This is one thing that's really been bothering me about Trump, all this "vax" talk.

Well that and his semitiphilia.

But we don't have much choice at this point.

">://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--oJkV07TgM

Trump Playing Them or Us? Video

Ah, the Irish... they have a God given gift of a hound dog's nose for the Jєω and his evil tricks

Not only was he a Colonel, but he was of the nobility, who was akin to a governor/mayor, who was responsible for the welfare of hundreds of people in his lands.  After the monarchy was abolished, the nobility slowly lost its power too.  Those that tried to remove Adolf from power were mostly noblemen who had the duty, training and legal standing to do so.  Morally speaking, this would suffice, in order to bring back "law and order" of former times.  But, in addition, they were trying to bring back the monarchy, so no one can charge that they were getting rid of Adolf for their own political gain.  
.
The fact that the attempt failed, in an extraordinary way, leads one to believe that, in spite of their good efforts, it was God's permissive will that Adolf stay in power, maybe for reasons of punishment on the Germans (and the rest of the world) for the growing immorality that was rampant before, during and after WW1.  And only got worse after WW2.

This is very good and we should really attempt to embed it in our mental processes for dealing in charity with others.  



However, on the topic of double-dealing tyrants who are out to destroy whole populations, other rules of Catholic morality come into play.
There comes a time when it is moral to remove the tyrant(s).

I heard a trad priest recently apply this concept to the leaders of Oregon's social collapse situation and the conclusion was "removal" applied there.

Also, there's one historical instance of attempted tyrannicide that has always intrigued me and that was the case of Catholic Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg, who nearly removed Adolf Hitler from office.



IMHO, at the very least, it was good that he tried, since this act revealed and gave some redeeming quality to the German people's true sentiments.

Now, St. Thomas Aquinas, Bp. Williamson and David Irving may not like Colonel von Stauffenberg's assassination attempt, but more recently, I heard Father Ripperger state that the Colonel, in due conscience went to his Bishop at the time to ask if his desperate plan was going to doom him to Hell?

The Bishop, reportedly said "No", that this was a case where many souls were at stake and the morality of tyrannicide applied for Hitler.
I have no other sources for this and it would take some time to recover the lecture Father Ripperger gave.

Any rebuttals would be appreciated.

Stauffenberg wanted to retain all the totalitarian, militaristic and socialistic elements of National Socialism (p. 504). What he had in mind was the salvation of Germany by military men who could break with corruption and maladministration, provide an orderly military government and inspire the people to make one last great effort. Reduced to a formula, he wanted the nation to remain soldierly and become socialistic (p. 503).
Stauffenberg was motivated by the impulsive passions of the disillusioned military man whose eyes had been opened by the defeat of German arms (p. 510). Stauffenberg had shifted to the rebel side only after Stalingrad (p. 512).
The difference between Stauffenberg, Helldorf and Schulenburg – all of them counts – was that Helldorf had come to the nαzι Movement as a primitive, I might almost say an unpolitical revolutionary. The other two had been attracted primarily by a political ideology. Therefore, it was possible for Helldorf to throw everything overboard at once: Hitler, the Party, the entire system. Stauffenberg, Schulenberg and their clique wanted to drop no more ballast than was absolutely necessary; then they would paint the ship of state a military gray and set it afloat again (p. 513–514).^[52]

Gisevius met Stauffenberg for the first time in Berlin on July 12, 1944, eight days before the colonel's last assassination attempt against Hitler. ... In view of Gisevius's own record as a transmitter of historical information for which he had displayed strong personal feelings, and in light of what is known about both Gisevius's alleged sources and Stauffenberg himself, Gisevius's account is at best questionable hearsay. Gisevius disliked Stauffenberg. He sensed that this dynamic leader would be an obstacle to his own far-reaching ambitions and intrigues. In his book he mocked Stauffenberg as a presumptuous and ignorant amateur. ... Stauffenberg must have been informed of Gisevius's background and it cannot have inspired his confidence. Gisevius was understandably upset by Stauffenberg's attitude toward him. ... Stauffenberg seemed to regard him merely as an incidental source of background information.^[53]