Non-stop inquiry on cable news often convinces us that even if not all of our questions are answered, someone is asking them. Not so.
Over the past several years, three mysteries have developed, and thus far, almost no one seems all that curious about them.
On February 1, 2013, Hillary Clinton resigned as US Secretary of State, a decision she announced shortly before the November 2012 election. First, she was resigning to ascertain her chances for the 2016 nomination. Later, it was said she’d been advised to resign after Obama’s open mic offer to work with the Russians on missile defense the previous March. Neither answer makes sense. No sitting office holder has ever resigned before the next relevant election, and as to Obama’s collusion with Medvedev and Putin, America’s in-the-tank media failed to decry what was right in front of them.
Clinton’s best option was to use the SOS role for all its worth through 2014, and then resign. So: did she resign when she did? Did she become disgusted with Obama’s foreign policy “stupidity” (as one of her advisor’s put it), or did Obama become disgusted with Clinton pay-to-play schemes swimming just under the political surface like a Great White hungering to tear the Progressive Potemkins apart?
Whatever the answer, it may well be tied to the second riddle.
On July 6, 2016, something that should never have happened blocked out all other news, and although volumes have been written FBI Director James Comey’s infamous press conference that day, we still don’t know he did it. Ample evidence, direct and circumstantial, reveals his long-standing connections to the Clintons, shows the earlier-written memo exonerating her ignored incontrovertible facts, and discloses senior FBI staff were biased in her favor. The week before, polling showed Clinton ahead of Trump by four to eleven points, and the conventional wisdom was that Hillary Rodham Clinton was destined to become the 45th POTUS. Comey didn’t have to say a word about an FBI investigation. So: did he do it? Was Clinton chicanery too much even for him? Was he hedging his bets? Did he begin to consider what life in an FBI weaponized against the citizenry would be like in a Clinton Administration?
The third mystery has little or nothing to do with the fate of our nation. Or does it?
Dr. Paul Kengor’s recent piece in https://www.crisismagazine.com/2018/pope-francis-cardinal-mindszenty-treatment-china, discusses the degree to which Pope Francis’ hand-picked aide, Bishop Marcelo Sorondo, fellow traveler with Bernie Sanders and Tim Kaine, has kowtowed to the People’s Republic of China, with denigrating comparisons to the United States. After his recent trip there, Sorondo was pleased to note the government seeks “the common good,” and works to “best realize the social doctrine of the church.” There is a “positive national consciousness,” Sorondo went on, and China is all about “the dignity of the human person.” A purported Marxist, how did Sorondo come to a key position in the highest echelon of the Catholic Church?
As a young Jesuit in Argentina, instilled with traditional, conservative church doctrine, Jorge Bergoglio was sent to the mountains by his Order to reconsider his views—this, not long after the Order’s new Father General, Pedro Arupe, took his men down a road not previously taken, the leftmost one, requiring the re-education of conservatives, Bergoglio amongst them. Newly inspired with the Arupe vision, according to some, Bergoglio never looked back, and since then, as Pope Francis, he has surrounded himself with those of a similar “theological” bent—people like another Argentinian, Bishop Marcelo Sorondo..
On a continent where robber baron capitalism has rarely uplifted the poor, it is easy to see why a shepherd would concern himself for his flock in the face of rampant greed amongst the powerful. As priest or pope, Bergoglio has been to the U.S. but briefly in 2015, yet apparently, has no difficulty permitting the Holy See’s disparagement of a country with 72 million Catholics (out of 306 million in 2008).
So, this is riddle number three: Has the religious leadership for over a billion Catholics begun pandering to a nation known for forced abortions and human indignity beyond description while turning away from the country Pope John Paul II believed to be the church’s greatest ally in the struggle with the world’s evils.
Whether Hillary Clinton resigned or was pushed, or whether James Comey aspired to one moment of justice or carried out a darker agenda are questions awaiting answers.
Whether the Roman Catholic Church, on the other hand, of which I have been a lifelong, committed, conservative member, can orient itself toward a regime devoid of religious tolerance, forsaking its sheep for the flock, and survive a third millennium as a Christian entity has far graver consequences. It was one thing to treat with Nazis for self-survival. It is quite another to ally the Vicar of Christ with evil.