celebration' the U.S. Irish-Americans seem intent to annually inflict on him.

An Préachán

Just Who Will Be History's Worst Pope?

Just Who Will Be History's Worst Pope?

Alas, after the dust settles, and it will at some point, Benedict XVI will be considered the worst pope in history -- worse than Bergi the Destructor. Because of the way B16 went out, he's left confusion, and indeed chaos. Bergi could have provided all that on his own!


Ratzinger could have become a cardinal and lived in seclusion, no doubt about that. Any monastery in the world would have taken him. Let's leave him to his fate and deal with the disaster we actually have that Ratzinger so unkindly left us.

Josef Ratzinger isn't a fool, or is he? He knows most Catholics are simple folk, not Vaticanistas. They can't parse all the details. No one should expect them to! I've seen photos of him in his white sitting close by Bergi in his white as the latter reads from a document -- Ratzinger has to know how confusing that it is. What he did, and the way he did it, and the way he continues doing it, is like the pea in the Princess's bed, and dar Crom, Ratzinger has to know that.

Thus it'll be Ratzinger who goes down as the worst pope in history, not Bergi. Bergi at least has the grace to do what the Lavender Mafia appointed him to do: destroy the Church. Ratzinger has been a manipulator since his days at the Second Vatican Council. Too clever, too subtle, too much the manipulator and always and ever, too much the coward.

Thank the Lord it is God Who'll judge him. I just want to forget he ever existed, but he just won't let me.

An Préachán

The Catholic Church Devolving into National Language Churches

We're living Salvation History, Amici, and it ain't easy. 

Particularly being in Judah with Ahaz as a king.

That's where we're at now. We're the True Church as Judah was the true remnant of Israel, and we (with the Orthodoxies: Eastern and "Oriental" and the Eastern Liturgy Churches in Communion with Rome) are full inheritors of the Covenants, especially the Seventh one, the New Covenant, the Holy Eucharist. But we have Ahaz as a king. We've Manasseh, we've a new Amon. 

 And while we prayerfully await a Hezekiah or a Josiah, a restitutor orbis, we're watching the kingdom fall to pieces. (Or to metaphor it in another way, we're coming to the end of our Babylonian Exile, which was what Vat II did to us Traditional Catholics: exile us to the far Euphrates.)

Whether our Peronist Caudillo is actually pope or not, he's in the driver's seat and he's shifting into ever higher gears as we near the cliff. Long, involved arguments are going on as to whether Bergoglio is a valid pope, and whether Ratzinger resigned validly, etc. In a sense, it doesn't matter what he does or who he is. This was all set in motion when the Vat2 Fathers voted their first vote, when they overthrew the Council's managers Ol' Roncalli had installed and inserted their Modernists revolutionaries. 

This is especially true when, in the "Animus" of Vatican II, they went to the vernacular. There's really no escaping a total Church break up now into constituent language-based Churches. No. Escape. That's happened before, too. First with the Copts and Syrians before the Muslims came, then with the Greeks in 1054. That's also really what the Protestant Revolution was: a language-based breakup. (As well as being the Northern Kingdom of Israel breaking off of Judah. The parallels are fascinating and striking.)

So, here we are. All those groanings and creakings you hear, all the shudders and thuds and reverberations, are the Barque of Peter breaking up on the rocks. Of course, the Good News is there'll be one Church out of the plethora of flotsam and jetsam that has the ancient Traditional Mass and it'll keep the Latin for everything else -- theology, music, etc., as well. The "nationalist-language Churches" nightmare won't affect it at all, and all will be able to see that. In comparison to the cacophonous horde of snarling combatant national Churches, this TLM-based Church will be clearly the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

And it will be a "Reconquista Church", too, I think, slowly but surely bringing back a lot of otherwise fallen-away Catholics. Maybe even a few of these "bottom-line" stone-hearted bishops, as well. The Holy Spirit can do anything.

Beáti qui hábitant in domo tua, Dómini, in sæcula sæcúlorum laudábunt te. (The Gradual from the Feast of the Holy Family.)

An Préachán

"The only way the Left can survive is to shut down dissent ..."

Interesting...the U.S. has a lot more varied and "freer" speech than Europe does – though if there really is a "nationalistic" revolution in the up-coming European Parliament vote, that might begin to change, one hopes. However, although the U.S. has a lot more media outlets for Conservative or Counter-Globalist opinion, taken all together, these are relatively small compared to the monolithic U.S. Mainstream Media. And it is incredible how constantly under assault what free speech the U.S. is.

For example: Tucker Carlson, the Fox News commentator, is currently under attack after a George Soros-funded group uncovered that Carlson made off-color jokes in the past. This article goes into the details of what he said (highlights are me own):

In his opening monologue Monday night, the Fox News host questioned the sincerity of the outraged misfits criticizing him.

"Maybe their moral puffery is a costume," Carlson speculated. "Maybe the whole conversation is an absurd joke. Maybe we're falling for it."

"You sometimes hear modern progressives described as 'new Puritans,'" Carlson continued. "That's a slur on colonial Americans. Whatever their flaws, the Puritans cared about the fate of the human soul and the moral regeneration of their society. Those are not topics that interest progressives. They're too busy pushing late-term abortion and cross-dressing on fifth graders. These are the people who write our movies and our sitcoms. They're not shocked by naughty words. They just pretend to be when it's useful."

Carlson explained what he thinks the left is really up to.

"The left's main goal – in case you haven't noticed – is controlling what you think. In order to do that, they have to control the information that you receive. Google and Facebook and Twitter are fully on board with that. They're happy to ban unapproved thoughts and they don't apologize for it," he pointed out.

And this article has two video links to his response. The first vid link is to his opening segment, where he explains how hypocritical American politics, Left and Right, is, and the second is an interesting conversation with one Tammy Bruce, an "old-style" Liberal. Bruce said, in part:

"The only way the Left can survive is to shut down dissent and eliminating individuals who might speak up with a different idea." Note that Bruce has a number of books on the Left's thought police and so on.

An Préachán

Democrats, Party of Infanticide and now Antisemitism?

The Democratic Party seems to be self-destructing. Here Laura Ingraham and Newt Gingrich discuss it a bit starting at 1:44 minutes in with Reparations, and then they move on into antisemitism, and finally the Border Crisis, were now it is expected the U.S. will be facing 1 million illegals swarming the border this year.

Gingrich (who is 75) has an interesting comment about Nancy Pelosi (soon to be 79) and her two closest House leadership people are also approaching 80 years of age (Steny Hoyer will be 80 in June), and Ilhan Omar and Rashide Tlaib (the antisemites) and AOC (the idiot Leftist) are like her grandchildren, pushing her aside, and the party Leadership just doesn't know how to handle them. All Pelosi can say of Omar is "she has a different use of words...".

So down into Hell itself go the Democrats.

I never thought I'd see Antisemitism in the U.S. like I'm seeing it now in the Democratic party.

It seems baby killing isn't enough; see Litesite  and also the Conservative Evangelical CBN news report on the Democrats blocking a bill that would protect babies who survive abortion. 

Of course, the MainStream Media is running a full-court press that the Democrats are not the party of Matricide and Infanticide – any internet search will deluge you with such articles – but with each vote the Dems make, it becomes ever clearer.

Now on top of that, they're becoming clearly antisemitic, and they don't give a hoot in Hell about it. 

Melissa Langsam Braunstein has an excellent column here about it.

An excerpt:

This fight has been a long time in the making, but things are changing quickly. It’s been only two years since Jewish women felt the need to publicly make the case that one could be both a Zionist and a feminist. Is it now time for a debate about whether one can be both a Jew (who believes in Israel’s right to exist) and a Democrat?

The political party that’s long attracted the support of 75 percent of American Jews has shown this week that their leaders won’t stand up for the community when it matters. It’s quite breathtaking, really. It’s not only bipartisan support for Israel that’s being debunked as much weaker than advertised, but also, quite troublingly, an acceptance of Jew hatred directed at fellow Americans. For the record, that hatred is not only being tolerated but embraced by congressional Democrats.

A chairde, this is NOT politics and usual.

Here's Rabbi Spero on it at American Thinker:

Down the road, this unwarranted but official congressional proclamation today against Islamophobia will muzzle any rightful criticism of sharia or terrorism as a manifestation of bigotry, with calls for censure of those shining the light on the dangers to us from Islamism.  Omar commits verbal anti-Semitism, and in consequence, America is warned not to be Islamophobic.  Talk about creating victory out of defeat, as well as how our side allows itself to be held guilty for sins done by others.

The Jewish organizational community, almost entirely liberal and Democrat, has not pressured the Democrat leadership in any way near the degree they would have if the victim of hate had been black, Islamic, Hispanic, or LGBT.  Furthermore, there has been no unified call by the 36 Jewish Democrat members of Congress against Omar.  Most liberal Jews seem unconcerned when anti-Semitism comes from the political left, their home base. 

It's also no surprise that Jewish organizational clout has diminished, since the Democrat leadership knows full well that Jewish votes and funding will continue as before.  They always do.  It seems that most Jews need the Democratic Party more than the party needs them.  Most are more afraid of American conservatives than they are of the Muslim Brotherhood, more afraid of Republicans than anti-Semitic groups on the Left, more fearful of whites than minorities.  It's not logical, but emotional.  A terrible error...and perhaps a form of prejudice.

The Rabbi is right, of course: most American Jews vote Democrat and have a horror of American Conservatives, Republicans, and Whites, and of course they have an inveterate fear of White, Conservative Republicans mainly because of their children to converting Christianity. That's the source of their opposition to the American Right. The classic, old-fashioned stereotype of a Republican is a Protestant churchgoer. So, still carrying that mental baggage in their souls, a cultural detritus they picked up a half century or more ago, they'd rather their kids be atheists or worship the Idol of Socialism in either its Red or Green form than run any threat of conversion. 

And also a part of this, of course, is that many of them are from families that originated in Russia and neighboring areas, where Socialism was a big thing "back in the day" – but a new age has dawned and unless they take off the blinders they've worn now for generations, they're going to be in serious trouble with the insane bulldozing American Left, which is as Antisemitic as the British Left. 

See also another American Thinker piece:

An excerpt:

The Democrats will not produce a meaningful resolution denouncing anti-Semitism. The vile hater, Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, will not be named. Her position on the powerful Foreign Relations Committee will be as secure as ever. The resolution will dilute anti-Semitism by conveniently placing it among other hatreds.

Such duplicity is reminiscent of the New York Times burying the Holocaust in the back pages.

They covered it, just not where you could see it. The Times, like the Roosevelt administration and the British Foreign Office, knew of  the Holocaust since 1942 and chose to ignore it.

The Democratic Party has once again abandoned the Jews. The Jews, however, refuse to abandon the Democratic Party. 

I grew up in a Democratic home in Chicago where Franklin Roosevelt was revered as if he were some form of deity.

Little did my parents and grandparents know the Roosevelt’s State Department worked tirelessly with the British Foreign Office to obstruct and delay the rescue of  European Jews so that Hitler could continue to kill them as the clock ran out and, consequently, eliminate the problem.  Like today’s Democrats, they created mechanisms to give the symbolic appearance of being concerned about the plight of the Jews while doing nothing until the last days of the war.

Little did my family know that Roosevelt fumed at Casablanca about the Jews being overrepresented in the professions and worried that if not restricted by quotas, after the war, North Africans would have the same “justifiable” resentment toward Jews as did Germans. Roosevelt exaggerated the role of Jews in the professions just as he exaggerated the threat of loyal Japanese Americans.

An Préachán again: Yes, indeed. FDR. But if I get started on that lout, I'll be writing for hours.

An Préachán

Comment to a Column on Cardinal Pell at OnePeterFive

Excellent column at One PeterFive, as usual. And I appreciate especially the long quote by Marco Tosatti and the info on Dr. Anna Silvas's reaction. The Apocalyptic tone is great, too, because it is so real: "Becoming a smaller, purer Church may ultimately be a good thing. But we shouldn’t fool ourselves into thinking it’ll be a painless one. A chastisement is coming indeed."

Definitely. If for nothing else, we'll face chastisement for letting the Vat 2 Church make martyrs such as Cardinal Pell definitely seems to be. Look how Archbishop Lefebvre was treated, or Vigano today -- a man literally in hiding! Or consider the "martyrdom" of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate. The pattern is clear. Very clear.

Yet something else is equally clear as this drama plays out: all this was foreordained by 'the Spirit (shouldn't I write "animus"?) of Vatican II'. Yes, we've written here ceaselessly about how the Vat II program threw the Church's windows open to the outside world just in time to let in the morally choking radioactive fallout fog of the '60s and 70s, etc.; but I mean more fundamentally this: the move into the vernacular spelled ipso facto the end of the "Roman" Catholic Church and the creation of a series of unruly, unorthodox, sex-obsessed national-language Churches.

The only thing that kept the western Catholic Church "Catholic" (i.e. 'universal') was the retention of the Latin and a papacy that supported Church life in that language. Otherwise, we'd have been like the Eastern Orthodox today, a cacophonous collection of "contemptlative" Churches who are, in theory, in Communion with one another, but in reality hold each other in profound contempt and distrust, as demonstrated by their 2016 fiasco "Council" on Crete. 

We, today, in the West, are well on our way to such a breakup ourselves. It is here, actually, in many ways, especially in how the German Church acts toward Rome, and the Spanish-language Church. The difference between the Polish Church and the German Church (and other western varieties) is profound -- already! (Had B16 not quit when he did, the German Church would soon have declared itself in Schism with him, I strongly suspect.)

Now, this is a reality that evidenced itself ages ago, long before the Greeks broke from the Latins in 1054. Centuries before that, the Syrian Church (speaking Syriac, as Christian Aramaic is called) and the Coptic-speaking Church in Egypt split. If you think all those obscure heresies about Monophysitism, the "miaphysite" position, and the orthodox dyophysitism stance were the main reasons for the splits, well, think again. They contributed to the splitting, just as the filioque in the Creed contributed to the Orthodox split from Catholics. But the real issue was linguistic. They no longer spoke the same language, they couldn't communicate. So the splits were inevitable.

We're facing that now. And even now, today, the only truly "Catholic" Church -- in the original sense of truly "universal" -- is the Latin Mass crowd. And as that recent survey reported on this website (and Liturgy Guy's) showed, those sorts of Catholic are indeed the most "orthodox" Catholics in their beliefs.

Thus all Catholics in the Vat II Church, as it capsizes with all the drama its lavender leaders can conjure, and especially in how it creates martyrs of Cardinal Pell, and Vigano, (and soon Cardinals Sarah? Burke? Müller?) will be given a clear choice between the various lifeboat Churches that float free. It was just inevitable once the vernacular took over, even had the many outrageous and terrible moral problems not manifested themselves at all.

An Préachán