Christianity, Freedom, the American government and our current free-fall

Friends,

America is a mess, and the American Republic is just about dead. Why? I think it is, to an essential decree, because the anti-God or simply "No God Need Apply" embodied in the 1787 U.S. Constitution has finally born the fruits its policy was always destined to bear.

In any political discussion à la the U.S., "freedom" or "liberty" is central. It is said whereas English literature is about honor and French literature is about love, American literature is about freedom. The Declaration of Independence is famous for this line: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Yet the right to life American courts have denied for over half a century. It has been denied because Americans, both citizens and supposedly the government, worship not the God of Christianity, but "Liberty". 

Yet what is liberty? Are we at liberty to murder unborn children? Or are we at liberty to molest born children, or castrate and spade children? Or for that matter, run wild in the streets? Flash mob rob stores? Parade naked down streets or as in San Francisco, stand on sidewalks openly doing the most obscene things with our private parts? (Not to mention filling those streets with manure and urine.) If homosexuals are allowed to legally marry under the U.S. 1787 Constitution, something so absolutely NOT in that document that nothing could be more obvious, then why not? "Liberty" triumphs over everything else, including Truth. And this is because we think of liberty as the no-holds-barred, purely narcissistic "Pursuit of Happiness". The worship not of God but of Self. Actually, Jefferson's use of that latter "Pursuit" phrase actually means the pursuit of virtue, for traditionally, to be virtuous is to achieve true happiness. But very, very few seem to know this today. Today, the "Pursuit of Happiness" means doing whatever one damn (literally) well please it means, regardless of the consequences. 

Now, I should mention that the Catholic idea of "freedom" is not the big box store model. A big box store might offer 20 or 30 choices of canned peas, for example, and one is supposed to have greater liberty of choice in such an environment than one would have in a mom and pop store with two or three pea choices. But Christian Freedom means we are free to choose what God wants for us, what He made us for, the why of our existence. Instead of being forced to do what He wants, God wants us to chose it freely, of our own will, conforming His will to ours. It is like a gasoline engine being said to be "free" to run on gasoline, and not kerosene, or diesel, or airplane fuel or whiskey. A gas engine running on any of the latter is not "free". It will destroy itself. A human being choosing against God is not "free", but enslaved, and will destroy himself. Clearly, this is different in its essentials from the 18th century ideals of the Founders about "Liberty", and definitely not what modern narcissistic people mean by being "free" and pursuing their self-centered" happiness".

And Christianity in the U.S.? Today, Christian "freedom" sounds like how Christians survive in Muslim countries: i.e. underground, hidden away, being Christian out of sight. One might argue that the Faith starts in the home, and on a personal level, it does. Yet then too, Christianity has always been, or tried to be, a public religion, proclaiming Christ and Him Crucified "in season and out of season". Whenever they could, Christians became very much influencers on secular government, monarchical or democratic, imperial or republican, and acted as the conscience of the secular state, establishing what are called concordats with states demanding the right of public worship and the right to influence law, culture, and government decisions. There's been a separation of Church and State since the religion's Founder said "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, but to God what is God's." The Byzantine Empire and the Reformation German princes and Henry VIII did the Church no favor by making it a department of state. But God's portion has always included public worship and (dare I say it?) freedom to influence the secular state. 

Since the U.S. Constitution of 1787 didn't mention God at all, however, and formally stated the U.S. would have no "religious test" (Article VI, Clause 3*), slowly but surely, God has been driven from the American public square, until post WWII, when God got removed from pretty much all things governmental, much to the strengthening of the godless, and thus lawless, "Deep State". Jack Kennedy in 1960 actually publicly affirmed his religion (he really didn't have any) would not affect his governing. But just what IS that, actually? Hell demanding its influence be not challenged, is what.

Unfortunately, God is not allowed to illuminate anything in DC, the federal government "state". Especially in the "Ape of the Church" that is the official Vatican II Church in DC. Totally lawless, on many levels. President Trump is finding that out, and through him we can all recognize how insane things have become. Actually, NO courts should exist in DC, or any trials, because it is a one-party "statelet", fully "woke" and Communist. It's the nightmarish model of what Democrats and RINOs and all the innumerable narcissists want to turn the whole country into. No one in Washington, D.C. is "free" at all. And that's the reality planned for all of us.

* Most Americans, or the Remnant possessing some rudimentary education, think of the First Amendment to the Constitution about "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". This prohibited a national Church, such as the European countries had at that time. It also "freed" or gave "liberty" to people about religion, thus allowing the U.S. to be a "religious country". But actually, it served to remove the new Government from religious "checks and balances". There would be no moral counterweight to the government, except the easily manipulated or ignored "will of the people". It really existed to prohibit the government from being influenced in any official way by any Church whatsoever, atomizing the religion to each individual as a private, personal thing, only. None of the citizens had thereafter a collective moral outlet, except via voting. This clause in the Amendment was especially needed to preserve American chattel slavery, but also saved the government from being challenged legally by Churches over how it treated American Indians (breaking treaties with them at will, forcing them off their land, denying them the old English Common Law "Castle doctrine"), and so on. In short, it made "the Church" utterly irrelevant to the State. And, eventually, to most Christians.

        AnP

The Ohio Referendum Vote: the Smog of Satan

Amici,

No one, NO ONE, should "pretend" about abortion.

Abortion is so egregiously wrong-headed, so manifestly evil, so utterly selfish and callous as to be beyond belief. Literally. I can't believe people are not instantly horrified and disgusted by the very thought of it. It is not only murder and death to the babies slaughtered, but simply the greatest spiritual wound possible to women. It is the greatest spiritual calamity to women's central role, motherhood. It is the vomit of Hell on fatherhood. 

Obviously, though, a large portion of people are OK with it or OK with "it being a private matter." That "OK" is incomprehensible to me. Yet clearly they do NOT understand there are no "private" matters. What we do in the dark affects us profoundly, for good or ill, and it has instant ramifications to all those around us, as much as what we do in the light. It impacts the overall environment of all things human. Including our spiritual dimension – our souls, our angels (good and bad: hurting the one and helping the other) and ultimately God (who notices and records everything, and is the Judge of All). That's because we are spiritual beings, not merely animals.

The whole ethos, the struts and architectural support structure of the modern world, is founded on the ridiculous, illogical Theory of Evolution, that posits we ARE just animals. We are not. So the spiritual reverberations, our spiritual "echoes", abound. When we sin, we can be said to "shed" evil like those polluted by the Covid vaccines are supposed to "shed" spike proteins. (Everything to do with Covid is a fraud.)

There's been 65 million or so abortions in the U.S. since Roe. That's a lot of evil "shed". 

The Kingship of Christ, the 'Lawfare' of Satan

Now, when our bishops and priests don't fight tooth and nail for God's sovereignty, for the Kingship of Christ on Earth, they themselves radiate or shed or echo evil. And they have to fight because the Prince of this World does not want to lose one atom of his control. Our Lord Christ conquered Hell and death, but by their inactions (and all too often their actions), the heirs of His Victory cede to Satan fractions of Christ's triumph, fractions of the grace they were bestowed by baptism. Abortion, and all the lesser moral and carnal dementia we soak ourselves in, is like a series of parliamentary resolutions ceding authority to Satan. (When you play with a Ouija Board, you cede to the devils some authority over you, even on that scale.) And every devil, down to the very Lowest, are legalistic "lawfare" warriors. They claw and bite to keep every bit of authority they're given. They're quick to complain to God for their "rights" over us, rights we gave them through sin.

Our Churchmens' actions or inaction infect all of us, therefore. Our own clergy and bishops "smog" the spiritual air. It's the "smoke of Satan" Paul VI mentioned. (Being an "environmental polluter in this spiritual sense, he ought to know!) Especially, this is true of bishops, who are responsible for not only the laity and clergy in their dioceses, but for all the non-believers (of whatever sort) in their dioceses. So many Catholics don't seem to know that. So many Catholic bishops don't seem to know that! 

For myself, regarding this referendum vote in Ohio, I particularly want to know where the new bishop of Columbus, Bishop Fernandes, was on this? Apparently, none of Ohio's bishops actively campaigned. Blessed Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler, Texas, came and helped campaign, so you know The Ogre (Bergoglio) will send his imps, pixies, and pucks gunning for Bishop Strickland again.

BB Before Bergoglio vs PB Post Bergoglio

The Church stood four-square against abortion since Our Lord Christ founded it, though after 1973, the American Church being so hand-in-glove with the Democrat Party meant a great many of the American Church leaders "slow-walked" or tip-toed their opposition to it. Just as the reason the Church embraces all the illegal immigration that is destroying America (and Europe) is because the Church gets government monies to help the "refugees". They're still politically "joined to the hip" with the Democrats, even now that the latter should be properly labeled "the Communists".

PB Post Bergoglio: It's now a different story. Since his imposition on us by the sexual deviants and Freemasons in the Church, Jorge Bergoglio has dismantled all of John Paul II's efforts to align the Vat II Church against the increasingly strident Globalist forces for abortion (and homosexuality, etc.). What else would one expect from a homosexual, or "homosexualist" unbeliever like "Bergi"? I would guess that in November, when the Ohio vote comes up on this insanely evil referendum, the deceptively titled “The Right to Reproductive Freedom with Protections for Health and Safety,” to change Ohio's constitution to allow unrestricted abortion, the Democrats and RINO Republicans will, by hook or crook, get it to pass.  Some judge or other has already permanently suspended Ohio's new "heart-beat" law. A law passed through regular electoral order is canceled by unelected trolls. The U.S. judiciary is largely filled to the brim with mountebanks, imbeciles, and outright fiends, all of course paid for from the taxpayers' squeezed-out turnip blood.

Now, of course, in John Locke's political theory, the one upon which the U.S. independence and 1787 Constitution is founded, the people are supposed to be sovereign, not God. God was left out of the U.S. Constitution, and left out of the French Revolution entirely, and so on since, totally transforming Western society. So, we're handing ourselves the tickets to Hell. Legally, by our own governmental theories. We don't even need the Fallen Lightbringer and his infernal law firm for it. What a hellish "lawfare" that turns out to be, what a dodgy, depressing irony, what a smoky, rancid smog to breathe in.

          AnP 

A bizarre conversation with a quasi-Leftist – and the natures of all Leftist evil

Friends,

As operation Steadfast Noon roars on across Europe, ending on October 30, with nuclear war staggering along the rim of Hell, and as I see the Dutch government trying to feed Dutch children worms and insects, this abomination in perhaps the richest agricultural nation in Europe, I happened to find myself in a conversation about Hershel Walker's senatorial campaign with a middle-age Leftist who insists she's not all that Left.

No disconnect exists here...

Maybe, pounded our insane reality, I am losing my own mind, to speak to such people. Or maybe it is quite apropos. She loathes Trump, Republicans, all that, but on other issues, especially about many aspects of European and Hungarian life, she's not too bad. It is as though she was some sort of bipolar answering machine.

But I have tired of her harping on Hershel Walker. Nothing that man says or does serves. He's a right bastard to her mainly because she insists he is a hypocrite. (Plainly, she also thinks he is a stupid "field hand" and not a "house Negro," as Warnock seems to be to her) It's not that Walker has arranged abortions or did whatever mayhem. It's that precisely because he's changed his mind on all that – he's just a hypocrite and a hypocrite stands infinitely worse than a guy actually currently promoting abortions of children of his own race, as Warnock does.

She'd rather vote for Warnock, the evil Moloch preacher than Walker, the reformed non-politician. And she accuses me of hypocrisy because I support Walker for senator. So, finally I wrote:

Two candidates for senator: both Black, both have records of promoting abortion, etc., but one has changed and the other stays on the all-things-Left side, including supporting the slaughter of Black unborns.

You are OK with murder...of infants? Black ones?

Meanwhile the social progressives/Democrats/even-mild-middle Leftists that Warnock belongs to are OK with money-hungry doctors cutting off teenage girls' breasts and gentiles off of teenage boys, and you say the Repubs are bad?!?!?

Bottom Line: the Nature of Leftism considered

My friends, being a Leftist isn't about clear thinking, reason, rationality, OR morality.

It IS about seeing the world, human life, our place in existence in a very different way than the rest of us do, which stands based on 1000's of years recorded human experience.

A naturalist or traditional natural "conservative" accepts life as it is: men are men, women are women, we all have but a few years, if blessed, to do and achieve what we want to, so long as our goals fit into the eternal verities.

Eternal verities. The Left rejects eternal verities as it teaches we are the product of evolution. One of verities is we must work in life, for work defines us. A man builds his own life and not boss about others on how they live their lives, and to achieve this, we create laws that remain necessarily based on the wisdom of the ages and specifically the ancient Jewish, then more profound traditional Christian, understanding of morality. Long, long before the UFO query, "Are we alone", man knew he was most definitely NOT alone.

The Left says we ARE alone, and thus there's no one to hear you scream when they come for you.

A Leftist truly lives in a "Twilight Zone". His thought devolves down from that hedonist Rousseau, on through the Satanist (and he was) Marx's fevered economics (Chesterton said "Economic Determinism is like saying, because we have feet, we only walk around on them to find shoes for them."). Then, it got bifurcated into political systems of repression, parties-that-rule-all, especially your life. It takes over countries and kills 100s of millions. Whether Black Communism, the racist sort of the Nazi or the modern Black Lives Matter kind, or the Red Communism of the Soviet and Chinese Communist Party kind, or the "Watermelon" kind, that uses ecological concerns (green) to cover their real goals (red all through).

And bizarrely through all this menage of madness: one MUST obey authority. One MUST obey the Party. One has no will of one's own, and can never disagree or change one's mind. (This woman I refer to is, in a small way, an excellent example of this.) As Tulsi Gabbard found when she went against the Democrats' warmongering. And that very thing lay behind Trump's betrayal by the RINOs, as well. This coming war is coming now for a reason.

What is it all for?

And why all this blood? Why all this soul control? For aping the Christian doctrine of charity. See Matthew 5:42 and 25:35-40; Communism, Marxism, Socialism, whatever you call it, takes Christian charity and turns it into murder and civilizational destruction. It is, definitely, a Christian heresy, and when the Church was religious, it dealt with it like that, up to St. Pius X and Pius XI; afterward, increasingly, it treated Leftism as a political or social movement as Pius XII treated Nazism, and has today almost succumbed to it.

Many things distinguish Leftism, but perhaps unreality is the most profoundly horrifying. And the most ridiculous. It's all so ridiculously stupid, and yet it has killed over 100 million people in the 20th century and is ruining the lives of 100s more.

• 70 years ago, this was the urgent world-saving scenario for which people needed to die:
  
• "What! You are taking my cows for the 'greater good' and "From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs? Go to Hell! Leave them alone!" The Left's answer back then was:
• Bang-bang, you're dead.
  
• Today, the urgent world-saving scenario stands on the non-existent "climate change": 
• "What! You're taking my fertilizer and starving us to stop global warming? And instead, you're making my kids eat bugs! Go to Hell!"
  
• What do you think the Left's "solution" will be?
  

None of this is rational. It is no more "scientific" than the Voodoo about Covid.

For example; as I note to the Leftist lady above: doctors, physicians, prestigious medical schools, are crazily, diabolically mutilating children for life. The psychology behind it is vomitingly awful, the worse kind of pseudo-"science" – but definitely the metaphysics is non-existent. You cannot change a man into a woman biologically or psychologically any more than you can change the shape of the soul, for it is the soul that what gives the body form, and when the soul departs, the physical body thus returns to its chemical parts.

Very, very few, vanishingly few, doctors – almost no lawyers or politicians – even know what metaphysics is. The Supreme Court in general and certainly in the latter half of the 20th century, constituted the least informed or curious group of attorney's in history. Medicine has become the same. The Roe v. Wade decision was a howler of nonsense, it constituted an ersatz group compilation, and the history of it, and the sources, have to be read to be believed. 

When you read this shocking history that reveals Roe's farrago of idiocy, you'll be tempted to despair. Justice Harry Blackmun was clueless. He asked his modern and expensively, elite school trained daughters what they thought of abortion. (Guess what their answer was.) He "wrote" the opinion with hacks and abortion partisans; he consulted no embryologists, no geneticists. He could have polled a dozen each, but "consulted" these deadbeats who happened to be in his orbit.

• For this? 45-50 million babies murdered? The Demon Moloch again worshiped throughout the world. The moral fiber of the nation turned into mud and the Democratic Party impaled on the hellish contradiction. Insanity. We suffered through half a century of hell because this group of mental imbeciles mashed together the Roe opinion?

Aye, here's the rub...

Ah, but you see, however the Left connives to get a stooge like Blackmun to give them straw, they bake nearly imperishable bricks of evil out of it with which to wage their "Long March Through the Institutions", their "war of position" through Western Culture, in order to gut it for their eventual triumph. Saul Alinsky wrote about the method, and Cloward-Piven explained it in detail. It is the same method the Ogre Bergoglio uses to destroy the Church, as Cardinal Mueller explains. In fact, it is what the Frankfurter Schule Communist intellectuals back in the 1920s ginned up.

And it has so profoundly infected people like the one above with whom I sometimes correspond, an "iron curtain" of the human mind as impenetrable as walls of Barad-dûr.

   An Préachán

Psalm 146 of the Douay-Rheims: verse 9:

Who giveth to beasts their food: and to the young ravens that call upon Him.

Homosexuality and the Rebellion Against Nature

Some considerations.

Homosexuals rebel. They seek, for reasons of having to live with themselves, to redefine what is "natural". That's what they do. If humans were animals, we'd do whatever they'd want and not have to ratinoalize it. But we're the Rational Animals, so we have to justify ourelves -- to ourselves and to everyone else.

And also, concurrent to all that, and no doubt because of all that, the larger modern society intensely dislikes any discusson of "Nature."

All the sexual deviancy stuff that is throttling our civilization keeps forcing us, as it were, to reinvent the moral wheel. To try to explain how human morality is so intrinsically tied to our nature. We have to explain to adulterers, homosexuals, and whoever else stands for Rebellion against Nature, what is human society for. What human life is about. Is it for "doing our own thing" or are we responsible for one another? Especially our children? Are we "trapped" by our biological nature -- being male, being female -- and having to get on with life on that basis, or are we somehow free to do whatever we want? Is life all about living the life we are biologically dealt, or tossing the cards and rebelling against what we are? As in what that old Devil Aleister Crowley used to say, "Do whatever you want is the whole of the law". 



Taking God out out the question for a moment (can't really be taken out, but for the sake of the argument): human life consists of being conceived, gestated, born, being hopelessly helpless for YEARS, desperately needing both parents, raised only slowly, time consumingly, and at serious financial expense, finally reaching adulthood physically in the later teen years. That cannot be escaped from. And that's just the physical side to it. To raise a sane, functioning, self-reliant adult takes massive effort -- of both parents and the larger society backing them up! This is what life is about. That is, if we want a future for the human race at all. "The future belongs to those who show up."



On the other hand, Homosexuals -- just as much as easy divorce advocates, "open marriage" proponents, etc. are, (whether seemingly mild or aggressive) continually calling all that -- the basics -- in question. They need it explained over and over again and they're just not buying it. It's like trying to play a game of baseball with an opposing team that forgets how to play the game by the beginning of every inning: We have to take time to explain and re-explain and re-re-explain the rules of life -- even to the basic points of what our body parts are for! -- ALL THE TIME, and they keeping asking, "Why these rules? Let us play it the way we want." 



If we give in and let them go play the game they way they want, it won't work because WE ARE WHAT WE ARE. We are == in our nature -- humans, and our morality has to reflect that. No matter how "traditional" or "conservative" specific individuals might be, overall, the Rebels Against Nature just create moral chaos that mirrors their physical chaos, and it engenders social collapse. History shows that again and again.

An Préachán

Classic: A Catholic Law Professor and Mother of 7 Meets a Liberal Catholic Senator

I can't put it any better than the author Terry Mattingly did here. Amy Barrett, grilled by liberal senators, some of whom are "Catholic", on her religious faith. And they did so every whichaway, actually.

Of course, Barrett actually said she would not let her beliefs affect her rulings. The committee chairman, Senator Chuck Grassley (a Republican and a advocate for Barrett), asked: “When is it proper for a judge to put their religious views above applying the law?” Barrett replied in a word: “Never.”

So, alright, how does that work, actually? The "cosmic background noise" to modern Western culture, and certainly the U.S., is the Christian Faith. Holdovers from the Christian Faith are all about us, particularly in the "welfare state" mentality, which is a perversion of Christian charity (i.e., it's not charity if you're forced via taxes to pay for good things for people, like health care, etc.). Also, in pre-Christian Iceland (or Ireland or pretty much anywhere outside of Israel) it was OK to expose your new-born infants if you didn't want 'em, and fine to just kill someone outright, if you wanted to. You only had to do so in public and then pay the "body price" (in pagan England: the wergeld) for 'em.

Christianity changed all that.

This is the basic incoherence to the idea of a country (the U.S. in its Constitution of 1787 was the first nation to do this) formally, legally, constitutionally separating itself from God. "What's Moral" becomes just a matter of public opinion, and Gay Marriage is a good example of this. 50 years ago, had you advocated such an idea, you'd have been locked up, or shot. 20 years ago, you'd been laughed at. 10 years ago, well, many would have said "That's nice, but way too extreme". Etc. Or today American kids are being conditioned to accept Transexism. (If that's a word.) Try to advocate that 10 years ago – that children be so taught in schools – and you'd have been locked up for a child molester, or just shot on sight.

In other words, Religion is the source of our morality, upon which the secular laws are based. And in the Christian tradition, and in the Jewish one before it, since God is Absolute Being, His Law is absolute and unchanging. We are made to conform to it and if we don't, we're lost. Cut yourself off formally from that foundation and it would be better for your salvation if you were a street sweeper.

Whatever.

See also Phil Lawler's take here.

In any event, here's an excerpt of the opening of the article I linked to above.

So, did you read all the stories about the liberal Episcopalian who was nominated to a federal appeals court seat, only to be grilled about her religious beliefs – with subtle references to her same-sex marriage – by evangelical Protestants, Mormons and Catholics in a U.S. Senate hearing?

I mean, one senator called her a Communist because of her decision to speak at a meeting of the American Civil Liberties Union. One conservative Anglican on the committee questioned whether her vocal support for her church's doctrine should block her appointment to a federal court. Another conservative Anglican asked her point blank: "Are you a liberal Episcopalian?”

Wait, you didn't see coverage of that story by journalists at major newspapers and cable networks?

Right, I made that up. But can you imagine the mainstream press failing to spotlight a story in which fundamentalist yahoos did something like that to a liberal religious believer?

Me either. So did I miss something when we had that story in reverse? I searched all over for mainstream coverage of this real story, including at the newspaper of record. Scan this simple Google News search and tell me if I blinked and missed something important.

Now let's turn to alternative, "conservative" media outlets and look at this real story – only reversed in a journalistic mirror. In the real world, we have a pro-Catechism Catholic nominee, a Notre Dame University law professor and mother of seven, facing a liberal Catholic senator. The consistently #NeverTrump National Review reported:

... [D]uring a confirmation hearing for 7th Circuit Court of Appeals nominee Amy Coney Barrett, Democratic senator Dianne Feinstein attacked the nominee for her Roman Catholic faith.

An Préachán:
 I love that opening and its sustained sarcasm. Were the shoe on the other foot and a liberal/Progressive Christian grilled in the same way by conservative senators as the Catholic was by Democrats, the MSM would be screaming at the top of its collective voice.