AS Hillary Clinton prepares to become the first female presidential candidate tonight, it behooves us to ponder how history might have been different. Weep, dear reader, yes — but ponder too. If Hillary had done what she said she scorned to do — stayed home and baked cookies — things would still be bad, but maybe not quite so awful.

In 1992, during her husband’s presidential campaign, Hillary was asked why she did not suspend her career while her husband was governor of Arkansas, starting in 1978. (Things were so relatively normal back then that people actually asked these questions of ambitious, ruthless women.)

She could have said,

“I decided not to stay home and have more children and raise my family properly,” but instead she said,

“I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was to fulfill my profession.”

The wording is important. Though she denied it, her words were a definite put-down of the domestic vocation. What kind of woman believes that caring for one’s home and family can be reduced to baking cookies? Yes, many young children ardently wish that motherhood could be reduced to baking cookies — again and again, to the utter exclusion of things like meatloaf and steamed carrots — but only a woman who is callous, perhaps innately or perhaps because of her own feminist indoctrination, toward children and men, could believe such a thing possible. Only a woman who is clueless or willfully deceitful about the many demands of running a home, let alone a gubernatorial mansion, could make such a put-down. But that’s not important now; only the self-loathing woman would be offended. What is important is that Hillary could have been a great baker of cookies, instead of a psychopathic politician who bragged of killing another nation’s leader and has been connected with unethical conduct ever since she was a lawyer investigating Watergate.

Who knows how many people might have sincerely enjoyed her cookies and her teas? She could have been a brilliant and charming hostess, if she put her mind to it. She likely would have killed no one with her cookies, which, realistically, would have been baked by paid servants anyway. We might not be on the verge of World War III if she had just dedicated herself to cookies.

In so many ways, Hillary embodies the worst of feminism: its dangerous, disinhibiting, liberating belief in the moral infallibility of women and its approval of every female worldly accomplishment, no matter the private sacrifice. Bill very probably would have been a philanderer no matter what Hillary did, but, seriously, what did he have to go home to? I mean, not everyone wants to talk about work all the time. The two are a political team. They are partners in crime, I believe, but whatever your politics surely you agree these two are not a married couple in the normal sense of the term.

Feminism overdevelops the female will, turning it too often into a devouring tyrant. It encourages women to  overlook their own potential for wrong. Christians call that potential Original Sin, from which feminists believe women are exempt. Eve ate no apple in their garden, but Adam most certainly did. So many women have been “liberated” to do wrong by their feminist miseducation, including yours truly, that the casualties are countless. Feminism liberated women all right. It liberated them from the truth about themselves. It is partly because of this sense of the moral infallibility of women and her belief in the meaninglessness of their domestic lives that Hillary believes the ends justify the means. And one of those ends is the complete undoing of the sacred compact between men and women in marriage. Make no mistake about it, little mother and little, loving cookie-baker: Hillary has contempt for you no matter how much she clothes herself in pro-female sloganeering. She wants to tear you away from your husband and children and home. She has been a devout proponent of population control and the anti-human LGBTQPTAZ agenda all over the world. Like all socialists, she wants you to be loyal to the government first. Like all capitalists, she wants you to care for things more than spirit.

Hillary is a one woman, exhaustive argument against feminism. No matter what happens in November, I am absolutely certain she will go down in history, if there is any history-making ahead, as an argument against feminism. I say that with no pleasure or gloating, as I truly wish this woman would, even now at this late stage, come to her senses.

To any talented woman who believes that staying home involves nothing more than baking cookies, I urge you to spend a little time in a real home. And I recommend to you this excellent recipe for chocolate chip cookies. It is much better than most recipes. Please, for the sake of humanity, try it!

Yes, even baking cookies can be much more satisfying and fulfilling than being president of the United States. Read More »

THE writer Brandon Martinez says the brutal murder of an 86-year-old priest in Northern France, which could have presumably been prevented by the police as the attacker was already under house arrest, is further evidence of a covert war by the French government against its own people.

TRUE or False Pope: Refuting Sedevacantism and other Modern Errors is a recently released 700-page book published by Angelus Press and written by John Salza and Robert Siscoe.

Very few people are likely to read this anti-sedevacantist polemic because of its length and dullness.

But it is sure to have great symbolic value.

As the Rev. Anthony Cekada, one of the foremost apologists of sedevacantism, says in this videotaped review of the book, people who don’t want to think about sedevacantism will find affirmation in the very existence of the book and its impressive length.

Sedevacantists hold that the Vatican II claimants to the papal see, including Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and the mega-celebrity “Pope” Francis, are not true popes. This position does not entail the belief that these men were, or are, thoroughly evil or that they did not uphold some important Catholic truths. Let me repeat that point because it is so misunderstood and demonized: This position does not entail the belief that these men, and certainly not those who have faithfully followed them, are monsters. It contends that these men were, or are, not valid popes because they rejected key dogmas of the Catholic Faith. They didn’t — and don’t — have true authority.

In contrast, Catholic traditionalists such as Salza and Siscoe believe the Vatican II popes should be recognized as valid popes — and resisted. They adamantly reject the sedevacantist position.

This is an extremely important issue, not some marginal intellectual dispute.

Without settled dogma and a divinely-guaranteed authority to preserve it, Christianity is a fluctuating and unstable religion of man. Vatican II revolutionized Catholic worship and dogma. It was, and continues to be, comparable to the French Revolution in its wider cultural influence. A word to my Protestant friends, many of whom are so admirably devout and sincere in their beliefs: Your Bible wouldn’t exit without papal authority.

Here is the sedevacantist argument in brief by Fr. Cekada: Read More »

A great speech given by British MP George Galloway before the Oxford Union this spring.

FROM Global Research:

A report in 21st of July edition of Le Figaro newspaper states that France’s anti-terrorist executive (sous-direction anti-terroriste- SDAT) has ordered Nice’s urban surveillance authorities to destroy all CCTV footage of the Nice Attacks on Bastille Day that rocked the city on the 14th of July 2016. Read More »

ALAN writes:

It is a curse of life that as we age, we remember certain people who were acquaintances of our parents, people who were grown-ups when we were children, and we would like so much to talk with those people now—to ask them about their lives and their memories, to talk with them grown-up to grown-up instead of child to grown-up.  But of course it is too late.  They lived and died during the years when we were busily engaged in other things that seemed important at the time.  I made that terrible mistake.

These thoughts occurred to me recently when I watched a few 1963 episodes of the television comedy series “Petticoat Junction.” They were new to me because I never watched that series in the 1960s.  But my mother enjoyed watching it, I know, because I remember overhearing the show’s familiar opening theme music.

The stories involve a widow and her three high school age daughters at the hotel they run in a small town in the country.  A train brings guests to and from the hotel.  Those episodes present exactly the kind of gentle, old-fashioned, self-effacing, heartwarming and uplifting comedy writing that my mother enjoyed.  Viewers laughed with the characters, not at them.    Read More »

BROTHER Nathanael Kapner analyses Trump’s statements in support of the “LGBTQ community” at the Republican Convention. The Republican Party has irretrievably abandoned its family values. It’s over. It can never go back. Every major institution in America is pitted against God and the laws of nature. Read More »

WHERE’S THE PROOF?

THE alternative media has been abuzz during the past week with reports that the same German photographer, who is married to a former Israeli politician who previously worked for Israeli intelligence, just happened to be on hand to film both the Nice and Munich “terror” attacks.

Odd coincidence. Read More »

SARAH SILVERMAN, the Jewish “comedienne,” was a celebrity warm-up act at the Democratic National Convention tonight in Philadelphia.

Here she is in an earlier routine joking about the Crucifixion. She says she would happily crucify Christ again. (Profanity and blasphemy alert.)

SINCE we’re going to hear a lot of blather from the Democratic National Convention about how remarkable and wonderful it is that a woman is running for president, I would like to say something you will not hear in Philadelphia:

No normal and healthy woman would want to be president.

All kinds of women, with different temperaments, gifts and talents, exist in this world, but no normal and healthy woman would want to be president of the United States, not now, not yesterday and not tomorrow.

No normal and healthy woman would want to have such power over men, who deserve the empathetic help of women because of the onerous responsibilities and competition life imposes upon them.

No normal and healthy woman would want to be drawn into the combat of presidential politics, combat which is so contrary to her nature. (A queen arrives at her position involuntarily, a president must fight for it for many years.)

No normal and healthy woman would want to emasculate her husband by being so much more powerful than he is.

No normal and healthy woman would want to boss as many people around as a president does.

No normal and healthy woman would want to send troops to war.

No normal and healthy woman would want to have so little time to call friends, visit the sick, comfort the dying and enjoy the company of young children.

No normal and healthy woman would want to have so little time to pray for the people she loves.

No normal and healthy woman enjoys being hated. A president accumulates many enemies.

No normal and healthy woman would want the complete lack of peace and quiet that comes with the presidency.

No normal and healthy woman is fulfilled by power.

No normal and healthy woman would want to promote the false idea to young and impressionable women that power is fulfilling.

With rare exceptions, women presidents, chancellors and prime ministers are sure to be deformed and cheated human beings, deprived of reaching their true potential by the androgynization of their societies.

No normal and healthy woman would want to be president. Read More »

[W]e live in the midst of a diabolical trap, the likes of which were described so accurately by Father Edward Leen, S.J., sixty-three years ago…. The devil continues to raise up men and women who are so completely committed to evil that anyone, including those who support the sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance, which can never be the foundation of making any nation “great” or “safe,” no matter the protestations of the man who believes that he “alone” can “fix” problems that have been caused by this nation’s promotion of sin and many of citizens’ unrepentant persistence in it, are said to look “better” by comparison.

Believe what you want. This diabolical trap remains what it has been since July 4, 1776, no amount of projecting one’s fondest [hopes] onto secular saviours can make them into instruments of justice when they are, objectively speaking, unjust in their own lives and supportive of injustice [to] God and the good of souls in the public realm. This is simple truth. Those who reject it prefer to believe in an illusion of their own making as there is no semblance of rationality to believe that men will be different once elected to office than they had been beforehand.

Alas, the problems that we face are supernatural, not merely natural, which means there is no merely natural solution for them.

— Thomas Droleskey, July 25, 2016

THE “I-am-personally-opposed-to-abortion,-but-support-legalization-of-it-for-others” position held by many Catholic politicians, including Tim Kaine, the vice presidential choice of Hillary Clinton, has been explicitly condemned by a pope and is contrary to Catholic moral theology. Pope Pius IX stated in 1930:

Those who hold the reins of government should not forget that it is the duty of public authority by appropriate laws and sanctions to defend the lives of the innocent, and this all the more so since those whose lives are endangered and assailed cannot defend themselves. Among whom we must mention in the first place infants hidden in the mother’s womb. And if the public magistrates not only do not defend them, but by their laws and ordinances betray them to death at the hands of doctors or of others, let them remember that God is the Judge and Avenger of innocent blood which cried from earth to Heaven. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 30, 1930.)

Dr. Thomas Droleskey gives a detailed history, ugly as it is, of how this casuistic position came about and captivated Catholic voters. It originated with the Kennedy family in the 1960s, as Catholics sought to maintain their allegiance to the Democratic Party at all costs:

The former Jesuit priest Albert Jonsen, emeritus professor of ethics at the University of Washington, recalls the meeting [between the Kennedys and theologians] in his book “The Birth of Bioethics” (Oxford, 2003). He writes about how he joined with the Rev. Joseph Fuchs, a Catholic moral theologian; the Rev. Robert Drinan, then dean of Boston College Law School; and three academic theologians, the Revs. Giles Milhaven, Richard McCormick and Charles Curran, to enable the Kennedy family to redefine support for abortion.

Mr. Jonsen writes that the Hyannisport colloquium was influenced by the position of another Jesuit, the Rev. John Courtney Murray, a position that “distinguished between the moral aspects of an issue and the feasibility of enacting legislation about that issue.” It was the consensus at the Hyannisport conclave that Catholic politicians “might tolerate legislation that would permit abortion under certain circumstances if political efforts to repress this moral error led to greater perils to social peace and order.”

Father Milhaven later recalled the Hyannisport meeting during a 1984 breakfast briefing of Catholics for a Free Choice: “The theologians worked for a day and a half among ourselves at a nearby hotel. In the evening we answered questions from the Kennedys and the Shrivers. Though the theologians disagreed on many a point, they all concurred on certain basics . . . and that was that a Catholic politician could in good conscience vote in favor of abortion.”  ( See WSJ.com – Opinion: How Support for Abortion Became Kennedy Dogma. David Paterson, a pro-abortion Catholic, ultimately chose another pro-abortion Catholic, Kirsten Gillibrand, who has been the junior senator of the State of New York since January 26, 2009. For a review of David Paterson’s moral corruption, see Little Caesars All (Pizza! Pizza!)

FROM an essay by the Most Rev. Donald Sanborn:

The world has never known more oppressive governments or bigger governments than those which profess the cult of liberty. No governments have meddled more in the lives of their citizens. Since the abolition of the monarchies and the rise of democracies, the common man, the family and business have been subject to tyrannical oppression, emaciating taxation, as well as economic and social “engineering” which affects every aspect of life. The democracies of the past two hundred years make the most dictatorial monarchical regimes look like liberty fests. With democracy have come both liberalism and socialism, two sources of oppression for hundreds of millions of people, if not billions, over the past two hundred years.

This fact tells us that the liberty which the cult of liberty seeks is not the freedom of the common man from big, oppressive, and tyrannical governments. It is a freedom from something else which the cult of liberty seeks.

ALAN writes:

One day last week I went into a store that sells old records and movies.  I made a small purchase.  When the lady behind the counter saw that I had selected some of the 1930s-‘40s B-Westerns of Hoppy, Gene, and Roy, she told me she had just watched an episode of the TV series “The Lone Ranger.” Like me, she was old enough to remember that series from the 1950s.  But the thing that struck her most when watching that episode, she said, was “how racist it was.” It was disgraceful how townspeople in the story treated the Indian Tonto, she said, and such disrespect would not be permitted in entertainment today. Read More »