FREEMASONRY: FOUNDATION OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION Researched and Compiled by Pauly Fongemie for Catholic Tradition PART 9: SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION PLANTED IN THE AMERICANIST DOCTRINE OR WHY THE VERY SAFEGUARDS IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION BENEFIT NATURALISM BUT NOT CHRIST When one is not in the state of Sanctifying grace or is given to the wiles of the devil in such wise that the Light of Christ is for any length of time dimmed or deliberately disregarded, a person is not only spiritually blind, but he tends to be shortsighted regarding political and social dangers, apprehending the better path in an imprudent manner, no matter how cautious he may consider his actions in this sphere. Our Founders, by and large active Freemasons, whatever their individual intentions and subjective culpability, which we cannot judge, did not possess a sufficient understanding of the unintended consequences of the system of government they proposed and adopted. A reading of the Federalist Papers, a series of debated issues written prior to the enactment of the US Constitution and our set of Checks and Balances among the three powers of the national government, would have us think otherwise on the surface. The members of the Constitutional Congress who predominated were very suspicious about the tyranny of the masses that could be engendered by a democracy and at the same time too strong a central government, wise and prudent concerns, indeed, given the nature of man since Original Sin. Yet they took the very course that ultimately led to the very fears they so correctly had foreseen. It was almost as if a contrarian spirit had seized them in irony. Perhaps some of them did not realize that because they honored "the God of Nature" in the Declaration of the Independence, and not the One True God, they were committing public blasphemy. And again, because the venture they undertook, independence from England conducted in a bloody, unjust manner, despite the faults of the English Crown, the evil they wrought for the sake of a sought for, hoped for good would sow the very seeds of destruction they wanted to avoid. They were in practice working for the Father of Lies who drives a hard, costly bargain. The system of Checks and Balances they devised among the three powers of government, the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary, were never balanced, with only one power, that of the Judiciary having any real check, in fact so much so that it reigns virtually unchecked as an oligarchy appointed for life, unaccountable to God and man alike. How so? The System of Checks and Balances was ostensibly designed to balance the strength of government powers in order to avoid the possibility that one of two of the powers would become stronger than the other. They did not include the Judicial Branch in this consideration for the very fact that they thought it would be by its very nature, the weakest of the three. To the Congress [the Legislative] it granted the power to enact laws and advise the Executive on some appointments, for instance. To the Executive or the President it granted the power of Commander-in-Chief and to the Courts [the Judiciary branch] it gave the power of adjudicating conflicts between the states and maintaining the Constitution as framed. They intended to avoid a "power grab" by one or more versus another by granting the President the veto power over the Congress and the Congress the power to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts and the power to override a Presidential veto. For our purposes here I am simplifying matters, but you get the idea, I am sure. Although they recognized that rights come from Almighty God, they did not recognize just Who He truly is, nor did they acknowledge Him as He must be acknowledged, and so the "guarantees" they adopted in the Bill of Rights, the Ten Amendments that were added as a check against government itself, failed in the long run, or so it would seem. But it was the Amendment that was deemed the most important for a free society, the First Amendment, that produced exactly the opposite effect over time. It was bound to, that is, it was inevitable, in fact, it was the logical outcome of their naturalistic ideals that superseded the Supernatural, their Masonic dream of all religions having the same rights in a sham called "tolerance" since there is but one ultimate religion in their lights, naturalism, that will tolerate no other. They calculated that man was most free when he was free from all restraint but that which he readily consented to in his natural state through reason alone unaided by grace. They did speak of a democratic Republic needing morality as a foundation, but the morality they ultimately supported was the false morality of Freemasonry as we have previously read. They did not grasp that the system of Freemasonry, the new world order they had succumbed to, was hell on earth, virtual slavery. In the ensuing years, in fact, almost immediately, the Court decided it could legislate from the bench by twisting logic and common sense through the misuse of interpreting the law, as they called it "judicial review". This process of decay began with the infamous Marbury v. Madison case. In this landmark, revolutionary decision of 1803, the Court ruled that it had the power to declare void a statute that it considered repugnant to the United States Constitution. Chief Justice John Marshall, an active Freemason, presided over the case, and used it to legally establish the right of the judiciary—and in particular, the Supreme Court—to determine the constitutionality of the actions of coequal branches of government—thus rendering equality inequality, and laying the foundation for the current dominant power of the Supreme Court. That is to say, if the Court decides the constitutionality of the acts of the other two branches of government and if the "veto power" over the Court is onerous as it was designed to be, then in effect there is no balance, and only one power can effectively check the other two. Here it was the power that was supposedly the weakest vis à vis the other two. The three branches were to be equal in that they had their own limited, delegated arena of action and duties, but not in power. This is what our Freemasons got, but not in the way they had arranged. God may write straight with crooked lines as the saying goes, but the devil cannot and will not write straight at all, he always pulls you in the wrong direction, either by his way or your own way. I often wonder if this is what the majority actually wanted and intended in the first place, because if the Judiciary was supposed to be the weakest power, why enact the means of check over it in such a cumbersome manner relative to the means of the other two? They claimed it was to maintain the Constitution as intact as possible, a plausible aim. Yet the ironic occurred. At the very least they were confused and not as perspicacious as they may have thought. This dark embrace of irony suborning original intent is precisely what has been happening ever since, more and more frequently. No matter what laws Congress passes, say limiting abortion, for example, even just a little, the Court declares them "unconstitutional", in keeping with the leftist, naturalist, internationalist law-leaning of the majority. So in truth nine men and women rule supreme, making the name Supreme Court more than just a designation to distinguish it from lower state courts. It is easier for Congress with a 2/3 majority to override a Presidential act, than for an Amendment to be enacted to override the Court as we all know only too well. This may seem as if I am oversimplifying too much, but here it is just this simple, period. The three branches or powers are not coequal at all. On its face, any thinking person, could see that the manner of Checks and Balances are not balanced because the procedures of checks are imbalanced in of themselves, yet the Founders preached and claimed otherwise. Total, spiritual and political blindness, or deliberately hidden intent, if not! Although Fr. Fahey has more than adequately addressed the effect of naturalism in the public sphere in the preceding chapters, let us very briefly look at the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. In this one Amendment lies all the problem. First, the tenets of this declaration of so-called freedom are unCatholic, violating true Religion and the rights of Almighty God over man. Man does not have an inherent liberty to be free of religion or to choose any religion, nor does the press have unbridled rein. God gave man a constitution of order built into his very nature at creation, which was damaged by the Sin of Adam, but the "set of instructions" was not remitted, only strengthened since Christ's coming in Person to redeem us as the Gospel tells us. While man is not to be forced into belief by government, he is not morally free to choose any religion but only the True Religion. He is free from restraint in choosing not to choose the The One True Religion of the One True God. Government has the obligation under God's order in nature to prevent false religions from interfering with the One True Religion, although it may not use overbearing, unjust means. But it has a positive duty at the very least not to impede the Catholic Church, and certainly from refraining to assist false religions as it does by assigning an "equality" to them all. Likewise man is not morally free to commit blasphemy, anymore than he is free to commit murder. Government has no authority from God to permit blasphemy as a "right". Man may think this is nonsense and because he does not understand this or does not want to, he thinks he is free. Some men, a few only perhaps, but some men do not admit of the law of gravity. They are still subject to it and if they violate it, by jumping out of airplanes without a parachute, they soon realize their error. The First Amendment as written is in error and is a blasphemy against God. It is not an act of "sheer genius" as many defenders of the Amendment who espouse to be Christians aver. Man chooses to disregard God's rights and now suffers the same consequences as the man who disregards gravity and jumps from an airplane without a parachute. He has found himself smashed hard upon an uncompromising hostile groundwork, in a quandary, flailing here and there, fighting death in agony. That is, the man who honors the first Amendment, yet claims his rights of religion are being denied. They were meant to be by the One Below who wrote it through the quill of James Madison and fellow revolutionaries. The Amendment says Congress shall make no law . . . It does not say anything about lower legislatures; in fact, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution several of the states had their own established religions, and the Founders knew this and made no provisions in the national charter because this purview was to belong to the states. So how come a school, a city hall, for example, are equal to Congress? Because the Supreme Court says so; they have rewritten the Constitution or did they? Well, if all religions are equal and man is free to choose and free not to choose and if there is supposed to be universal tolerance, the spirit of the Amendment, one of the animating motivations of Freemasonry, and if, as we have demonstrated, Masonry is the religion of naturalism which will tolerate no other religion in practice, then the "natural" effect of the First Amendment is precisely the religion of naturalism. And the universal religion of naturalism is what most men espouse under the guise of Freedom of Religion and American tolerance. The Supreme Court, ever beholden to its god, "tolerance" protects its "religion" from all intrusion, even from reason itself if need be! Scratch any Christian at random, any Catholic at random, and more often than not you will discover one in name only who pays but lip service to his creed or to The Creed, preferring instead the goodwill of fellow men, to honor tolerance as the supreme virtue, so that good and evil exist as co-equals. You won't find ten men out of a hundred, no matter what they officially claim, that can pass the scratch test. Freemasonry has succeeded beyond even the wildest dreams of Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. James Madison who framed the Constitution breathed the same foul air that hung like a funeral pall over the American Revolution. Yet he had an inkling not being a Freemason himself. He is said to have said, "Madam you have a Republic, if you can keep it!" The First Amendment as interpreted by the Judiciary is what we are supposed to have because evil has its own trajectory, as I often repeat, and the devil will have his due. The devil is, indeed, in the details! Jefferson had written in a private letter that was later made public, that there was "a wall of separation between Church and State" in the Constitution, although those words are not found there. So we know that this must have been the animating spirit of the First Amendment simply because Jefferson was so intimately involved in all the doings of the Founders and one of the most distinguished and admired. As written earlier, not all the Founding Freemasons were alike and some actually considered themselves quite Christian in the traditional sense; I am certain they would, if they could, wake up quite alarmed and surprised. But this would not last long in all likelihood, because they were by and large men who sought the good will of other men above almost any other virtue and a vaunted human respect can instill hubris in men so driven. In the end they would rationalize the outcome as most Americans have come to do, or if not to this point, at least they have decided to go along to get along. If this were not the situation, Congress, impelled and motivated by the majority of the people would have long ago exercised its power of limiting the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court per its grant thereof in the Constitution.   Thus, it will always be "take one step forward and then take two steps backward" by order of Supreme Simon who says . . . It is not the Rule of Law and the Constitution but the rule of contrariness and arbitrariness, the Rule of Lawlessness itself because so many oppressive laws by the Court regime renders the very notion of ordered liberty impossible. This sort of contrariness can be found on the local level in every county and hamlet. A good example is one close to home here in Maine. I will offer a very short account. It concerns the ostensibly Christian CHRISTIAN CIVIC LEAGUE OF MAINE. Many years ago, when I first learned of its efforts in the political realm and decided to work with them on certain causes of life and the traditional family, I felt instinctively a natural repulsion, which I could not understand, as real as it was. Every time I entered the office I wanted to bolt. Sometimes I thought I was going to lose the ability to breathe, but I stuck it out because I thought I was serving God on vital measures before the state legislature. I have enormous respect for the current executive, although I found the former one repugnant and smarmy and hypocritical. Events would later prove my assessment accurate, all too accurate. But the current executive is cut from cleaner cloth and although not a Catholic, he has somehow received enough grace to walk in the light of Christ enough to remain pure and untainted by the filth that is political life. Yet, this feeling of revulsion endured, and still I knew not why. Maine just underwent a Republican primary for the governor's seat held by a pro-abortion "Catholic". That primary was a sham as I documented in another article at the time. The Civic League did not endorse any candidate and rightly so----they all endorse abortion, only two of the primary candidates were honest about their position. The third, who was and is a wordsmith extraordinaire won. This is Maine, liberal, naturalistic, tolerant Maine and the GOP is no exception. They have a penchant for the most skilled of liars, outstripping the Democrats on this score. As I was finishing the introduction to this piece, I received a phone call out of the blue----in God's economy nothing is ever out of the blue----about the inner workings of the supposed Christian CHRISTIAN CIVIC LEAGUE. My caller informed me that its chief writer, who shall remain unnamed to preserve his privacy, had resigned in frustration and disgust. He had learned that the underlying power of the League is deeply Masonic, in fact, so much so, that he came to the unmistakable and prescient conclusion that it is Zionist. He expressed this precisely as I have worded, Zionist! Therein is the source of my feelings, Freemasonry! At least my Catholic sense is still intact despite my being but a sinner. And the League, now that the Primary is over, is supporting, you guessed it, the winner. "Take one step forward, then two backward." And God says, "My people perish for a lack of knowledge . . ." Please pray for the executive that he will not perish, but will find the grace to follow the lead of his writer-in-chief and get out while God still permits him the grace to do so. Some fear that he is too concerned with supporting his family to strike out afresh on his own after all this time. Pray that it will not be so. Before we leave this chapter it is necessary to touch upon the matter of what is a Christian, a Catholic, to do? As Fr. Fahey instructs us, we have to work with what we have, provided we do not break the Commandments or violate justice, that is, the natural law as taught by St. Thomas Aquinas, in any way. We certainly cannot work to overturn the blasphemous First Amendment because to do so would jeopardize what little liberty we have as yet simply because this is not a Catholic country [yet]. But we cannot hope to use the First Amendment to the advantage of Jesus Christ for it will always be "one step forward, take two steps backward." We must name things as they are, call them what they are, without mincing words or else we are part of the problem. Until we can identify the actual problem, we are defenseless against it. America is in decline and soon to suffer the fate of ancient Rome. It is an "experiment" in raw hubris and destined for fall. We Christians, sooner than we think, will be "thrown also to the lions" minus the actual feline creatures and arena. Meanwhile knowing we are lambs led to the slaughter, that we as servants are not greater than our Master, must speak the truth in season and out of season, seeking to win souls to Christ the King and His all-just Social Reign, counting not the cost, to our last drop of blood if need be. We are called to Martyrdom, some of us the dry, others to that of blood. We must pray, fast, seek the mercy of God for our own sins and those of others who have no one to pray for them. We must never cede ground to the enemy of Christ nor abandon our side of the war in the war on Christ. This is our Christian duty before God, and before men, We must be witnesses to His saving truth, prepared to be called vile names and rejoice that this is so. Click forward for a short excerpt on Christ the King from Fr. Fahey. E-MAIL www.catholictradition.org/masonry9.htm