As one who has been following electoral politics and current events since the election of 1956, which took place on Tuesday, November 5, 1956, and who obtained his master’s and doctorate in political science as well as having run for office and participated in two different presidential campaigns, I am completely amazed at how the supposed “conservative” organized crime family of naturalism has become as much a caricature of Americanism as Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a carciture of conciliarism.
Ever since abandoning the two-party system in 1996 after Patrick Joseph Buchanan, whose candidacy I supported because he was the only no-exceptions pro-life candidate running for the Republican Party presidential nomination that year, lost to the hapless, inarticulate, mercurial thirty-third degree Freemason from the Watergate Hotel complex in Washington, District of Columbia, by way of Russell, Kansas, which was also the birthplace of the thirty-third degree Freemason pro-abortion Talmudist named Arlen Specter (D-R-D, Pennsylvania), I have been unremitting in my efforts to document the completely fraudulent nature of the American electoral politics. Two different rival gangs of career criminals compete with one another although they share the same false, naturalistic, anti-Incarnational, Pelagian and religious indifferentist premises while differing only marginally on other issues, and the extent they appear to differ in their rhetoric is merely a ruse to deceive the masses to vote for them.
Case-in-point: the debate among the six champions of the false opposite of the naturalist "right" (Ohio Governor John Kasich, United States Senator Rafael Edward Cruz, Donald J. Trump, United States Senator Marco Antonio Rubio, Dr. Benjamin Carson, New Jersey Governor Christopher Christie) on Saturday, February 6, 2016, the Feast of Saint Titus and the Commemoration of Saint Dorothy, featured a remarkable exchange on what it is to be "pro-life," highlighted by the pontificating of Governor Christie's saying that it is "pro-life" to make exceptions to absolute and inviolable prohibitions found in the Divine Positive Law and the Natural law to the direct, innocent taking of human life at any time for any reason from conception to natural death.
Promoting the Direct, Intentional Killing of Preborn Babies as "Pro-Life"
Here is the full exchange, which began with a question to Senator Marco Antonio Rubio, who seemed like a broken record at the beginning of the debate when he kept repeating the same rehearsed line about President Barack Hussei Obama's knowing exactly what he is doing, which is quite correct but was not responsive to the discussion at the time, about the so-called "social questions":
We want to turn now to social issues and young voters and for the question, from Mary Katherine.
HAM: Thank you David.
Senator Rubio. One of the lazier pieces of political conventional wisdom is that so-called social issues are hurting Republicans with young people. But on the two most prominent social issues, polling with millennials actually moves in different directions.
On one hand, it is clear, young people across the political spectrum increasingly favor same sex marriage. However young voters have not moved to the left on abortion. In fact, large numbers of them favor at least some modest restrictions that conservatives have supported. How do you speak to millennials on both these issues, while Democrats will inevitable charge intolerance and extremism?
RUBIO: Well, first of all, I don't believe that believing in traditional marriage the way I do makes you a bigot or a hater. It means that you believe that this institution that's been around for millenial is an important cornerstone of society. I respect people that believe differently. But I believe deeply, that marriage should be between one man and one woman.
(APPLAUSE) RUBIO: On the issue of life, to me, the issue of life is not a political issue. It's a human rights issue and it's a difficult issue, because it puts in conflict two competing rights. On the one hand is the right of a woman to choose what to do with her body which is a real right.
And on the other hand is the right of an unborn human child to live. And they're in conflict. And as a policy maker, I must choose which one of these two sides takes precedence. And I have chosen to err on the side of life. (Transcript of the New Hampshire GOP debate, annotated.)
Interjection Number One:
Before returning to Senator Rubio’s answer, which was considered by many to be “pro-life,” it is important to demonstrate that this poor man, who is both a product and victim of the falsehoods of Modernity and Modernism, hath not a blessed clue about basic facts of science and of the Natural Law, which is knowable to men, albeit imperfectly, by the light of reason.
That is, Rubio posited a “conflict” between what he termed the “real right” of a woman to “choose to do what she wants with her body” and the “right of an unborn child to live” that simply does not exist. Although a preborn child is within his mother’s womb, he is not part of her body. He has his own genetic code. He has his own immortal soul.
An expectant mother has no “right” founded in the precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law to do anything with her preborn child other than to nurture him as he develops within her womb prior to his birth. The “conflict” upon which Marco Antonio Rubio premised his reply is thus fallacious. A woman has nothing to “decide” and nothing to “choose” when she learns that is expecting a child. She has only love to give as she accepts the child as what he is, a gift from God who is to be brought to baptismal font soon after his birth so as to be incorporated as a member of the Catholic Church in this life and thus be prepared to live a life befitting a redeemed creature who gives honor and glory to the Most Blessed Trinity through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary until the moment of his Particular Judgment.
To oppose abortion is not to “err” on the side of life. It is to obey the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment that forbid any direct, intentional attack on an innocent human being.
Back to Senator Rubio’s initial answer to Mary Catherine Ham:
Here's what I find outrageous. There has been five Democratic debates. The media has not asked them a single question on abortion and on abortion, the Democrats are extremists. Why doesn't the media ask Hillary Clinton why she believes that all abortion should be legal, even on the due date of that unborn child.
Why don't they ask Hillary Clinton why she believe that partial- birth abortion, which is a gruesome procedure that has been outlawed in this country, she thinks that's a fundamental right. They are the extremists...
... when it comes to the issue of abortion and I can't wait to expose them in a general election.
(APPLAUSE) (Transcript of the New Hampshire GOP debate, annotated.)
Interjection Number Two:
Of course the Democrats are the abortion extremists. They are also completely consistent in their absolute, no-exceptions support for the chemical and surgical assassination of the innocent preborn, contrasting them with any and all so-called “pro-life” politicians who support abortifacient contraceptives without any question and who support at least one, if not all three, so-called “hard case” exceptions that permit innocent children to be slaughtered surgically within their mothers’ wombs or, in the case of the hysterotomy and partial-birth abortions, partially outside of mothers’ wombs.
Moreover, as has been pointed out on this site scores upon scores of times, the killing of an innocent baby in the later stages of his prenatal development is no more morally heinous that in his earlier stages. The killing of an innocent human being in the womb is always a morally heinous crime, and those who believe that it is somehow less “horrific” for a child to vacuumed apart by a vacuum machine nearly thirty times more powerful than an ordinary household vacuum machine or burned to death with saline solution than it is to kill him as he is partially extracted into the birth canal so that his head may be punctured by scissors loses sight of the fact that a baby is as equally dead no matter which method of execution is used. Abortion is barbaric. It can never be justified under any conditions for any reason.
Those of you who watched the debate on Saturday, February 6, 2016, the Feast of Saint Titus and the Commemoration of Saint Dorothy, know that it got worse when John Ellis “Common Core” Bush and Christopher “Am I a bad Catholic for having used contraception” Christie spoke:
HAM: Governor Bush? I want to come to you. Your allies have recently attacked Senator Rubio for being too pro-life to be elected in November. You made a similar charge stating it in an interview. This is a pro-life party. Do you stand behind that criticism?
BUSH: Look, I'm pro-life. In fact, on this stage, I'm the most pro-life person because I've acted on it for eight years as governor of the state of Florida.
BUSH: Where we abolished partial-birth abortion, where parents have the right to be notified when their teenage child is having an abortion. We were the first state to do a choose life license plate to raise money for adoption. We were the first state to have state monies go to crisis pregnancy centers, which recently was just increased to $4 million a year.
We created greater regulation on abortion clinics, where there were horrific procedures. So I'm pro life, but I believe there should be exceptions: rape, incest and when the life of the mother is in danger. And so, that belief, and my consistency on this, makes me, I think, poised to be in the right place, the sweet spot for a Republican nominee. And others may have a different view and I respect it.
(APPLAUSE) BUSH: But I think we have to be cognizant of the fact there's a lot of people that are concerned about having a pro-life position without any exceptions.
Interjection Number Three:
John Ellis Bush, who believes himself to be the intellectual superior to Marco Antonio Rubio, premised his answer to Mary Catherine Ham on the basis that the direct, intentional killing of innocent children in the so-called “hard cases” is to be “pro-life” because many voters support these “exceptions,” making opposition to them to be politically inexpedient, if not “extremist.”
Here is a newsflash for John Ellis Bush: the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law compel obedience from all men at all times no matter where they live and no matter how many men “like” it or “agree” with it. Truth does not depend upon human acceptance for its binding force or validity, and it is not a “sweet spot” with the Divine Redeemer, Christ the King, to arrogate unto contingent beings who did not create themselves and whose bodies are destined for the corruption of the grave “decisions” in the moral order that are not theirs to make.
In other words, John Ellis Bush is just as shallow as Marco Antonio Rubio, although Bush, who is seventeen years Rubio’s senior, presents himself as the “grown up” when the truth is that, no matter his conversion to Catholicism as practiced in a corrupted form in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, he is still is a confused member of the Bush clan, which is not noted for right-thinking based upon an understanding of First and Last Things.
Let me reiterate what I have written so many times before: No one is “pro-life” who supports contraception and/or who supports a single, solitary instance in which an innocent baby may be executed in his mother’s womb.
Marco Antonio Rubio then got his chance to reply to former Florida Governor Bush, demonstrating, to be sure, political courage to lose an election for being considered “extremist” for supporting “only” the life of the mother exception, which demonstrates that, despite his very well-meaning intentions, he has no grasp of fundamental moral principles:
RUBIO: I do support protection for the life of the mother because I'm pro-life. I just believe deeply that all human life is worthy of protection of our laws. If I'm president and there's a bill that's passed that saves lives but it has exceptions, I'll sign it.
But I do believe deeply that all human life is worthy of the protection of laws. I've already said, for me, the issue of life is not a political issue and I want to be frank. I would rather lose an election than be wrong on the issue of life.
(APPLAUSE) (Transcript of the New Hampshire GOP debate, annotated.)
Interjection Number Four:
Senator Rubio would do well to examine the following passage (in an English translation from the Italian done via a Google translation engine, which means that it is imperfect) of an allocution given by Pope Pius XII on October 26, 1951, to an assembly of large families wherein he explained that all means must be used to save the life of both the mother and a child if the former’s life is endangered during her pregnancy, but that it is never permissible to directly kill the child 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 J. 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.
To wit, then Texas Governor George Walker Bush simply shrugged his shoulders as he smirked during a televised debate in 1999, saying the following with a sense of exasperation after Dr. Alan Keyes asked him how he could be said to be opposed to abortion while supporting it in some circumstances: "I can't explain it. It's just how I feel." Sorry, the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law do not belong to the real of "feelings."
A final point on Senator Marco Antonio Rubio’s rebuttal to his mentor-turned-adversary, former Florida Governor John Ellis Bush needs to be made.
A president or a governor has an obligation to propose legislation that contains no exceptions to the absolute inviolability of all innocent human life and to lobby for the passage of such legislation by means of taking his case to the public and by persuading legislators, yes, on a one-by-one basis if necessary.
If, however, such efforts fail and a morally flawed bill is presented to him, it would be morally licit to sign the bill into law if the qualification is made that every effort will continue to be made to seek an end to all abortions, whether by chemical or surgical means. As it stands now, it would not licit for Marco Antonio Rubio to sign morally flawed legislation as he has no intention of opposing all abortions given his support for the direct, intentional execution of the innocent preborn in the cases where it is alleged that a mother’s life is endangered.
Well, it’s now time to turn from the comic from New Jersey, Governor Christopher Christie, whose grasp of Catholicism and of the Natural Law is as deep as that of the Argentine Apostate at the Casa Santa Marta:
HAM: Governor Christie. You too, have talked about Senator Rubio's position on the life issue. Some conservative activists have called this line of attack harmful to the pro-life cause.
CHRISTIE: Well, I've been pretty helpful to the pro-life cause in one of the most pro-choice states in the union. I've stood up for the first time and now for the last six years we've de-funded Planned Parenthood, not talked about it like they do in Washington D.C.
But for six years as governor, Planned Parenthood does not receive that funding from the state budget anymore; over $50 million worth of money that's been saved now, that is not going to do exactly what Hillary Clinton wants to have done and has advocated for.
She believes that organization, which engages in the systematic murder of children in the womb, in order to maximize the value of their body parts for sale on the open market, is an acceptable position.
Let me tell you something, I don't care if you are a millennial or whether you are in your 90s, no one is for that type of activity, unless you are the most radical type of extremist on this issue, like Senator Clinton and her party is on this issue.
CHRISTIE: I'll say one other thing. The fact is, that I believe that if a woman has been raped, that is a birth and a pregnancy that she should be able to terminate. If she is the victim of incest -- this is not a woman's choice. This is a woman being violated.
And the fact is that we have always has believed, as has Ronald Reagan, that we have self-defense for women who have been raped and impregnated because of it, or the subject of incest and been impregnated for it.
That woman should not have to deliver that child if they believe that violation is now an act of self-defense by terminating that pregnancy.
HAM: Thank you, all. Back to you, David and Martha.
MUIR: Mary Katherine, thank you. (Transcript of the New Hampshire GOP debate, annotated.)
Interjection Number Five:
What a crew of dimwitted bulbs, each of whom believes himself to be one of George Herbert Walker “points of light,” I am sure, veritable intellectual “heavyweights” who think “deep thoughts” as the plumb the deepest abysses of the shibboleths of naturalism.
These are the guys in the white hats?
Anyhow, as has been noted before on this site, no matter how rare pregnancy is in such circumstances of a violation of woman's purity by a family member or an attacker (and it is fairly rare, see the late Dr. John Wilkie's defense of former United States Senator Todd Akin's statement iin 2012 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. We must think supernaturally, not surrender to base instincts of emotion.
Christopher Christie, who was born on September 9, 1962, the Feast of Saint Peter Claver and the Commemoration of Saint Gorgonius, and thus was never given a traditional Catholic education, does not realize that a woman who conceives a child after an assault has been asked by the good God to bear a cross for His greater honor and glory through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. The graces won for her by the shedding of every single drop of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ on the wood of the Holy Cross and that stand ready to flow into her heart and soul through the loving hands of His Most Blessed Mother, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces, are more than sufficient for her to deal with and prosper under her cross. Such a woman has been asked to bring to birth a new life, either raising the child herself to give Him honor and glory now as a foretaste of doing so for all eternity in Heaven or making arrangements for the child to be placed up for adoption into a loving Catholic family that would so in her place and as she prayed fervently for the child until she dies and as she forgave her assailant she herself is forgiven whenever she makes use of the Sacred Tribunal of Penance.
Alas, we do not live in a Catholic world, one where men and their nations submit themselves to the Social Reign of Christ the King as It must be exercised by the Catholic Church, which is precisely the reason why matters that have been revealed by God Himself and taught infallibly by His Holy Catholic Church, truths that are part of the Natural Law and thus knowable, albeit imperfectly, by reason alone, are open for "discussion" today.
There would be no discussion of abortion in a Catholic world. Catholics would understand that there can never be any deliberate, intentional attack upon an innocent human life at any time after conception. There would thus be nothing like Stericycle in which to invest one's money.
There would be no discussion of contraception, which former Commonwealth of Masschusetts Governor Willard Mitt Romney said on Saturday, January 7, 2012, in a debate of the midget naturalists at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire, was "working just fine, just leave it alone" (see 2012 ABC/Yahoo!/WMUR New Hampshire GOP primary debate), in a Catholic world, as as Catholics would know that no one has any right from God to interfere with His Sovereignty over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage, that no one can ever change the primary end of marriage from the procreation and education of children into anything else.
There would be no discussion of the absurdity of "marriage" between persons of the same gender who are inclined to and/or commit perverse sins against nature in a Catholic world as Catholics would know that such sins are abominations in the sight of God and that those who commit them constitute a group consisting of people for whose conversion we must pray, not a legitimate "civil rights" constituency to which politicians must cater and cower in fright of offending. (See Arguing About Who Decides That Which Is Beyond Humans To Decide, part one, Arguing About Who Decides That Which Is Beyond Humans To Decide, part two, Arguing About Who Decides That Which Is Beyond Humans To Decide, part three, and Arguing Who Decides That Which is Beyond Humans To Decide, part four.)
Perhaps to drive home the point a bit more, a nation that submitted itself to the sweet yoke of the Social Reign of Christ the King would never find itself in a situation where a statist, pro-abort demagogue named Barack Hussein Obama (or Barry Soetero) enjoyed the support of between two-fifths and half of its voting-age population, no less one in which such a demagogue would be opposed by hapless men whose positions on fundamental issues of moral truth have shifted over the course of time to suit his immediate political ends and who has sought to make money as an ultimate end, being clueless about how the promotion and protection of sins under the cover of the civil law make it impossible to realize national "prosperity" and international "peace."
What's the Difference Between Hillary Rodham Clinton and the Republicans in the Clown Car?
One of the points that I have been making repeatedly in the past twenty years now is that there are no essential differences between the naturalists of the false opposite of the “left” and the naturalists of the false opposite of the “right.” Indeed, this has been a recurring theme of articles in the printed pages of Christ or Chaos, which started as a print publication in September of 1996 before going online on February 20, 1996, meaning that this publication is in its twentieth year of life. Very few people want to realize that this is so, and some who do realize it at one time permit themselves to become agitated by the supposedly “greater evil” when the truth is that the supposedly “lesser evil” of any election cycle, if elected, does pretty much what the “greater evil” would have done. The only difference, you see, is that those who supported the “lesser evil” are so “relieved” that the “greater evil” has been defeated that they refuse to see the facts of how the supposedly “lesser evil” does the same evil things as the “greater evil” would have done if elected. This is, of course, what happened during the administration of President George Walker Bush, something that pounded time and time again between the time that Bush announced his presidential candidacy in 1999 to the time he left office on January 20, 2009, after governing in such a manner as to help make possible the election of United States Senator Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro (D-Illinois) on Tuesday, November 4, 2008.
Just as an aside, Bush the Lesser’s father, George Herbert Walker Bush, made possible the election of Arkansas Governor William Jefferson Blythe Clinton on Tuesday, November 3, 1992.
It was under the administration of President George Herbert Walker Bush that women were permitted to fly helicopters to ferry food and supplies to troops during so-called “Persian Gulf War” in 1991, something that prompted Congress to pass an amendment to the military budget for Fiscal Year 1992 to lift all prohibitions on women flying actual combat missions:
WASHINGTON, July 31 (1991)— The Senate voted overwhelmingly today to overturn a 43-year-old law that bars women from flying warplanes in combat.
The new measure, an amendment to the military budget bill for the 1992 fiscal year, would permit, but would not require, the Air Force, the Navy, the Army and the Marine Corps to allow women to fly combat missions.
Today's vote made enactment of the measure virtually certain. The House of Representatives approved similar legislation last month, and Defense Secretary Dick Cheney has indicated that he does not oppose the provision.
The chiefs of the four uniformed services have expressed strong reservations to opening combat positions to women. But the performance of the 35,000 women who served in the Persian Gulf war has generated strong support in Congress and in public opinion polls to broaden women's role in the military, and the Pentagon is likely to go along grudgingly. Sometimes a Fine Distinction
"I can't predict exactly what we'll do," the Pentagon spokesman, Pete Williams said. "But if the ultimate direction given us is to lift the combat-exclusionary law, then I think we'll look at it and proceed carefully."
Current military policies technically restrict women to noncombat functions, but the distinction is sometimes a fine one. Although women could not serve in infantry or artillery units, aboard fighting ships or on combat aircraft during the gulf war, female helicopter pilots ferried food, fuel and troops throughout combat zones.
Most senior military officers and Pentagon officials oppose allowing women to serve in ground combat forces, which may require superior physical strength and endurance, but some lawmakers and women's rights advocates want servicewomen to have the option of making the grade. Hailing Heroism and Competency
The measure approved today does not apply to combat surface ships or submarines, or to armored, artillery or other ground forces. But it does apply to combat flying by women in all four services.
The Army, unlike the other services, is not technically covered by the 1948 law and instead has internal regulations consistent with that law.
A vote on the entire $291 billion military budget bill is expected Friday or Saturday.
Although the Senate approved the measure today by voice vote, the outcome was actually sealed earlier in the day when, on a vote of 69 to 30, the amendment's supporters defeated an attempt to kill it. Both Barbara A. Mikulski, Democrat of Maryland, and Nancy Landon Kassebaum, Republican of Kansas, the two female members of the Senate, voted to save the measure.
"This is a victory for the women pilots who demonstrated in the gulf their capabilities, their heroism and their competency," said Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, a principal sponsor of the amendment. Senator William V. Roth Jr., Republican of Delaware, was the measure's other main sponsor.
Opponents of the amendment offered a competing measure to create a 15-member commission to study the issue and make recommendations by December 1992. That amendment also passed, by a vote of 96 to 3, but the strategy failed: 29 Republicans and 40 Democrats voted for the aviator amendment as well. Setback for Nunn
The commission, which is not expected to conflict with provisions of the aviator amendment, is expected to ask Mr. Cheney to open temporarily to women a select number of positions in a wide array of combat jobs to test women's performances and their effect on previously all-male units.
The large vote in favor of the aviator amendment shocked even the bill's staunchest supporters and marked a stinging setback for Senator Sam Nunn, the Georgia Democrat who heads the Armed Services Committee, and Senator John W. Warner, the committee's senior Republican.
They along with Senator John Glenn, Democrat of Ohio, and Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, sponsored the commission amendment, and lobbied furiously to kill the rival measure.
They argued that the Senate needed more time to study the complicated issue. Limits Called 'Neanderthal'
Three hours of spirited debate filled the Senate chambers that is home to 98 male and two female lawmakers.
Supporters of the amendment to lift the ban on female combat aviators cast the existing law as an "archaic, antiquated, Neanderthal" statute that discriminated against women and undermined the national security by putting sex ahead of talent.
"These laws are bad for women because they deny them an equal opportunity for service and advancement in the military," said Mr. Kennedy.
In response to public opinion after World War II that women should play a smaller role in the military, Congress approved legislation in 1948 that limited the number of women serving in the military, restricted the rank they could achieve and created the ban on flying warplanes in combat. The first two provisions were repealed in the late 1960's.
"This Congressional restriction is as old and outdated in today's military as a World War II propeller," Mr. Roth said. Call for Deliberation
Critics, however, warned that the Senate would be rushing pell-mell into a momentous decision with scant evidence to back it up.
"If we're going to make such a radical change, a year or so of careful deliberation would be invaluable," said Mr. McCain, a former Navy pilot.
If combat restrictions were lifted, Mr. Glenn said, the commission would be ideally suited to tackle thorny issues like whether women should be compelled to serve in combat roles or have a choice. Male soldiers have no option.
The commission could also consider whether women should be required to register for a future draft when they turn 18 years old, the impact of pregnancies and child-care needs of servicewomen and whether allowing females into tank crews and mortar companies would undermine morale in those all-male bastions.
"Substantially more study is required before we can act conclusively on the future role of women in combat," said Mr. Glenn.
Supporters, though, argued that women had proved themselves not only in the gulf, but in military training schools across the country. The Navy, for example, has 248 female pilots and 106 female navigators, many of whom train male fighter pilots.
"It is ludicrous for Congress to bar them from flying in combat in the planes they have tested and with the officers they have trained," said Mr. Kennedy. (Senate Votes to Remove Ban On Women as Combat Pilots.)
It was without even a tiny “peep” from Congressional Republicans in January of 2013 that the then-retiring United States Secretary of Defense (and former United States Representative/former Director of the Office of Management and the Budget/former White House Chief of Staff/Former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency) Leon Panetta, a pro-abortion, pro-perversity Catholic who remains in perfectly good standing in the Diocese of Monterey, California, and who was thanked, believe it or not, by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI on January 16, 2013, for “keeping the world safe,” proposed to lift all restrictions on women in military combat operations:
WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta is lifting the military’s official ban on women in combat, which will open up hundreds of thousands of additional front-line jobs to them, senior defense officials said Wednesday.
The groundbreaking decision overturns a 1994 Pentagon rule that restricts women from artillery, armor, infantry and other such combat roles, even though in reality women have frequently found themselves in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan; according to the Pentagon, hundreds of thousands of women have deployed in those conflicts. As of last year, more than 800 women had been wounded in the two wars and more than 130 had died.
Defense officials offered few details about Mr. Panetta’s decision but described it as the beginning of a process to allow the branches of the military to put the change into effect. Defense officials said Mr. Panetta had made the decision on the recommendation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Women have long chafed under the combat restrictions and have increasingly pressured the Pentagon to catch up with the reality on the battlefield. The move comes as Mr. Panetta is about to step down from his post and would leave him with a major legacy after only 18 months in the job.
The decision clearly fits into the broad and ambitious liberal agenda, especially around matters of equal opportunity, that President Obama laid out this week in his Inaugural Address. But while it had to have been approved by him, and does not require action by Congress, it appeared Wednesday that it was in large part driven by the military itself. Some midlevel White House staff members were caught by surprise by the decision, indicating that it had not gone through an extensive review there.
Mr. Panetta’s decision came after he received a Jan. 9 letter from Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who stated in strong terms that the armed service chiefs all agreed that “the time has come to rescind the direct combat exclusion rule for women and to eliminate all unnecessary gender-based barriers to service.”
A military official said the change would be implemented “as quickly as possible,” although the Pentagon is allowing three years, until January 2016, for final decisions from the services.
Each branch of the military will have to come up with an implementation plan in the next several months, the official said. If a branch of the military decides that a specific job should not be opened to a woman, representatives of that branch will have to ask the defense secretary for an exception.
“To implement these initiatives successfully and without sacrificing our war-fighting capability or the trust of the American people, we will need time to get it right,” General Dempsey wrote.
It will be carried out during what the administration describes as the end of the American combat role in Afghanistan, the nation’s longest war.
A copy of General Dempsey’s letter was provided by a Pentagon official under the condition of anonymity.
The letter noted that this action was meant to ensure that women as well as men “are given the opportunity to succeed.”
It was unclear why the Joint Chiefs acted now after examining the issue for years, although in recent months there has been building pressure from high-profile lawsuits.
In November 2012 the American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit challenging the ban on behalf of four service women and the Service Women’s Action Network, a group that works for equality in the military. The A.C.L.U. said that one of the plaintiffs, Maj. Mary Jennings Hegar, an Air National Guard helicopter pilot, was shot down, returned fire and was wounded while on the ground in Afghanistan, but could not seek combat leadership positions because the Defense Department did not officially acknowledge her experience as combat.
In the military, serving in combat positions like the infantry remains crucial to career advancement. Women have long said that by not recognizing their real service, the military has unfairly held them back.
The A.C.L.U. embraced Mr. Panetta’s decision with cautious optimism. Ariela Migdal, an attorney with the A.C.L.U.'s Women’s Rights Project, said in a statement that the organization was “thrilled” by the decision, but added that she hoped it would be implemented “fairly and quickly.”
By law Mr. Panetta is able to lift the ban as a regulatory decision, although he must give Congress a 30-day notice of his intent. Congress does not need to approve the decision before it goes into effect. If Congress disagrees with the action, members would have to pass new legislation prohibiting the change, which appeared highly unlikely.
Although in the past some Republican members of the House have balked at allowing women in combat, on Wednesday there appeared to be bipartisan endorsement for the decision, which was first reported by The Associated Press and CNN in midafternoon.
“It reflects the reality of 21st century military operations,” Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement.
Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington and the chairwoman of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, called it a “historic step for recognizing the role women have, and will continue to play, in the defense of our nation.”
Senator Kelly Ayotte, a New Hampshire Republican and a member of the Armed Services Committee, said in a statement that she was pleased by the decision and said that it “reflects the increasing role that female service members play in securing our country.”
Representative Loretta Sanchez, the California Democrat who has long pressed to have women’s role in combat recognized, said that she was pleased that Mr. Panetta was removing what she called “the archaic combat exclusion policy.”
Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand, a New York Democrat who has pushed for lifting the ban, called it “a proud day for our country” and an important step in recognizing “the brave women who are already fighting and dying.”
But the leadership of a conservative Christian group, the Family Research Council, immediately weighed in with its opposition, sending out a statement from Jerry Boykin, a retired three-star general with a long career in Special Operations Forces.
General Boykin said that “the people making this decision are doing so as part of another social experiment.” He especially criticized the concept of placing women into Special Forces units where “living conditions are primal in many situations with no privacy for personal hygiene or normal functions.” It remains unclear if women will be permitted to fight in Special Forces and other commando units.
Public opinion polls show that Americans generally agree with lifting the ban. A nationwide Quinnipiac University poll conducted a year ago found that three-quarters of voters surveyed favored allowing military women to serve in units that engaged in close combat, if the women wanted to.
Policy experts who have pushed the military to lift the ban said that it was striking that much of the impetus appeared to come from Joint Chiefs, indicating that the top military leadership saw that the time had come to open up to women.
“It’s significant that the change came from the uniformed side, rather than being forced on the uniformed side by the civilian leadership,” said Greg Jacob, the policy director of the Service Women’s Action Network.
Under current rules, a number of military positions are closed to women — and to open them, the services have to change the rules.
Under Mr. Panetta’s new initiative, the situation is the opposite: Those combat positions would be open to women, and they could only be closed through specific action.
Capt. Emily Naslund, a Marine officer who saw ground combat in Afghanistan in 2010, said Wednesday that she embraced the decision. “This is awesome,” she said. (Pentagon Is Set to Lift Combat Ban for Women.)
Yes, this is "awesome," all right.
This is awesome when one considers how complete the feminism brought to rebirth as a result of the French and Bolshevik Revolutions has become. Yes, we are eyewitnesses to a socialist revolution taking place under the direction of a "pro-life" "conservative" presidential administration.
This is awesome one considers how women, noting celebrated exceptions made by God Himself in the case of Saint Joan of Arc and others as circumstances and Catholic prudence have required, have been transformed by the twin, interrelated revolutions of Modernity and Modernism into the very anthesis of the the humility and tender, nurturing, maternal love of Our Lady, she who is the model of true femininity, as they have desired "equality" with men.
Please, wake up, ladies and gentlemen. Do not permit yourselves to be agitated by the false conflict between the two major crime families of Judeo-Masonry. Evil gets advanced just as much in Republican administrations as in Democratic ones. We have a system that is premised on the lie that men can know social order absent a due submission to the Catholic Church in all that pertains to the good of souls. While it is certainly true that the Democrats make good use of their time to advance more evil than do the Republicans, the hapless figures of the right, ever believing that they can win over “moderates” and today’s “millennials” who have been taught to love socialism, which is why many of them are embracing the avowed socialist named United States Bernard Sanders (D-Vermont), by showing how “progressive” they can be once in office. It’s a farce, friends, a complete and total farce. Stop being agitated by this nonsense as it is what the adversary desires to distract Catholics from praying more Rosaries and making more sacrifices for the conversion of those who are steeped in all manner of naturalist errors, whether of the “left” or of the right.”
Members of the Warfare Party have enabled the draconian social engineering agenda of the Welfare Party for generations now, and they promise to continue to do so if one of their number gets elected on Tuesday, November 8, 2016.
How do I know this?
Look at the support expressed at the Republican debate at Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire on Saturday, February 6, 2016, by the “conservative,” “pro-life,” “pro-family” Republicans for forcing our daughters to register for the Selective Service once they turn eighteen years of age:
RADDATZ: I want to move on to the military. Senator Rubio, all restrictions on women in combat as long as they qualify. Positions including special operations forces, like Navy Seals. Just this week military leaders of the Army and Marine Corps said that they believed young women, just as young men are required to do, should sign up for Selective Service in case the Draft is reinstated.
Many of you have young daughters. Senator Rubio, should young women be required to sign up for Selective Service in case of a national emergency?
RUBIO: First, let me say there are already women today serving in roles that are like combat. That, in fact, whose lives are in very serious danger, and so I have no problem whatsoever with people of either gender serving in combat so long as the minimum requirements necessary to do the job are not compromised. But, I support that, and obviously now that that is the case I do believe that Selective Service should be opened up for both men and women in case a Draft is ever instituted.
I think the more fundamental challenge we're now facing is what's happening to the U.S. military -- I've said this many times, and I think it's important to start paying attention to this. Our Air Force is about to be the smallest it's been in 100 years. I'm sorry, in our history. Our Army is set to be smaller than it's been since the second World War, and our Navy is about to be the smallest than it's been in 100 years.
I think we need to begin to refocus on rebuilding our military because every time we have cut our military in the history of this country we have had to come back later and rebuild it, and it costs more, and it's a lot more chaotic and dangerous. When I'm president, we are rebuilding the U.S. military.
RADDATZ: Thank you, Senator Rubio. Governor Bush, do you believe that young women...
BUSH: ... Say it again?
RADDATZ: Do you believe young women should sign up for Selective Service, be required to sign up...
BUSH: ... I do, and I do think that we should not impose any kind of political agenda on the military. There should be -- if women can meet the requirements, the minimum requirements for combat service they ought to have the right to do it. For sure. It ought to be focused on the morale as well. We got to make sure that we have readiness much higher than we do today. We need to eliminate the sequester which is devastating our military.
We can't be focusing on the political side of this, we need to realize that our military force is how we project our word in the world. When we're weak militarily it doesn't matter what we say. We can talk about red lines, and ISIS being the J.V. team, and reset buttons and all this. If we don't have a strong military than no one fears us, and they take actions that are against our national interest.
RADDATZ: Tell me what you'd say to American people out there...
RADDATZ: ... Who are sitting at home, who have daughters, who might worry about those answers, and might worry...
BUSH: ... Why would they worry about it...
RADDATZ: ... if the Draft is reinstituted?
BUSH: ... Well, the Draft's not going to be reinstituted, but why -- if women are accessing...
RADDATZ: ... Are you saying you'd do away with it?
BUSH: No. I didn't say that. You -- you asked a question not about the draft, you asked about registering. And if women are going to be...
RADDATZ: You register for the draft.
BUSH: If -- but...
RADDATZ: If it's reinstituted.
BUSH: ... we don't have a draft. I'm not suggesting we have a draft. What I'm suggesting is that we ought to have readiness being the first priority of our military, and secondly, that we make sure that the morale is high. And right now, neither one of those are acceptable because we've been gutting the military budget.
We also need to reform our procurement process. We need to make sure there are more men and women in uniform than people -- than civilians in our Defense Department. There's a lot of things that we need to reform to bring our defense capabilities into the 21st century and I'm the guy that could do that. That's why I have the support of generals, of admirals, of 12 Medal of Honor recipients and many other people that know that I would be a steady commander-in-chief and rebuild our military.
RADDATZ: Thank you very much.
CHRISTIE: Can I -- can I be really -- can I be really clear on this, because I am the father of two daughters. One of them is here tonight. What my wife and I have taught our daughters right from the beginning, that their sense of self-worth, their sense of value, their sense of what they want to do with their life comes not from the outside, but comes from within. And if a young woman in this country wants to go and fight to defend their country, she should be permitted to do so.
Part of that also needs to be part of a greater effort in this country, and so there's no reason why one -- young women should be discriminated against from registering for the selective service. The fact is, we need to be a party and a people that makes sure that our women in this country understand anything they can dream, anything that they want to aspire to, they can do. That's the way we raised our daughters and that's what we should aspire to as president for all of the women in our country.
RADDATZ: Thank you very much, Governor Christie. (Transcript of the New Hampshire GOP debate, annotated.)
Look at what these utter idiots said.
These men are idiots.
Absolute egalitarian idiots and dupes of every naturalist error imaginable.
Why would parents worry about their daughters being required to register for Selective Service, John Ellis Bush, you who wanted “civility” after all of the outrage that was expressed against Planned Barrnehood once the Center for Medical Progress started to release their videos seven months ago, you who want to impose a statist, secularist, pro-family planning, pro-perversity it the name of “diversity” Common Core system to further brainwash the bulk of American children who march off each day to this country’s thought-control program that calls itself “public education”?
Why would we worry?
We worry because the officials of the government of the United States of America lie to the citizenry.
We worry because we know that a promise that the military draft will not be reinstituted is as worthless as your father’s “Read my lips. No new taxes” pledge that he made at the Republican National Convention in New Orleans, Louisiana, on August 18, 1988.
We worry because we know that some Democrat or Republican is going to require our daughters to engage in mandatory “service” to the nation and to be housed with men, treated like men, shot up with vaccines filled with poisons and the tissues of aborted babies, subjected to all manner of “diversity training,” and even prevented from practicing their Faith, up to and including praying the Rosary, displaying a crucifix or a Miraculous Medal or wearing the Brown Scapular of Our Lady of Mount Carmel.
Yes, Governor Bush, we worry because statism is on the march and the Bush family has been in the vanguard of statism and the promotion of anti-family policies dating back to the time of your grandfather, the late United States Senator Prescott Bush (R-Connecticut), who was just as much a supporter of Planned Barrenhood as his son, your father, George Herbert Walker Bush, when he served in the United States House of Representatives from January 3, 1967, until January 3, 1971, after his defeat by Lloyd Bentsen for the United States Senate on Tuesday, November 3, 1970.
Our worry is legitimate.
As to the remarks by Marco Antonio Rubio and Christopher James Christie, what can one say?
So much confusion, so much error, so very little time, especially approaching 3:15 a.m. on the morning of Monday February 8, 2016, the Feast of Saint John Matha.
Suffice it to say for the moment, though, that there is support among Congressional Republicans for a “debate” on the matter of requiring our daughters to register for Selective Service, meaning that the question posed by Martha Raddatz is not a matter of some idle speculation:
WASHINGTON — Two House Republicans introduced a bill Thursday requiring eligible women in the United States to sign up for the military draft, just days after it was recommended by the Marine Corps and Army.
Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., a Marine veteran, and Rep. Ryan Zinke, R-Mont., a retired Navy SEAL, filed the Draft American’s Daughters Act to stoke debate over the military’s historic move to fully integrate female troops into all combat roles. If passed, women from 18-26 years old would for the first time have to join men in registering with the Selective Service program and potentially be forced to fight in future wars.
"If this administration wants to send 18, 20-year-old women into combat, to serve and fight on the front lines, then the American people deserve to have this discussion through their elected representatives,” Hunter said in a released statement.
On Tuesday, Marine Commandant Gen. Robert Neller and Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley testified to the Senate that they believe there no longer should be an exemption in the draft for half of the country’s population now that the military is all inclusive.
The Marines and Army, along with the other service branches, were ordered by Defense Secretary Ash Carter to open about 225,000 combat jobs to women candidates – the last remaining occupational specialties that had barred female troops.
The decision was made despite research and reservations from the Marine Corps and special operations community, and without adequate debate among lawmakers, according to the two congressmen sponsoring the bill.
“My daughter is a damn good Navy diver. I know women play an invaluable role in war. Many times women can gain access to strategic sites that men never could,” Zinke said in a released statement. “However, this administration’s plan to force all front-line combat and Special Forces to integrate women into their units is reckless and dangerous.”
The Marines completed a study last summer that found women get injured more often and perform below males in combat. During an oversight hearing in the Senate on Tuesday, lawmakers repeatedly referenced the study and said they are worried the military could lower standards to accommodate more women in combat occupational specialties.
Zinke said the decision now means the country must contemplate changes to the draft. His bill requires women to register beginning 90 days after it is signed into law.
“This is a very important issue that touches the heart of every family in America, and I believe we need to have an open and honest discussion about it,” Zinke said.
Men, who historically filled combat roles, are required to register with Selective Service when they turn 18 years old in case a draft is again needed. The Supreme Court had in the past backed the exemption for women, but only because they were not expected to fill crucial combat ranks.
Millions of women might now suddenly and unexpectedly be required to register due to the Pentagon decision on combat roles.
Neller, who initially requested exemptions for women in some combat positions, said he thinks it is fair that women now face being called up to wartime service.
“Every American that is physically qualified should register for the draft,” said Neller, who had requested but was denied the exclusion of women in some Marine combat jobs." (House bill requires women to sign up for draft.)
What was all of that celebration about the Republicans winning the midterm elections on Tuesday, November 4, 2014?
Once again, I implore the readers of this site to refuse to be duped by the lies of naturalism. We must think as Catholics at all times, and we are not “voting” our way out of the mess in the world as our own sins and those committed by others with the full sanction of the civil law must be punished. Yes, this is a chastisement, and there is getting around or escaping this fact.
Look, the facts are simple.
The Republican presidential candidates do not care that many women in the world have been transformed into mutations of men as they dress in a masculine manner, act and speak aggressively, if not profanely, and as they seek positions of "power" in the world of business, banking, law, politics, education, commerce, entertainment and sports, all to "prove" that there is no "glass ceiling," that they are "as good as men."
Lost in all of this prideful egalitarian self-seeking is the simple fact that the most "empowered" women who ever lived is the fairest flower of our race, Our Lady, she who was conceived without any stain of Original or Actual Sin, she who was filled with grace from the first moment of her Immaculate Conception in the womb of mother, our Good Saint Anne.
Our Lady did not vie for "equality" with her father, Saint Joachim.
Our Lady did not vie for "equality" with her humble, Most Chaste Spouse, our Good Saint Joseph, the Patron of the Universal Church and the Protector of the Faithful. Although his superior in the Order of Redemption (Order of Grace), Our Lady was his inferior in the Order of Creation (Order of Nature). She willingly submitted to him as the head of the Holy Family.
Not so the "modern" women of contemporary feminism.
The "modern" women of contemporary feminism have been taught to "fulfill" themselves.
The "modern" women of contemporary feminism have been taught that they are not and cannot be "fulfilled" unless the hold the same positions as men and wield the same supposed "power" that they do.
In order to achieve this "equality," it was, of course, necessary to abandon child bearing, whether by means of contraceptive devices or pills or by the surgical dismemberment of the very fruit of their wombs, in order to take their "rightful" place in the halls of commerce, politics, banking and the media.
Women have been taught to dress immodestly and suggestively. "Dressed to kill" is what such attire is called. Women who are "dressed to kill" and care only about personal pleasure and satisfaction have by the millions learned how to kill their babies.
Now, of course, women in the United States of America have broken through the "glass ceiling" of the final de jure barriers in order to take their "place at the barricades." They are now dressed to kill, sometimes separated from their families and placed at all times in situations where temptations, whether natural or unnatural, against the Holy Virtue of Purity, as members of the armed forces of the United States of America.
Although what follows will anger considerably those attached to the naturalist ideology of "conservatism," the plain fact of the matter is that it was none other than Vladimir I. Lenin who wanted to see women, including those with young children at home, take their place as equals with men in the realm of civil governance. To be sure, this was certainly a goal of the French Revolution. It was, however, institutionalized by the Bolshevik Revolution and popularized by its naturalistic, anti-Incarnational agents throughout the Western world, including the United States of America:
The second anniversary of the Soviet power is a fitting occasion for us to review what has, in general, been accomplished during this period, and to probe into the significance and aims of the revolution which we accomplished.
The bourgeoisie and its supporters accuse us of violating democracy. We maintain that the Soviet revolution has given an unprecedented stimulus to the development of democracy both in depth and breadth, of democracy, moreover, distinctly for the toiling masses, who had been oppressed under capitalism; consequently, of democracy for the vast majority of the people, of socialist democracy (for the toilers) as distinguished from bourgeois democracy (for the exploiters, the capitalists, the rich).
Who is right?
To probe deeply into this question and to understand it well will mean studying the experience of these two years and being better prepared to further follow up this experience.
The position of women furnishes a particularly graphic elucidation of the difference between bourgeois and socialist democracy, it furnishes a particularly graphic answer to the question posed.
In no bourgeois republic (i.e., where there is private ownership of the land, factories, works, shares, etc.), be it even the most democratic republic, nowhere in the world, not even in the most advanced country, have women gained a position of complete equality. And this, notwithstanding the fact that more than one and a quarter centuries have elapsed since the Great French (bourgeois-democratic) Revolution.
In words, bourgeois democracy promises equality and liberty. In fact, not a single bourgeois republic, not even the most advanced one, has given the feminine half of the human race either full legal equality with men or freedom from the guardianship and oppression of men.
Bourgeois democracy is democracy of pompous phrases, solemn words, exuberant promises and the high-sounding slogans of freedom and equality. But, in fact, it screens the non-freedom and inferiority of women, the non-freedom and inferiority of the toilers and exploited.
Soviet, or socialist, democracy sweeps aside the pompous, bullying, words, declares ruthless war on the hypocrisy of the "democrats", the landlords, capitalists or well-fed peasants who are making money by selling their surplus bread to hungry workers at profiteering prices.
Down with this contemptible fraud! There cannot be, nor is there nor will there ever be "equality" between the oppressed and the oppressors, between the exploited and the exploiters. There cannot be, nor is there nor will there ever be real "freedom" as long as there is no freedom for women from the privileges which the law grants to men, as long as there is no freedom for the workers from the yoke of capital, and no freedom for the toiling peasants from the yoke of the capitalists, landlords and merchants.
Let the liars and hypocrites, the dull-witted and blind, the bourgeois and their supporters hoodwink the people with talk about freedom in general, about equality in general, about democracy in general.
We say to the workers and peasants: Tear the masks from the faces of these liars, open the eyes of these blind ones. Ask them:
“Equality between what sex and what other sex?
“Between what nation and what other nation?
“Between what class and what other class?
“Freedom from what yoke, or from the yoke of what class? Freedom for what class?”
Whoever speaks of politics, of democracy, of liberty, of equality, of socialism, and does not at the same time ask these questions, does not put them in the foreground, does not fight against concealing, hushing up and glossing over these questions, is one of the worst enemies of the toilers, is a wolf in sheep's clothing, is a bitter opponent of the workers and peasants, is a servant of the landlords, tsars, capitalists.
In the course of two years Soviet power in one of the most backward countries of Europe did more to emancipate women and to make their status equal to that of the "strong" sex than all the advanced, enlightened, "democratic" republics of the world did in the course of 130 years.
Enlightenment, culture, civilisation, liberty--in all capitalist, bourgeois republics of the world all these fine words are combined with extremely infamous, disgustingly filthy and brutally coarse laws in which woman is treated as an inferior being, laws dealing with marriage rights and divorce, with the inferior status of a child born out of wedlock as compared with that of a "legitimate" child, laws granting privileges to men, laws that are humiliating and insulting to women.
The yoke of capital, the tyranny of "sacred private property", the despotism of philistine stupidity, the greed of petty proprietors --these are the things that prevented the most democratic bourgeois republics from infringing upon those filthy and infamous laws.
The Soviet Republic, the republic of workers and peasants, promptly wiped out these laws and left not a stone in the structure of bourgeois fraud and bourgeois hypocrisy.
Down with this fraud! Down with the liars who are talking of freedom and equality for all, while there is an oppressed sex, while there are oppressor classes, while there is private ownership of capital, of shares, while there are the well-fed with their surplus of bread who keep the hungry in bondage. Not freedom for all, not equality for all, but a fight against the oppressors and exploiters, the abolition of every possibility of oppression and exploitation-that is our slogan!
Freedom and equality for the oppressed sex!
Freedom and equality for the workers, for the toiling peasants!
A fight against the oppressors, a fight against the capitalists, a fight against the profiteering kulaks!
That is our fighting slogan, that is our proletarian truth, the truth of the struggle against capital, the truth which we flung in the face of the world of capital with its honeyed, hypocritical, pompous phrases about freedom and equality in general, about freedom and equality for all.
And for the very reason that we have torn down the mask of this hypocrisy, that we are introducing with revolutionary energy freedom and equality for the oppressed and for the toilers, against the oppressors, against the capitalists, against the kulaks--for this very reason the Soviet government has become so dear to the hearts of workers of the whole world.
It is for this very reason that, on the second anniversary of the Soviet power, the: sympathies of the masses of the workers, the sympathies of the oppressed and exploited in every country of the world, are with us.
It is for this very reason that, on this second anniversary of the Soviet power, despite hunger and cold, despite all our tribulations, which have been caused by the imperialists' invasion of the Russian Soviet Republic, we are full of firm faith in the justice of our cause, of firm Faith in the inevitable victory of Soviet power all over the world. (Soviet Power and the Status of Women)
Comrades, the elections to the Moscow Soviet show that the Party of the Communists is gaining strength among the working class.
It is essential that women workers take a greater part in the elections. The Soviet government was the first and only government in the world to abolish completely all the old, bourgeois, infamous laws which placed women in an inferior position compared with men and which granted privileges to men, as, for instance, in the sphere of marriage laws or in the sphere of the legal attitude to children. The Soviet government was the first and only government in the world which, as a government of the toilers, abolished all the privileges connected with property, which men retained in the family laws of all bourgeois republics, even the most democratic.
Where there are landlords, capitalists and merchants, there can be no equality between women and men even in law.
Where there are no landlords, capitalists and merchants, where the government of the toilers is building a new life without these exploiters, there equality between women and men exists in law.
But that is not enough.
It is a far cry from equality in law to equality in life.
We want women workers to achieve equality with men workers not only in law, but in life as well. For this, it is essential that women workers take an ever increasing part in the administration of public enterprises and in the administration of the state.
By engaging in the work of administration women will learn quickly and they will catch up with the men.
Therefore, elect more women workers, both Communist and non-Party, to the Soviet. If she is only an honest woman worker who is capable of managing work sensibly and conscientiously, it makes no difference if she is not a member of the Party--elect her to the Moscow Soviet.
Let there be more women workers in the Moscow Soviet! Let the Moscow proletariat show that it is prepared to do and is doing everything for the fight to victory, for the fight against the old inequality, against the old, bourgeois, humiliation of women!
The proletariat cannot achieve complete freedom, unless it achieves complete freedom for women.
February 21, 1920 To the Working Women
The French Revolution had proclaimed the "liberation" of women from the "shackles" of the past.
Contemporary feminism is but one expression of pride. It is an aspect of the narcissistic selfism of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who once wrote that there was nothing more wonderful for him to experience than his own visage in a mirror. Rousseau's radical egalitarianism, which rejected all social distinctions based on nature and function found in the Order of Creation and in the Order of Redemption, helped to bring forth the French Revolution and its assault upon all legitimately constituted authority in the Church and in the world. Women were taught that their place was besides the men at the barricades, that they were to be "liberated" from the responsibilities of home and hearth, especially those of child-rearing.
The Bolshevik Revolution did the same, helping to pave the way for the "Roaring Twenties" in the West as Talmudic sympathizers of the Bolshevik Revolution produced motion pictures and magazines designed to introduce Bolshevik standards as the basis of undermining the role of men in society and to take women out of the home so that their children would be trained from infancy through young adulthood by the agents of all forms of naturalism (Judeo-Masonic and Bolshevik in particular). Contemporary feminism is but an outgrowth of the devil's efforts to replace Our Lady as the model of femininity with that of the "Eve" of modernity, fully liberated from "man" and from God Himself.
We have let the Leninist program of feminism take such deep root in our collective national psyche that anyone who dares point out the revolutionary nature of upsetting the good order of the family so that women with young children at home can run for elected office is considered to be a "reactionary." It is "conservatives," therefore, who have proved themselves to be most useful idiots in accepting the various errors of Russia, including those of Vladimir I. Lenin, that have been advanced very steadily by "conservative" presidential administrations.
No, the denizens of the "right" follow the election results and the polls. Seventy-five percent of the American public support lifting all remaining restrictions on women in military combat.
Sixty percent of Americans support the retention of the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1899.
Why not dress up women to kill in combat when so many of them are dressed to kill their own babies?
Perhaps even more to the point is that most Catholics attached to the structures fo the counterfeit church of conciliarism, having been thoroughly imbued with the ethos of feminism by virtue of "religious education" programs and propaganda from the pulpit and as women have invaded the sanctuary itself in order to "take their place" next to the "presider" at the Protestant and Judeo- Masonic Novus Ordo service, serving as the extension of the hands of the presider as "altar servers," reading from the "lectionary" at the lectern an distributing what they think is Holy Communion. The conciliar "pope," who has sided with Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro on so many issues, and most of his "bishops" will have no problem with lifting all remaining legal restrictions on women in combat in the armed forces of the United States of America.
This proves yet again that we are undergoing quite a chastisement for the failure of a true pope to consecrate Russia to Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart with all of the world's true bishops as Our Lady herself requested of Sister Lucia dos Santos in 1925 as a further elaboration of what she had requested on July 13, 1917.
Pope Pius XI explained this in Divini Redemptoris, his encyclical letter on atheistic communism issued on March 19, 1937, two days after he issued his encyclical letter, Mit Brennender Sorge, condemning Nazi nationalism and racialism:
Refusing to human life any sacred or spiritual character, such a doctrine logically makes of marriage and the family a purely artificial and civil institution, the outcome of a specific economic system. There exists no matrimonial bond of a juridico-moral nature that is not subject to the whim of the individual or of the collectivity. Naturally, therefore, the notion of an indissoluble marriage-tie is scouted. Communism is particularly characterized by the rejection of any link that binds woman to the family and the home, and her emancipation is proclaimed as a basic principle. She is withdrawn from the family and the care of her children, to be thrust instead into public life and collective production under the same conditions as man. The care of home and children then devolves upon the collectivity. Finally, the right of education is denied to parents, for it is conceived as the exclusive prerogative of the community, in whose name and by whose mandate alone parents may exercise this right. (Pope Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris, March 19, 1937.)
Forcing women out of the family and into the sweatshops and the factories was a goal of not only the French and Bolshevik Revolutions, but also of the Industrial Revolution of Calvinist capitalism. Wives and mothers whose husbands worked long hours in factories for substandard wages were forced in many instances to go to work themselves in order to supplement their husbands' meager incomes. This is what prompted Popes Leo XIII and Pius XI to insist that the man, the principal breadwinner of the family, to be paid a "living wage," that is, to be paid enough to support their families without forcing their wives to abandon the home and to enter unnecessarily into the work force. The living wage is not a flat sum of money. Indeed, Holy Mother Church teaches that a just employer will pay his employees a sum proportionate to the work that they do and proportionate to the number of children with which he has been blessed by God. (See the appendix below for Pope Pius XI's explication of this important point in Quadragesimo Anno, May 15, 1931.)
Women, having become accustomed to "equality" in the Order of Creation (Order of Nature), are now celebrating their ability to lead and to serve in combat missions with full legal impunity as part of American military policy, aping not only the revolutionaries in France in 1789 or those in Russia in 1917 but, of course, the Zionist revolutionaries of the State of Israel, who have placed women at the barricades from the beginning of their "war for independence."
We are eyewitnesses to the complete and utter perversion, distortion and inversion of the entirety of God's creation. We are still reaping the bitter, rotten fruit of the first feminist of them all, Eve.
The knot of Eve's prideful disobedience bound the human race to death. It was not until the New Eve's perfect fiat, made at the Annunciation, that Eve's knot was untied, making it possible for the Gates of Heaven that had been closed by Adam's sin to be re-opened when the New Adam, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity Who became Man in Our Lady's virginal and immaculate womb, redeemed us on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday. Our Lady untied the knot of Eve's prideful disobedience. Our Lord paid back the debt of sin by permitting Himself to be nailed to the wood of a tree in atonement for the first Adam's having stretched his hand out to the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
Pride has been the chief of the deadly sins from the time of the Fall from Grace in the Garden of Eden to the present. It will be with us until Our Lord comes in glory at the end of time to judge the living and the dead. Although Baptism wipes away Original Sin from our souls, flooding them with Baptismal Innocence, that is, the very inner life of the Blessed Trinity by means of sanctifying grace, we still suffer from the vestigial after-effects of Original Sin. That is, just as a physical disease or affliction can leave us disabled for the rest of our lives--or considerably weakened for a long period of time, so is it the case that Original Sin and each one of our own Actual Sins darkens our intellects and weakens our wills, inclining us all the more to sin. Each one of our sins makes it less possible for us to grow in virtue and to scale the heights of personal sanctity, passing from the Purgative Stage of the interior life through the Illuminative Stage to the Way of Perfection. We must be assiduous about making reparation for our sins by offering up all of the pains and sufferings and injustices and humiliations we suffer in this passing life--along with our prayers and whatever merits we earn for our performance of indulgenced acts--to be offered up to Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart as her consecrated slaves. We are to die loving God as He has revealed Himself through His true Church more than we love ourselves and our disordered desires.
Every man, woman and child is called to remember that he is a creature, a contingent being who did not create himself and whose mortal body is destined one day for the corruption of the grave. None of us is the equal to the Most Blessed Trinity. We must submit ourselves to everything He has revealed to us through Holy Mother Church without seeking to declare ourselves "equal" before Him, without Whom we do not take our very next breath. We must pray to Him humbly as His consecrated slaves through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, especially by means of her Most Holy Rosary.
Yes, my friends, it is the Rosary that is, after Holy Mass and Eucharistic piety, the chief means by which the evils of the present day will be retarded and the seeds planted for the Triumph of Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart. Instead of babbling on about one naturalistic "solution" after another in alleged "debates," those who aspire to high office ought to be promoting Our Lady's Holy Rosary, which speaks more powerfully of our total reliance upon Christ the King and upon her, Our Immaculate Queen, than all of the meaningless verbiage that passes out like so much gas from the mouth and is then lost the fogs of the minds of men.
Pope Leo XIII, writing in Laetitiae Sanctae, September 8, 1893, noted:
The third evil for which a remedy is needed is one which is chiefly characteristic of the times in which we live. Men in former ages, although they loved the world, and loved it far too well, did not usually aggravate their sinful attachment to the things of earth by a contempt of the things of heaven. Even the right-thinking portion of the pagan world recognized that this life was not a home but a dwelling-place, not our destination, but a stage in the journey. But men of our day, albeit they have had the advantages of Christian instruction, pursue the false goods of this world in such wise that the thought of their true Fatherland of enduring happiness is not only set aside, but, to their shame be it said, banished and entirely erased from their memory, notwithstanding the warning of St. Paul, "We have not here a lasting city, but we seek one which is to come" (Heb. xiii., 4).
When We seek out the causes of this forgetfulness, We are met in the first place by the fact that many allow themselves to believe that the thought of a future life goes in some way to sap the love of our country, and thus militates against the prosperity of the commonwealth. No illusion could be more foolish or hateful. Our future hope is not of a kind which so monopolizes the minds of men as to withdraw their attention from the interests of this life. Christ commands us, it is true, to seek the Kingdom of God, and in the first place, but not in such a manner as to neglect all things else. For, the use of the goods of the present life, and the righteous enjoyment which they furnish, may serve both to strengthen virtue and to reward it. The splendor and beauty of our earthly habitation, by which human society is ennobled, may mirror the splendor and beauty of our dwelling which is above. Therein we see nothing that is not worthy of the reason of man and of the wisdom of God. For the same God who is the Author of Nature is the Author of Grace, and He willed not that one should collide or conflict with the other, but that they should act in friendly alliance, so that under the leadership of both we may the more easily arrive at that immortal happiness for which we mortal men were created.
But men of carnal mind, who love nothing but themselves, allow their thoughts to grovel upon things of earth until they are unable to lift them to that which is higher. For, far from using the goods of time as a help towards securing those which are eternal, they lose sight altogether of the world which is to come, and sink to the lowest depths of degradation. We may doubt if God could inflict upon man a more terrible punishment than to allow him to waste his whole life in the pursuit of earthly pleasures, and in forgetfulness of the happiness which alone lasts for ever.
It is from this danger that they will be happily rescued, who, in the pious practice of the Rosary, are wont, by frequent and fervent prayer, to keep before their minds the glorious mysteries. These mysteries are the means by which in the soul of a Christian a most clear light is shed upon the good things, hidden to sense, but visible to faith, "which God has prepared for those who love Him." From them we learn that death is not an annihilation which ends all things, but merely a migration and passage from life to life. By them we are taught that the path to Heaven lies open to all men, and as we behold Christ ascending thither, we recall the sweet words of His promise, "I go to prepare a place for you." By them we are reminded that a time will come when "God will wipe away every tear from our eyes," and that "neither mourning, nor crying, nor sorrow, shall be any more," and that "We shall be always with the Lord," and "like to the Lord, for we shall see Him as He is," and "drink of the torrent of His delight," as "fellow-citizens of the saints," in the blessed companionship of our glorious Queen and Mother. Dwelling upon such a prospect, our hearts are kindled with desire, and we exclaim, in the words of a great saint, "How vile grows the earth when I look up to heaven!" Then, too, shall we feel the solace of the assurance "that which is at present momentary and light of our tribulation worketh for us above measure exceedingly an eternal weight of glory" (2 Cor. iv., 17).
Here alone we discover the true relation between time and eternity, between our life on earth and our life in heaven; and it is thus alone that are formed strong and noble characters. When such characters can be counted in large numbers, the dignity and well-being of society are assured. All that is beautiful, good, and true will flourish in the measure of its conformity to Him who is of all beauty, goodness, and truth the first Principle and the Eternal Source. (Pope Leo XIII, Laetitiae Sanctae, September 8, 1893.)
No, I will never tire of reminding the readers of this site that Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order. I will never tire of opposing the lies of naturalism and of documenting the various ways in which the naturalists of the false opposites of the "right" and of the "left" agree on the same basic anti-Incarnational and semi-Pelagian principles upon which the Modern state is based. And I will never tire of reminding readers of this site that we must, as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, use the shield of the Brown Scapular and the weapon of the Most Holy Rosary to combat the forces of the world, the flesh and the devil in our own lives so that we might be able to plant a few seeds for the glorious day when all men and all women everywhere will exclaim:
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.
Saint John Matha, pray for us.