The Republican Waffle House on Defending the Innocent Preborn, part one

The chemical and surgical slaughter of the innocent preborn has been much in the news this past week even though it is the case that only the naturalists of the false opposite of the “left” who are running for the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party, Stalinist Bernard Sanders and the Pathological Liar Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton, have spoken at length about this American genocide. They are unbroken, unbent and without any spirit of compromise in their absolute, unequivocal support of the butchery of the innocent preborn from the first moment of conception to the very day of birth itself.

Stalinist Sanders and Pathological Liar Clinton believe that women have a “right to choose” to kill their babies, whether by chemical or surgical means, and it is does not matter to them that each method used to kill a living human being is truly the imposition of cruel and unusual punishment on one whose only “crime” has been to be conceived as the natural result of that which is proper to a truly married husband and wife.

Sanders, who is Jewish, was born on September 8, 1941, the Feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and is married to a baptized Catholic, Jane O’Meara Sanders, and Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton, who was born on October 26, 1947, both came of age in the era of so-called “moral liberation” in the 1960s. Each is an unreconstructed child of the “flower power” era of unbridled lust and a rejection of anything smacking of hierarchies that exist in the nature of things. They are still living in the 1960s as they champion what was called the “new morality” fifty years ago even though it was then and is now nothing other than the old immorality that has existed since Original Sin.

Unlike their rivals in the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist “right” who fudge their alleged opposition to various evils with all manner of rhetorical tricks that turn logic upside down and inside out, however, Sanders and Clinton support every moral aberration imaginable in the name of “human rights” and “toleration.” Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton even dressed up in black leather to address a so-called “LGBT” event that was hosted by two great paragons of Western civilization, Roseann O’Donnell, a baptized Catholic, and Billie Jean Moffitt King and that was attend by another moral voice of the Twentieth and Twenty-first Centuries, former United States Representative Barnett “Barney” Frank (D-Massachusetts) in the SoHo section of the Borough of Manhattan of the City of New York, New York  (see Leather Clad Clinton Jokes with Fellow Reprobated Souls.)

Sanders and Clinton are unstinting in their admiration of abortionists, practitioners of various perverted vices and mutants while rejecting anyone who seeks to “impose their morality” on the “new society” of feminism, egalitarianism and carnal “liberation” as “intolerant haters” and “bigots.” In other words, they are kindred spirits with the likes of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Victor Manuel Fernandez, Walter Kasper, Godfried Danneels, et al.

This having been noted, however, their supposed false opposites of then naturalist “right” stake out various partly pro-life/partly pro-abortion positions that are founded in illogic and contradiction. Each makes “exceptions” to the inviolability of innocent human life, thereby making the surviving members of the Republican Reality Show (Donald John Trump, Rafael Edward Cruz, John Richard Kasich) prone to backing down when making statement on the most pressing moral issue of our times. We have seen this time and time again in the past as poor naturalists such as Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., George Walker Bush, John Sidney McCain III, and Willard Mitt Romney, among so many others, have done so in the past.

Consider, for example, the fact that the supposed “pro-life” Governor of Texas, George Walker Bush, said on October 3, 2000, that he would not reverse the United States Food and Drug Administration’s decision to place the human pesticide, RU-486, on the marketplace after over seven years of clinical trials that began soon after then President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton issued an executive order on January 22, 1993, ordering the Food and Drug Administration “to promptly assess initiatives … [to] promote the testing, licensing, and manufacturing in the United States … [of] antiprogestins.” It was about thirty months after Clinton’s executive order that The New York Times reported women were getting pregnant deliberately in order to test the human pesticide in the Food and Drug Administration’s “clinical” trials.

This is what Bush the Lesser said in his debate with then Vice President Arnold Albert Gore, Jr., in St. Louis, Missouri:

BUSH: I don't think a president can unilaterally overturn it. The FDA has made its decision.

MODERATOR: That means you wouldn't, through appointments, to the FDA and ask them to --

BUSH: I think once a decision has been made, it's been made unless it's proven to be unsafe to women.

GORE: Jim, the question you asked, if I heard you correctly, was would he support legislation to overturn it. And if I heard the statement day before yesterday, you said you would order -- he said he would order his FDA appointee to review the decision. Now that sounds to me a little bit different. I just think that we ought to support the decision.

BUSH: I said I would make sure that women would be safe who used the drug.  (2000 Debate Transcript) [Droleskey comment: Uh, Mister Former President, the President of the United States of America can make appointments to the Food and Drug Administration who could indeed overturn such a decision by means of an administrative fiat. Moreover, the human pesticide, RU-486, is lethal to babies, Mister Former President, and is not "safe" for women's bodies and is positively lethal to their immortal souls. ]

True to his cowardly word, President George Walker Bush never lifted a finger to reverse the Food and Drug Administration’s September 28, 2000, to permit the licensing and sale of the human pesticide, RU-486. Moreover, it was just six years later during his second term as President of the United States of America that the United States Food and Drug Administration permitted the over-the-counter so-called “emergency” contraceptive named “Plan B” even though it is also a poison pill that serves as an abortifacient:

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today announced approval of Plan B, a contraceptive drug, as an over-the-counter (OTC) option for women aged 18 and older. Plan B is often referred to as emergency contraception or the "morning after pill." It contains an ingredient used in prescription birth control pills--only in the case of Plan B, each pill contains a higher dose and the product has a different dosing regimen. Like other birth control pills, Plan B has been available to all women as a prescription drug. When used as directed, Plan B effectively and safely prevents pregnancy. Plan B will remain available as a prescription-only product for women age 17 and under.

Duramed, a subsidiary of Barr Pharmaceuticals, will make Plan B available with a rigorous labeling, packaging, education, distribution and monitoring program. In the CARE (Convenient Access, Responsible Education) program Duramed commits to:

Provide consumers and healthcare professionals with labeling and education about the appropriate use of prescription and OTC Plan B, including an informational toll-free number for questions about Plan B;

Ensure that distribution of Plan B will only be through licensed drug wholesalers, retail operations with pharmacy services, and clinics with licensed healthcare practitioners, and not through convenience stores or other retail outlets where it could be made available to younger women without a prescription;

Packaging designed to hold both OTC and prescription Plan B. Plan B will be stocked by pharmacies behind the counter because it cannot be dispensed without a prescription or proof of age; and

Monitor the effectiveness of the age restriction and the safe distribution of OTC Plan B to consumers 18 and above and prescription Plan B to women under 18.

Today's action concludes an extensive process that included obtaining expert advice from a joint meeting of two FDA advisory committees and providing an opportunity for public comment on issues regarding the scientific and policy questions associated with the application to switch Plan B to OTC use. Duramed's application raised novel issues regarding simultaneously marketing both prescription and non-prescription Plan B for emergency contraception, but for different populations, in a single package.

The agency remains committed to a careful and rigorous scientific process for resolving novel issues in order to fulfill its responsibility to protect the health of all Americans. (FDA Approves Over-the-Counter Access for Plan B for Women 18 and Over .) 

Eight years of the “pro-life” administration of President George Walker Bush, which was populated with all manner of pro-aborts, did nothing to stop baby-killing. Indeed, one of his appointees, the first Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security, Thomas Ridge, a pro-abortion, pro-sodomite Catholic, ordered that annual inspections of abortuaries be halted when he was Governor of Pennsylvania, paving the way for Kermit Gosnell's house of butchery to operate without any kind of oversight whatsoever:

“Sometimes we [Republicans] just come across as too damned self-righteous, and I’m sorry, that’s just not the 21st century political party GOP that I think we need to govern America,” he said.

Tom Ridge, a two-term governor of Pennsylvania and the first Secretary of Homeland Security, made his remarks to the Log Cabin Republicans' Spirit of Lincoln dinner on October 23.

“Many Americans are outraged by the moralistic attacks on the gay and lesbian community from some within our party,” he said.

He decried “the narcissists and ideologues within our party” who promote an “offensive and exclusionary view,” as well as an “unacceptable rigidity and self-righteousness on social issues.”

Amidst those scathing remarks, Ridge bemoaned the modern “lack of civility and statesmanship.”

Pro-life activists, he said, “forget about separation of church and state” and engage in activities that are “consistent with what a church may propose but should not necessarily be at the epicenter of governing.”

He added that “God-fearing” people might support abortion and homosexuality. Opponents of those practices “should be more concerned about their own relationship with God,” quoting the admonition, “Judge not lest ye be judged.”

Ridge may be referring to himself. The Catholic has long supported abortion-on-demand and in February, he became one of 130 self-identifiedRepublican leaders who signed an amicus curiaebrief with the Supreme Court to support gay “marriage.”

So compelling was his commitment to a woman's “right to choose” that a grand jury laid the blame for Kermit Gosnell's “house of horrors” directly at his feet.

The Gosnell grand jury report stated, “With the change of administration from” pro-life Democratic Governor Bob “Casey to Governor Ridge” in 1995, “officials concluded that inspections would be ‘putting a barrier up to women’ seeking abortions. Better to leave clinics to do as they pleased, even though, as Gosnell proved, that meant both women and babies would pay.”

Despite a spate of warnings that Gosnell's abortion facility violated health and safety standards and state abortion laws, Gosnell was arrested only after officials learned he was selling prescription drugs to Philadelphia drug peddlers.

That record did not keep Ridge from giving a healthy dose of advice to his party.

A longtime advocate of amnesty for illegal immigrants, Ridge said the Republican Party must find a way to “legitimize” illegal immigrants or risk becoming a party of “just white males.”

He called for the GOP to become “a party worthy of the 21st century, a non-judgmental party” and “a more positive and compelling force for change.”

He allowed, “you can be an advocate in a private way for those points of view, but in my judgment, that’s not to be at the epicenter of your political agenda” and “certainly shouldn’t be...such a critical issue for the GOP nationally.”

While he lamented “there are Republicans out there who will be forever pro-life,” he told the homosexual group, they could be dealt with “perhaps by changing their rhetoric, if not their hearts.”

First he had to explain his own change of heart to the LGBT group, which supports gay “marriage” and hate crimes legislation.

“When I was governor, I signed the Defense of Marriage Act,” he said. “Since that time, frankly, my point of view has evolved.” 

In 1996, Ridge signed the state's marriage defense act that his successor, Tom Corbett, had had to defend in court. Despite their differences, Ridge promises to campaign for Corbett's re-election.

The 1996 law helped cement Ridge as an up-and-coming force in national politics two decades ago. He was touted as a possible running mate for Bob Dole in 1996.

President George W. Bush considered Tom Ridge as a possible vice president but balked because of Ridge's abortion views. He later appointed Ridge the first Secretary of Homeland Security after the 9/11 attacks.

After leaving the Bush administration, Ridge wrote a memoir insinuating that George W. Bush pressured him to change terror threat warnings for political reasons. However, the New York Times said he provided “no evidence that politics motivated the discussion,” leading columnist Michelle Malkin to label Ridge a"weasel."

In 2008, John McCain called Ridge “one of the great leaders” of his party, “and he happens to be pro-choice. And I don’t think that that would necessarily rule Tom Ridge out” as a vice presidential running mate, McCain said.

All three candidates settled for a pro-life running mate more amenable to the party faithful.

Aside from his emergence as a voice for the LGBT movement, Ridge's most recent appearance on the political stage has been less than flattering.

After Virginia Democratic candidate for governor Terry McAuliffe promised to keep subpar abortion facilities open, Steve Rossie of the Virginia-based Family Foundation said, “Remember, it was then-Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge who ignored the law in that state requiring abortion center inspections that allowed Gosnell to go unnoticed for years, harming untold numbers of women and children.”

You can read the full text of Ridge's remarks here. (Repubican Governor Who Ignored Gosnell's House of Horrors.)

George Walker Bush’s indifference to the inviolability of the daily slaughter of the preborn contrasted with his vigorous defense of the manner in which his unjust, immoral and unconstitutional invasion of Iraq was prosecuted despite the fact that tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis were killed. Bush has remained silent since leaving office about the horrors that his “regime change war” that was designed to “make the Mideast safe for America’s only ally” in the region, the Zionist State of Israel, visited upon Chaldean Rite Catholics and Orthodox Christians. His profligate spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and his equally profligate spending on statist programs in the name of “compassionate conservatism” ballooned the national debt, paving the way for a man who would double the national debt in his own perverted right, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro.

As was the case with President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, President Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro has been relentless in his support of baby-killing. Relentless. Obama/Soetoro has taken full advantage of the fact that George Walker Bush let the human pesticide become marketed by refuse to order the overturn of the Food and Drug Administration’s September 28, 2000, decision by seeing to it that the time frame for the using of this poison pill may be expanded to permit more babies to be killed:

The Food and Drug Administration has relaxed the guidelines for taking a pill that induces abortion, reviving one of the most contentious issues of the abortion debate. The change allows women to use the drug further into pregnancy and with fewer visits to the doctor.

The announcement on Wednesday came unexpectedly in the final stretch of the Obama administration and amid an election campaign in which both parties covet the women’s vote. Some abortion opponents charged that the new regimen was politically motivated. The F.D.A. said its actions were based strictly on medical science.

The change was an unequivocal victory for abortion rights advocates who had been fighting laws in Texas, North Dakota and Ohio, among other states, that require doctors prescribing the pill to follow the directions on the F.D.A. label for using it, which had been more stringent.

The change brings the directions for taking the drug, mifepristone, in line with what has become standard medical practice in most states: reducing the dosage to 200 milligrams from 600 milligrams, decreasing the number of visits a woman must make to a doctor to two from three, and extending the period when she can take the pill to 10 weeks ofpregnancy from seven weeks.

The debate over the drug, formerly known as RU-486, has raged for decades, with abortion rights groups demanding access to it in the United States in the 1990s. Medication-induced abortions have increasingly been used to terminate pregnancies in recent years, and limiting access to them has become an important front in the anti-abortion movement. They made up as much as a quarter of all abortions in 2011, according to the most recent figures from the Guttmacher Institute, which tracks women’s reproductive health issues. Planned Parenthood said as many as half of eligible women in its clinics requested medication-induced abortions.

The original label on the drug was based on clinical evidence from the 1990s before the pill was approved in 2000. Doctors said that new evidence had emerged supporting lower doses, which have fewer side effects, and a longer period in which women could take the medication safely. In most states, doctors have been following the medically accepted regimen, even though the label advised otherwise, a fairly common medical practice known as off-label use.

“This is a major shift both in closing the gap between science and legal regulation and in enabling women to exercise their constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy,” said Suzanne B. Goldberg, a law professor at Columbia University who specializes in sexuality and gender law.

The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said in a statement that it was “pleased that the updated F.D.A.-approved regimen for mifepristone reflects the current available scientific evidence and best practices.”

Anti-abortion groups said that the change did nothing to improve safety for women, and that some women fell ill or died after taking the drug. (A spokeswoman for the company that makes the drug, Danco Laboratories, said there was no proof it caused the deaths.)

“It appears this has been done for the convenience and the profitability of the abortion industry,” said Randall O’Bannon, the director of education and research for the National Right to Life Committee.

Eric Scheidler, the executive director of the Pro-Life Action League, an anti-abortion group based in Chicago, said, “My first thought was that this is a bone that the Obama administration was throwing out there to their friends in the abortion lobby.”

The drug works by blocking receptors of progesterone, an important hormone in pregnancy. Women have to get the drug from a medical provider. They can also get another drug, misoprostol, in the same first visit to the provider, according to the new label. Together, the drugs induce miscarriage. The label still requires a “follow-up with the health care provider,” but some abortion rights advocates said that could be interpreted as a lab test or something that did not require a visit to a doctor.

Many states have passed laws to restrict the use of mifepristone since its F.D.A. approval. Some of them require medical professionals who administer the drug to be licensed physicians, rather than nurses or physician assistants. Many states also require the prescribing doctor to be present with the patient, a rule that abortion rights advocates say blocks women in rural areas from receiving the medication remotely.

Laws requiring physicians to adhere to the guidelines on the label have also passed in Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Arizona, but have been blocked by court order.

It was not immediately clear what the change would mean for state laws and the future of the legal effort by anti-abortion groups. Kristi Hamrick, a spokeswoman for Americans United for Life, an organization that drafts model legislation seeking to regulate the drugs, said, “This is just Day 1, and so our lawyers are looking at it.” The F.D.A. said it had followed regulatory procedure in changing the label. Danco submitted an application last May, and the application was subject to a 10-month review period, which ended March 29, the agency said.

“Honestly, I think the timing was based on when the company put in the application for a label change, not based on election timing,” said Susan Wood, the director of the Jacobs Institute of Women’s Health at the Milken Institute School of Public Health at George Washington University. “The F.D.A. just responded as part of their regulatory responsibilities, not on a political time frame.”

In Texas, abortion providers applauded the change.

“This will allow us to do two things immediately: Expand medical abortions up to 10 weeks of pregnancy, and cut out the unnecessary additional visit for the second dose of medication,” said Amy Hagstrom Miller, the president of Whole Woman’s Health, which has abortion facilities in five states including Texas and is the lead plaintiff in an abortion case before the Supreme Court.

More than 40 percent of patients at the group’s Texas clinics chose medication abortions before Texas passed a law in 2013, requiring, among other things, that doctors follow the F.D.A.’s protocol. Since then, only about 5 percent have, she said.

Dr. Raegan McDonald-Mosley, the chief medical officer of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said the change would reduce confusion among patients who had to sign two sets of consent forms, one with the regimen recommended by much of medical science and one that detailed the requirements on the F.D.A. label.

“Now those two things are in sync,” she said. (New Rules Extend Time Frame for Human Pesticide.)

George Walker Bush’s first Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson, a Catholic, did nothing to demand the reversal of the decision made by the FDA during the final few months of his predecessor, Donna Shalala, who is a Maronite Rite Catholic, I would like to remind those with short memories. Tommy Thompson, who had been Governor of Wisconsin from January 5, 1987, to February 1, 2001, thereby helped to institutionalize the human pesticide as an ordinary part of the repertoire of available pills by which innocent preborn babies could be killed.

Here is what Mrs. Judie Brown said when Thompson said in his Senate confirmation hearings that he had heard nothing about the lethal effects of RU-486 (despite the fact that women have died and that the poison pill is absolutely deadly for innocent preborn children:

WASHINGTON, April 19 /PRNewswire/ -- "Health and Human Services Secretary  Tommy Thompson has denied the undeniable, and endorsed a chemical nightmare,"  said Judie Brown, president of American Life League.

On one of the nation's largest television news networks, Thompson said  "nobody has ... said that RU-486 is unsafe" (The Edge with Paula Zahn, FOX  News Channel, 4/17/01).   Thompson's statement is a direct contradiction of his previous promises to investigate the health risks of the RU-486 abortion  regimen, and it also flies in the face of congressional concerns.

Thompson said, "Until somebody calls in and says that it's unsafe or that it's something that has caused problems for -- for women, we will not be reviewing it, just like any other drug.  It's the same as other drugs that  have been approved.  And it has been approved in America, and therefore, until  it's proven or has any suggestion that it's unsafe, it will not be reviewed."

"For the record, Mr. Thompson," said Brown, "RU-486 always kills a preborn person, and FDA documents indicate that the second chemical in the RU-486  abortion regimen has caused cardiac failure, coronary artery occlusion, uterine perforation, uterine rupture, and on and on."  

Brown said RU-486 is a chemical killer. "Mr. Thompson, don't pretend that  you do not know this," she said.  "It is killing innocent preborn children, and it can kill women. Distribution of RU-486 must be halted immediately." (Tommy Thompson Endorses Human Pesticide, RU-486.)

Yes, yes, yes. The "pro-life" George Walker Bush administration. Yes, yes, yes.

This is one of the reasons that my eyes rolled and my blood pressure reached the boiling point at times in the first decade of the current century as sleep, uninformed Catholics spoke in glowing terms of the “pro-life” Bush administration. George Walker Bush’s administration helped to institutionalize baby-killing just as much as had his predecessor, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, had done. Those who did not see this during the Bush 43 administration permitted themselves to be lulled to sleep as they lived in fear of the supposedly "greater evil" that lurked always around the corner. Tell me, please, how Tommy Thompson was any different than Donna Shalala?

As far as I can remember—and my memory is still decent on such matters, no “bishop” of the counterfeit church of conciliarism ever upbraided Donna Shalala for her role in presiding over the Food and Drug Administration’s testing of RU-486 in the 1990s or for her decision to approve the FDA’s finding for its marketing on September 28, 2000, and no conciliar “bishop” in this country ever reprimanded Tommy Thompson for his refusal to reverse Shalala’s decision. Many of the American conciliar “bishops” have long, long enabled pro-aborts in the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist “left,” and others among their apostate numbers have long, long provided cover for phony “pro-life” politicians in the organized crime family of the false opposite naturalist “right.”

Yes, baby-killing, whether by chemical or surgical means, has been enabled by the lords of concilarism in the United States of America and throughout the rest of the world. Whatever “pro-life” rhetoric some of them used in the past was just as empty as that of the politicians with whom they have been aligned. This empty rhetoric—and the lack of sanctions imposed upon pro-abortion public officials—contributed mightily to creating a political and legal environment in which the chemical and surgical killing of the innocent preborn has become such an accepted fact of life that even supposed “pro-life” politicians take refuge in the “impossibility” of changing the law as to do so would to be anger a large number of voters. One can anger God, but one cannot anger voters in our Judeo-Masonic world of naturalism and Modernism.

This having been noted, It is very interesting that the FDA’s “revision” of the September 28, 2000, decision of the United States Food and Drug Administration was announced on the day after Donald John Trump’s “town hall” session that was hosted by a seventy-one year-old lifelong Democratic Party activist and apologist, Christopher Matthews, a Catholic who graduated from Holy Cross College in Worcester, Massachsuetts, in 1967, made headlines as a result of the spur-of-the-moment answer that Trump gave when Matthews kept pushing him as to what kind of civil punishment should be meted out to women who kill their babies. Perhaps the timing of the FDA’s announcement had nothing to do with Trump’s remarks. Perhaps they did.  

One can always count on those who support evil without conditions or restrictions to take full advantage of the perceived “missteps” made by equivocal “pro-life” candidates for public office, especially missteps made by those who do not understand much about the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law, those who have never been trained in logic, those who are prone to folding like “cheap cameras” when the reaction to some unplanned statement causes a storm of protest.

Always eager to learn the wrong lessons, the hapless careerists within the organized crime family of the naturalist “right” flip-flopped over abortion in a variety of ways in 2008 and 2012, finding more and more inventive ways to appear to be “pro-life” in order to feed a few crumbs to the poor saps who believe that the party of the “lesser evil” will do less harm that the “greater evil” du jour, while being tongue-tied when challenged by reporters about the issue.

To wit, the “establishment’s” John Sidney McCain III, the supposed “pro-life” candidate in 2008, was as much a case study in contradiction and ignorance as the man who had bested him for the Republican Party presidential nomination in 2000, the establishment’s then anointed leader, George Walker Bush, and as was Willard Mitt Romney, the “establishment” homme du jour four years later. Indeed, McCain tried to convince the flip-flopping Romney in 2012 to "leave" the issue of the chemical and surgical assassination of children "alone" in order to appeal to more voters and thus win more elections:

WALLACE: We're going to talk about that in the next segment, and I think it is a real issue.

Finally, let's talk about the GOP. Republicans -- I don't have to tell you -- had a really rough night on election night. And let's look at the break down of some of the numbers.

You lost unmarried women by 36 points, Hispanics by 44 points. Young people by 23 points.

Does your party need to change, especially in its outreach with those groups, on social issues like same sex marriage, on immigration reform?

MCCAIN: I think we have to have a bigger tent. That's -- no doubt about it. And, obviously, we have to do immigration reform.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the demographics are not on our side. And, we are going to have to give a much more positive agenda. It can't be just being against the Democrats, and against Harry Reid and against Obama. You have to be for things, and we have to give them something like the Contract with America, that we gave them some years ago. We have to give them something to be for.

And as far as young women are concerned, absolutely -- I don't think anybody like me, I can state my position on abortion, but, to -- other than that, leave the issue alone when we are in the kind of economic situation and, frankly, national security situation we're in.

WALLACE: When you say leave the issue alone, you would allow, you'd say, freedom of choice?

MCCAIN: I would allow people to have those opinions and respect those opinions. I'm proud of my pro-life position and record. But if someone disagrees with me, I respect your views. (Transcript of Fox News Sunday, November 25, 2012.)

Although I said this a lot in 2008 when McCain, who had given serious consideration to having the pro-abortion, pro-perversity United States Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-I-Connecticut), a Democrat who won re-election in 2006 as an independent, as his vice presidential running mate, was running against have tried to "reach" you Senator McCain a number of times, I am going to do so yet again: God cares about the chemical and surgical slaughter of the innocent preborn in their mothers' wombs daily under cover of the civil law. God cares, that is, the true God of Divine Revelation, not the concept of Him that was invented by the man, Father Martin Luther, O.S.A., who founded the false religion to which you belong. God cares. And if God cares, petty little intellectual midgets such as Senator John Sidney McCain III had better care, especially if they reckon with these words of Pope Pius XI:

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.)

To paraphrase the old Fram oil filter television advertisement from the 1970 ("You can pay me now, or you can pay me later"), those who treat the daily slaughter of the preborn with such indifference as John Sidney McCain III can pay God now by repenting of their indifference and of their support for such killing in the so-called "hard cases," or they can pay Him later after failing to learn that "God is their Judge and Avenger of innocent blood which cried from earth to Heaven.” This is true even though Jorge Mario Bergoglio, of course, does not believe a single word of what Pope Pius XI wrote in Casti Connubii about the eternal fate of pro-abortion public officials.

Pardon me while I heave a very heavy sigh as I remind the not-so-vast readership of this site once again that this was nothing new in 2012 for the very vapid John Sidney McCain III.

To wit, McCain and his wife Cindy played the same cynical game that was played by Ronald Wilson Reagan and Nancy Reagan, the cynical game that was played by George Herbert Walker Bush and Barbara Bush, the cynical game that has been played for the last eight years by George Walker Bush and Laura Bush.

What is this game?

The Republican naturalist who vied for the White House in 2008 protested eight years ago that he was "pro-life" even though he made "exceptions" to the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment, while his wife says that she is in favor of Roe v. Wade.

Consider Mrs. McCain's interview with the Columbia Broadcasting System's Katie Couric on September 3, 2008: 

Yesterday during an interview with CBS’s Katie Couric, Cindy McCain said that she does not oppose a woman’s right to an abortion in the case of rape or incest — a position that differs from the Arizona senator’s running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK). Couric then asked, “Do you believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned?” Cindy McCain replied, “No.” When Couric noted, “Your husband does,” Cindy McCain said, “No, I don’t think he does.” Couric had to explain Sen. McCain’s position on abortion and Cindy McCain then agreed:

COURIC: He believes that should be overturned. That’s what he told me, and that it should go to the states.

CINDY McCAIN: Well, in that respect, yes. Yeah, it is–that–I understand what you’re saying, that is a states issue. Absolutely. Definitely.

At the end of the interview, Couric said that “we contacted the McCain campaign to clarify Cindy McCain’s position on abortion. They told us that, like Laura Bush, Mrs. McCain does not favor overturning Roe v. Wade, which guarantees the legal right to an abortion.” (Cindy McCain says Roe v. Wade should not be reversed.)

I had a "moral obligation" in 2008 to vote in support of this cynical game when it was clear to me at the time that John Sidney McCain III did not care about doing anything of substance to retard baby-killing upon demand in the United States of America? I don't think so!

Voters made their choice at the time. They chose Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro instead of Obama/Soetoro Lite, which is what happened in 2012 as the "Bob Dole of 2012," Willard Mitt Romney, lost to Obama/Soetoro on November 6, 2012.

In case you have forgotten, this is how McCain responded to moderator Bob Schieffer of the Columbia Broadcasting System during his third debate with then United States Senator Barack Hussein Obama (D-Illinois) at Hofstra University, Hempstead, New York, on October 15, 2008, the Feast of Saint Teresa of Avila:

SCHIEFFER: All right. Let's stop there and go to another question. And this one goes to Senator McCain. Senator McCain, you believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned. Senator Obama, you believe it shouldn't.

Could either of you ever nominate someone to the Supreme Court who disagrees with you on this issue? Senator McCain?

MCCAIN: I would never and have never in all the years I've been there imposed a litmus test on any nominee to the court. That's not appropriate to do.

SCHIEFFER: But you don't want Roe v. Wade to be overturned?

MCCAIN: I thought it was a bad decision. I think there were a lot of decisions that were bad. I think that decisions should rest in the hands of the states. I'm a federalist. And I believe strongly that we should have nominees to the United States Supreme Court based on their qualifications rather than any litmus test. Now, let me say that there was a time a few years ago when the United States Senate was about to blow up. Republicans wanted to have just a majority vote to confirm a judge and the Democrats were blocking in an unprecedented fashion.

We got together seven Republicans, seven Democrats. You were offered a chance to join. You chose not to because you were afraid of the appointment of, quote, "conservative judges."

I voted for Justice Breyer and Justice Ginsburg. Not because I agreed with their ideology, but because I thought they were qualified and that elections have consequences when presidents are nominated. This is a very important issue we're talking about.

Senator Obama voted against Justice Breyer and Justice Roberts on the grounds that they didn't meet his ideological standards. That's not the way we should judge these nominees. Elections have consequences. They should be judged on their qualifications. And so that's what I will do.

I will find the best people in the world -- in the United States of America who have a history of strict adherence to the Constitution. And not legislating from the bench.

SCHIEFFER: But even if it was someone -- even someone who had a history of being for abortion rights, you would consider them?

MCCAIN: I would consider anyone in their qualifications. I do not believe that someone who has supported Roe v. Wade that would be part of those qualifications. But I certainly would not impose any litmus test. (The Third McCain-Obama Presidential Debate.) (An interjection: Hey, McCain, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro was not in the United States Senate when the pro-abortion Stephen Breyer was confirmed with the support of all but nine Republicans on July 30, 1994. And they talk about Donald Trump not knowing facts. He has good company with most of the other clowns under the big tent of the circus of midget naturalists.

No litmus test?

This is not so. John Sidney McCain III would never appoint a blatant racist or a person reputed to be, whether falsely or not, an anti-Semite to any position in government, including to a seat on the Supreme Court of the United States of America.  Such a person wouldn't get a litmus test. He would be deemed unacceptable solely on the basis of hearsay. Not necessarily so with an out-and-out pro-abort.

Although McCain stated that one who supported the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Roe v. Wade, January 22, 1973, would not have the qualifications to be nominated by him for a seat on the High Court, he reiterated that he had no litmus test. In other words, support for the slicing and dicing of innocent human beings in their mothers' wombs does not necessarily disqualify one from holding a seat on the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

Indeed, McCain wanted to select his pro-abortion pal, former Department of Homeland Security Secretary and Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge, a Catholic, or another pro-abortion pal, United States Senator Joseph Lieberman, I-Connecticut, who is Jewish, before turning to Alaska Governor Sarah Heath Palin. (See Bob Dole, part trois.) Those who support abortion are not disqualified from service in government as far as John Sidney McCain III is concerned.

A matter of states' rights, of Federalism?

No, decisions concerning the inviolability of innocent human life at any stage from the moment of fertilization through all subsequent stages until natural death do not belong to "the states."

No human institution of civil governance has any authority from God to enact positive legislation or to render judicial decisions contrary to the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law. This meansthat the Fifth Commandment is non-negotiable. Human institutions of civil governance may determine the penalties to be imposed upon those adjudged guilty after due process of law of violating the Fifth Commandment's absolute prohibition against any and all attacks on innocent human life. Such institutions of civil governance do not have any authority to permit the taking of such life. This is not a matter of states' rights. This is a matter of God's immutable and eternal Law from which no human being may legitimately dissent at any time for any reason.

Yet it is that even the man who walloped Donald John Trump in Wisconsin yesterday, Tuesday, April 5, 2016, the Feast of Saint Vincent Ferrer, O.P., United States Senator Rafael Edward Cruz (R-Texas) believes that the “people” should decide whether baby-killing should be legal, thereby denying that God’s laws are binding upon men and their nations with or without their “consent” and approval:

During audience questions at the town hall, Cruz also faced the politically charged subject of abortion.

Cruz said he wouldn’t make abortion illegal, if elected president, though he is pro-life.

“If you're going to change a major issue of public policy the way to do so is at ballot box,” he said.

Cruz also said “one of the worst things” about  the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling was that it took the decision about whether to have an abortion “out of the control of the people.”

“I believe we have democratic society,” Cruz continued. “If somebody wants to pass legislation limiting or expanding abortion  … it’s a much better system to have important policy decisions decided at ballot box.”

However, he also said high court decision was the result of “activism” and suggested it was not settled law.

He also brought up Trump's statements over the past week on abortion.

"He's willing to say whatever he can to win votes," Cruz said. 

"The statement Donald Trump made this week...was a bizarre statement...it's showed he's not considered seriously this issue," he added.  (Cruz Reaches Out to Women Voters.)

While it is true that Donald John Trump has not thought much about abortion, a subject to be explored in part two of this commentary, neither has the baptized Catholic turned Baptist named “Ted” Cruz, who agrees with Trump (and McCain and Romney and Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., etc.) that the “people” should decide that which is beyond their ability to decide. A “President” Cruz will make “pro-life” remarks while doing nothing of substance as he believes that it is up to the people. Although I carry no brief for anyone’s candidacy, including Trump’s, “Ted” Cruz, who is the supposed “heavyweight” on matters of policy and constitutional law in comparison to Trump, has thought as little about the issue of the direct, intentional taking of innocent preborn life as does his competitor.

Remember, Cruz denies the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage by means of his open support for contraception. It makes perfect sense for this supposed “heavyweight” to deny the Sovereignty of God over that of the “people” when it comes to the protection of the innocent preborn. Cruz is thus simply a younger version of McCain, who desired to throw the issue of baby-killing back to the state legislatures where it began in the 1960s.

Similarly, Willard Mitt Romney, who supported abortion when he ran for the United States Senate against United States Senator Edward Moore Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) in 1994 and when he ran for Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in 2002, was all over the place on the issue of abortion in 2012.

This pathetic Mormon moralist tried to use political muscle to get then United States Representative Todd Akin (R-Missouri) to quit his race against United States Senator Claire McCaskill after Akin explained why he was opposed to the direct, intentional taking of innocent human life in cases where a child is conceived as a result of a forcible attack upon a woman’s purity. Romney’s condemnation of Akin was joined by his vice presidential running mate, United States Representative Paul Davis Ryan (R-Wisconsin), who is now the current Speaker of the United States House of Representatives and is positioning himself, despite his worthless disavowals to the contrary, to be the Republican Party presidential nominee this year in the event of a contested convention in Cleveland, Ohio.

Romney then went on to distance himself from Richard Mourdock, the Republican senatorial nominee in Indiana in 2012, when he made similarly akward remarks about babies conceived as a result of forcible attacks upon their mothers:

Mourdock, who's been locked in one of the country's most watched Senate races, was asked during the final minutes of a debate with Democratic challenger Rep. Joe Donnelly whether abortion should be allowed in cases of rape or incest.

"I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God. And, I think, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen," Mourdock said. (Romney distances himself from Mourdock's comments)

Well, Mr. Mourdock, who is not a Catholic, need not have "struggled" with understanding the simple truth that an innocent baby conceived under such circumstances is loved by God, Who did not intend the circumstances under which the child came into existence but Who nevertheless has chosen his mother in His ineffable Providence what appears to the worldly-minded to be an "unbearable" cross to give Him honor and glory through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. A child is never to be punished for the sins of his father. Never. Innocent human life is inviolable in all circumstances and can never be subjected to any direct, intentional attack upon it, something that Mr. Mourdock does not understand as he makes an "exception" for when it is alleged that there is a threat to the life of a mother.

For stating the simple truth that a child is the natural result of the use of the gift proper to married couples even in such circumstances that are laden with emotion, you see, Mr. Mourdock came under attack from all manner of forces as well as hearing Willard Mitt Romney's campaign spokesman, Andrea Saul, distance the former pro-abort-turned-"pro-lifer"-turned "moderate" Romney from yet another supposedly "controversial" comment made by a Republican candidate for the United States Senate:

It was not immediately clear what effect Mourdock's comments might have during the final two weeks before the Nov. 6 election. But they could prove problematic. Romney distanced himself from Mourdock on Tuesday night — a day after a television ad featuring the former Massachusetts governor supporting the GOP Senate candidate began airing in Indiana.

"Gov. Romney disagrees with Richard Mourdock's comments, and they do not reflect his views," Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul said in an email to The Associated Press. Romney aides would not say whether the ad would be pulled and if the Republican presidential nominee would continue to support Mourdock's Senate bid. (Romney distances himself from Mourdock's comments)  

What was there to disagree with, Willard?

Ah, Romney compounded this righteous indignation and Mormon sanctimony the boasting of his support for contraception and the direct, intentional killing of innocent preborn babies in their mothers' wombs in this and two other instances (see Romney Ad Touts Moderate Views on Abortion). What Romney did not recognize four years ago—and what no Republican presidential nominee in the past thirty-six year has ever understood, is that no one can consider himself "pro-life," no less expect the electoral support of voters who consider themselves to be "pro-life." if he supports contraception, which denies the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage, and/or if he supports the direct, intentional destruction of an innocent human life under any circumstances whatsoever.

This is a very long way of saying that Donald John Trump has a whole lot of company when it comes to being ill-informed about the issue of baby-killing. The only difference in Trump’s case is that he has no rational foundation to think clearly on issues as he speaks off-the-cuff without any clear grasp of principles while his opponents have thought much about abortion: they have thought much how to be appease the “base” while not threatening general election voters, that is.

As noted earlier in this commentary, the reality of our situation is that the chemical and surgical execution of the innocent preborn has become embedded as a “given” in American law and culture. This need not have been the case if the conciliar “bishops” imposed sanctions upon pro-abortion Catholics forty years ago, but most of those “bishops” (some were still true bishops at that point, of course) had the same statist agenda as did the Catholics in the Democratic Party whose support of baby-killing they enabled so consistently and with as much “we can’t be one issue voters” sanctimony as the could muster. In other words, the conciliar “bishops” forty years ago were but forerunners of “Pope Francis” himself.

Part two of this commentary will focus on Donald John Trump’s much publicized “town hall” session that was hosted by the pro-abortion Catholic named Christopher Matthews, who became a septuagenarian on December 30, 2015.

For the moment, however, suffice it so say that the quadrennial farce of naturalism will always lead to frustration among those who expect different results than what has been the case in the past. Those who equivocate on moral issues lose. Those who are firm win, and the statists of the false opposite of the “left” are very firm in their support of evil.

The real losers in our farcical system is truth, especially the truth that it is impossible to realize sustained economic prosperity or national security as long as men and their nations seek to protect that which is repugnant to the peace and happiness of eternity under the cover of the civil law:

The more closely the temporal power of a nation aligns itself with the spiritual, and the more it fosters and promotes the latter, by so much the more it contributes to the conservation of the commonwealth. For it is the aim of the ecclesiastical authority by the use of spiritual means, to form good Christians in accordance with its own particular end and object; and in doing this it helps at the same time to form good citizens, and prepares them to meet their obligations as members of a civil society. This follows of necessity because in the City of God, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, a good citizen and an upright man are absolutely one and the same thing. How grave therefore is the error of those who separate things so closely united, and who think that they can produce good citizens by ways and methods other than those which make for the formation of good Christians. For, let human prudence say what it likes and reason as it pleases, it is impossible to produce true temporal peace and tranquillity by things repugnant or opposed to the peace and happiness of eternity. (Silvio Cardinal Antoniano, quoted by Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.)

Although the proximate antecedent roots to the chastisement that faces us today date back to certain elements of the Renaissance and, as mentioned earlier, the Protestant Revolution and the subsequent rise and triumph of naturalism, the rapid promotion of evil under cover of the civil law has occurred in the past fifty years in no small measure as a result of the counterfeit church of conciliarism's "reconciliation" with the principles of Modernity and as a result of its sacramentally barren liturgical rites that have predisposed so many millions of Catholics to embrace the "secular magisterium" of the world and to scoff at any residue of Catholic teaching that remains in that conciliar church.

We, though, must be reminded of the truths taught by such great apostles of Christ the King as the late Louis-Edouard-François-Desiré Cardinal Pie, whose writing had the support of Popes Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X and Benedict XV (the latter two long after Cardinal Pie's death, having studied his writings in great depth and approving of them without any complaint), wrote in the Nineteenth Century:

"If Jesus Christ," proclaims Msgr. Pie in a magnificent pastoral instruction, "if Jesus Christ Who is our light whereby we are drawn out of the seat of darkness and from the shadow of death, and Who has given to the world the treasure of truth and grace, if He has not enriched the world, I mean to say the social and political world itself, from the great evils which prevail in the heart of paganism, then it is to say that the work of Jesus Christ is not a divine work. Even more so: if the Gospel which would save men is incapable of procuring the actual progress of peoples, if the revealed light which is profitable to individuals is detrimental to society at large, if the scepter of Christ, sweet and beneficial to souls, and perhaps to families, is harmful and unacceptable for cities and empires; in other words, if Jesus Christ to whom the Prophets had promised and to Whom His Father had given the nations as a heritage, is not able to exercise His authority over them for it would be to their detriment and temporal disadvantage, it would have to be concluded that Jesus Christ is not God". . . .

"To say Jesus Christ is the God of individuals and of families, but not the God of peoples and of societies, is to say that He is not God. To say that Christianity is the law of individual man and is not the law of collective man, is to say that Christianity is not divine. To say that the Church is the judge of private morality, but has nothing to do with public and political morality, is to say that the Church is not divine."

In fine, Cardinal Pie insists:

"Christianity would not be divine if it were to have existence within individuals but not with regard to societies."

Fr. de St. Just asks, in conclusion:

"Could it be proven in clearer terms that social atheism conduces to individualistic atheism?" (Selected Writings of Cardinal Pie of Poitiers, Catholic Action Resource Center.) 

Root causes.

Keep focused on root causes.

It is not as soothing as are supposedly “easy" solutions.

However, there are no such "easy" solutions.

Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order, and it is because the lords of conciliarism have abandoned the Catholic Faith and exalted "Man" and his "ability" to "better" the world that we find ourselves deep in an abyss caused by the concentration of almost all philosophical errors and theological heresies that have been known in salvation history from which the only escape is through Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart as we continue to pray as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits.

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

Our Lady of Ransom, pray for us!

Saint Joseph, Patron of Departing Souls, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.  

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.