A Closer Look At John Podesta

John Podesta is currently directing Hillary's election campaign.  A little while ago we learned that he founded two fake "Catholic groups" to facilitate a "Catholic spring".  Here's an anthology of previous posts.  New information has come out.  Since this fellow seems to be poised to assume a position of influence in a (God forbid!) Hillary administration, it would behoove us to take a closer look at him.

I'll post below an expose that was just released yesterday, detailing not only his career but that of his brother, Tony Podesta.  They have worked together for some time.  There has been some talk of WikiLeaks revealing his connection with a "spirit dinner".  In fact, he was invited to one such event via his brother.  I don't think there's evidence that he actually attended, but his brother seems to be linked with it.  Since he and his brother are closely associated, it bears mention that his brother could be tied up with occultic practices.

Now the expose..

From The Niggers Of The New Age Department - Two Katholyc Lap-Dog Groups For Hillary

Last week we learned from WikiLeaks that John Podesta helped establish two faux-Catholic groups to usher what he called a "Catholic spring".  Those two outfits are Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good.  We've known for a long time that these two groups are inimical to the One True Faith.

Church Militant dug out an expose they did six years ago on these two outfits and others.  I agree that the material therein needs to be reviewed.  Just bear in mind that this video was made while Benedict XVI still occupied the papal throne.  I'm linking to my six-year old post as it has other relevant links.  At the time I wrote it, the expose hadn't been put in youtube format; since then it has, allowing me to post it below.

Who's On A Kamikaze Mission?

I link now to an article by Father Marcel Guarnizo that is published today on Townhall.com entitled "Donald Trump's Kamikaze Mission".  He's written before regarding his opposition to Trump.  I do want to remind my readers that it was Father Guarnizo who, four years ago at my parish in the Archdiocese of Washington, withheld Holy Communion to a practicing lesbian.

That said, I'm frankly taken aback at Father's characterizations of Trump: "clinical", "narcissistic", "needs a therapist", etc.  I admit they are opinions shared by many, but they are merely that: opinions.  I've yet to hear of any body-count associated with Trump as we hear of Hillary's (which seems to be in a state of growth these days).

He put forth the following analogy in an attempt to illustrate the choices of Hillary versus Trump that now face us.  "If someone at a dinner gathering requires a ride home and the only two available drivers are both drunk, the moral determination is clearly not to try and determine who is less intoxicated, and assign that poor fellow to do the driving. All that is required is to be aware that neither can drive and therefore you must not give the responsibility to either one."  The analogy is quite faulty.  In the dinner case, the rider has the option of not accepting a ride from either one of them.  We as a nation have no such option.  Either Trump or Hillary will go to the White House.  We as a nation will have one of the two drivers and no one else.  We either choose which one it will be, or the choice will be made for us by those who do bother to go to the polls.

Later he makes the following statement: "Morally I submit, only one determination is necessary: Is a candidate fit, qualified for the office of president of the United States? I argue it is unreasonable (and therefore immoral), to cast a vote for anyone blatantly unfit for the office. It matters little who is more unqualified."  That last sentence is incorrect.  Elections are about choices.  That means the voter weighs one candidate versus another, comparing their strengths and weaknesses of one to those of the other.  It really does matter who is more qualified or unqualified, particularly when one or the other will win.

The article was released today.  It could very well have been submitted to Townhall before the WikiLeaks revelations came out that told us just what Hillary and company intend for faithful Catholics.  I cannot believe that Father would blithely ignore this development.  At any rate, I haven't the time to rehash arguments that I've been making about this election for months now.  Please go back and read those posts for memory refreshers.

The Vaporous Principles Of Some Third Party Candidates

We've all come across good people who are disappointed in the selection of candidates  - Trump and Clinton to be specific.  Most of them voice their displeasure regarding Trump with scarcely a word for Clinton.  While I find that odd I'll leave that aside for the moment.

Some have stated their intentions to vote for a third-party candidate such as Tom Hoefling or Darrell Castle.  Why?  Because they "are principled unlike Trump". 

Really?  Are these third-party guys as "principled" as they portray themselves?  Think about what they are doing and the realistic impact of their actions.  Unless they are suffering delusions of grandeur, they know they haven't a prayer (literally) of garnering a decent showing let alone winning the election.  They have to realize that the few votes they'll get would have gone to Trump but for their candidacies.  Of course anyone with a modicum of common sense will understand that this would only make easier Clinton's bid for the White House.  Again I don't believe they'll garner that many votes, but since this will probably be a close election, every vote counts.  Consider that in 1960,  JFK defeated Nixon by a margin of less than one vote per precinct.

Either they really believe they have a shot at the White House or they don't care what their diversion of votes will do.  Therefore in the first case they haven't the intellectual acumen to hold the office of the US presidency or they really don't have the nation's best interests at heart.

I think it's the latter.  So what's driving their stunts?  Is it some sort of ego trip, self aggrandizement or even some, uh, "financial incentive"?  It's hard to say, and it probably doesn't matter.  Suffice it to say that their blithe disregard for the consequences of their actions causes me to look askance upon these so-called "principles" of theirs'.

I'm not opposed at all to the concept of a third party.  However, if a third party is to have any success, they have to start from the bottom up. They need to win lots of local offices then move up to Congress.  For any third party to go straight for the presidency is at best a publicly stunt; in today's circumstances it could have disastrous consequences for the nation.

If a third party does get off the ground, they better not float the above-mentioned individuals as candidates.  In their reckless pretensions for the presidency, they have demonstrated to me that they are utterly undeserving of public trust.

Father Imbarrato On The Necessity Of Voting For Trump

Below I'm posting a recent homily given by Father Imbarrato of Priests for Life.  He is indeed a "protest priest" spending many hours outside the new Two Rivers Planned Parenthood abortion mill in NE Washington.  Please listen closely to this homily.  Thanks to the Johnson Amendment (the amendment that he praises Trump for promising to eliminate), he cannot name Trump nor Clinton explicitly, but one would have to be incredibly dense not to understand his meanings.

Some might think he's addressing those Catholics who would be so stupid and callous as to vote for Hillary, but I think his words could just as well apply to the #nevertrump crowd: those who plan to vote "third party" or not vote at all.

A few days ago one of my facebook friends stated his opinion that his conscience was bothered by Trump and he was considering voting for Johnson (libertarian) although the latter is pro-abortion.  I objected, of course.  In the interest of not repeating myself, I posted links to several of the blog posts that I've written in recent weeks regaarding this particular election.  For my trouble, one of my friend's other friends engaged in ad hominems, calling me a "nutcase".  My friend rebuked him and some time later the attacks disappeared from his page.

I mention this because I suspect at the heart of the #nevertrump movement, emotion reigns at the expense of logic and reason.  When I broach principles of Catholic moral theology to these people, I'm largely ignored, signifying to me that #nevertrumpers are threatened when asked to see if their stances actually square with Church teaching.  Others simply carry on as that man cited in the preceding paragraph albeit not nearly so rudely.

As I mentioned previously, a couple of mental anomalies in the #nevertrump mindset are really quite bizarre:

• Acknowledging the fact that Hillary will win should they get their way, and welcoming that outcome, opining that "our nation needs to be punished".  I suppose they haven't a care about the babies who will be murdered should she attain the White House.
• Somehow dreaming that Trump and Clinton are morally equivalent.  Leaving aside the obvious differences of policy statements that they've both made, let's look at Hillary's track history.  She allowed the four men to die at Benghazi.  She probably caused many more deaths with her sloppy handling of classified emails.  There have been a number of former associates and others connected with her that have "mysteriously" died over the past several months.  Can anything remotely similar be uttered about Trump?
• Many of these #nevertrumpers are quite blithe in assuming that our country would survive four years under Hillary, not considering that during these past eight years the fabric of our republic has been weakened and mutated almost beyond recognition.  While I might hope they'd be correct I'm not making that brash assumption.  They fail to consider that they are gambling with their children's futures.

In the video below, Father refers to an interview given by Cardinal Burke; I wrote a piece on it that gives a few more details of the Cardinal's words.  Father also cites paragraphs 2239-2240 of the Catechism.  On the right side bar of this blog is a link to the Catechism.  Please refer to this also.  Please also pass word of this video along to your other contacts.  Thank you.

Hillary Faints At 9-11 Commemoration

While the mainstream media (for the most part) is poo-pooing what happened earlier today, internet news outlets are abuzz at what took place earlier today.  See Gateway Pundit.  Even some of the mainstream media who retain some vestige of journalistic integrity are admitting that Clinton's health is an issue.  Below is a youtube that I'd suggest you watch.  This was captured by a non-media person, as mainstream media was prevented from approaching.  I'd also suggest that you pass word along and to download this video to your own machines in case something should (ahem!) "happen" to it.  Her health is just one of many reasons why she is not fit to be President of the United States.

#Nevertrumpers - Channelling The Petulancy Of Jonah

Most people are aware that Jonah is the prophet who spent a few days inside a whale's belly, but that is just one part of the story.  To understand this post, you will want to grab a Bible and read the book of Jonah.  It's not a long read, and quite interesting.

During a facebook discussion, I asked a rather adamant #nevertrumper if his conscience would allow him to do anything that would ease the way for Hillary to ascend to the White House, since he professed to be Christian and pro-life.  He replied "yes, because our nation needs to be punished."  Let that sink in, for I think his attitude is quite pervasive among the #nevertrumpers.

Now let's go back to Jonah.  After some initial rebellion, Jonah does go to Ninevah and proclaims "yet forty days more and Ninevah shall be destroyed".  After that, he goes to the hill and sits there, waiting for Ninevah to be destroyed.  From the Bible, it appears that Ninevah's conversion and repentance was rather immediate, so it's hard to imagine that Jonah was unaware of it.  When Day 40 had come and gone and Ninevah still stood, Jonah was quite displeased.  Was his disappointment rooted in the fact that what he said to the Ninevites did not occur?  Did Jonah entertain a "holier than thou" attitude against the Ninevites (forgetting his own prior rebellion)?

When I saw that facebook reply, my first thought is that "this guy is channelling Jonah in all his small-minded vindictiveness".  But I see hints of that in many of the prattlings of the #nevertrumpers, from their cavalier disregard of the consequences of denying Trump their votes to the outright vindictiveness and self-righteousness displayed by my facebook opponent.  They really don't have the good of the nation at heart; they'd rather be proven "right" than have the tide of evil at least slowed down in the country.  Perhaps that's why they spend so much time railing against Trump while scarcely uttering a peep regarding Clinton.

I don't think my facebook opponent is Catholic so it would have been pointless to invoke principles of Catholic moral theology.  Those principles would have made plain the inherent sinfulness of his attitude, and I'm thinking primarily of the principle of double effect.  One of those principles is that evil cannot directly be willed; I'm speaking of allowing the havoc of a Hillary presidency to "punish the nation", and that punishment is most likely not even a good in and of itself.  Hillary is on record of declaring that "relgious beliefs have to be changed" to accomodate baby-murder and other sins.  Sounds outlandish?  Consider what is happening in Massachusetts.  Under a Clinton presidency, we can be very certain this  will spread nation-wide, as she bestows upon Christians the status of "niggers of the new age".  (To those squeemish about that term, why not? We're already in a "basket of deplorables"!)

I've made my position before in this post (and others, see links) that to deny a vote to Trump is immoral.  I posted the episode above to get a glimmer as to what makes these #nevertrump people tick.  It certainly isn't reason and logic.  For many of them, certainly for the person quoted above, it most likely isn't good will.

Archdiocese of Washington's El Pregonero Shilling For Hillary

The Archdiocese of Washington has two periodicals: Catholic Standard and El Pregonero.  The latter's ostensible purpose is to serve the needs of Hispanic Catholics within the archdiocese.  It seems these Catholics are being ill-served.

It was pointed out to me that an article in today's edition is shilling for Clinton based on her policies for fomenting illegal immigration.  Completely lacking in this article is any mention of her promotion of baby-murder.  Bear in mind this is an official publication of the Archdiocese of Washington.  If you (like me) don't read Spanish, there is a site that will translate for you; it's www.worldlingo.com.  There are probably others as well.

I've been told that there may be other articles within the publication that also serve to drum up support for Hillary.  In a publication that ostensibly serves the Catholic Church, this is completely unacceptable.  Hitherto they have gotten away from it for they have escaped the scrutiny of us bloggers who are English-speaking.  No longer.  Like their English-speaking counterparts at the Catholic Standard, they will be held to scrutiny by Catholic bloggers.  Hey - if the DC chancery refuses to do its job, I suppose it's up to us laity to take up their slack and combat the errors and heresies that flow from supposedly Catholic publications.

Cardinal Burke Weighs In On Responsible Catholic Voting

Yesterday LifeSiteNews relayed the proceeds of a teleconference with Cardinal Burke, in which they participated.  His Eminence gave some very cogent suggestion to Catholics and people of good will regarding the upcoming presidential elections.  I'll highlight and elaborate on a few salient points from the LSN article.

• "The faithful must vote for the candidate who will do the most to advance the protection of human life, defense of the family, respect for freedom, and care for the poor."  Note the imperative "must".  Now cannot that be said for some third-party candidate?  No - simply because he/she will not get elected.  There are only two viable candidates: Clinton and Trump.  Whether or not we like that situation is irrelevant.  It is what it is.  We need to deal with reality as it presents itself, not as we might wish it to be.
• "Burke warned Catholics against not voting at all and against the practice of writing in the name of a preferred candidate on the ballot, saying it could inadvertently cause the election of a candidate who does not respect life, family, and freedom."
• "Those are difficult considerations, and I don’t say any of this in a kind of easy way. But I do think that Catholics especially need to be very cautious and not simply opting out, or good pro-life people and good pro-family people, simply just throwing up their hands."

In that last point, His Eminence addresses the spiritual and intellectual malaise that has deluded many, if not most, of the #nevertrump crowd.  It is that malaise that seems to have caused Alan Keyes to blather on like Cokie Roberts - and he's only one of several.

Regular readers of this blog will recall that I've put forth the case that not only is it moral to vote for Trump during this election, but not to do so would be immoral.  It seems that Cardinal Burke's words corroborate my understanding of the moral theology as it pertains to this particular presidential race.

Why Resist Examination Of Voting Through Catholic Moral Theology?

The post prior to this deals with the matter of examining this election in light of Catholic moral teaching.  A comment to that post seems to take exception to what I wrote.  One line stands out, citing "an erroneous use of Catholic doctrine to try and put pressure on people to vote for Trump".  Would it be an erroneous use of Catholic doctrine to pursuade people not to vote for Hillary?  This question of mine is not merely rhetorical, especially since Hillary has chosen a pro-abortion Catholic as her running mate and will be likely to snag the votes of many liberal Catholics as did Obama.

This election is not the first one in which "purer than thou" misguided Catholics have decided to shirk their civic duties and stay home, not accepting that the GOP candidates, while far from perfect, were many times more preferable to their rabidly anti-God Democratic opponents.  Long-time readers of this blog will recall that I attempted, during those times, to examine that stance, and voting in general, through the lens of Catholic moral theology.  I've no doubt that my attempts may well have contained some mistakes, but to the best of my knowledge, I was the only one who attempted such examination  - at least openly.

Common sense dictates that matters such as exercise of the voting right/responsibility are so weighty as to warrant such examination and discussion.  I realize that many clergy might be inclined to shy away from it for fear of jeopardizing that all-too-important "c3" status.  By the way: did we all pick up what Trump said about repealing that onorous Johnson amendment?

Therefore I was delighted to see Father West's post on facebook - the one I copied into my Wednesday post.  Father Guarnizo believes that Father West's logic was "atrocious" but cited no reasons for his assertion.  I for one find no problem with Father West's reasoning, and it seems other commenters agree.  I'm grateful to Father West for taking a stab at looking at this election through the lens of moral theology.

As far as using doctrine to pursue a Trump vote, might it simply be that the application of Catholic moral principles make the truly moral course of action to be as plain and clear as the nose on one's face?  Sometimes there is only one moral path to take, leaving no "wiggle room".  To those who balk at such a suggestion, I can only say "tough tiddly-winks".  The situation is what it is.  Deal with it.

For those #nevertrump folks who still insist on digging in their heels and denying reality, I now link to some food for thought by Gerard Nadal.  If this shoe fits, please amend that.

The Push To Marginalize Christians Grows More Blatant

Johns Hopkins University, long known for its rabid political correctness, has just made known its disdain for Christians who adhere to the Teachings of Jesus Christ.  The Student Government Association just voted to ban Chick-Fil-A from the JHU campus, despite the opinions of a large part of the student body.  Of course the reason is that the SGA disapproves the Catheys' obedience to the true nature of marriage.  The SGA went so far as to call the presence of the eatery a form of "micro-aggression" to the JHU LGBTUVWXYZ (did I miss any letters?) population.

"Micro-aggression"!  I never knew that word existed.  It really doesn't.  It's just some pathetic attempt to twist the language to excuse the bigotry against conservatives on the JHU campus.  Are the perverts and their supporters such whiny, delicate little snowflakes that they'd feel "aggressed upon" by the presence of a restaurant?  Unless they were being forced to patronize the establishment at gunpoint, I see no excuse for such sniveling.

Andrew Guernsey, a junior at JHU and president of that campus' Voice For Life, wrote an article about the dismal anti-Christian bigotry displayed by the SGA; it is in the National Review.  Please read it here.  He's right.  It is a witch-hunt.  This time it's the witches that are doing the hunting, which brings me to the next example of Christians being marginalized.

Not only are we being targeted for our adherence to truth regarding marriage, but we are also being targeted for our defense of unborn children.  This bigotry is being shamelessly displayed by Hillary Clinton, a Democratic candidate for US President.  Correctly recognizing that Christians will not sit back and allow babies to be murdered without a struggle, she made some rather blatant declarations yesterday as she spoke at the Women in the World Summit in New York City.  She said, "deep-seated religious beliefs around the world have to be changed to promote critical access to reproductive health care." (italics mine)  Really?  Says who?  Who will be doing this "changing"?  How does she propose to accomplish this "change"?  Remember!  She wants to be President of the United States!  In other words, she wants to be our empress, and relegate Christians to de facto ghettos.  This link will take you to a video of her remarks.

Clinton's remarks are identical to those found in the New York Times several weeks ago.  Frank Bruni wrote an op-ed piece that clearly states his opinion that those who hold to Biblical standard of morality have no place at the American table.  I link also to Breitbart's analysis of this screed.  Bruni's pig-slop is in a major newspaper (well, not so major it seems.  The NYT has been losing readership as they lose credibility, but I digress!)

Ladies and gentlemen, these moves are just a few precursors to Kristalnacht.  Before some pollyannas protest that these incidents don't amount to that event, read your history.  The persecution of the Jews did not start with the violence of that one night.  It started slowly and in low-key fashions (such as what we're seeing now) and gradually but unmistakably increased in both frequency and intensity, culminating not only in Kristalnacht but the Nazi death camps.  Not only can it happen here, but the process is well underway.  I will link to an article written by Msgr Charles Pope that outlines "The Five Stages Of Religious Persecution".  These stages are commonplace today.

How long will the pollyannas bury their heads in the dirt?  Can any sane person doubt that we Christians are being relegated to the status of "Niggers of the New Age"?  We need to exercise our rights to forestall that - while we still have the ability to exercise them.

Hillary's Email Scandals May Hit Close To Home

As Hillary Clinton's email woes were unfolding all over the internet, I had my suspicions as to the origins of this news.  Mind you, I do suspect that indeed she bungled her responsibilities there but the timing of the news break - and Obama's seeming nonchalance - was rather telling.  Coupled with the common knowledge that there's not much love lost between the Obamas and Clintons, I had reason to suspect that this news broke with the assistance of the Messiah Most Miserable.

Now it turns out that my suspicions have substance!  The New York Post has details, alleging resentment at the snubbing that Obama got from Democratic candidates during the 2014 elections.  Valerie Jarrett appears to be more of the mastermind than Obama himself, but there seems to be an attempt to sabotage Hillary's run for the White House in 2016.

Now here's the "close to home" part.  Jarrett has been allegedly courting two other Democrats to run against Hillary.  One of them is Elizabeth Warren; I suspected she was a favorite.  But the other took me a bit by surprise - former Maryland governor Martin O'Malley!  We know what a bang-up job he did in Maryland, don't we?  Rain tax, illegal immigrants everywhere, jobs not everywhere, gay "marriage" and of course, a corrupt legal environment assuring Leroy Carhart unfettered baby-killing opportunities.  Frankly I don't know why they'd consider O'Malley, since his less-than-stellar time in the State House led to the election of a Republican governor (otherwise almost impossible in Maryland).

If O'Malley runs, it will be most telling to watch the reactions of local Catholic prelates.  Here's hoping they don't gush over "the opportunity for another Catholic in the White House" for that CINO would only trash the One True Church and her Faith and Morals.

Let us pray.

Benghazi-Gate

I haven't posted on that sorry and tragic debacle.  As details emerge, it becomes increasingly clear that Obama and his minions had ample warning that trouble was brewing in Libya.  The embassy requested aide and protection; their pleas were ignored.  We see here a skeletal timeline of events.

Inhabiting the Oval Office is a man-child who, at most, has some "community-organizing" experience of which he can boast.  Much has been made of his gadding about in a helicopter over areas stricken by Hurricane Sandy and how "presidential he looked".  Well, be that as it may, Obama was not "presidential" when it counted.  It clearly appears that he sucked his thumb instead of "acting presidential" and as a result, four American lives were lost when there was ample time to send assistance.  It now appears that assistance was requested - and denied.  Today Fox News released details of a cable sent by the consulate to the Department of State about surrounding activities in Libya and that it would never withstand any "coordinated attack".

I will link to a four-part youtube series put out by Fox News (Towards the end of each part will be a green link to the next; click on that to get to the next video in the series.)  In the first part, former UN ambassador John Bolton puts forth a hypothesis why security in Libya was reduced - because to keep heightened security there would have contradicted the Obama administration's claim to success in stabilizing that region (at 10:25 mark. John Sunonu states the same theory in part 3 at the 4:53 mark.

We now have reports that US drones were flying overhead during part of the attack, transmitting images to military personnel.  Why did't they act?  Were they restrained by Washington?

In November, we must send the man-child known as Barack Hussein Obama packing and put some adults in charge of the White House.

Criticism Of Islam To Be A Crime?

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton seems to be cozying up to the Organization for Islamic Cooperation to explore ways and means to criminalize the criticism of Islam.  Much has to do with United Nations Resolution 16/18, according to this report.

In some ways, it could sound like something far-fetched in the United States, where we ostensibly enjoy First Amendment freedom of speech (unless you're one of those Daniel Glowacki types mentioned in my previous post; then you're eligible to be squashed like a bug, should you dare to open your mouth).

Well, comes now another report, this one from the little pow-wow that Clinton hosted for the OIC this week.  Andrea Lafferty of Traditional Values Coalition was in attendance and voiced some of the same concerns that I have.  She was soon circled by several members of Clinton's security staff and whisked away.  It seems that an "anonymous phone call" identified Ms. Lafferty as a "security threat".  She is taking action and is trying to identify this caller; I'm willing to bet his/her initials are HRC.  At any rate, Ms Lafferty found that her concerns were unmistakably validated - as are those of us all.

We will continue to broadcast news of such travesties as we are advised of them.  The First Amendment is a "use it or lose it" right.  Moreover, we know that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.  Too many decent people have been asleep at the switch too long.  It's way past time to wake up.

New World Order Run Amok?

As you read this letter from Governor Jan Brewer to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, keep in mind the story just below this post regarding the illegal alien who killed the Benedictine sister as a "case in point" cited by this excellent governor.

Kudus to Jan Brewer!  This letter is posted on www.janbrewer.com.  Go to the "Jan-TV" page for a number of her videos, one of which was featured on this blog several months ago.

Does "Freedom of Worship" = "Freedom of Religion"?

NO!  "Freedom of religion" is a God-given right (not government-granted).  The First Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees that the government will do nothing to infringe upon that right.  Implicit in such guarantee is government's acknowledgment of its subordination to the individuals who comprise the US citizenry - and their God. 

Listen now to Chuck Colson as he exposes progressive attempts to diminish our understanding of our God-given rights.  (Click here if you can't see embedded videos)