Although there is much news about how the various sectors of the intelligence community, including James Comey, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, are undermining the legitimacy of President Donald John Trump, suffice it to say for the moment that another president had his own battles with the spooks who believe that they are laws unto themselves and can act as they please in the name of “national security.”
An editorial in the Daily Inter Lake newspaper, which is published in Kalispell, Montana, provided the identity of that other president and how his desire to splinter the Central Intelligence Agency in a thousand pieces and then scatter it to the winds have cost him his very life:
The New York Times, in a front-page story, said that the president “wanted to splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.”
Whether that quote is accurate or not we don’t know, but it makes sense that after the agency damaged the president’s reputation so badly, he would react with such anger.
If you are a student of history, you already know that the president who swore a vendetta against the Central Intelligence Agency wasn’t Donald Trump, but John F. Kennedy, and that although he did not abolish the agency before his assassination, he did fire its director, Allen Dulles, in an effort to gain control over what was considered a rogue agency that had forced Kennedy’s hand in the Bay of Pigs disaster. (Daily Inter Lake Editorial, March 18, 2017.)
It is with a complete understanding of the effort being made to delegitimize, impeach, convict and remove President Donald John Trump, however, that my criticism of him remains entirely unchanged as he does not understand right principles. He knows next-to-nothing about First and Last Things, and the little that he thinks he knows is completely wrong.
One cannot govern by means of “Twitter.” A president has better things to do with his time than try to respond to everything that is said about him. This demeans his stature as president and dignifies critics who should be left to their own devices. That the president is incapable of letting any slight go unanswered is the direct result of his not knowing the true Faith, which teaches us to offer up whatever injustices we suffer in this world and to pray for the conversion of those responsible for them. Indeed, we should rejoice when we are ill-regarded by our fellow men as ours caused Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to be ill-regarded and hated by most men of His time, especially during the events of His Passion and Death. Trump has zero understanding of this.
Thus it is that nothing of the effort by many in the intelligence community and the members of the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist “left” and some of the members of the organized crime family of the naturalist “right” (most notably, of course, United States Senators John Sidney McCain III and his thirty-third degree Masonic war hawk and fellow statist, Lindsey Graham) to delegitimize President Trump detracts from the fact that the entire mess facing us at this time is the result of the Protestant Revolution’s overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King, which made possible the Judeo-Masonic anti-Incarnational civil state of Modernity. Remember, the devil wants us to live in a state of constant agitation, hoping that we will abandon our Catholic senses to place something approaching an infallible trust in this or that set of naturalists, especially during Lent, a time when our focus should be on praying, penance, fasting and deeds of almsgiving.
One of the many proofs about this agitation involves the current debate over what is called the American Health Care Act, aka RyanCare, that keeps many parts of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka ObamaCare, in place. Supporters of President Trump want to be with their man as he battles the Democrats, who are entirely opposed to any partial undoing of ObamaCare, and members of the conservative Freedom Caucus of the United States House of Representatives.
As I have noted so many times in the past, it is almost impossible to take away “goodies” doled out by the Federal government of the United States of America. No matter the fact that there is no constitutional justification for the national takeover of the health and insurance industries, ObamaCare’s main pillars, including the so-called “state exchanges,” are here to stay. I said this in 2012 and again in 2015. I will say it again: ObamaCare is here to stay as RyanCare accepts the basic premise that it is a function of our Federal government. Health care, such as it is in this country today, is no more a function of any government than is education. Most of the arguments about RyanCare, for example, never center on the simple fact that ObamaCare itself was a statist effort that was in complete violation of the Natural Law principle subsidiarity. It is easy to get lost in the “us versus them” trees when one accepts false premises as legitimate foundations for rational policy-making. Truth must be our guide. Nothing.
The truth about RyanCare is that there is nothing “pro-life” about it whatsoever.
Consider, please, the following provisions that denies Federal taxpayer funding to “community” health providers of "family planning services" who kill babies surgically on an elective basis but permits various “exceptions” whereby babies can be sliced and diced:
(1) PROHIBITED ENTITY.—The term “prohibited entity” means an entity, including its affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, and clinics—
(A) that, as of the date of enactment of this Act—
(i) is an organization described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from tax under section 501(a) of such Code;
(ii) is an essential community provider described in section 156.235 of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment of this Act), that is primarily engaged in family planning services, reproductive health, and related medical care; and
(iii) provides for abortions, other than an abortion—
(I) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or
(II) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself; and
(B) for which the total amount of Federal and State expenditures under the Medicaid program under title XIX of the Social Security Act in fiscal year 2014 made directly to the entity and to any affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, or clinics of the entity, or made to the entity and to any affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, or clinics of the entity as part of a nationwide health care provider network, exceeded $350,000,000.
(2) DIRECT SPENDING.—The term “direct spending” has the meaning given that term under section 250(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 900(c)).
(3) CONFORMING AMENDMENT RELATED TO ABORTION COVERAGE.—Section 36B(c)(3) of such Code, as amended by paragraph (2), is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
“(D) CERTAIN RULES RELATED TO ABORTION.—
“(i) OPTION TO PURCHASE SEPARATE COVERAGE OR PLAN.—Nothing in subparagraph (A) shall be construed as prohibiting any individual from purchasing separate coverage for abortions described in such subparagraph, or a health plan that includes such abortions, so long as no credit is allowed under this section with respect to the premiums for such coverage or plan.
“(ii) OPTION TO OFFER COVERAGE OR PLAN.—Nothing in subparagraph (A) shall restrict any health insurance issuer offering a health plan from offering separate coverage for abortions described in such subparagraph, or a plan that includes such abortions, so long as premiums for such separate coverage or plan are not paid for with any amount attributable to the credit allowed under this section (or the amount of any advance payment of the credit under section 1412 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act).
“(iii) OTHER TREATMENTS.—The treatment of any infection, injury, disease, or disorder that has been caused by or exacerbated by the performance of an abortion shall not be treated as an abortion for purposes of subparagraph (A) (House Bill 1628.)
Although much is being made about the fact that Planned Barrenhood is the target of these provisions as its merchants of death will never give stop killing babies and selling their bodily organs under various pretexts, babies can still be killed surgically under these provisions according to the terms of the “exceptions,” and we all know how scrupulously honest those who kill for a living are in making sure that a genuine exception actually exists, right? No, not right.
For instance. the move for the decriminalization of surgical baby-killing began at the state level (so much for demigod of states' rights) as pro-abortion leaders such as Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a founder of the National Repeal of Abortion Laws (now called NARAL-Pro Choice), Lawrence Lader and William Baird, among others, used the existence of various "exceptions" in abortion legislation then on the books as the means of "liberalizing" "access" to baby-killing for all women in all circumstances. The move for decriminalized baby-killing under cover of law started at the state level, moving into the Federal court system only when pro-death advocates believed that it was propitious for them to challenge the laws of those states which prohibited or restricted "access" to baby-killing.
It is useful to review some of the history of decriminalizing surgical baby-killing under cover of civil law prior to Roe v. Wade. Those who contend that the "people" in the various states have the "right" to determine whether to permit or prohibit surgical baby-killing would have no problem with the pre-Roe legislation, nor would they be bothered by the fact that many states have "trigger laws" in effect to "protect" baby-killing in the event that Roe v. Wade is reversed at some point by a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. For documentatio of the pre-Roe legislation at the state level, please see Forty-Four Years Old: The American National Warfare Against Innocent Babies.
There is never any "exception" to the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandent's prohibition on the direct, intentional killing of an innocent human being. Not one. Yet it is that supposedly "pro-life" legislators choose to insert "exceptions," up to and including making a mockery of their denial of funding to Planned Barrenhood by stressing that insurers are free to cover the surgical execution of babies without any intererference from the Federal government as long as taxpayer funding or tax credits are not used by a consumer to purchase health insurance. This is all a cruel farce. It is statist measure designed to help insurance companies and tort lawyers. Killing babies is not a matter of "health care;" it is a crime against God in violation of the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law.
No exceptions means no exceptions. Period.
Readers might recall that then United States Representative Todd Akin (R-Missouri) was condemned in 2012 by both Republican presidential nominee Willard Mitt Romney and his vice presidential running mate, United States Representative Paul Davis Ryan (R-Wisconsin), for expressing his opposition, albeit akwardly, to the direct killing of an innocent baby who had been conceived as a result of a forcible violation of his mother's purity.
No matter how rare pregnancy is in such circumstances--and it is fairly rare (see Dr. John Wlkie's defense of Akin's statement about the rarity of pregnancy in cases of violent assault), a bodily assault upon a woman's purity is a crime before God and man, an assault that may scar a woman for the rest of her life, but a crime that must be paid by the assailant not by the child conceived as a result of his assault. One never punishes a child for the crime of his father. Even David Frum, a former economic speech writer for George Walker Bush and one who took issue with what former Repesentative Akin, then running for the United States Senate in the State of Missouri against the pro-abortion incumbent, Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri), that what the Missouri Republican said is perfectly defensible from the standpoint of pure reason, that is, if one is "pro-life," how is it ever possible to justify a direct, intentional attack upon any innocent human life (see Akin's Abortion View: More Widespread in GOP Than You Think)?
Indeed, even the late Associate Justice Harry Blackmun's footnoted comments, at footnote 54, in his majority opinion for the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Roe v. Wade. Blackman said that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection of life, liberty and property could not be used by the State of Texas to proclaim the inviolability of the life of the preborn as the statute under challenge in Roe v. Wade admitted of an exception to that inviolability. How can a human life be inviolable in some instances but not in all?
When Texas urges that a fetus is entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection as a person, it faces a dilemma. Neither in Texas nor in any other State are all abortions prohibited. Despite broad proscription, an exception always exists. The exception contained in Art. 1196, for an abortion procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother, is typical. But if the fetus is a person who is not to be deprived of life without due process of law, and if the mother's condition is the sole determinant, does not the Texas exception appear to be out of line with the Amendment's command? (Text of Roe v. Wade, January 22, 1973.)
It is pretty bad when Harry Blackmun, who turned the Supreme Court of the United States of America into his own "temple of doom," if you will, noticed the inconsistency of opposing the surgical killing of preborn babies while "permitting" such killing in supposed "hard" cases while supposedly "pro-life" public officials, including the current Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the aforementioned Paul Davis Ryan, a wholly owned subsidiary of the United States Chamber of Commerce and the insurance industry, boast of making such "exceptions" as matter of principle, not one of legilative expediency. No thought is ever given to excluding all surgical killings of the innocent preborn as mot so-called "pro-life" public officials are actually only less pro-abortion than those who want to kill babies on an unrestricted basis under the cover of the civil law. To coin a phrase, Sober Up!
Furthermore, the late Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a pioneering champion of baby-killing who presided over 70,000 abortions between 1970 and 1974 before quitting for purely scientific reasons once the ulatrasound proved to him the humanity of the preborn baby (he converted to the conciliar structures in 1996), explained on many occasions that medical technology had advanced to such a degree that there is almost never a circumstance in which it is considered to be "medically necessary" to kill a preborn baby to "save" the life of his mother:
The situation where the mother's life is at stake were she to continue a pregnancy is no longer a clinical reality.
Given the state of modern medicine, we can now manage any pregnant woman with any medical affliction successfully, to the natural conclusion of the pregnancy: the birth of a healthy child. [Written statement to the Idaho House of Representatives' State Affairs Committee, February 16, 1990.] (As found in a very good study written in 1994 by Mrs. Judie Brown, the founder and president of the American Life League and Brian Young: Exceptions: Abandoning "The Least of My Brethren," as found at Exceptions: Abandoning the Least of These Thy Brethren.)
If Donald John Trump or Paul Davis Ryan want to be truly knowledgeable on the issue of the slaughter of the innocent preborn, which I do not think that they have either the time or the interest in doing, they should the read the aforementioned article by Mrs. Brown and Mr. Young as well as the late Dr. Charles E. Rice's No Exceptions: The Pro-Life Imperative. More importantly than anything else he could read, however, is the allocution that Pope Pius XII gave to an assemby of large families on November 26, 1951, that included a complete and abject rejection of the deliberate targeting of an innocent preborn baby to "save" the life of his mother:
If there is another danger that threatens the family, not since yesterday, but long ago, which, however, at present, is growing visibly, it can become fatal [to societies], that is, the attack and the disruption of the fruit of conjugal morality.
We have, in recent years, taken every opportunity to expose the one or the other essential point of the moral law, and more recently to indicate it as a whole, not only by refuting the errors that corrupt it, but also showing in a positive sense, the office the importance, the value for the happiness of the spouses, children and all family, for stability and the greater social good from their homes up to the State and the Church itself.
At the heart of this doctrine is that marriage is an institution at the service of life. In close connection with this principle, we, according to the constant teaching of the Church, have illustrated a argument that it is not only one of the essential foundations of conjugal morality, but also of social morality in general: namely, that the direct attack innocent human life, as a means to an end - in this case the order to save another life - is illegal.
Innocent human life, whatever his condition, is always inviolate from the first instance of its existence and it can never be attacked voluntarily. This is a fundamental right of human beings. A fundamental value is the Christian conception of life must be respected as valid for the life still hidden in the womb against direct abortion and against all innocent human life thereafter. There can be no direct murders of a child before, during and after childbirth. As established may be the legal distinction between these different stages of development life born or unborn, according to the moral law, all direct attacks on inviolable human life are serious and illegal.
This principle applies to the child's life, like that of mother's. Never, under any circumstances, has the Church has taught that the life of child must be preferred to that of the mother. It would be wrong to set the issue with this alternative: either the child's life or that of mother. No, nor the mother's life, nor that of her child, can be subjected to an act of direct suppression. For the one side and the other the need can be only one: to make every effort to save the life of both, mother and child (see Pious XI Encycl. Casti Connubii, 31 dec. 1930, Acta Ap. Sedis vol. 22, p.. 562-563).
It is one of the most beautiful and noble aspirations of medicine trying ever new ways to ensure both their lives. What if, despite all the advances of science, still remain, and will remain in the future, a doctor says that the mother is going to die unless here child is killed in violation of God's commandment: Thou shalt not kill! We must strive until the last moment to help save the child and the mother without attacking either as we bow before the laws of nature and the dispositions of Divine Providence.
But - one may object - the mother's life, especially of a mother of a numerous family, is incomparably greater than a value that of an unborn child. The application of the theory of balance of values to the matter which now occupies us has already found acceptance in legal discussions. The answer to this nagging objection is not difficult. The inviolability of the life of an innocent person does not depend by its greater or lesser value. For over ten years, the Church has formally condemned the killing of the estimated life as "worthless', and who knows the antecedents that provoked such a sad condemnation, those who can ponder the dire consequences that would be reached, if you want to measure the inviolability of innocent life at its value, you must well appreciate the reasons that led to this arrangement.
Besides, who can judge with certainty which of the two lives is actually more valuable? Who knows which path will follow that child and at what heights it can achieve and arrive at during his life? We compare Here are two sizes, one of whom nothing is known. We would like to cite an example in this regard, which may already known to some of you, but that does not lose some of its evocative value.
It dates back to 1905. There lived a young woman of noble family and even more noble senses, but slender and delicate health. As a teenager, she had been sick with a small apical pleurisy, which appeared healed; when, however, after contracting a happy marriage, she felt a new life blossoming within her, she felt ill and soon there was a special physical pain that dismayed that the two skilled health professionals, who watched her with loving care. That old scar of the pleurisy had been awakened and, in the view of the doctors, there was no time to lose to save this gentle lady from death. The concluded that it was necessary to proceed without delay to an abortion.
Even the groom agreed. The seriousness of the case was very painful. But when the obstetrician attending to the mother announced their resolution to proceed with an abortion, the mother, with firm emphasis, "Thank you for your pitiful tips, but I can not truncate the life of my child! I can not, I can not! I feel already throbbing in my breast, it has the right to live, it comes from God must know God and to love and enjoy it." The husband asked, begged, pleaded, and she remained inflexible, and calmly awaited the event.
The child was born regularly, but immediately after the health of the mother went downhill. The outbreak spread to the lungs and the decay became progressive. Two months later she went to extremes, and she saw her little girl growing very well one who had grown very healthy. The mother looked at her robust baby and saw his sweet smile, and then she quietly died.
Several years later there was in a religious institute a very young sister, totally dedicated to the care and education of children abandoned, and with eyes bent on charges with a tender motherly love. She loved the tiny sick children and as if she had given them life. She was the daughter of the sacrifice, which now with her big heart has spread much love among the children of the destitute. The heroism of the intrepid mother was not in vain! (See Andrea Majocchi. " Between burning scissors," 1940, p.. 21 et seq.). But we ask: Is Perhaps the Christian sense, indeed even purely human, vanished in this point of no longer being able to understand the sublime sacrifice of the mother and the visible action of divine Providence, which made quell'olocausto born such a great result? (Pope Pius XII, Address to Association of Large Families, November 26, 1951; I used Google Translate to translate this address from the Italian as it is found at AAS Documents, p. 855; you will have to scroll down to page 855, which takes some time, to find the address.)
Let me repeat: Pope Pius XII slammed the National-Not-Right-to-Life Committee, George Walker Bush, Donald John.Trump, Rafael Edward Cruz, John Ellis Bush, Christopher Christie, Michael Dale Huckabee, Cara Carleton Sneed Fiorina, Marco Antonio Rubio, Richard John Santorum, Randal Howard Paul, Benjamin Solomon Carson, Sr. (a member of the fiercely anti-Catholic Seventh Day Adventist sect who supports "brain death" and has himself done research on fetal stem cells while dismissing the execution of Mrs. Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo by means of the withdrawal of her hydration and nutrition as "much ado about nothing--see Ten Years Later), and other all supposedly "pro-life" pols who support any exceptions to the inviolability of innocent human life at any time, including that for the "life of the mother."
As noted just above, no mother has any "choice" to be made between her own life and that of her preborn child. Although the improvements in medical technology have made it possible for expectant mothers with serious maladies to be treated in a manner that will permit a baby to be delivered at the point of viability, whereupon more aggressive treatment of a mother's condition can be undertaken, if possible and advised, it is still nevertheless the case that in those rare circumstances, which certainly do occur now and again, where a mother is faced with the possibility of sacrificing her own life so that her preborn baby can be born. A mother formed in the truths of the Catholic Faith knows that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ meant it when He said the following:
A mother who knows the Catholic Faith understands that, as difficult as it can be to those steeped in emotionalism and sentimentality, she can, if she dies in a state of Sanctifying Grace, do more for her child from eternity than she ever could here on the face of this earth. Moreover, those who have died in a state of Sanctifying Grace are more perfectly united to us than they ever were on the face of this earth.
We must think supernaturally at all times. We must think as Catholics at all times no matter the natural pull of human emotions and heartstrings that will certainly affect each of us at various times. We are flesh and blood human beings. We would be heartless creatures if we were not torn in difficult circumstances of facing an earthly separation from our loved ones by means of what is considered to be an "early" death. We must love God's Holy Will first and foremost, praying to His Most Blessed Mother to send us graces to accept His will so that we can obey it as we observe every precept of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law.
Naturalists, of course, do not understand this, which is why almost all of those in public life who say that they are "pro-life" support the direct, intentional taking of innocent human lives in their mothers' wombs under any conditions at all. Such people cannot see the contradiction represented by claiming to be "pro-life" while supporting the direct killing of babies in some instances.
Moreover, RyanCare accepts the legitimacy of “family planning services,” which include abortifacient contraceptives (as the late Father Paul Marx. O.S.B., the founder of Human Life International, said repeatedly, “Most contraceptives abort. More contraceptives abortion most of the time”) and voluntarily sterilization. There is not a single thought given to the fact that there is no such thing as “family planning” as contraception is a violation of the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage.’
No, the so-called “American Health Care Act” that will be voted upon today, Thursday, March 23, 2017, Thursday in the Third Week of Lent, provides full funding to “community health providers” as long as they do not kill preborn babies electively. The provisions from the text of the bill, therefore, are very similar to a proposed bill to defund Planned Barrenhood two years ago after undercover videos by the Centers for Medical Progress proved that employees of this evil organization were selling the bodily members of babies butchered in their killing centers. Some of those employees even made jokes about their demonic trafficking of human bodies executed in ways befitting the Aztecs.
Alas, to defund Planned Barrenhood while continuing to fund other such organizations as long as they do not surgically kill babies electively is nothing other than the old shell game (guess which shell the pea is hidden under). The appendix below contains an excerpt of what I wrote in August of 2015 about such a shell game.
Finally, RyanCare does nothing to stop the Federal subsidies of the vivisection of living human beings who are declared to be "brain dead" and /or who are dispatched by the use of a combinatin of various drugs in hospitals and hopsices for those who cannot afford to purchase coverage for such murderous practices on their own. Legitimate health care is about helping the sick to get better, not finding inventive ways to kill them because of one utilitarian reason after another that suits the purposes of insurance companies and the
medical death care industry.
What am I talking about?
Please consider the following remarks written recently by Dr. Paul Byrne:
Hospice and palliative care are part of the System of Death, which is rooted in 1) the mendacity of “brain death” and organ transplantation, and 2) artificial birth control and contraception.
Medicine exists to protect and preserve life, never to kill or harm. It is mutilation to cut into the injured or the healthy to get organs. This kills and/or steals what doesn’t belong to the recipient of organs. (See Appendix B for a mother's moving story of how her son was killed in a "hospice" facility. Anyone who puts their relative or himself in a hospice facility after reading the report by Mrs. Judy Bragg, R.N., is refusing to face the reality: Hospice Directly Expendites the Deaths of Innocent Human Beings. It is euthanasia for all intents and purposes.)
There is nothing "pro-life" about RyanCare. Nothing. Do not listen to the babbling, blathering talking heads of naturalism. Truth is truth.
Whether RyanCare passes the floor vote in the United States House of Representatives today depends upon whether members of the House Freedom Caucus remain steadfast in their opposition to Paul Davis Ryan's efforts to save the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare. Athough a floor vote against RyanCare would be seen as a defeat for the self-styled "deal maker," Donald John Trump, this cannot be of any concern to us as that which is based on an acceptance of grave evils as legitimate practices deserving of taxpayer funding can bring nothing but more chastisement upon a land that is awash with the blood of innocent human beings in the womb and at every stage thereafter. Moreover, the fact that Trump is using ObamaCare's principal architect, the pro-abortion Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, to advise him on RyanCare even though this statist, the brother of the pro-perversity, pro-abortion Mayor of the City of Chicago, Illinois, Rahm Emanuel, who was Barack Husein Obama/Barry Soetoro's White House Chief of Staff seven years ago today when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was passed by the United States House of Representatives, is not cause for celebration, shall we say. For a report on this development, see.ObamaCare Architect Emanuel Advising Trump on American Health Care Act.) Can anyone say "false opposites."
Yes, this is a time of profound chastisement.
As should be abundantly clear by now, the false opposite of the naturalist “right” is not goinga to restore even a rudimentary adherence to the rule of law under the terms of the Constitution of the United States of America, no less to the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law. And putative “pope” in the Casa Santa Marta actually celebrates the rot of popular culture as he promotes a “theology of encounter” with his fellow minions of the devil.
We do not, however, despair.
We are Catholics.
We trust in the motherly care of Our Lady, Who gave birth miraculously to her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, in piercing cold at Midnight on Christmas morning.
We just need to keep close to her, especially through her Most Holy Rosary as the consecrated slaves of her Divine Son through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, as we seek to make reparation for our sins and those of the whole world.
Viva Cristo Rey!
Viva La Virgen de Guadalupe!
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!
Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.
Saint Joseph, 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.
Saints Cosmas and Damian, pray for us.
Excerpted from "Shifting Funding From One Evil Organization to Many Others"
The first—and very fatal—strategic flaw of these senators involves the use of the phrase “pro-choice” as this euphemism was coined by the pro-death movement to mask or anesthetize the reality of what each abortion, whether accomplished by chemical or surgical means, is the killing of an innocent being. No one has the moral right to “choose” to do anything that is evil. Human beings have the ability to choose to do evil, but they do not possess a moral “right” to do so. The use of this one phrase, “pro-choice,” concedes important rhetorical ground to the modern Aztecs, who clothe themselves in white medical gowns and surgical masks as they go about their bloody barbaric business. To attempt to placate so-called “moderate” voters by the use of the adversary's rhetoric accomplishes nothing other than to soothe the malformed consciences of those who refuse to see each and every baby-killing, whether by chemical or surgical means. There is nothing “civil” about the direct, intentional killing of any human being at any stage of his existence from the first moment of his conception until the moment of his death. Period.
Second, the “family planning” services that are provided by the nine thousand other “community health centers” are evil. To fund such programs is evil. To highlight support for the funding of such services is evil. It is evil to support, no less fund, act that deny the absolute Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage. Period.
Third, contraception, which Margaret Sanger, after all, sought to popularize a century ago during and after World War I, made the demand for surgical baby-killing inevitable. Divorce and contraception destabilized marriage and paved the way for abortion and the promotion of all manner of perversity under cover of law. This has resulted in the feminization of poverty, the rise of maladjusted children who spend most of their time in schools or day care centers or being shuttled back and forth between this or that step-family, rootlessness, violent crime, depression, suicide, drug and alcohol addiction and a variety of other social ills. This has also resulted in the acceptance of the so-called "lesser of two evils" to such an extent that the dose of the supposedly "lesser evil" becomes higher and higher in each succeeding election cycle, becoming indistinguishable ultimately from the supposedly "greater" evil. The odious Margaret Sanger's role in all of this was noted on this site most recently in Planned Barrenhood: Evil From Its Very Inceptions and Killing the Messengers Yet Again.
Catholics must not permit themselves to be agitated by every legislative effort that appears to “do something good” evil though based upon false premises. That so many Catholics continue to do so, however, is the result of their having been been subjected to one assault after another against theirsensus Catholicus ever since the dawn of the Protestant Revolution, perhaps never more so than in the past century by the rapid advancements in the means of modern mass communications.
It was to blunt the advance of propaganda in favor of the "small family" and thus the inversion of the ends of marriage that Pope Pius XI issued Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930, to reaffirm the Catholic Church's prohibition against any direct interference in the conception of a child and to remind everyone in the world that the primary end of marriage remained what it will be until the end of time: the propagation and education of children:
7. Since, however, We have spoken fully elsewhere on the Christian education of youth, let Us sum it all up by quoting once more the words of St. Augustine: "As regards the offspring it is provided that they should be begotten lovingly and educated religiously," -- and this is also expressed succinctly in the Code of Canon Law -- "The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children."
18. Nor must We omit to remark, in fine, that since the duty entrusted to parents for the good of their children is of such high dignity and of such great importance, every use of the faculty given by God for the procreation of new life is the right and the privilege of the married state alone, by the law of God and of nature, and must be confined absolutely within the sacred limits of that state. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)
Pope Pius XI made it clear that the secondary end of marriage, the mutual good of the spouses, was subordinate to the primary end, reiterating the truth that privileges of the married state belong by right to each spouse, neither of whom can deny the marriage right to the other arbitrarily and both of whom are able to exercise this right, or to refrain its exercise, without interfering with its natural end, the conception of a child:
19. The second blessing of matrimony which We said was mentioned by St. Augustine, is the blessing of conjugal honor which consists in the mutual fidelity of the spouses in fulfilling the marriage contract, so that what belongs to one of the parties by reason of this contract sanctioned by divine law, may not be denied to him or permitted to any third person; nor may there be conceded to one of the parties anything which, being contrary to the rights and laws of God and entirely opposed to matrimonial faith, can never be conceded . . . .
59. Holy Church knows well that not infrequently one of the parties is sinned against rather than sinning, when for a grave cause he or she reluctantly allows the perversion of the right order. In such a case, there is no sin, provided that, mindful of the law of charity, he or she does not neglect to seek to dissuade and to deter the partner from sin. Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)
This was not an endorsement of what is today called "natural family planning," only a reiteration of the plain truth that the marital right, subordinated to its primary end, cannot be denied arbitrarily by one spouse to the other and that it is permissible for married couples to use that right when new life cannot be brought forth. There was no discussion of "family planning" here at all, and none existed in the mind of Pope Pius XI.
Indeed, Pope Pius XI explained that confessors had to go to great lengths to counsel penitents not to surrender themselves to the propaganda in favor of contraception and the contraceptive mentality to which they were being exposed on an almost constant basis:
54. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.
55. Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, "Intercourse even with one's legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it."
56. Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.
57. We admonish, therefore, priests who hear confessions and others who have the care of souls, in virtue of Our supreme authority and in Our solicitude for the salvation of souls, not to allow the faithful entrusted to them to err regarding this most grave law of God; much more, that they keep themselves immune from such false opinions, in no way conniving in them. If any confessor or pastor of souls, which may God forbid, lead the faithful entrusted to him into these errors or should at least confirm them by approval or by guilty silence, let him be mindful of the fact that he must render a strict account to God, the Supreme Judge, for the betrayal of his sacred trust, and let him take to himself the words of Christ: "They are blind and leaders of the blind: and if the blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)
The “some” referred to by Pope Pius XI in paragraph fifty-six of Casti Connubii was the heretical and schismatic Anglican sect, which had endorsed the use of contraception by married couples when a “clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood exists at its Lambeth meeting several months before in 1930:
The Life and Witness of the Christian Community - Marriage and Sex
Where there is clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, the method must be decided on Christian principles. The primary and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may be necessary) in a life of discipline and self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience. (Resolution 15 - The Life and Witness of the Christian Community – Marriage.)
Far from following Pope Pius XI's advice to confessors to teach the truth about contraception, many priests and presbyters within the counterfeit church of conciliarism have used what they refer to as the “conscience solution” to the assuage the consciences of those who use contraception, and Jorge Mario Bergoglio's sympathies rest with that “conscience solution,” which he and others who support him refer to as a “pastoral solution,” on this and a number of other “moral issues.” Bergoglio speaks out only about income inequality, the “rights” of illegal immigrants, youth unemployment and “climate change.” He cannot be bothered about sins against the Fifth, Sixth, and Ninth Commdnments.
The social and theological propaganda in behalf of “family planning” has accelerated since Pope Pius XI issued Casti Connubbi on December 31, 1930, and especially after Giovanni Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul the Sick's truly revolutionary “encyclical letter,” Humanae Vitae, July 15, 1968, that inverted the ends of marriage and endorsed “natural” means to “limit” family size, a “necessity” that was discussed openly at the “Second” Vatican Council and drew the following rebuke from Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, the Pro-Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office:
"I am not pleased with the statement in the text that married couples may determine the number of children they are to have. Never has this been heard of in the Church. My father was a laborer, and the fear of having many children never entered my parents' minds, because they trusted in Providence. [I am amazed] that yesterday in the Council it should have been said that there was doubt whether a correct stand had been taken hitherto on the principles governing marriage. Does this not mean that the inerrancy of the Church will be called into question? Or was not the Holy Spirit with His Church in past centuries to illuminate minds on this point of doctrine?" (As found in Peter W. Miller, Substituting the Exception for the Rule; The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, by Father Ralph Wiltgen, The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber, Tan Books and Publishers, 1967, is cited as the source of this quotation. See also my Forty-Three Years After Humanae Vitae, Always Trying To Find A Way and Planting Seeds of Revolutionary Change.)
A Mother's Accout of Her Son's Death in a Hospice
by Judy Bragg, RN
March 11, 2017
When my son was diagnosed with leukemia, he entered one of the finest cancer treatment hospitals in the country and though he participated in many treatments, they eventually failed to help him. During his lengthy hospital stay, I drove him home two times so he could visit his family. My 43 year-old son, Casey, realized that his condition was not going to improve and decided to spend his last days with his family at home.
During all that time in the hospital, his wife only visited at the very end to make sure that Casey sign all financial powers over to her, have him sign a Do Not Resuscitate order, and name her as his Medical Power of Attorney. She also accompanied him in the ambulance and they arrived home in the early evening. I arrived a few hours later by car.
Though he had no pain requiring morphine, had no psychological issues requiring Haldol, and was allergic to Ativan, the hospice nurse had already visited and left Haldol, Ativan, Morphine and Phenergan, all of which the hospital physician had ordered (and hospice medical director approved). The only medication delivered that he actually did need was the Phenergan topical cream used to treat nausea and vomiting.
Though he was certainly not expected to die from his illness anytime soon, it was only 48 hours from the time hospice became involved till the time he died!
My son had suffered so much through this illness and now that he was home, still was vomiting. He had not been able to keep fluids down for a week and had a fever. As a nurse with over 30 years' experience, I was more experienced in knowing how to care for patients and was able to use the topical phenergan cream to relieve his vomiting soon after I arrived at the home.
His wife had made no effort to help reduce this vomiting by administering the cream! Afterwards, his fever also subsided and thankfully, he slept through the night. I did not leave the room.
The next day, although Pat, the hospice nurse, told Casey that he needed to take Ativan because she thought he was anxious, he refused and told her that he would ask for it if he needed it. He remembered that on one emergency room visit for fever and back pain a few months earlier he was given an injection of Dilaudid and that when he was unable to rest, they also gave him Ativan for sleep. He had an allergic reaction to it and experienced hallucinations for 3 days.
Regarding pain medications, he only occasionally took Flexeril for muscle pain when he needed it. He was not having any other pain and never wanted to take any pain medication. Even when he was at the hospital he did not take any pain medication!
At home, he was now able to drink water and some Sprite without vomiting. He was not confused at all and was feeling better. He was able to get to the bathroom with help, but after sitting on the commode for a while, complained that he was unable to see (possibly from being about to pass out), and we rushed in and lifted him back to his bed.
The hospice nurse started giving him oxygen by nasal cannula, and he improved quickly. A priest arrived and prayed for him and asked if he wanted to take the last rites. He said, "No" since he was not expecting to die soon. His wife continued to press him to have this done and finally he gave in and received them.
He transferred to the hospital bed when it arrived. Casey was feeling much better and was completely alert, so I went to the kitchen for a snack. His wife stayed in the room with him and when I returned to the room, I talked to him and noted that his condition had changed markedly and he seemed confused.
As a Registered Nurse, I am very attuned to changes in patients' conditions. Something had definitely changed. I walked close to his wife to speak with her and she jumped! I told her that he was definitely confused, and she almost shouted at me, "He's Just Fine!!"
She left the room to call hospice and then handed me her phone to have the nurse talk to me - telling me that I had to "back off," that "Casey was in her care" and I was "interfering with her being able to care for him." The hospice nurse also reminded me that his wife "was in control."
Through all of the interactions with hospice and his wife, my weakened son was manipulated and harassed. Since he was very sick and vulnerable, he complied when pressured repeatedly.
I tried to back off and went in and out of the room though I stayed close by. His wife was with him. I did not hear Casey speak at all after that. She was talking to him — though I believe she did this for my benefit since he was actually medically subdued somehow. I know that he had refused the Haldol, morphine and Ativan.
I went into the room and sat down. After a while, his wife's 23 year-old daughter by a previous relationship arrived at 9:20 pm. Casey's wife and step-daughter approached him and at 11:10 pm, his wife administered what I thought to be morphine, telling him that he had pain (though he certainly did not) and to let her make sure she got it well up to his cheek mucosa. She actually laughed as she squirted it into his mouth.
She mocked him as he made sounds from the drug in his mouth. After a few minutes I walked closer to see how he was. He had been sitting up with the head of the hospital bed raised. His eyes were extremely wide open and appeared to be bulging. He had a look of terror on his face!
I knew immediately that she had given him a fatal dose, plus whatever else she gave him initially to subdue him. He still had the oxygen cannula running and this stayed in until he died.
His chest was moving only slightly then as he was barely able to lift his diaphragm. She took a lip moisturizer and applied it to his lips several times. She took a straw and filled it with water, then put it to his lips to make sure water washed the drug down.
I said to my son, "Go to Jesus" and she screamed "SHUT UP!" What followed was horrific! I watched as his eyes went up slowly, up then down, then his head was thrown down to his legs, then back up, up and down again several times. His eyes remained wide open the entire time.
At one point, his left arm went up with the thumb down and then his arm went down to his leg. His body's movements resembled seizures that I've observed in some patients. This lasted overall for what seemed to be about 30 minutes. After that, he just slowly slipped away. His head turned back to the bed with little movement at all, and he finally died at 1:30 am, April 30, 2016. His wife sat quietly staring at him and patting his hand. He never looked at her.
My dear son had died!
After this obvious overdose and imposed death, I went immediately to the police precinct. Officers would do nothing even though I was an eyewitness and also a licensed registered nurse. I went to the main police department and was brushed off by the homicide investigator. At this time, his body had not yet been embalmed.
After 3 calls to the Medical Examiner, an autopsy was finally done 5 days after his death but only after he was embalmed. Although evidence is destroyed by embalming the body, and he certainly did not die from his illness, the report said just the opposite — that he died because of the leukemia!
If evidence is destroyed and there isn't enough evidence to determine what the actual cause was, shouldn't the report state "Cause of Death is Undetermined?" They said only one drug was found by the coroner's office and I do not recall it being prescribed for him. This may be what was used to subdue him.
When his wife and daughter were told there would be an autopsy, they were told they had nothing to worry about.
Even though there are other tests that could have been done to determine what was done to Casey, the Coroner's office policies allow only the next of kin to request these tests, and his wife did not request them. The tests could also be ordered by the Director of Medical Examiners but he did not do so and did not even give me the courtesy of a reply to my request.
I wrote letters to the ACLU requesting their help since my son's civil rights were violated, and he was discriminated against since he was a "hospice patient." I wrote to each of the two police chiefs and the two county district attorneys. I wrote to the city council, and Internal Affairs of the police department, because the police failed to investigate an intentional killing, with an eyewitness. I reported abuse of a disabled person to the Texas Dept of Family and Protective Services. I contacted the State Attorney General.
All of these efforts were futile. They would not act if there wasn't any police investigation or other government office investigation. Usually, an eyewitness to a murder creates the probable cause for the police to open an investigation and gather evidence.
The police never stated why they would not open an investigation. No one stated why they would not even begin to investigate an eyewitness murder but here are the obvious reasons: I believe that no hospice patient is ever murdered in the eyes of the law today.
I believe that no murderer of a hospice patient is ever prosecuted. Because of the overall changes in the mission of hospice (except the few that remain true to the pro-life mission) and the financial incentives to the federal and state governments today — saving billions of dollars in Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and other services — policies and procedures in most if not all agencies now protect the killers.
Since my son had a Do Not Resuscitate order placed and his wife had the Medical Power of Attorney, no criminal investigation was done. For these several reasons, the police are considered to have done no wrong. No one has to take any action to bring a hospice patient's killer to justice.
A hospice physician that never sees the patient signs off on all the orders, whether they are clinically justified or not. My son had no rights and neither do I.
The public deserves to know what can happen when you agree to have a hospice agency take over your loved one's care. What you are likely to get is a hasty demise with all oversight of the agency blocked. In this hospice and many others, there is no longer any respect for the sanctity of life.
More than that, the police, the district attorneys, and the State officials have no respect for the sanctity of life when it comes to a Hospice patient!
I am now painfully fully aware that this is true.
[End of report from Judy Bragg, RN] (As found at http:Judy Bragg Reports Son Casey Hastened to Death in Hospice in April of 2016.)