FBI believed Hillary Clinton and aides broke the law...why then wasn't the matter pursued?

The Hill is reporting that:

Republicans on key congressional committees say they have uncovered new irregularities and contradictions inside the FBI’s probe of Hillary Clinton’s email server.

For the first time, investigators say they have secured written evidence that the FBI believed there was evidence that some laws were broken when the former secretary of State and her top aides transmitted classified information through her insecure private email server, lawmakers and investigators told The Hill.

That evidence includes passages in FBI documents stating the 'sheer volume' of classified information that flowed through Clinton’s insecure emails was proof of criminality as well as an admission of false statements by one key witness in the case, the investigators said."

From Cornell Law School:



U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 93 › § 1924
18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

Why then wasn't this matter pursued? Why did the FBI not pursue a criminal investigation into the former Secretary of State and her aides?

Expect the "mainstream media" to ignore this story or to bury it.

What can be said of a Papacy which allows financial contributions to an illegitimate political party which advances the Culture of Death?

 A report that the Vatican, under Francis, contributed financially to the Hillary Clinton campaign is sure to send shockwaves throughout the Church.

Far too many corners of the Catholic Church have become chummy with the Democratic Party which advances the Culture of Death and a sodomite agenda.  See here for example.

Judie Brown has said it well:

"..let us be clear about one basic fact: without the right to life, there is no other right that can ever be exercised. The victim of abortion dies; he or she can never make the kinds of decisions that you have made. So, fundamentally, if a political party favors the execution of the innocent before birth, nothing that party does can be valid. By abdicating the basic fact that every person's right to life must be protected, the party has said and acted in a way that exposes its commitment to murder. Abortion is murder - the Church defines it as such.

What then can be said of a Papacy which allows financial contributions to Hillary Clinton and her illegitimate political party?  Is such a Papacy legitimate?

Father Peter Naranjo: I didn't vote for either candidate, cannot see any difference between the two, and question whether or not Trump is President-Elect

At Women of Grace, we read:

Lifesitenews.com is reporting on a homily given by Father George Rutler, pastor of the Church of St. Michael in New York City in which he refers back to a column he wrote eight years ago. The column was based on a book by Monsignor Robert Hugh Benson entitled, The Lord of the World, which was a dystopian novel about the anti-Christ who imposed a new world religion with man as god. His only foe was Christianity, which he thwarted by using “compromised Catholics and compliant priests to persuade timid Catholics.” Benson’s book has been cited by several popes, such as Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis who said he read it several times.

“Since then, that program has been realized in our time, to an extent beyond the warnings of the most dire pessimists,” Father Rutler explains.

“Our federal government has intimidated religious orders and churches, challenging religious freedom. The institution of the family has been re-defined, and sexual identity has been Gnosticized to the point of mocking biology. Assisted suicide is spreading, abortions since 1973 have reached a total equal to the population of Italy, and sexually transmitted diseases are at a record high. Objective journalism has died, justice has been corrupted, racial bitterness ruins cities, entertainment is degraded, knowledge of the liberal arts spirals downwards, and authentically Catholic universities have all but vanished. A weak and confused foreign policy has encouraged aggressor nations and terrorism, while metastasized immigration is destroying remnant western cultures, and genocide is slaughtering Christian populations. The cynical promise of economic prosperity is mocked by the lowest rate of labor participation in forty years, an unprecedented number of people on food stamps and welfare assistance, and the largest disparity in wealth in over a century.”

The picture is indeed grim as we stand now upon yet another precipice – an election offering a choice between two of the most flawed candidates in American history – which has left many Catholics despairing over how to vote.

Father Rutler feels their pain – but not their confusion.

“It is incorrect to say that the coming election poses a choice between two evils. For ethical and aesthetic reasons, there may be some bad in certain candidates, but badness consists in doing bad things. Evil is different: it is the deliberate destruction of truth, virtue and holiness.

“While one may pragmatically vote for a flawed candidate, one may not vote for anyone who advocates and enables unmitigatedly evil acts, and that includes abortion. “In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it’” (Evangelium Vitae, 73).

He goes on to remind that at one party’s convention, the name of God was excluded from its platform and a woman who boasted of having aborted her child was applauded.

“It is a grave sin, requiring sacramental confession and penance, to become an accomplice in objective evil by voting for anyone who encourages it, for that imperils the nation and destroys the soul,” Fr. Rutler says.

He goes on to direct his guidance to the clergy whom he encourages to speak the truth, regardless of how unfashionable it might be, and not to shrink from explaining the Church’s censures.

“Wolves in sheep’s clothing are dangerous, but worse are wolves in shepherd’s clothing. While the evils foreseen eight years ago were realized, worse would come if those affronts to human dignity were endorsed again.”

He then issues a dire warning: “In the most adverse prospect, God forbid, there might not be another free election, and soon Catholics would arrive at shuttered churches and vacant altars. The illusion of indifference cannot long be perpetuated by lame jokes and synthetic laughter at banquets, for there is handwriting on the wall.”

This homily was given prior to the election.  This morning, during Holy Mass at Saint Mary's Church in Orange, Massachusetts, Father Peter Naranjo, a liberal ideologue and partisan fanatic, asserted that, as as priest, he didn't feel he could vote for either candidate.

Father Naranjo then implied that it's a question as to whether or not Donald Trump is President-Elect because He won the Electoral-College and not the popular vote.  This even though Hillary Clinton has conceded defeat twice - in a call to Trump on the eve of the election and again on Wednesday in a speech.

Father Naranjo finished his asinine "homily" by suggesting that there is much violence because of the election results and asserting that he doesn't feel Trump will make it to the Inauguration and will be assasinated.

Aside from his irresponsible and partisan-fueled commentary, Father Naranjo's words highlight the fact that even within the Church, there are secret enemies of Christ who have no desire to see certain societal evils such as abortion and Same-Sex "marriage" defeated.  Nor do they care for the religious freedoms which the Democratic Party has been assaulting for years.

If Father Naranjo were really committed to Catholic moral teaching and religious freedom, he would have voted for Trump.

The fact that he doesn't see any difference between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump speaks volumes about his character.

And none of its good!

Hillary Clinton supported Al Gore when he contested the 2000 election, what's really behind the mainstream media's fear of a contested election in 2016?

Michael Brown, over at Spirit Daily, ran this item from The New York Times (a bastion of journalistic integrity):


"Donald J. Trump refused to say on Wednesday night whether he would accept the results of the presidential election, rebuffing a reminder from Chris Wallace, the debate moderator, that the peaceful transfer of power is 'one of the prides of this country.'"

I guess Chris Wallace forgot about Al Gore and his contestation of the 2000 election.  In an interview with CNN’s John King on Nov 29, 2000, Gore said, "You know, the only way to avoid having a cloud over the next president is to count all the votes. Because our country is based on the consent of the governed, and the consent of the governed can only come through a vote by the people. And all the people who vote legally have to have their votes counted; that’s the basic principle. If all of the votes are counted, that’s the best way to confer legitimacy on the outcome of the election."

And there is reason to be concerned this election year.  Gateway Pundit notes:

"Dead people are voting and it’s something this administration does not want to do anything about. They must like it. They must like who they are voting for… Now we have four million, four million ineligible and dead voters on American voter rolls according to the Pew Charitable Trust."

When Gore contested the 2000 election results, Hillary Clinton supported him saying:

"I believe that it certainly is important that every American have the confidence that his or her vote is counted and certainly in Florida there are questions about votes that haven’t been counted. I think those should be resolved...America’s government institutions, including the presidency, are 'strong and resilient' enough to weather the current dispute.." (Source: CNN.com Nov 29, 2000).

If that was true in 2000, when Democrats contested the election results, why is it that the mere possibility of Donald Trump and his supporters contesting the election results concerns the liberal media so much?  Do they know something the rest of us don't?

The firebombing of a Republican office in North Carolina: Fruit of the violence of disorder which results from the hatred of truth

From The Charlotte Observer: "Gov. Pat McCrory Sunday called the weekend firebombing of a North Carolina Republican headquarters 'an attack on our democracy,' while one GOP official called it an act of 'political terrorism.'  In a tweet, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump blamed 'Animals representing Hillary Clinton and Dems in North Carolina.' Hillsborough police said somebody threw a bottle of flammable liquid through the window of Orange County’s GOP headquarters, setting campaign signs, supplies and furniture ablaze before burning itself out.  A swastika and 'Nazi Republicans get out of town or else' were spray painted on the side of an adjacent building. No damage estimates were available. 'The firebombing of a local political headquarters in Orange County is clearly an attack on our democracy,' McCrory said in a statement. 'Violence has no place in our society – but especially in our elections. … I will use every resource as governor to assist local authorities in this investigation.' Hillsborough Mayor Tom Stevens said, 'This highly disturbing act goes far beyond vandalizing property; it willfully threatens our community’s safety … and its hateful message undermines decency, respect and integrity in civic participation.' Hillsborough police and the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives were continuing to investigate. The incident took place in Orange County, home of the University of North Carolina in nearby Chapel Hill. The county is overwhelmingly Democratic. Democrats and independents outnumber Republicans 5-1." Thus far, Hillary Clinton has not condemned the violence in North Carolina.  

 John McQuaid, in an article for The Huffington Post a few years back entitled "On Political Madness," wrote, "Jared Lee Loughner's motives are obscure, but it's hard to disentangle the shooting of a congresswoman, the killing of a federal judge, a 9-year-old girl, and four other people from the political culture that it occurred in, an environment of exaggerated divisions, the demonization of opponents as socialists or traitors, and a lot of gun rhetoric, gun imagery, and...guns.."  Mr. McQuaid goes on to suggest that it is "an atmosphere of exaggerated rhetoric and imagery that portrays political opponents as at best illegitimate and at worst enemies of America" which led to the violence in Tucson.

But Mr. McQuaid's thesis is simplistic.  Most of those who engage in "exaggerated rhetoric" will never pick up a gun to address their political differences.  No, the violence which erupted in Tucson and the violence we are witnessing across America today is rooted in hatred of truth.  Today there is a demand for sex without love, for a licentiousness in sex which has wrought a heartless society in which individuals do not care for anyone but themselves. The fruit of this demonic theology is the slaughter through abortion and euthanasia of human beings created in the Imago Dei. It is a theology of violence which is rooted in hatred of truth. For at the heart of immorality is falsity, the hatred of truth. Fr. Vincent P. Miceli, in an essay entitled "The Taproot of Violence," explains: "...violence entered creation from the rebellion of Lucifer. This rebellion arose from the heart of pride. But the sin of pride is the offspring of the vice known as hatred of truth. Hatred of truth is the result of the creature's attempt to rearrange God's hierarchy of beings and values into an order which the creature prefers to the plan of God. This attempt immediately produces the violence of disorder, the chaos of falsity and immorality. For hatred of truth is really hatred of God who creates all things wisely and governs them lovingly. Lucifer, the Morning Star, was instantly deformed into the Prince of Darkness because he attempted to live a lie. He wanted to dethrone God and become God himself..."

We live in an environment where there is a "violence of disorder" because we have abandoned truth.  And hatred of truth leads to violence.  It is the very root of violence.  Jesus said to the Pharisees, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own account, but he sent me.  Why do you not understand what I say?  It is because you cannot bear to hear my word.  You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires.  He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him.  When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.  But, because I tell the truth, you do not believe me." (John 8: 42-45).

It is rejection of truth which leads to violence.  And so we read in verse 59 of the same Chapter, "So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple."  If there is exaggerated rhetoric and violence across our society, it is because many have rejected God's created order.  But there is a consequence to this rejection of truth.  As Dorothy Sayers reminded us, if we will not have Christ, we will have chaos.

As one who promotes the murder of children through abortion, Hillary Clinton has embraced the violence of disorder.  Like Francis in Rome, Ms. Clinton serves the god of chaos.  And it would seem that at least some of her disciples, in their rejection of truth, are fully prepared to embrace even the tactics of domestic terrorism to further their aims.

 

 

 

The Mass Media: A Propaganda Ministry serving the Demon State and its candidate Hillary Clinton

From Real Clear Politics:



Donald Trump at a Thursday afternoon campaign rally in West Palm Beach:

DONALD TRUMP: Take a look at what is going on. They have stripped away these towns bare and rated the wealth for themselves and taken our jobs away, out of our country, never to return unless I am elected president.
The Clinton regime is at the center of this power structure. We have seen this first hand in the Wikileaks document in which Hillary Clinton meets in secret with international banks to plot the destruction of U.S. sovereignty in order to enrich these global financial powers, her special interest friends and her donors. So true.

Honestly, she should be locked up.

And likewise, the e-mails show the Clinton regime is so closely and irrevocably tied to the media organizations that she, listen to this, she is given the questions and answers in advance of her debate performance with Bernie Sanders. Hillary Clinton York Times.

They definitely do not do that for me. I can tell you. The e-mail show the reporters collaborate and inspire directly with the Clinton campaign on helping her win the election all over.

With their control over our government at stake, with trillions of dollars on the line, the Clinton machine is determined to achieve the destruction of our campaign... this has now become a great, great great movement, the likes of which our country has never been seen before. They never seen a moment like this in our country before....

It's one of the great political phenomenons. The most powerful weapon deployed by the Clintons is the corporate media, the press.

In his critically important work Man Against Mass Society, Gabriel Marcel writes, "In spite of everything that can be said to the contrary, is not the real and deep purpose of propaganda after all that of reducing men to a condition in which they lose all capacity for individual reaction? In other words, whether the men in control of propaganda intend this or not, is it not of the very nature of propaganda to degrade those whose attitudes it seeks to shape? And is it possible to be unaware of the fact that propaganda presupposes, in these men in control, a fundamental contempt for the rest of the human race? If we really attach any value at all to what a man is in himself, to his authentic nature, how can we assume the responsibility of passing him through the flattening-out machinery of propaganda?

What we ought to enquire into, however, is the nature of this contempt. There are, of course, fine shades of distinction that analysis ought to bring out: but is there any essential difference between the attitude of someone like Goebbels, for instance, and that of a chief of Communist propaganda? In both cases we are faced with a radical and cynical refusal to recognize the competence of individual judgment, an impatience with what appears, from this point of view, the intolerable presumptuousness of the individual. It is also broadly noteworthy that even the sense of truth cannot fail gradually and unconsciously to be destroyed in those who assume the task of manipulating opinion. It would require a very uncommon degree of simple-mindedness in a professional propagandist for him to remain very long convinced that his truth was the whole truth. Such simple-mindedness is only conceivable in a fanatic." (pp. 50-51).

We witness such a fanaticism in Rudolf Hess, who became deputy leader of the Third Reich, and who said: "It was granted to me for many years of my life to live and work under the greatest son whom my nation has produced in the thousand years of its history. Even if I could I would not expunge this period from my existence. I regret nothing. If I were standing once more at the beginning I should act once again as I did then, even if I knew that at the end I should be burnt at the stake. No matter what men do, I shall one day stand before the judgment seat of the Almighty. I shall answer to him, and I know that he will acquit me."

For such a fanatic, the State is beyond criticism. Its realm is utterly sacred. And even if one should have convictions which run counter to those of the State, these must be subordinated to the State. Hermann Goring expressed this belief when he said, "I have no conscience! Adolf Hitler is my conscience!" and "It is not I who live, but the Fuhrer who lives in me."

As Dusty Sklar notes, "In the suggestible state, the proselyte may attribute divine powers to his leader and accept dogmas which he might have rejected in a more normal state [see here for example]. Some of the men closest to Hitler, for example, acknowledged that they believed in his divinity. Himmler's masseur, Felix Kersten, relates that he once answered the phone and heard Hitler's voice before passing the phone on to Himmler, who exclaimed" 'You have been listening to the voice of the Fuhrer, you're a very lucky man.' Himmler told Kersten that Hitler's commands came 'from a world transcending this one.' and that they should be 'saved' by 'a figure of the greatest brilliance' which had 'become incarnate' in Hitler's person." (The Nazis and the Occult, p. 157).

Even intelligent people are not immune from the desire to conform. As Sklar notes, "We 'catch' ideas, too, because we want to be like others, particularly when we want not to be our despised selves. If we're satisfied, we don't need to conform, but if we're not, we imitate people whom we admire for having greater judgment, taste, or good fortune than we do. Obedience itself is a kind of imitation. Through conformity, the person who feels inferior is in no danger of being exposed. He's indistinguishable from the others. No one can single him out and examine his unique being. Conformity, in turn, sets him up to be further canceled out as an individual, to have no life apart from his collective purpose. This gives a movement tremendous power over the individual...Hoffer [Eric Hoffer] observes: 'Above all, he [the true believer] must never feel alone. Though stranded on a desert island, he must still feel that he is under the eyes of the group. To be cast out from the group should be equivalent to being cut off from life. This is undoubtedly a primitive state of being, and its most perfect examples are found among primitive tribes. Mass movements strive to approximate this primitive perfection, and we are not imagining things when the anti-individual bias of contemporary mass movements strikes us as a throwback to the primitive.'" (Dusty Sklar, The Nazis and the Occult, citing Eric Hoffer, p. 158).

What is a Christian [or anyone of good will] to do when faced with a mass movement which seeks to subjugate the individual to the collective? A movement which "refuses to recognize the competence of individual judgment" and to enslave all in a prison of absolute conformity to the State? The Christian must prepare himself or herself by relinquishing the fear of public opinion and to pray for the Holy Spirit's gift of Fortitude.

It was the Cure of Ars [St. Jean Vianney, patron saint of parish priests] who said: "Do not try to please everybody. Try to please God, the angels, and the saints - they are your public." To which he added: "If you are afraid of other people's opinion, you should not have become a Christian."

There is always a price to be paid for following Jesus. Those committed to their Christian faith must expect a certain amount of unpopularity. God knows I live with this unpopularity every day. So be it. What difference does this make? It was St. Gerard Majella who asked, "Who except God can give you peace? Has the world ever been able to satisfy the heart?" To which I would add: look closely at the photograph at the top of this post. Think of the masses who succumbed to Hitler's propaganda of a "thousand year Reich" which would transform the world. Were these throngs of people any happier at the end of the war? Did the world satisfy their hearts? Were these people not left with the bitter and empty taste of defeat?

What is the absolute worse the world can do to us? Why do we fear the world so much? We must recall the words of Blessed Miguel Pro, S.J., as he faced his firing squad: Viva Christo Rey! Long live Christ the King! For, as St. Paul of the Cross has told us, "The aversions that you experience, the ridicule, the scorn, the jokes, etc., should be received with great gratitude toward God. These serve as the pyre of love on which the victim of love is burned..."

The soul that gives itself completely to God can expect to be persecuted. Even killed. But what of it? We should remember the words of Jesus: "I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body but after that can do no more. I shall show you whom to fear. Be afraid of the one who after killing has the power to cast into Gehenna; yes, I tell you, be afraid of that one. Are not five sparrows sold for two small coins? Yet not one of them has escaped the notice of God. Even the hairs of your head have all been counted. Do not be afraid. You are worth more than many sparrows." (Luke 12: 4-7).

Now is the time for Christians, Conservatives and all those who value truth to rise up and take a stand against the Godless Demon State and its Propaganda Ministry, the mass media.  The MSM serves the Devil.  It serves the Demon State and its candidate, the godless Hillary Clinton. 

The mass media is comprised of manipulators, not journalists.  See here, here and here.  These stories are simply ignored by a Propaganda Ministry which will do everything in its power, including lie, to ensure a victory for Hillary Clinton.

Wikileaks: Longtime Hillary Confidante wanted to infiltrate the Catholic Church to destroy her from within

As noted here:

A newly leaked email shows Hillary Clinton’s current campaign chairman John Podesta and a Left-wing activist casually discussing fomenting “revolution” in the Catholic Church.

'There needs to be a Catholic Spring, in which Catholics themselves demand the end of a middle ages dictatorship and the beginning of a little democracy and respect for gender equality in the Catholic Church,' Sandy Newman, president and founder of the progressive nonprofit Voices for Progress, writes to Podesta in an email titled 'opening for a Catholic Spring? just musing.'"

But, as noted here, there is much more than "musing" to Hillary Clinton's goal of a Luciferic World Order. This troubled woman has been linked to the Bohemian Grove.  See here.

The Bohemian Grove and world control.

Archbishop Samuel Aquila: Voting Democrat is akin to betraying Christ

Archbishop Aquila on voting Democrat:

"Some, both in politics and in the Church, have stated that it is the Church that needs to change Her teaching to include abortion, same-sex unions and even euthanasia...Yet, in faithfulness to Jesus Christ, to the Gospel and to Sacred Tradition, the Church cannot change Her teaching on these issues without denying Christ."

Archbishop Aquila went on to slam the DNC for promoting abortion so flippantly.

"The platform is aggressively pro-abortion, not only in funding matters, but in the appointment of only those judges who will support abortion and the repealing of the Helms Amendment...which prevents the U.S. from supporting abortion availability overseas."

_____________


David Carlin was a lifelong Democrat. From 1981 to 1992, he served as a Rhode Island state senator, serving as senate majority leader in 1989 and 1990. In 1992 he was his district's Democratic candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives. For more than twenty years, Mr. Carlin has been a professor of philosophy and sociology at the Community College of Rhode Island.

In his book entitled "Can a Catholic Be a Democrat: How the Party I Loved Became the Enemy of My Religion," he writes:

"..an excuse that appeals to the 'separation of church and state' seems to be among the silliest rationales for a Catholic's support of the secularized Democratic Party. This separation, so we're told, is enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution, and it prohibits the intrusion of religion into the affairs of government. Yet the First Amendment says nothing about keeping religion out of government; it's concerned instead with keeping government out of religion. Its two religion 'clauses' say (1) that there will be no 'establishment of religion' and (2) that there will be no interference with the 'free exercise' of religion. That's it: government must keep its hands off religion; nothing about religion keeping its hands off government.

However, it should be considered that in writing the religion section of the First Amendment, the framers were no doubt remembering the history of England and how the government of that nation, from the time of Henry VIII until what was then the present day (the 1780's), established a national religion and interfered with the free exercise of dissenting religions. This was a case of government controlling religion, but at the same time it was a case of religion controlling government. That is to say, government persecuted, or at least discriminated against, all religions other than the Church of England, but one of the main reasons it did so was because the Church of England, both through its bishops and its lay members, had tremendous influence over government (only members of the Church of England could serve in Parliament or government). In other words, in its competition with other churches, not to mention its competition with outright infidelity, the Church of England used government to put down the church's rivals.

This is the kind of thing people, many of them Catholics, have in mind when they say that advocating laws against abortion or same-sex marriage violates the principle of separation of church and state. They fear that an alliance of conservative churches might someday gain enough governmental power to impose religious values on everybody else, non-believers included. This is what they mean when they speak, as they often do, of the looming danger of 'theocracy.' Behind the moral-conservative political activism of Christian churches they see would-be theocrats, or 'dominionists,' who want to take over America, stamp out abortion, subjugate women, drive homosexuals back into the closet, and enact other items allegedly on the agenda of the Religious Right. Yet this would be clearly un-American, violating the philosophical, religious, and moral pluralism that has long been, and should be, characteristic of the United States.

One obvious and oft-given answer is this: few liberals have made similar objections to the modern civil-rights movement, which was in large measure inspired by religion and based on churches. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Protestant minister - even, it might be said, a Christian martyr. Are the objectors ready to say that the great legislative fruits of this religio-political movement, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, are illegitimate, that they're instances of the imposition of theocratic values? Will they say that the spirit of American 'pluralism' demanded that the pro-segregation values of the KKK and other racists should have been respected? Of course not. And so it appears that what's at stake for these people isn't a matter of principle (separation of church and state) but a matter of policy. Some policies they like )e.g., civil rights legislation), and some they dislike (e.g., laws restricting abortion). A religion-driven politics is okay when it produces laws they like, but it's very naughty when it produces laws they don't like. And so we may conclude (may we not?) that all this talk about the separation of church and state is nothing but dust they throw in people's eyes." (Can a Catholic Be a Democrat: How the Party I Loved Became the Enemy of My Religion, pp. 129-131, Sophia Institute Press, 2006).

Pope Benedict XVI has spoken clearly enough. And he has condemned "gay marriage" and abortion as "among the most insidious and dangerous challenges" to society. The Democratic Party advances both.

And so the political party which advances a Luciferic agenda will stop at nothing to destroy a political candidate who stands in their way.  Donald Trump may be a flawed person, but he doesn't advance an agenda to murder unborn children.  And, although he has engaged in inappropriate and offensive talk regarding women in the past, for which he has apologized, Barack Obama has done the same and has never apologized.  See here.

And Hillary Clinton has enabled her husband to abuse women for years, not just engage in offensive commentary.  See here and here.

Make no mistake, the Democrats and certain RINOs are not really concerned about Trump's comments made years ago.  If they really had a respect for women they would not have tolerated a serial womanizer and rapist in the White House for two terms.  If they had an authentic respect for women, they would have denounced Barack Obama's comments about a woman's anatomy and his remark, directed at Sarah Palin, that one can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig.

If these hypocrites were concerned about women, they would not advance abortion, which kills innocent children while scarring the mother physically, emotionally and, most significantly, spiritually.

The Democratic Party is the Devil's Party.  Mr. Trump may be a flawed person.  But there's no evidence, from what I've seen, that he is demon infested like the sick individuals who view killing children as "quality health care."

Hillary Clinton: Christians are irredeemable

Daily Caller reports:

"Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton said Friday that 50 percent of Donald Trump supporters are nothing more than a 'basket of deplorables,' which means she considers about 25 percent of America to be 'irredeemable.'

'To just be grossly generalistic, you can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables,' Clinton said, according to CNN. 'Right? Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, you name it.'

Numerous polls have put Trump’s support numbers at around 45 percent. Half that is 22.5 percent–the exact slice of America with which Clinton seems to have a serious problem.

'And unfortunately, there are people like that and he has lifted them up,' Clinton added. 'He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people, now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets offensive, hateful, mean-spirited rhetoric.'

Is there any doubt that Hillary Clinton has a problem with Christians who take their Faith seriously?  Christians who oppose homosexuality because of God's Revelation are "deplorable," "homophobic," and "irredeemable."  Such people are not part of America for Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton is the textbook example of a fanatic. In his work of critical importance entitled "Man Against Mass Society," the French philosopher Gabriel Marcel writes, "..the fanatic never sees himself as a fanatic; it is only the non-fanatic who can recognize him as a fanatic; so that when this judgment, or this accusation, is made, the fanatic can always say that he is misunderstood and slandered...Fanaticism is essentially opinion pushed to paroxysm; with everything that the notion of opinion may imply of blinded ignorance as to its own nature....whatever ends the fanatic is aiming at or thinks he is aiming at, even if he wishes to gather men together, he can only in fact separate them; but as his own interests cannot lie in effecting this separation, he is led, as we have seen, to wish to wipe his opponents out.

And when he is thinking of these opponents, he takes care to form the most degrading images of them possible - they are 'lubricious vipers' or 'hyenas and jackals with typewriters' - and the ones that reduce them to most grossly material terms. In fact, he no longer thinks of these opponents except as material obstacles to be overturned or smashed down. Having abandoned the behaviour of a thinking being, he has lost even the feeblest notion of what a thinking being, outside himself, could be. It is understandable therefore that he should make every effort to deny in advance the rights and qualifications of those whom he wishes to eliminate; and that he should regard all means to this end as fair. We are back here again at the techniques of degradation." (Man Against Mass Society, pp. 135-136).

Hillary Clinton is not a unifier, she's a divider.  And her hatred of Christians, rooted in a fanatical secular humanist ideology, is manifesting itself.

The Ku Klux Klan endorses Hillary Clinton and gifts her campaign $20,000

The Gateway Pundit reports:

"Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign has received more than $20,000 in donations contributed by members of the Ku Klux Klan, a prominent member of the hate group announced earlier this year."

Ku Klux Klan leader Will Quigg has openly endorsed Hillary Clinton for president.  As reported by The Washington Times, Quigg, a California Grand Dragon for the Loyal White Nights, said that, "For the KKK, Clinton is our choice."

Small wonder given Hillary Clinton's racist comments about crime and "certain kinds of kids."

Hillary Clinton's involvement with the occult...

As noted here:

"[Hillary] Clinton’s fascination with the spiritual realm was well known during her time in the White House as First lady.

Author Bob Woodward reported in the 1990’s that Hillary Clinton held "seance' conversations with Eleanor Roosevelt and Gandhi in the White House."

Barbara Jensen, addressing Clinton's involvement with the occult in a comment left at this Blog astutely adds that, "There is a youtube video out, which I saw last night, but I do not think it is all that recent. In it Larry Nichols, who was a former prominent member of Bill Clinton's inner circle, tells the true story of Hillary's involvement with a group of women who flew to California about once a month to partake in a 'seance' with other likeminded women. It became so common for her to do this that Nichols was charged by Bill with making sure that her trips did not get out to the press. One of Hillary's staffers, who heard about Hillary's monthly jaunts to California and of what they entailed, suggested to Hillary that she accept Jesus Christ. Hillary declined. When one looks at Hillary it is as if her soul is not there. There is no core in her. Something is very wrong."

Exactly.

A demonic spirit [or spirits] can attach to a person through involvement in the occult, through hardened disobedience to Christ, Who teaches us through His Church, or from a repeated sinful action or sinful tendencies.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 2116, explains that:

"All forms of divination are to be rejected: recourse to Satan or demons, conjuring up the dead or other practices falsely supposed to "unveil" the future.Consulting horoscopes, astrology, palm reading, interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena of clairvoyance, and recourse to mediums all conceal a desire for power over time, history, and, in the last analysis, other human beings, as well as a wish to conciliate hidden powers. They contradict the honor, respect, and loving fear that we owe to God alone."

More on Hillary Clinton and her seizures

Gateway Pundit notes that Hillary Clinton's seizures continue.  As I explained in a previous post,  I believe Clinton suffers from either demonic infestation or outright possession.

An EWTN article explains that, "Recognizing the difference between a person who's possessed and a person struggling with a mental illness or other infirmity is a vital part of the ministry of exorcism, according to a long-time exorcist and priest.

Father Cipriano de Meo, who has been an exorcist since 1952, told CNA's Italian agency ACI Stampa that typically, a person is not possessed but is struggling with some other illness.

The key to telling the difference, he said, is through discernment in prayer on the part of the exorcist and the possessed – and in the potentially possessed person's reaction to the exorcist himself and the prayers being said.

The exorcist will typically say “(a) prolonged prayer to the point where if the Adversary is present, there's a reaction,” he said.

“A possessed person has various general attitudes towards an exorcist, who is seen by the Adversary as an enemy ready to fight him.”

Fr. de Meo described the unsettling reaction that a possessed person usually has, detailing a common response to the exorcist's prayer.


“There's no lack of frightening facial expressions, threatening words or gestures and other things,” he said, “but especially blasphemies against God and Our Lady.”

Blasphemies!  See here.

Did Hillary Clinton have another seizure or is something else going on? Is she devil possessed?

World Net Daily reports: "Hillary Clinton, who’s been plagued by health issues in recent months, apparently has another to deal with now.

A July 21 video posted on YouTube shows Clinton’s head suddenly turning and shaking vigorously for several seconds.

Blogger Jim Hoft of the Gateway Pundit headline it: 'Wow! Did Hillary Clinton Just Suffer a Seizure on Camera?'

'The poor woman is in worse shape than we thought,' he wrote.

In the video, Clinton’s eyes close then open and stare, but she never loses her huge smile.

She says, 'You guys have got to try this cold [drink].'

It’s not the first time health issues have arisen."

But can we be sure that Hillary Clinton is merely suffering from "health issues"?  It is my firm belief that Hillary Clinton is either demon infested or possessed by devils and that her angry speeches (screaming into a microphone as Hitler did in his speeches), her persistent cough, and her seizure-like activity, is evidence of demonic activity. See here.

Hillary Clinton has been living apart from God for her entire adult life.  Her support for abortion and sodomy, Same-Sex "Marriage," and contraception and her personal lifestyle have opened her up to demonic activity. And we are witnessing physical manifestations of this evil.

Hillary Clinton is enraged: Her push for a Luciferic World State has encountered resistance....

The Daily Mail is reporting that, "Like President Barack Obama, Clinton had favored British Prime Minister David Cameron's push for the United Kingdom to 'Remain' in the EU.

 

Voters disagreed on Thursday, setting up Britain's dramatic exit from the intercontinental partnership."

 

And this has Hillary Clinton enraged.  For she serves the agenda to install a Luciferic World State led by the man-god, the Man of Sin who will enter the world stage through the political realm. 

 

In an article published in Polish in Panorama and written by Dr. J. Coleman, a United States Intelligence officer, Dr. Coleman is quoted as having said that, "The One-World Government is going to consist of hereditary oligarchs who will divide the power between themselves. There is going to be only one legal religion and only one state church. Only Satanism and Luciferism will be the legal religious subjects in state schools. No other schools (private, Catholic, etc.) will be allowed. All present Christian education systems are going to be destroyed (and the fact is — they are destroyed in the most part) from inside, and become extinct. Satanism is already considered to be a 'true and legal religion'. In fact, in some U.S. military bases, they already celebrate black masses and worship Satan.

“There will not be any sort of personal freedom, nor sovereignty of nations, and no human rights at all. We will all become slaves. Every man who does not belong to the elite will have his own number which is going to be recorded in the main computer (the "BEAST 666" in Brussels, Belgium). For control purposes, such numbers will be easily accessible for any government agency. Data regarding children and their mothers will be kept in local government computers.

“The number of children will be limited and controlled by abortion and sterilization. There will be mind-controlling drugs, and people will be forced to take them. Euthanasia for elder people and the incurably sick will be obligatory. A minimum of four billion 'unusable bread eaters' will be terminated by planned and controlled wars, by planned mass hunger for some regions of the world (at present, Africa, South America, and Asia), and by widespread disease, causing fast death.”

 

 

This is the essence of the new anti-Christian sex education in preparation for the Moloch State. As George Kendall explains in Witness for the Truth, this sex education "radically separates sex from the very idea of the covenanted love of man and woman. Sex becomes merely a self-centered appetite to be satisfied and not a gift of self to another. As a result, what this kind of education produces is the lonely, autonomous individual. This is the ultimate in alienation. The autonomous individual is alienated even from his own body, which becomes to him only a thing, too - a thing to be used as a means to his autonomous pleasure. The end result is depersonalization which, if it lasts into eternity without being healed, means eternal loss. Few have put it as eloquently as Randy Engel did: 'Is it any wonder that the state must wage war against the family? For the state requires not individuals who dream, and think, and pray, but rather what has come to be called 'the mass man' - rootless, unaffirmed, a reactor - a mere reed blowing in the wind - a thing to be manipulated, to be used, to be disposed of, but never, never, to be loved, for the giant has no heart. And since the modern state has no heart, that which men previously have done out of love, must now be done out of fear, and hatred, and brute force.' So clearly, centemporary sex education, 'Catholic' or otherwise, is a profound attack on human dignity and on the human person.." (Witness for the Truth, pp. 399-400. citing Randy Engel "The Family Under Siege," Wanderer, March 6, 1980).

And now I would add, satanic. The United States, like the other Termite Nations of the West, is fast-becoming a Moloch State which claims total jurisdiction over man. It is becoming (and some of us would argue has already become) a demon-state which rejects God's Commandments and His plan for the human family. This demon-state (and make no mistake about it, our leaders increasingly have recourse to demons) denies that there is any transcendent, higher-than-human voice or authority that cares for man. R.J. Rushdoony explains that:

"The Moloch State simply represents the supreme effort of man to command the future, to predestine the world, and to be as God. Lesser efforts, divination, spirit-questing, magic and witchcraft are equally anathema to God. All represent efforts to have the future on other than God's terms, to have a future apart from and in defiance of God. They are assertions that the world is not of God but of brute factuality, and that man can somehow master the world and the future by going directly to the raw materials thereof."

 

 

 

Such is Hillary Clinton's notion of a paradise, a universal "village" where one is educated for Hell from cradle to grave, if not euthanized first.

In the New World Order, there will be no money for any transaction to 'buy and sell'. All sales and purchases will be done by electronic money transferred by means of biochips implanted under the skin. Any violation of a Government provision will be punished by a suspension of the usage of the biochip for a period of time. Individuals whose biochips are put on the 'black list of offenders' will not be able to buy, sale, nor get any kind of service or employment. They will be outlaws with a very slim or no chance to survive."

We are closer to this "New World Order" than many believe. Hillary Clinton, who never speaks of religious faith, is a servant of this plan.  She has spent her political career kneeling before the Devil.  And she will gladly welcome his Antichrist (and worship him) when he makes himself known.

Hillary Clinton: High Priestess for a Moloch State

LifeSite News has reported that: "Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton promised this weekend to 'defend Planned Parenthood' from Indiana’s new law banning abortion on the basis of a baby’s race, sex, or disability diagnosis.

'I will defend a woman's right to make her own health-care decisions,' said Clinton at a campaign stop Sunday.  'I’ll tell ya, I’ll defend Planned Parenthood against these attacks.  And I commend the women of this state, young and old, for standing up against this governor and this legislature.'

The law, which is scheduled to take effect on July 1, makes it illegal for doctors to knowingly abort babies because they have a disability, such as Down syndrome, or because of their race, sex, national origin, or ancestry.

Around 90% of babies diagnosed with Down syndrome in the United States are killed in the womb."

But Hillary has no problem with murdering disabled children in the womb or killing them because of their sex or race or for any reason whatsoever. 

In the same way that the Nazis waged a war against the Jewish People while denying the personhood of every Jewish person they sent to the gas chamber or placed before a firing squad, pro-death politicians like Hillary Clinton attempt to justify the killing of innocent children in the womb by asserting that these victims of genocide cannot be considered human beings until they have reached "viability," which was defined by the United States Supreme Court as that stage of fetal development when the baby is "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb [that is, can survive], albeit with artificial help." (Roe vs. Wade, U.S. Supreme Court, 1973, p. 45).

Pope John Paul II addressed this fallacious argument in his Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life):

"Some people try to justify abortion by claiming that the result of conception, at least up to a certain number of days, cannot yet be considered a personal human life. But in fact, 'from the time the ovum is fertilized, a life is begun which is neither that of the father nor the mother; it is rather the life of a new human being with his own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already. This has always been clear, and...modern genetic science offers clear confirmation. It has demonstrated that from the first instant there is established the program of what this living being will be: a person, this individual person with his characteristic aspects already well determined. Right from fertilization the adventure of a human life begins, and each of its capabilities requires time - a rather lengthy time - to find its place and to be in a position to act." (EV, No. 60).

In a feeble attempt to justify the killing of unborn children in the womb, dishonest politicians like Hillary Clinton continue to use the concept of viability as a measure of when the unborn baby is human and therefore in possession of a right to life. However, as Pope John Paul II noted in his Encyclical Letter, modern genetic science has confirmed that "from the first instant" of fertilization, "there is established the aspects the program of what this living being will be: a person.."

In fact, it is completely illogical to use viability as a measure of when the unborn baby is human because 50 years ago viability was at 30 weeks; 25 years ago it dropped to 25 weeks; and today, it is under 20 weeks. Babies are surviving earlier because of tremendous increases in the sophistication of external life support systems as well as neonatal ICU.

As a people of life, we must hold pro-death politicians like Hillary Clinton accountable for their cooperation in the genocide of abortion which has angered Our Lord Jesus and which cries out to Heaven for vengeance. We must offer reparation to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. If we do not, then a culture of death will continue to prevail in this nation and we will face the consequences of the Hell which we have silently condoned.

We must recall the words of Gabriel Marcel: "When man becomes God, then society becomes a termite colony and collapses from within."

As a High Priestess for the Moloch State, Hillary Clinton believes that women have the right to sacrifice their children to Moloch, killing them because they are the wrong sex, or race or disabled.  Imagine if this little girl had been murdered because of her disability.  There is no point in sugar-coating this: Ms. Clinton serves the Devil and her worldview is rooted in the fires of Hell.

The Psalmist tells us that, "Unless the Lord builds the house, they labor in vain who build it" (Psalm 126). This scriptural truth holds for the building of families, societies, nations, international communities and, most of all, Churches. Ignoring this immutable truth, the culture-of-death advocates are determined to create a Moloch state where the God of love is replaced by "the god of technocracy who experiments and flouts the law of love in the laboratory" (Fr. Miceli).


Having abandoned the God of love, the Supreme Creator, 21st-century man (led by servants of the Devil like Ms. Clinton) is now ready to worship himself and to usurp the divine powers of creation and destruction. In the words of Dr. Edmund Leach of King's College at Cambridge: "The scientist can now play God in his role as wonder-worker, but can he - and should he - also play God as moral arbiter?...There can be no source for these moral judgments except the scientist himself. In traditional religion, morality was held to derive from God, but God was only credited with the authority to establish and enforce moral laws because He was also credited with supernatural powers of creation and destruction. Those powers have now been usurped by man, and he must take on the moral responsibility that goes with them" (Edmund Leach, "We Scientists Have the Right to Play God," The Saturday Evening Post, November 16, 1968, p. 16).

"From man in regard to his fellow man I will demand an accounting for human life..."

INDIANAPOLIS, Indiana, May 2, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton promised this weekend to “defend Planned Parenthood” from Indiana’s new law banning abortion on the basis of a baby’s race, sex, or disability diagnosis.

“I will defend a woman's right to make her own health-care decisions,” said Clinton at a campaign stop Sunday.  “I’ll tell ya, I’ll defend Planned Parenthood against these attacks.  And I commend the women of this state, young and old, for standing up against this governor and this legislature.”
The law, which is scheduled to take effect on July 1, makes it illegal for doctors to knowingly abort babies because they have a disability, such as Down syndrome, or because of their race, sex, national origin, or ancestry.

Around 90% of babies diagnosed with Down syndrome in the United States are killed in the womb.
Investigations by the pro-life group Live Action reveal that abortion facilities in Texas, New York, Arizona, Hawaii, and North Carolina are complicit in aiding the abortions of baby girls because of their sex.

Indiana’s new law, House Bill 1137, also “prohibits an individual from acquiring, receiving, selling, or transferring fetal tissue” and requires that aborted and miscarried babies’ bodies be cremated or buried.  Under the new law, women whose babies are diagnosed with fetal anomalies must be given information about prenatal hospice care and abortionists with hospital admitting privileges must renew them annually.

“Accounts of the bodies of aborted babies being found in dumpsters, left on loading docks, and being ground up in garbage disposals in abortion facilities are being reported across the nation,” Cathie Humbarger of Indiana Right to Life testified in support of the bill.  “Indiana Code must address the respectful disposition of the bodies of babies aborted here and prevent the bodies of babies being aborted in other states from being sent to Indiana landfills.”

The American Civil Liberties Union is suing Indiana over the law, which it claims limits women’s freedom to abort babies for any reason.

“Repeatedly the U.S. Supreme Court has said that a woman may get an abortion within the first trimester for whatever reasons she deems best, based on her circumstances,” said Jane Henegar, the Executive Director of the ACLU.

Throughout the primary election, Clinton has repeatedly defended her far-left support of abortion on demand.  “We need a president who is passionate” about expanding abortion, she said in March.
The Indiana primary is Tuesday.




"Man's life comes from God; it is his gift, his image and imprint, a sharing in his breath of life. God therefore is the sole Lord of this life: man cannot do with it as he wills. God himself makes this clear to Noah after the Flood: "For your own lifeblood, too, I will demand an accounting ... and from man in regard to his fellow man I will demand an accounting for human life" (Gen 9:5). The biblical text is concerned to emphasize how the sacredness of life has its foundation in God and in his creative activity: "For God made man in his own image" (Gen 9:6).

Human life and death are thus in the hands of God, in his power: "In his hand is the life of every living thing and the breath of all mankind", exclaims Job (12:10). "The Lord brings to death and brings to life; he brings down to Sheol and raises up" (1 Sam 2:6). He alone can say: "It is I who bring both death and life" (Dt 32:39).

But God does not exercise this power in an arbitrary and threatening way, but rather as part of his care and loving concern for his creatures. If it is true that human life is in the hands of God, it is no less true that these are loving hands, like those of a mother who accepts, nurtures and takes care of her child: "I have calmed and quieted my soul, like a child quieted at its mother's breast; like a child that is quieted is my soul" (Ps 131:2; cf. Is 49:15; 66:12-13; Hos 11:4). Thus Israel does not see in the history of peoples and in the destiny of individuals the outcome of mere chance or of blind fate, but rather the results of a loving plan by which God brings together all the possibilities of life and opposes the powers of death arising from sin: "God did not make death, and he does not delight in the death of the living. For he created all things that they might exist" (Wis 1:13-14).

The sacredness of life gives rise to its inviolability, written from the beginning in man's heart, in his conscience. The question: "What have you done?" (Gen 4:10), which God addresses to Cain after he has killed his brother Abel, interprets the experience of every person: in the depths of his conscience, man is always reminded of the inviolability of life-his own life and that of others-as something which does not belong to him, because it is the property and gift of God the Creator and Father.

The commandment regarding the inviolability of human life reverberates at the heart of the "ten words" in the covenant of Sinai (cf. Ex 34:28). In the first place that commandment prohibits murder: "You shall not kill" (Ex 20:13); "do not slay the innocent and righteous" (Ex 23:7). But, as is brought out in Israel's later legislation, it also prohibits all personal injury inflicted on another (cf. Ex 21:12-27). Of course we must recognize that in the Old Testament this sense of the value of life, though already quite marked, does not yet reach the refinement found in the Sermon on the Mount. This is apparent in some aspects of the current penal legislation, which provided for severe forms of corporal punishment and even the death penalty. But the overall message, which the New Testament will bring to perfection, is a forceful appeal for respect for the inviolability of physical life and the integrity of the person. It culminates in the positive commandment which obliges us to be responsible for our neighbour as for ourselves: "You shall love your neighbour as yourself" (Lev 19:18).

The commandment "You shall not kill", included and more fully expressed in the positive command of love for one's neighbour, is reaffirmed in all its force by the Lord Jesus. To the rich young man who asks him: "Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?", Jesus replies: "If you would enter life, keep the commandments" (Mt 19:16,17). And he quotes, as the first of these: "You shall not kill" (Mt 19:18). In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus demands from his disciples a righteousness which surpasses that of the Scribes and Pharisees, also with regard to respect for life: "You have heard that it was said to the men of old, ?You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment'. But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment" (Mt 5:21-22).

By his words and actions Jesus further unveils the positive requirements of the commandment regarding the inviolability of life. These requirements were already present in the Old Testament, where legislation dealt with protecting and defending life when it was weak and threatened: in the case of foreigners, widows, orphans, the sick and the poor in general, including children in the womb (cf. Ex 21:22; 22:20-26). With Jesus these positive requirements assume new force and urgency, and are revealed in all their breadth and depth: they range from caring for the life of one's brother (whether a blood brother, someone belonging to the same people, or a foreigner living in the land of Israel) to showing concern for the stranger, even to the point of loving one's enemy." (Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life) Nos. 39-41).

The sexual morality popular in the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah brought them to complete and utter destruction.  Today we are building a New Sodom, a Moloch State which offers not law and justice but an oppressive demonic order which claims total jurisdiction over man and defies God and His plan for humanity.  So it is no surprise that many politicians such as Hillary Clinton openly promote both abortion and same-sex "marriage." Rousas Rushdoony exposes the nature of the demonic Moloch State which so many politicians now willingly serve:

"The Moloch state simply represents the supreme effort of man to command the future, to predestine the world, and to be as God.  Lesser efforts, divination, spirit-questing, magic and witchcraft are equally anathema to God.  All represent efforts to have the future on other than God's terms, to have a future apart from and in defiance of God.  They are assertions that the world is not of God but of brute factuality, and that men can somehow master the world and the future by going directly to the raw materials thereof."
The Devil seduces men through the deceitful tactics of pseudo-saviors.  And ours is a perverse age in which many pseudo-saviors pretend to offer liberation through sex without love, violence and drug abuse as well as the occult.  As Fr. Miceli, S.J., warned: "In the name of its new secular gods, Progress and Liberty, titles that are false fronts for Rebellion and Licentiousness, many formerly Christian nations are driving their sons and daughters through the demonic fires of sacrificial murder.  Thus..so-called Christian nations, having legalized abortion and while preparing to legalize euthanasia, have become Moloch states."

 

Hillary Clinton: We don't need to hear from a Catholic priest

LifeSite News is reporting that, "Hillary Clinton's pledge to 'defend' abortion-on-demand and support Planned Parenthood won her a rousing response at a Democratic town hall event in New Hampshire on Wednesday - but not everyone was applauding.

A viral video shows a priest in a clerical collar shaking his head in disagreement as Clinton says, 'We’re going to defend a woman’s right to make her own health care decisions. We’re going to defend Planned Parenthood.'

'We're going to defend marriage equality and end discrimination against LGBT Americans,' she continues. 'And we're going to take on the gun lobby.'

The clergyman, who confirmed he is a Roman Catholic priest in New Hampshire but did not wish for his name to be revealed, told The Blaze that he disagreed with Clinton's views on abortion..."

And when this same priest wanted to ask Hillary Clinton a ququestion, he was prevented from doing so.  Is anyone really surprised by this?  Ms. Clinton isn't interested in authentic freedom. She has an agenda and will not tolerate views which contradict her own.

In his Encyclical Letter Redemptoris Missio (The Mission of the Redeemer), Pope John Paul II said that, "The Church proposes; she imposes nothing." (No. 39). Such was the teaching of Vatican II: "The Church strictly forbids forcing anyone to embrace the faith, or alluring or enticing people by worrisome wiles. By the same token, she also strongly insists on this right, that no one be frightened away from the faith by unjust vexations on the part of others." (Ad Gentes, No. 13). And Dignitatis Humanae, No. 10 teaches that: "It is one of the major tenets of Catholic doctrine that man's response to God in faith must be free: no one therefore is to be forced to embrace the Christian faith against his own will. This doctrine is contained in the word of God and it was constantly proclaimed by the Fathers of the Church. The act of faith is of its very nature a free act. Man, redeemed by Christ the Savior and through Christ Jesus called to be God's adopted son, cannot give his adherence to God revealing Himself unless, under the drawing of the Father, he offers to God the reasonable and free submission of faith. It is therefore completely in accord with the nature of faith that in matters religious every manner of coercion on the part of men should be excluded. In consequence, the principle of religious freedom makes no small contribution to the creation of an environment in which men can without hindrance be invited to the Christian faith, embrace it of their own free will, and profess it effectively in their whole manner of life."

But while the Church respects freedom of conscience and shuns any form of coercion, our Holy Father reminds us that, "We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one's own ego and desires.
We, however, have a different goal: the Son of God, the true man. He is the measure of true humanism. An "adult" faith is not a faith that follows the trends of fashion and the latest novelty; a mature adult faith is deeply rooted in friendship with Christ. It is this friendship that opens us up to all that is good and gives us a criterion by which to distinguish the true from the false, and deceit from truth."

This dictatorship of relativism seeks to impose its immoral agenda on Christians in the name of "tolerance." But this "tolerance" is a sham. It is simply an attempt to make an idol out of a false conception of freedom. Again, our Holy Father explains that, "..what clearly stands behind the modern era's radical demand for freedom is the promise: You will be like God...The implicit goal of all modern freedom movements is, in the end, to be like a god, dependent on nothing and nobody, with one's own freedom not restricted by anyone else's...The primeval error of such a radically developed desire for freedom lies in the idea of a divinity that is conceived as being purely egotistical. The god thus conceived of is, not God, but an idol, indeed, the image of what the Christian tradition would call the devil, the anti-god, because therein lies the radical opposite of the true God: the true God is, of his own nature, being-for (Father), being-from (Son), and being-with (Holy Spirit). Yet man is in the image of God precisely because the being-for , from, and with constitute the basic anthropological shape. Whenever people try to free themselves from this, they are moving, not toward divinity, but toward dehumanizing, toward the destruction of being itself through the destruction of truth. The Jacobin variant of the idea of liberation...is a rebellion against being human in itself, rebellion against truth, and that is why it leads people - as Sartre percipiently observed - into a self-contradictory existence that we call hell. It has thus become fairly clear that freedom is linked to a yardstick, the yardstick of reality - to truth*. Freedom to destroy oneself or to destroy others is not freedom but a diabolical parody. The freedom of man is a shared freedom, freedom in a coexistence of other freedoms, which are mutually limiting and thus mutually supportive: freedom must be measured according to what I am, what we are - otherwise it abolishes itself."

In the name of "tolerance," the New World Order seeks to impose its rebellion from truth on all. It will not tolerate any dissent, any disagreement. Coercion is an acceptable tool in a dictatorship. Soon, the New Order will use violence to achieve its goals and not just coercion and propaganda. In the end, every dictatorship must rely on violence in its vain attempt to hold onto power.

Is there really any doubt that Ms. Clinton would shrink from such violence?

Hillary Clinton on the Confederate Flag

As noted here, Hillary Clinton has said that the Confederate Flag is a symbol of our racist past and shouldn't fly anywhere.

In the light of her comments, what must we make of the photograph below which hasn't been photoshopped?

If the Confederate Flag is to be deemed offensive as depicted on the roof of a car (the General Lee) on a television sitcom (The Dukes of Hazard), how then should its placement on the bookshelf of a presidential candidate be interpreted?

Related reading here.

Brian Williams and Hillary Clinton have demonstrated their contempt for the American people

The New Orleans Advocate reports:

"NBC News anchor Brian Williams, who apologized on the air Wednesday night for lying about an experience covering the Iraq War, is now facing scrutiny over his gripping accounts of Hurricane Katrina, the disaster that burnished his nightly news bona fides almost a decade ago.

Williams’ account of seeing a body float by in the French Quarter — which remained largely dry — and even a claim of catching dysentery from drinking Katrina floodwaters have raised eyebrows among bloggers and elsewhere since he took it on the chin this week over a claim that he rode in a helicopter that was downed by a rocket-propelled grenade in Iraq."

Jesse Walker, at his Hit and Run Blog, recalls a story which some of us conservatives remember all too well. He notes that, "Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said on [March 25, 2008, that] she made a mistake when she claimed she had come under sniper fire during a trip to Bosnia in 1996 while she was first lady.

In a speech in Washington and in several interviews last week Clinton described how she and her daughter, Chelsea, ran for cover under hostile fire shortly after her plane landed in Tuzla, Bosnia.

Several news outlets disputed the claim, and a video of the trip showed Clinton walking from the plane, accompanied by her daughter. They were greeted by a young girl in a small ceremony on the tarmac and there was no sign of tension or any danger.

"I did make a mistake in talking about it, you know, the last time and recently," Clinton told reporters in Pennsylvania where she was campaigning before the state's April 22 primary. She said she had a "different memory" about the landing.

In her speech, Clinton had claimed: "I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."

Lying to promote one's own image and to manipulate others.  And this from two individuals who spend their lives in the pursuit of influencing public opinion.

In Man Against Mass Society, Gabriel Marcel writes, "In spite of everything that can be said to the contrary, is not the real and deep purpose of propaganda after all that of reducing men to a condition in which they lose all capacity for individual reaction? In other words, whether the men in control of propaganda intend this or not, is it not of the very nature of propaganda to degrade those whose attitudes it seeks to shape? And is it possible to be unaware of the fact that propaganda presupposes, in these men in control, a fundamental contempt for the rest of the human race? If we really attach any value at all to what a man is in himself, to his authentic nature, how can we assume the responsibility of passing him through the flattening-out machinery of propaganda?

What we ought to enquire into, however, is the nature of this contempt. There are, of course, fine shades of distinction that analysis ought to bring out: but is there any essential difference between the attitude of someone like Goebbels, for instance, and that of a chief of Communist propaganda? In both cases we are faced with a radical and cynical refusal to recognize the competence of individual judgment, an impatience with what appears, from this point of view, the intolerable presumptuousness of the individual. It is also broadly noteworthy that even the sense of truth cannot fail gradually and unconsciously to be destroyed in those who assume the task of manipulating opinion. It would require a very uncommon degree of simple-mindedness in a professional propagandist for him to remain very long convinced that his truth was the whole truth. Such simple-mindedness is only conceivable in a fanatic." (pp. 50-51).

But fanaticism is precisely what we find in the Democratic Party and those liberals who pretty much dominate every corner of the mainstream media which long ago buried any remains of journalistic integrity and objectivity.

This is nothing less than a moral tragedy. When communicating with others, we all have certain responsibilities.  For example, we all have a responsibility to submit ourselves to truth when communicating.  Dr. Germain Grisez explains that, “As creatures, human persons are utterly dependent on God.  Their freedom and action presuppose realities whose meaning and value cannot be changed.  Therefore, human fulfillment requires knowing and conforming to the truth, and especially to the truth about what is good.  But since genuine community is cooperation in seeking common fulfillment, it depends on submission to truth. Consequently, since all parties to communication should be open to genuine community, they should submit themselves to truth.  The alternative is pursuing what they want regardless of truth, caring about no common good beyond themselves, and so, while using means of communication, failing to promote genuine community.”

This is exactly what Brian Williams and Hillary Clinton have shown.  They care not so much for the common good as they do for their own good and their desire to control and manipulate others.