Chaitanya Jyothi Museum Opening, 2000

RAMANAM
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti.  Amen.

Countrymen,

ORBIS NON SUFFICIT
SOLUS DEUS SUFFICIT

One of the counselors and the historian publishing at Power Line regularly remark on POTUS Trump’s absence of decorum, his [to them] infuriating insouciance, even apparent disdain for decorum: this president does not comport himself as befits the modes and manners of The Office of The President of The United States of America.

These gentlemen are just as regularly remarked — to include by me — for the assumptions which drive this assessment of theirs.

But they raise a salient point: what is the decorum of The Office of The President of The United States of America?  Who makes it?  What makes it?  Who has authority to define it?  Who has defined it?  Where is it defined, chapter and verse?  Is authority to define said decorum mutable, fungible?  Is it addressed by The Constitution, by Executive Order, by statute, tradition, custom?  Is there content to said decorum which all recognize, which most recognize, which some recognize; how many, and to what effectiveness, and most importantly, upon whose or what authority?

The gentlemen critics want POTUS Trump hemmed in, restricted as it were, tied down, as if the Office to which he has been elevated in hopes that he would fulfill its duty to protect The Constitution — aka the citizen electorate, their land, and their families — is a pre-fab structure he is to maintain and that only in a manner already laid down somewhere not mentioned . . . somewhere in the expectation sets of these and these respected onlookers, perhaps?

In theology we call this posture Phariseeism: lay upon others burdens you would not lay upon yourself.  It is infuriating to observe in operation.  There is no cure for Phariseeism this side of extirpation, which, ironically, is what it seeks for its targets.

This week The Christian Liturgical Year calls to remembrance the proximate effect of Phariseeism — aka Puritanism — namely, The Crucifixion, and its ultimate effect, namely The Army of Titus, because executing an innocent is a very naughty thing to do and will have its just reward . . . and the bigger the target, the more devastating the reward for hitting it.

The decorum of The Office of The President of The United States of America is The President of The United States of America.  He, or she, in their personhood, is the decorum of The Office.  He, or she, was elevated to The Office by citizens — these days through and sometimes by a whole lot of fraud — who decided to entrust their destiny to the stewardship of him or her.

In other words, the person reaches The Office already fully authorized by the ultimate national authority — the citizen electorate — as regards both content and style, to wit: decorum.  The citizen electorate has decided they like this person’s decorum and that it fits their needs and wishes.

So the real question in all of this is, what is it that inspires the citizen electorate to entrust their destiny to such and such a person using powers inhering in The Office of The President of The United States of America?  Why do people want this person or that as their President?

The answer is simple: the person talks across to them, not down to them, not up to them, about things that matter to them as they contemplate their and their families’ destinies.

Put another way: the citizen electorate decides that this or that person is honest; they say what they think and do what they say; thought, word, and deed align; and awareness of that fact, added to what the citizen electorate hears and sees regarding a candidate’s actual and likely stewardship of their destiny, induces the citizen electorate to want and vote this or that candidate President of The United States of America.

So, definition of decorum: speak what you believe, do as you speak, and be loyal to the long-and short-term aspirations of the group, large or small, who has committed their welfare to the stewardship of your mind, your heart, and your hands.  Take care of them as best you may, and as you may; be yourself for them and all is well and will be well as duty well-performed.  That is decorum and only it confers prestige.

Powers inhering in The Office of The President of The United States of America are one thing.  They are Constitutional and statutory.  Decorum in The Office of The President of The United States of America is another thing altogether.  It is personal, inhering in the personhood of The President of The United States of America.

Βασιλεία του Θεού
Kingdom of God

Related 1: Tom Kuntz: But giving each other awards for substandard performance is one of our ruling class’s favorite pastimes.

George Orwell: “We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.”

Glenn Reynolds: Do not yearn for peace.  Work for victory.

Related 2: If nominal Christians engage in pedophilia, leftists do NOT accept it, because their real target, Christianity, is in view.  The Salafi-Left has one target only and one goal only: extirpate Christianity and Christians.  Power is important to them only in so far as it enables them to hit that target and pursue that goal.

Related 3: The criterion for salvation is the love of God.  No amount of doing this or that can reach or impel that criterion.

And the heart of the Gospel is the Crucifixion, the absolute certainty that everything, including your own life and everything that goes along with it, belongs to God and nothing is commanded of one to do.

If Buttigieg were a Christian, he would repeat the Miserere. He is an Episcopalian.  So am I, nominally, for many years.  The Episcopal Church is long since devolved into a social club, and in recent years, for queers only.  The Roman Catholic clerical bench and prelacy has a queer problem, not a pedophile problem.

The priest in question does not mention St. Paul on queers, or the tradition’s, or Jesus’ several references to them, especially in clerical positions, using common First Century euphemisms: dogs and whitewashed tombs.

Most clergy have read the Bible but never read it, and of knowledge of the theological tradition, practically zero.  They do know, and preach, the latest talking points ginned up by academe and the DNC/Media complex.  (It used to be from Peanuts.)  About those they are competent, even timely.

Update 1: Glenn Reynolds: Once, the FBI fought organized crime.  Then the FBI became organized crime.

Update 2: Good that this aetiology and intent are receiving attention.  Next, recognize links, structural and ideational, witting and unwitting, between the same and the D-R UniParty.  John McCain, for example, was a Salafi Jihad (Islamist) enabler and apologist.  Living senators, representatives, and presidents remain so.  AOC, the new anti-American heart of the Democratic Party, melds heart and hands with Omar the Salafi Jihadist.  This portent signs links begging recognition.

I think the messaging is tight in order to block recognition of links, ideational and structural, witting and unwitting, between the D-R Uniparty, especially its D wing, and the Salafi Jihad, of which Moslem Brotherhood is the vector most imbedded in USA and Europe.

Update 3: She marks civilization’s fundament: agriculture.  We live from six inches of top soil.  Period.

She does not know how to proceed from that fact, at least not yet, and she approaches the subject from the ideology of identity politics, but she sees the fundament and deserves credit for that, even if she wills to misuse it.

She is, after all, up from the plantain Puerto Rican.  Hitler saw the need for German military restoration as fundament of antidote to Allied rapacity at Versailles.  AOC sees local agricultural puissance as fundament of antidote to crony capitalist cash crop farming.  Give the monsters credit for what they got/get right.

Give her time, she will only become more formidable in this and other regards.

As to what she and her cohort want really to institute, ponder the career of Ks. Jerzy Popiełuszko.

AUM NAMAH SHIVAYA