Too Bad for the Babies, Too Bad for Christ the King, Good News for Barabbas

There is little more that I can write about the circus of naturalism that has gripped so many Americans in the past six months or so that I have not written in that time span, to say nothing of the hundreds of articles written in past election cycles, including ones that appeared in the printed pages of Christ or Chaos in 1996, 1998, 2000, and 2002.

Indeed, I became so frustrated with the George Walker Bush re-election mania in 2004 that I observed a self-imposed moratorium on writing about the election between two Skull and Bonesmen, Bush and then United States Senator John F. Kerry (D-Taxachusetts). This decision was made after Bush and then United States Senator Richard John Santorum (R-Pennsylvania) endorsed the pro-abortion, pro-perversity Talmudist and thirty-third degree Freemason named Arlen Specter in Republican Party primary challenge being waged by a partly pro-life/partly pro-death challenger, Patrick Toomey, who was elected to Specter’s senate seat in 2010 when the latter lost a Democratic Party primary challenge waged by then United States Representative Joseph Sestak. An article about this moratorium were spelled out in an article that was published at the time on the Daily Catholic website.

Here is an excerpt:

The defeat of United States Representative Pat Toomey (R-Pennsylvania) by militant pro-abortion Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) in a Republican Party primary in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on Tuesday, April 27, 2004, has sent many well-meaning people into something of a tizzy. Some people were calling on Catholics to pray and fast for Toomey, who is not completely pro-life, to defeat Specter, who was supported by none other than those "pro-life" stalwarts, President George Walker Bush and Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pennsylvania). Toomey's defeat by Specter was, however, eminently predictable and demonstrative once again of the utter bankruptcy of the fraud that is the American political system and the trust so many uninformed people continued to place in it.

Indeed, I am absolutely sick and tired, humanly speaking, of having to repeat the points that will be made in this article. It appears as though some Catholics would rather believe in the political equivalent of the tooth fairy than to assess the reality of our situation soberly through the eyes of the actual patrimony of the Catholic Church, crystallized so clearly in the pontificates of Popes Leo XIII and Pius XI. This, therefore, will be my last effort to repeat points that are so abundantly clear that to repeat them over and over again becomes counterproductive in the face of the hold that the American political and economic systems, founded on decidedly anti-Catholic principles, have on so many believing, practicing Catholics. I will list three basic points that I have discussed ad infinitem in the past before addressing how they apply to our own particular situation. [2016 note: My self-imposed moratorium on writing about electoral matters lasted until after the 2004 general elections.]

First, the modern state is founded on the specific and categorical rejection of the Social Reign of Christ the King as it was exercised by the Catholic Church. Martin Luther himself noted the following: "Assuredly, a prince can be a Christian, but it is not as Christian that he ought to govern. As a ruler, he is not called a Christian, but a prince. The man is a Christian, but his function does not concern his religion."

This is the direct antithesis of the spirit of Christendom, exemplified so clearly by Saint Louis IX when he wrote to his son:

"Be devout and obedient to the Church and to the Supreme Pontiff as your spiritual father. Work to remove all sin from your land, especially blasphemies and heresies."

Although the ideal was never perfectly realized, most Catholic rulers during the Middle Ages understood that they had to rule according to the mind of Christ as He had revealed It through Holy Mother Church and that there were limits that existed in the Divine positive law and natural law that they could not legitimately transgress. If such rulers proposed to transgress these limits or had indeed done so in fact, they knew that the Church, either in the person of the Supreme Pontiff or a local bishop, could intervene to prevent an unjust action from being taken before the fact or to punish a ruler after the fact for having done so. The Social Kingship of Jesus Christ was the check, although never perfectly exercised, on monarchical absolutism.

Second, the modern state is founded on the acceptance of religious indifferentism as a fact of life, meaning that politics and economics and all other social intercourse were to be conducted without regard to the Deposit of Faith the God-Man entrusted to His true Church. Man is thus consigned to trying to discover some nonexistent "common ground" that can unite him with other men in some sort of inter-denominational or non-denominational spirit of brotherhood, which is nothing other than the essence of Freemasonry. The fruit of this is the belief that man can change the world by the use of his own unaided intellect and the strength of his will, rejecting utterly the necessity of sanctifying grace as the means by which men are strengthened to live in accordance with God's laws as they are explicated by Holy Mother Church. This also leads to atheism as the "lowest common denominator" in social life, as Pope Leo XIII noted in Immortale Dei in 1885.

Third, the rise of political parties in the modern state created the leech known as the professional politician, a man who exists simply to get elected as an ultimate end in and of itself. We now permit ourselves to subordinate the binding precepts of the Divine positive law and the natural law to the electoral interests of professional politicians who do not care one whit about the Social Reign of Christ the King, to say nothing of even referring to the Holy Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as the only antidote to the poison of personal sin, which is what is responsible for all of the problems in the world. Quite to the contrary, the professional politician claims he has "solutions" to our problems, thus creating a perverse belief system which contends it has the means to make our lives better and to create peace among nations. This is all illusory.

American politics is an enshrinement of all that is wrong with Modernity. Even believing Catholics have come to accept the fact that it is not expedient to discuss Catholic truth explicitly in the context of public discourse, no less actually work for the Social Reign of Christ the King and of Mary our Immaculate Queen. Each election cycle issues a new burst of energy and enthusiasm for phony pro-life politicians whose victories are said to be "vital" in order to keep someone "more evil" out of office. The litany of contradictions contained within this subordination of Catholic truth to the exigencies of a false political system elude the grasp of those who do not want to admit that all of their political efforts are illusory and actually help to worsen our situation over the course of time.

One of the standard canards of those who believe that we are going to improve our situation politically is that we have to accept the "lesser of two evils" in the meaningless things known as elections. This canard, invoked so mechanically and mindlessly by its adherents, has permitted the dose of the so-called "lesser evil" to increase more and more with each election cycle. Professional politicians know this, which is why they know they can get away with giving pro-life voters only a few crumbs and some empty, if not contradictory, rhetoric to secure their votes. Even the canard of the "lesser of two evils," though, is stood on its head on occasion when someone alleged to be a friend of the babies, such as President George W. Bush and Senator Rick Santorum, call upon their supporters to listen to their seemingly infallible pronouncements and advice.

To wit, some of the very people who incant the slogan of the "lesser of two evils" voted for the greater of the two evils in the Specter-Toomey race, Arlen Specter, because men in whom they have falsely placed their trust urged them to do so. George W. Bush is not pro-life. He supports abortion in the "hard" cases. He is not pro-life. He is simply less pro-abortion than someone who supports abortion in all circumstances. The same is true of Rick Santorum. If Bush understood the inviolability of all innocent human life, which he does not, then he would not have included a needless "life of the mother" exception in the bill to conditionally ban partial-birth abortions. These two less pro-abortion politicians endorsed Specter, who is completely pro-abortion, choosing to work against a fellow partly pro-life/partly pro-abortion politician, Pat Toomey. If one wants to accept the "lesser of two evils" slogan, then Toomey was the lesser of two evils. Does it not tell you something that two supposedly "pro-life" politicians endorsed a man who is completely pro-abortion?

The Bush-Santorum endorsement of Specter should come as no surprise to anyone. Robert Novak noted in a column in February of 2003 that these two "pro-life" icons were supporting Specter against Pat Toomey, who was attempting to raise funds at the time for his primary race against Specter. This is not news. George W. Bush has raised funds and campaigned for militant pro-abortion Republican politicians such as New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, New York Governor George Pataki, the now embattled Connecticut Governor John Rowland, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger - and a whole host of others. Pro-abortion Catholic Republican Rudolph Giuliani is said to be his party's keynote speaker at its national nominating convention at Madison Square Garden in the City of New York this September.

How can a man, namely, George W. Bush, claim that he is working in behalf of the culture of life and for the day when "every child will be welcomed in life and protected by law" when he works to elect pro-aborts to serve in public office, no less appoints pro-aborts to the highest offices in his own administration? There is a disconnect here, people. Wake up. George W. Bush would not campaign for anyone who was tainted with even a whiff of racial bigotry or hostility to Jewish interests. Why do people like Father Frank Pavone and Austin Ruse and Deal Hudson and the sycophants at the National Right to Life Committee continue to be silent as this president campaigns for pro-aborts and funds contraceptive abortifacients here and around the world? Why have we not heard one word from these influential sources about the introduction of contraception as one of the first things that followed our troops into Afghanistan and Iraq? Are they afraid of losing their White House passes and photo opportunities?

Bush's actions in the Specter-Toomey race are not atypical. He did the same in Texas, even going so far as to sign into law a bill that named a Houston highway after an actual baby-killer. He appointed pro-aborts to every level of the Texas judiciary. I pointed these things out in a number of articles in the printed pages of Christ or Chaos in 1999 and 2000. And please do not tell me that Bush just has to do these things. He chooses to do these things. He chose to work against Pat Toomey in the belief that he needs a "moderate" to win the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in the November 2, 2004, election against the reprobate known as Senator John F. Kerry (D-Massachusetts). It is never permissible to act in a Machiavellian manner. Although God can bring good out of evil, we can never choose to do evil so that a perceived good may come from it. Working in behalf of Arlen Specter was a choice made to cooperate with evil. And there is no other way around it. The silence of those who like their "unprecedented access" to the White House, replete with their White House passes and their egotistic photo opportunities, is reprehensible and misleads ordinary pro-lifers about the actual state of our situation.

As I have noted in other commentaries, to criticize George W. Bush is not to enable John F. Kerry, both of whom are simply two sides of the same Skull and Bones coin. Men such as George W. Bush and Rick Santorum will never be forced to change, however, unless Catholics who believe in the fullness of the Faith criticize them severely for their words and actions that are contrary to the truth (and thus to the common good of the country). Catholics who enable phony pro-life careerist politicians have a grave culpability on their souls for their participation in a cynical political game calculated to achieve only one thing: electoral survival and thus the retention of raw political power.

Well, I was wrong about my point in the paragraph above as it is not possible, humanly speaking, to convince career politicians to change anything concerning their desire for power by defying the laws of God, ignoring the plain provisions of the Constitution of the United States of America.

I revisited the support that Dubya and Santorum gave to Specter twelve years ago when the latter, a thirty-third degree Freemason from Russell, Kansas, demonstrated his great love of political opportunism by reverting back to his Democratic Party roots in 2009 rather than to face a rematch against Patrick Toomey in a Republican Party primary in 2010:

Obviously, it should have been over for Arlen Specter in 2004. Then Representative Toomey had him on the ropes just prior to the Republican Party primary on April 27, 2004, until the political "mastermind" named Karl Rove determined that Toomey had no chance of winning in a general election and that it would be "better" for the Republican Party for Specter to win the primary and be returned to the United States Senate as a "chastened" man who would be beholden to then President George Walker Bush. Bush, aided by the partly pro-life, partly pro-abortion United States Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pennsylvania), endorsed Specter over Toomey. Specter's endorsement by Bush and Toomey turned the tide in his favor. Specter defeated Toomey by a margin of 27, 146 votes out of over one million votes cast in the primary (a margin of about 1.7% of the vote).

Yes, sure, some will argue that Specter minded himself during the nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Specter's absence from the United States Senate at the start of the 109th Congress in 2005 would have made no difference at all in the confirmation of Roberts and Alito as Republicans would have had fifty-four senators instead of fifty-five. Roberts was confirmed as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America by a vote of 78-22 on September 29, 2005, and Alito was confirmed by a vote of 58-42 on January 31, 2006. Arlen Specter's presence in the United States Senate was not, therefore, any factor at all in the confirmation of the legal positivists (men who believe that the words of the Constitution speak for themselves without any advertence to the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law) Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

Karl Rove, George Walker Bush's political "mastermind" who is now a columnist for the Wall Street Journal and a political analyst for the Fox News Channel (naturalists can always get good paying work!), simply was bereft of any understanding that no one who supports the deliberate, intentional taking of any innocent human life under cover of law is qualified to hold any office of public trust, whether elected or appointed.

Although I have come to recognize that the entire electoral system is a farce and that it is wrong to enable this farce, I did participate in it, sometimes actively as a candidate for public office, for a long time. And it was during my own primary race against then United States Senator Alfonse M. D'Amato's bid for renomination by the Right to Life Party of the State of New York in 1998 that Dr. Charles E. Rice made the following telling points concerning the fact that no one who supports a single abortion under cover of the civil law is worthy to hold any office:

Sen. D'Amato will face a pro-abortion Democratic opponent in the fall. While a voter could morally vote for a pro-abortion candidate who is less objectionable on abortion than his opponent, he should not. The tactic of voting for the less objectionable of two pro-abortion candidates is a tactic of incremental surrender. The incremental strategy of accepting the legalization of abortion in some cases concedes that some innocent human life is negotiable after all. The pro-death movement is a guaranteed winner against an opposition that qualifies its own position by conceding that there are some innocent human beings whom it will allow to be directly and intentionally killed. That approach in practice has mortgaged the pro-life effort to the interests and judgment of what Paul Johnson called "the great human scourge of the 20th century, the professional politician." (Modern Times, 1985, p. 510.)

When a politician says he favors legalized abortion in life of the mother, rape and incest, or other cases, he affirms the nonpersonhood of the unborn child by proposing that he be subjected to execution at the discretion of another. The politician's pro-life rhetoric will be drowned out by the loud and clear message of his position, that he concedes that the law can validly tolerate the intentional killing of innocent human beings. Apart from exceptions, of course, Sen. D'Amato is objectionable as well for some of his other stands on abortion and for his positions on other issues, including especially the homosexual issue.

Pro-lifers could increase their political impact if they were single-issue voters, treating abortion as an absolutely disqualifying issue. Any candidate who believes that the law should treat any innocent human beings as nonpersons by tolerating their execution is unworthy to hold any public office, whether President, trustee of a mosquito abatement district, or senator. (Dr. Charles E. Rice, "Pro-Life Reflections on Sen. D'Amato, The Wanderer, August 27, 1998.)

George Walker Bush and his political wunderkinds believed that those who supported all abortions in all instances were worthy to hold public office of every kind, which is why they had no problem endorsing Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey in 2004 and have now lived long enough to see Specter become an open agent in behalf of Caesar Obamus.

1) We need to plant the seeds for the Catholicization of the United States of America.  

2) We must think and speak and act as Catholics at all times.

3) No one who supports one abortion under cover of law is pro-life.

4) It is unjust and misleading to call a politician who supports even one abortion under cover of law as being "pro-life."

5) No one who supports contraception and/or funding for same is pro-life or can be called "pro-life."

6) No one who supports explicit instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments (under any of its various guises) and/or funding for same can be called "pro-life."

7) No one who supports "civil unions" while opposing marriages among "perverts" is pro-family or can be called "pro-family."

8) No one who supports a candidate for public office who supports abortion on demand or who is simply less pro-abortion than other candidates is pro-life or is interested in doing anything substantive to restore complete legal protection to all innocent human life from the first moment of fertilization through all subsequent stages until natural death. 

Until the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, however, be prepared for "shocks" from professional politicians who claim to be our friends but who are ultimately, like Jean-Jacques Rousseau before them, friends only of the images they see reflected in their mirrors.

That there was even an Arlen Specter in the United States of America to serve as a willing agent of Caesar Obamus in 2009 is the result of the political handiwork of Karl Rove and George Walker Bush and Rick Santorum. One reaps what one sows. Those who sow in the world of realpolitik must reap the bitter fruit of realpolitik.

One of the lasting effects of the phony pro-life policies of George Walker Bush (yes, the see the recitation of the facts below for those of you who are new to this site) has been to keep the mouths of “pro-life” voter shut in order to prevent the supposedly “greater evil” from doing “worse” things. Thus it is that “pro-life” voters held their noses for the war hawk John Sidney McCain III, who ran a despicably inept campaign against his fellow United States Senator, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, and Willard Mitt Romney, who ran even a worse campaign than McCain had run before him. Too bad for the innocent preborn. Too bad for the truth. Too bad for Christ the King. Barabbas wins again.

The same thing is happening all over again this win as this current election cycle is in full swing as even the issue of funding Planned Barrenhood, which has been evil from its very inceptions, has become one that many otherwise pro-life Americans are willing to overlook in order to take the organized crime family of naturalism out of the hands of the neoconservative (Talmudic) establishment that has involved the United States of America in endless wars, piled up massive amounts of national debt, increased the size, the power, and the scope of the Federal government, and enabled every moral evil imaginable. Too bad for the innocent preborn. Too bad for the truth. Too bad for Christ the King. Barabbas wins again.

The situation has deteriorated so much in this country that funding of Planned Barrenhood has become the “fail safe” “pro-life” position of 2016. While it is true that it is, humanly speaking, impossible to reverse the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973, and that such a reversal would let the states “decide” that which is beyond the ability of mere mortals to decide, it is also true that everyone running for the presidential nomination of the Republican Party this year believes that it is possible to secure the borders and restore American material prosperity while that which is repugnant to the peace and happiness of eternity is protected by the civil law and advance in every aspect of what passes for “popular culture.” This is all delusional. Every single bit of all.

To wit, there are many Catholics who are sincerely concerned about the future of a country suffering from the manifestation of the perfection of the inherent degeneracy of its founding principles—as well as from the logical effects that flow from the proliferation of the sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance under cover of the civil law—who are willing to ignore Donald J. Trump’s asinine assertion that Planned Barrenhood does “much good,” something he reiterated on “Super Tuesday, March 1, 2016, Tuesday of the Second Week of Lent:

( - At a press conference on Tuesday night in Florida, businessman Donald Trump, who is running for the Republican presidential nomination, said that Planned Parenthood has “done some very good work” but that he would not give federal funds to the organization “as long as you have abortion going on at Planned Parenthood."

"I'm just doing what's right," said Trump. "Look, Planned Parenthood has done very good work for some--for many, many--for millions of women. And I'll say it and I know a lot of the so-called conservatives, they say that's really--because I'm a conservative, but I'm a common sense conservative--but millions of women have been helped by Planned Parenthood. But we're not going to allow and we're not going to fund as long as you have the abortion going on at Planned Parenthood and we understand that and I've said it loud and clear."

In its latest annual report, Planned Parenthood said that its affiliates performed 323,999 abortions in the fiscal year that ended on Sept. 30, 2014. The same report said that in the year that ended on June 30, 2015, Planned Parenthood received $553.7 million in government health service grants and reimbursements.

At the press conference a reporter asked Trump: “Does it feel to you yet like you are the presumptive Republican nominee--and along those lines, you had some complimentary things to say about Planned Parenthood. You said you could be flexible on immigration. Are you trying to adjust your tone to a more general election message?”

Trump responded:

“I'm just doing what's right. Look, Planned Parenthood has done very good work for some--for many, many--for millions of women. And I'll say it and I know a lot of the so-called conservatives, they say that's really--because I'm a conservative, but I'm a common sense conservative--but millions of women have been helped by Planned Parenthood.

“But we're not going to allow and we're not going to fund as long as you have the abortion going on at Planned Parenthood and we understand that and I've said it loud and clear.

"But--and we'll see what happens--but Planned Parenthood, millions of people, and I've had thousands of letters from women that have been helped. And this wasn't a set-up, this was people writing letters.

“I'm going to be really good for women. I'm going to be good for women's health issues. It's very important to me, very important to me. And maybe that is not a perfect conservative view but I can tell you one thing, I'm more conservative than anybody on the military, on taking care of our vets, on the border, on the wall, on getting rid of Obamacare and coming up with something much, much better and certainly getting rid of Common Core and bringing education to a local level, so that you're going to have good education for our children who are being absolutely starved for proper education.

"So, Sara, I mean, you know, you can call it what you want. But I am a truth teller and I will tell the truth. Okay.” (Trump Says Millions of Women Have Been Helped by Planned Barrenhood.)

No matter the fact that Donald J. Trump does see, however inchoately, the truth on various “trees” (securing the border, immigration policy, trade, the power of the Republican establishment, especially at it pertains to the involvement of this country in needless foreign wars), he is not a truth teller when it comes to Planned Barrenhood as he does not know the truth about its evil inceptions, not that the truth would matter to him as he, like each of his opponents, supports ready access to contraceptives as an established fact of life, if not as an actual good. Remember, United States Senator Rafael Edward Cruz (R-Texas), actually expressed “thanks” for having only two children as opposed to seventeen, and he made a joke out of the availability of a certain type of contraceptive when he lived in a dormitory during his college years (Antichrist's Interchangeable Spare Parts, part two: False Opposites Within False Opposites.) None of these characters knows the truth because they do not know anything about First and Last Things.

The only one who brought up Planned Barrenhood at last night’s Fox News debate in Detroit, Michigan, was United States Senator Marco Antonio Rubio (R-Florida), who did so fleetingly to mention Trump’s praise of the evil organization at the debate in Las Vegas, Nevada, on Thursday, February 25, 2016, the Feast of Saint Matthias. No one else brought up the matter and, given what I can find in the debate’s transcript as listened only to about forty-five minutes of the dog and pony show on Fox Radio, no one even mentioned abortion, although one press report indicates that “Ted” Cruz did so, again fleetingly, something that is not reflected in the debate transcript itself.

Rubio, of course, only mentioned Planned Barrenhood fleetingly without mentioning the fact that he cosponsored a bill, introduced by United States Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) seven months ago that would have defunded the organization while shifting its allotment of Federal taxpayer funds to eight hundred “community health centers” that provide the same kinds of “family planning services” (see Shifting Funding From One Evil Organization To Many Others.) And this is not to mention that Marco Antonio Rubio is simply a younger version of George Walker Bush who is in favor of sending more American troops into the Middle East to fight and die for no good reason other than to do what the neoconservatives, many of whom are Talmudists and Trotskyites), believe is best: endless warfare. No one is a friend of innocent life who is in favor of needless wars of American “exceptionalism,” which is itself a peculiarly Judeo-Masonic concept.

In other words, it is all right to fund the denial of the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage. It is all right to fund the chemical assassination of innocent preborn children by means of chemical abortifacients. No, is not. It is evil do so, and efforts to “make America great again” and/or to provide for the national security and end the sellout of American national sovereignty to the multifaceted system of world governance that is more or less in place will fail repeatedly. Evil—and any compromise in principle with it—can never be the foundation of a just social order domestically or security internationally.

A writer named Jonah Goldberg, naturalist and, I would presume, a Talmdist, summarized Donald Trump’s support for Planned Barrenhood and what it would mean for his governing style as president:

This redefining of conservatism into Trumpism will hardly be limited to defending America’s most successful abortion mills. Donald Trump is fundamentally opposed to entitlement reform. He is vaguely for some kind of health care mandate and praises European nationalized health care systems. He suggests that those who disagree are for letting people “die in the streets.”

Indeed, across a range of issues, Trump argues for his own brand of strong-government conservatism grounded not in, say, Bush’s faith in God, but in Donald Trump’s faith in himself. He has never shown more than the briefest nod to traditional conservative concerns about limited government, personal liberty or the Constitution. Winning is his lodestar, and he will do what is required to “win” and he will proclaim that “common sense.” Democrats can’t see it, but Trump represents a massive victory for the left in so far as he’s the first major Republican figure to successfully reject libertarianism, even rhetorically.

If Trump is successful, liberty-oriented conservatism will be replaced by so-called common sense statism. And those who complain will be dismissed as “so-called conservatism."  (Super Tuesday, Conservative Never Trump.)

This is very good, noting the fact that George Walker Bush’s “faith in God” was not faith in the true God of Divine Revelation as He has revealed Himself to us exclusively through His Catholic Church, and the fact that Mr. Goldberg does not understand that there is only one true standard of human liberty: the Holy Cross of the Divine Redeemer, Christ the King, as It is held high by the Catholic Church, not, of course, the counterfeit church of conciliarism. Libertarianism is as much of a lie as statism. Our salvation is not in any kind of "conservatism." It is only in Catholicism, not anything else, not any kind of naturalism.

To be wrong about the single-largest baby-killing machine in the United States of America is vitiate whatever else one might be correct about concerning public-policy decision-making. 

As has been noted so many hundreds of times on this site and in the printed pages of Christ or Chaos, men who lack any understanding of First and Last Things are incapable of seeing the world as it really exists. “Plans” to resolve problems that are largely the result of the long term effects of Protestantism’s and Judeo-Masonry’s embrace of divorce and contraception on the stability and integrity of the family are chimerical. They are incapable of working.

Yet it is that even Catholics believe that there is some way to “stop” the statist, elitist demagogue named Hillary Diane Rodhm Clinton by “rooting” for one of the naturalists of the organized crime family of the naturalist “right” save the day as the evils of the day are permitted to unchecked.

What is fallacious about this belief is that a surrender to the existence of evils as regrettable facts of life in order to stop a supposedly “greater evil” winds up muting whatever opposition to such evils, which are being indemnified at every turn by Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his band of conciliar revolutionaries, remain among the American electorate. Evil keeps getting advanced, whether at a slower or a faster pace, no matter whether statists of the false opposite of the naturalist “left” or one of the false opposite of the naturalist “right” gets elected.

Let me remind you of what was included on this site in 2012 when the great moral authority of the Western world, the Mormon named Willard Mitt Romney, who engaged in a game of pots and kettles yesterday by attacking Donald Trump, ran his pathetically inept and unfocused campaign against President Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro:

Fifth, one of those who wrote recently on the subject of the "lesser evil" conceded that, yes, it could be a legitimate concern that support for a "lesser evil" candidate might result in a fully pro-abortion candidate one day. Could? Might?

Excuse me, let me list for you some of the naturalists of the organized crime family of the "right," many of whom are Catholic, who have indeed run as open pro-aborts and who have been enabled as "lesser evils" by "pro-life" voters.

Former New York Governor George Elmer Pataki. Many Catholics voted for Pataki in 1994 in order to "get rid" of Mario Matthew Cuomo. Where did  that get my native state? Have you looked you at who is the Governor of New York is at this time. Yes, of course, Andrew Mark Cuomo. Great progress, huh? That sure did prevent the "greater evil," didn't it? Wake up, Sherlocks, you live in fantasy-land to think that your "lesser evils" have accomplished anything than empowering the devil to give us increasingly higher and higher doses of the so-called "lesser evil."

I digress.

Back to the list of fully pro-abortion Republicans.

Former Mayor of the City of New York Rudolph William Giuliani.

Current Mayor of the City of New York Michael Rubens Bloomberg.

Current Republican Party nominee for the United States Senate from the State of Connecticut, Linda McMahon.

United States Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois.

United States Senator Susan Collins of Maine.

Retiring United States Senator Olympia Snow of Maine.

Former California Governor and former United States Senator Pete Wilson of California.

Former Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The late United States Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who was endorsed by both President George Walker Bush and then United States Senator Richard John Santorum in a 2004 primary election against partly pro-life/partly pro-abortion United States Representative Patrick Toomey, who now holds Specter's former seat in the United States Senate.

Former New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman.

United States Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts.

Retiring United States Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas.

Former United States Representative Eric "Rick" Lazio of New York.

Former United States Representative Susan Molinari of New York.

Former Governor of Pennsylvania and former Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge.

There are scores upon scores of others.

Willard Mitt Romney might as well be amongst their ranks as his "health of the mother" exception would make it easy for a baby-killer just to check a box and claim that a baby had to be killed because his mother's "emotional health" "required" it.

We do not have to wait for the "lesser evil" scenario to give us fully pro-abortion Republicans.

Wake up. The reality is right in front of the faces of those who choose to close their eyes to the folly of the "lesser of two evils" mantra.

Many Different Judgments About the "Lesser Evil"

As noted before, several of those who have written to support the view that it a vote in favor of a "lesser evil" candidate is the morally "prudent" choice. This is nothing other than a subjective judgment in the practical order of things that binds the consciences of no one. Moreover, as I have attempted to demonstrate once again at length thus far in this article as I have done in so many others as well, is to illustrate that such a strategy in the practical order of things has only emboldened career politicians to feed pro-life some rhetoric now and again a few crumbs to keep them on their naturalist reservation.

Obviously, this is a matter where Catholics of good will can disagree. Those of us who reject the "lesser of two evils" argument in the context of the realities that face us today and in light of the practical consequences of decades' worth of concessions made to support supposed "lesser evils" must concede that it is permissible in some cases to accept such a situation.

Similarly, those who support the "lesser of two evils" argument must concede that that it is can be a moral necessity to do so and that there are powerful arguments against it.

Here is one of those arguments:

Discussion of the "lesser evil" brings to the fore the question of the tolerance of evil. Pope Leo writes: "But to judge aright, we must acknowledge that, the more a state is driven to tolerate evil, the further is it from perfection; and that the tolerance of evil which is dictated by political prudence should be strictly confined to the limits which its justifying cause, the public welfare, requires. Wherefore, if such tolerance would be injurious to be the public welfare, and entail greater evils on the state, it would not be lawful; for such case the motive of is wanting." (Pope Leo XIII, Libertas Praestantissimum, June 20, 1888.)

Bp. [Geraldo de Proenca] Sigaud [the Bishop of Jacarezinho, Parana, Brazil, from January 1, 1947, to December 20, 1960, and the Archbishop of Diamantina, Minas Gerais, Brazil, from December 20, 1960, to September 10, 1960] gives fair warning about how the Revolution infiltrates and permeates the Church and Christian society through the "lesser evil" tactic. "Among the many ways the Revolution permeates surreptitiously into the stronghold of the Church, the first door is called the 'lesser evil.' This tactic may be compared with the famous Trojan Horse. Catholic doctrine teaches that if we cannot avoid some evil we may choose to permit some lesser evil in order to avoid the greater evil on condition we do not directly commit evil ourselves.


"(1) The liberals think a lesser evil is a small evil that is not worth fighting against;

"(2) Very many Catholics and even priests are of the opinion that conflict harms the Church as if She were not by Her very nature militant. This is why they allow evil to occupy without combating it under the pretext of prudence, charity, and apostolic diplomacy.

"(3) THEY DO NOT REALIZE THAT EVIL--EVEN A LESSER EVIL-IS ALWAYS AN EVIL, and that is why they do not seek to limit or suppress it. They live daily with the"lesser evil" and thus they forget the greater good as something horrible. For example, the separation of Church and State and that divorce be allowed among Catholics." (Bishop Geraldo de Proenca Sigaud, as cited by Hugh Akins in Synagogue Rising.)

Another example, of course, and no bout the more grievous one, is in lending invaluable support and assistance by means of backing the "lesser evil," to the Synagogue of Satan in its total war against the Mystical Body of Christ. Some Catholics who've made a habit of voting the "lesser evil" will continue to do so until they vote into office, on the world scene, the Antichrist himself, who being wholly sanitized by the corrupt Zionist-controlled media, will be portrayed before the unsuspecting peoples of earth as the most moderate and hopeful, least radical and most compassionate, and least corrupt candidate, compared to the raving lunatics competing with him. Antichrist could just as easily be a Republican conservative, a Christian Zionist, a Masonic "anti-Communist," even a Conciliarist "Catholic" wholeheartedly endorsed by the pope in Rome. He might even present himself a "traditionalist," cheered on by the many "lesser evil" traditionalists who see-no-evil in the likes of Benedict, Bush, McCain, Santorum, Gingrich, the Talmud, Israel, Zionism or Holaucastism.

It is by this shameless compromising that evil is ever moving forward, every advancing, ever conquering. "All tepidity and every thoughtless compromise," says Pius XII, "all pusillanimity and every vacillation between good and evil...all that, and all that can be added to it. has been and is a deplorable contribution to the evil which today is shaking world." (Pope Pius XII, radio message Ancora ua quinta volta, to the world, December 24, 1943, quote in Directives to Lay Apostles.) (Hugh Akins, Synagogue Rising, Catholic Action Resource Center, 2012, pp. 694.695. Mr. Akins recommends a write-in vote for Ron Paul. Readers of this site are familiar with my critiques of him. I suggest, however, that those who are participating in the gala on November 6, 2012, to cast a write-in vote for one of the greatest champions of Christ the King alive today, Mr. Hugh Akins.)

No, it's not just crazy Droleskey, who, after all, knows nothing after having received three degrees in political science, teaching at the college level for thirty years, giving peer reviewed papers at professional conferences, running for public office and having served as a surrogate speaker in two different presidential campaigns. No, no, no. Don't listen that nut, Droleskey, whose articles on these very topics once had a wide circulation in established print journals before--eegads--he came to recognize that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and his four immediate predecessors as spiritual robber barons who are enemies of Christ the King and of the souls He redeemed by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood.

There are, though, others apart from the crazy sedevacantist Droleskey who understand the hard realities of a political system founded on false principles and how efforts to "hold back the tide" politically by enabling the so-called "lesser of two evil" result always and invariably in the further institutionalization of evil--and silence about it--from well-meaning citizens, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, who live their lives in terrified fright of some supposed "greater evil." I simply do not know many many more times the points made in Devils Without Tails can be repeated.

What I do want to emphasize at this point is the simple fact that it is not to let the "perfect be the enemy of the merely good" to conclude that Willard Mitt Romney is not a "good" worthy of our support. This is a judgment, one that I believe is reasoned and well-supported by the weight of evidence. All one needs to do is to examine the evidence that has been of the similarities between the supposed "lesser" and "greater" evils in the current round of naturalist madness that will end in thirteen days is to study with care Mr. Hugh Akins's Mitt Romney Definitely NOT the Moral Choice for Christians. I heartily endorse this fine summary of the currently unfolding farce. Readers of this site will see that Mr. Akins makes many of the same points that have been made here repeatedly, ad nauseam, ad infinitum.

No matter what you decide to do and how you decide to act, I can guarantee you this, however: the illusion of a "respite" that Catholics think would be provided by a "President" Mitt Romney will be used by the adversary the cover he loves to use to convince us that "all is well" and that our time of chastisement has come to an end. No, the chastisement will continue as God will not be mocked. He will never bless land and bestow His favor upon it when so many sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance are not only committed under cover of the civil law but celebrated in the popular culture with a shamelessness that would have made even the pagans of ancient Rome blush.

How can the devil not when a man who believes that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and Satan are "spirit brothers" and as that man's false religion uses his current public visibility that could lead to his electoral triumph the means to win "converts" anew. Yes, you see, Willard Mitt Romney is still winning converts to Mormonism.

Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order. Nothing else.

It is no different now in 2016 as the devil raises up one set of naturalists who appear to be less dangerous than another set of naturalists.

To believe that this is so is to permit oneself to be drawn into a diabolical trap that requires one to “root” for a candidate who supports a variety of different evils while promising a “better day” for Americans. To believe that this is so also requires one to tolerate indecent references to anatomical features that have no place in the discourse of civilized men.

Alas, that is precisely the point that I want to make: we are not a “civilized nation.” We are a nation of barbarians obsessed with material and sensual pleasures, and it is has been this way from the very beginning. Public discourse must devolve to the point of crudity, vulgarity, obscenity and simple empty rhetoric uttered by men who do not even know that they are ignorant about First and Last Things when men live bereft of the true Faith and the supernatural helps provided only by Holy Mother Church.

Pope Pius IX explained this in Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864:

For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of "naturalism," as they call it, dare to teach that "the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones." And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that "that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require." From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity," viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;" and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling."

And, since where religion has been removed from civil society, and the doctrine and authority of divine revelation repudiated, the genuine notion itself of justice and human right is darkened and lost, and the place of true justice and legitimate right is supplied by material force, thence it appears why it is that some, utterly neglecting and disregarding the surest principles of sound reason, dare to proclaim that "the people's will, manifested by what is called public opinion or in some other way, constitutes a supreme law, free from all divine and human control; and that in the political order accomplished facts, from the very circumstance that they are accomplished, have the force of right." But who, does not see and clearly perceive that human society, when set loose from the bonds of religion and true justice, can have, in truth, no other end than the purpose of obtaining and amassing wealth, and that (society under such circumstances) follows no other law in its actions, except the unchastened desire of ministering to its own pleasure and interests? (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864.)

No matter what judgment one makes about voting in a particular election and/or the offices for which one decides to cast a vote if there are truly worthy candidates for certain offices and not for others, I do not think that anyone in his right mind can question the prophetic insight expressed by Pope Pius IX to French pilgrims on May 5, 1874. The "universal franchise" has indeed resulted in "universal madness. Each campaign in the United States of American is indeed controlled by high-moneyed interests and various groups naturalists as the masses believe in and vote in support of "universal falsehood" time and time again.

Again, those who have bothered to read this article with care can come to whatever conclusions they desire. The ultimate decision as to whether to participate in a system that requires one to accept increasingly higher and higher doses of the so-called "lesser evil," which is, just to remind you one more time, as Bishop Geraldo de Proenca Sigaud of Brazil noted over sixty years ago, characterized by the following:

"(1) The liberals think a lesser evil is a small evil that is not worth fighting against;

"(2) Very many Catholics and even priests are of the opinion that conflict harms the Church as if She were not by Her very nature militant. This is why they allow evil to occupy without combating it under the pretext of prudence, charity, and apostolic diplomacy.

"(3) THEY DO NOT REALIZE THAT EVIL--EVEN A LESSER EVIL-IS ALWAYS AN EVIL, and that is why they do not seek to limit or suppress it. They live daily with the"lesser evil" and thus they forget the greater good as something horrible. For example, the separation of Church and State and that divorce be allowed among Catholics." (Bishop Geraldo de Proenca Sigaud, as cited by Hugh Akins in Synagogue Rising.)

What you do is up to you. It is a matter of one's personal conscience informed by the facts of the situation in which we live as we seek to apply binding moral principles to our decisions.

We must always remember that we have to battle for Christ the King in our own daily lives. Pope Pius XI, writing in Quas Primas, December 11, 1925, put the matter this way:

The faithful, moreover, by meditating upon these truths, will gain much strength and courage, enabling them to form their lives after the true Christian ideal. If to Christ our Lord is given all power in heaven and on earth; if all men, purchased by his precious blood, are by a new right subjected to his dominion; if this power embraces all men, it must be clear that not one of our faculties is exempt from his empire. He must reign in our minds, which should assent with perfect submission and firm belief to revealed truths and to the doctrines of Christ. He must reign in our wills, which should obey the laws and precepts of God. He must reign in our hearts, which should spurn natural desires and love God above all things, and cleave to him alone. He must reign in our bodies and in our members, which should serve as instruments for the interior sanctification of our souls, or to use the words of the Apostle Paul, as instruments of justice unto God. If all these truths are presented to the faithful for their consideration, they will prove a powerful incentive to perfection. It is Our fervent desire, Venerable Brethren, that those who are without the fold may seek after and accept the sweet yoke of Christ, and that we, who by the mercy of God are of the household of the faith, may bear that yoke, not as a burden but with joy, with love, with devotion; that having lived our lives in accordance with the laws of God's kingdom, we may receive full measure of good fruit, and counted by Christ good and faithful servants, we may be rendered partakers of eternal bliss and glory with him in his heavenly kingdom. (Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas, December 11, 1925.)

Christ the King must reign in our minds, not naturalism of the "left" or naturalism of the "right" or the naturalism of "populism," whether inchoate or fully developed. The "people" are not sovereign. Christ the King is sovereign. Everything else is a lie and an illusion

The Rome of the pagan emperors was not converted at the ballot box. It was converted by the missionary activity of the Apostles and those who followed them, over thirteen million of whom shed their blood in defense of the Holy Faith. Why do we think the conversion of the modern civil state will take any less than that? Why do we think that we are exempt from suffering for the Faith? Why do we even think that we deserve some respite from the inexorable growth of the size and power of the modern civil state that is has arisen in the wake of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King?

This is why we must fulfill that part of Our Lady's Fatima Message that we are able to fulfill, praying as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit to make reparation for our sins and those of the whole world, being willing to suffer gladly anything and everything that we are asked to suffer for the restoration of the Church Militant on earth and for the restoration of Christendom in the world. Our Lady wants to protect us in the folds of her mantle in these troubling times. Will we let her? Will we run to her as we renew daily our total consecration to her Divine Son through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart?

These words of Pope Leo XIII, contained in Sapientiae Christianae and quoted above, should give us cause before we continue to rush into the insanity of listening the naturalist babblers babble on and on about "issues" that they do not understand clearly or fully because they believe in one naturalist falsehood after another:

Nor can such misgivings be removed by any mere human effort, especially as a vast number of men, having rejected the Christian faith, are on that account justly incurring the penalty of their pride, since blinded by their passions they search in vain for truth, laying hold on the false for the true, and thinking themselves wise when they call "evil good, and good evil," and "put darkness in the place of light, and light in the place of darkness." It is therefore necessary that God come to the rescue, and that, mindful of His mercy, He turn an eye of compassion on human society. (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890.)

What can be a better description of the Judeo-Masonic electoral system in the United States of America? What can be a better description of the insanity of the naturalism of the "left" and the naturalism of the "right" now on fully display in the histrionics of the 2016 presidential campaign?

And with this, my good and very few readers, I take my leave, at least for the time being, of making any kind of comments on this site about the ongoing farce that passes for national discourse, although I will produce one my patented low-tech video presentations to repeat once again what I done in a series of eight videos back in 2012 (see A Case Against Obama and Romney, part 1, A Case Against Obama and Romney part 2, and A Case Against Obama and Romney part 3, A Case Against Obama and Romney, part four, A Case Against Obama and Romney, part five, A Case Against Obama and Romney, part six, A Case Against Obama and Romney part seven and A Case Against Obama and Romney, part eight).

With full confidence in Our Lady's Immaculate Heart, may we rise above the histrionics, the silliness, the emotionalism and the apoplexy engendered by naturalism to pray and to work for the restoration of the Catholic City as the fruit of the triumph of that same Immaculate Heart. 

We may not see the results with our own earthly eyes. Please God and by the intercession of Our Lady, especially by means of her Most Holy Rosary, that we die in states of Sanctifying Grace, may it be our privilege to see the results from eternity, where those who have won the only election that matters, God's favor for all eternity, will praise and glorify Christ the King forever in Heaven.

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

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.

Saint Casimir, pray for us.

Pope Saint Lucius I, pray for us.



Appendix A

A Brief Summary of George Walker Bush's Actual Anti-Life Record

Although I have assessed the horrific anti-life record of the presidency of George Walker Bush a great deal in my writing between 2001 and 2009, it might be wise to review the facts (yes, just the facts ma'am) once again), leaving aside, of course, the fact that thousands of innocent Iraqis have been killed, wounded or displaced from their country as a result of the "pro-life" president's attempt at regime change there to replace one set of corrupt thugs with another set of corrupt thugs who have the respectable "cover" provided them by having been elected (sort of sounds like the United States of America, doesn't it):

1) George Walker Bush said constantly in 1999 and 200 during his campaign for the Republican Party presidential nomination that abortion was a "difficult" issue about which people of "good will" could disagree. What's difficult about knowing that killing a baby is morally wrong? Would he say that people of "good will" could disagree about racism or anti-Semitism?

2) George Walker Bush support "exceptions" to the Fifth Commandment's absolute prohibitions to the direct, intentional taking of any innocent human life. When challenged by Dr. Alan Keys in a televised debate in Manchester, New Hampshire, in December of 1999 as to how he could justify the killing of preborn babies under any circumstances, the then Texas Governor grimaced, visibly annoyed at having been forced to confront his own mutually contradictory position, and said: "I can't explain it. It's just how I feel." Bush does not realize that he is not pro-life, that he is simply less pro-abortion than others in public life who are unconditionally pro-abortion.

3) George Walker Bush denied in his first debate with then Vice President Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., held on October 3, 2000, at Washington University in Saint Louis, Missouri, that he could do anything to reverse the United States Food and Drug Administration's authorization to market RU-486, the human pesticide, unless it had been determined to be "unsafe" for women. What about the fact that that pill is always deadly for babies?

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

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

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

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

BUSH: I said I would make sure that women would be safe who used the drug.  (2000 Debate Transcript) [Droleskey comment: Uh, Mister Former President, the President of the United States of America can make appointments to the Food and Drug Administration who could indeed overturn such a decision by means of an administrative fiat. Moreover, the human pesticide, RU-486, is lethal to babies, Mister Former President.]


4) George Walker Bush said consistently throughout his eight years as President of the United States of America that he was working for the day when every child would be welcomed in life and protected by law." How can one claim that he is in favor of "welcoming every child and protecting him "by law" when he believes that the civil law licitly can permit the killing of certain children at certain times? How can one claim that he is in favor of "welcoming every child" and protecting him "by law" when he campaigned actively for politicians in his own political party who were completely pro-abortion (Rudolph Giuliani, Michael Bloomberg, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Susan Collins, Olympia Snow Arlen Specter--whom Bush endorsed over a partly pro-life/partly pro-abortion opponent, Patrick Toomey, in a Republican Party primary in 2004, et al.)? How can one claim that he is in favor of "welcoming every child" and protecting him "by law" when he appointed pro-abort after pro-abort. some of whom are listed above, to the upper echelons of his administration. Some of others over the years were Tom Ridge, Michael Mukasey, Alberto Gonzales, The Supreme Court? John Roberts and Samuel Alito? Sure. Remember Harriet Miers? If you don't, read these articles: The Triumph of Protestantism and Posturing and Preening.

5) George Walker Bush was proud of the fact that his administration increased the amount of money being spent by our tax dollars on domestic and international "family planning" programs, which, of course, dispatched innocent preborn babies to death by chemical means. Here is a letter sent in behalf of then President Bush to United States Representatives Carolyn Maloney (D-New York) on May 25, 2006:

The Honorable Carolyn B. Maloney
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Ms. Maloney:

Thank you for your letter to President Bush to request his views on access to birth control. The President has asked that I respond on his behalf. This Administration supports the availability of safe and effective products and services to assist responsible adults in making decisions about preventing or delaying conception.

The Department of Health and Human Services faithfully executes laws establishing Federal programs to provide contraception and family planning services. The Title X Family Planning Program and Medicaid are each significant providers of family planning services.

Additionally, this Administration strongly supports teaching abstinence to young people as the only 100 percent effective means of preventing pregnancy, HIV, and sexually transmitted infections (STIs).

I will provide this response to the other signatories of your letter.
Sincerely yours, John O. Agwunobi, Assistant Secretary for Health (Bush Supports Contraception Letter

Contraception, of course, of its very evil nature, over and above the fact that most contraceptives serve as abortifacients that kill babies chemically or act to expel fertilized human beings from implanting in the uterus, is denial of the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage.

6) George Walker Bush made announced at 9:00 p.m. on Thursday, August 9, 2001, that he was going to permitted the use of Federal taxpayer dollars to fund embryonic stem cell research on embryonic human beings whose "lines" were created before the time of his announcement. In so doing, of course, Bush authorized the death of those human beings and at the same time justify the immoral, evil practice of in vitro fertilization while doing nothing to stop the privately funded death and destruction of such embryonic human beings on those "lines" created after the date and time of his announcement:

My administration must decide whether to allow federal funds, your tax dollars, to be used for scientific research on stem cells derived from human embryos.  A large number of these embryos already exist.  They are the product of a process called in vitro fertilization, which helps so many couples conceive children.  When doctors match sperm and egg to create life outside the womb, they usually produce more embryos than are planted in the mother.  Once a couple successfully has children, or if they are unsuccessful, the additional embryos remain frozen in laboratories. (Remarks by the President on Stem Cell Research.) 

This is what I wrote at the time in the printed pages of Christ or Chaos:

Indeed, this whole controversy is the direct result of the rejection of the teaching authority of the Church on matters of faith and morals, as well as on matters of fundamental justice. For it is the rejection of the Deposit of Faith our Lord entrusted to Holy Mother Church that gave rise to the ethos of secularism and religious indifferentism, which became the breeding grounds for secularism and relativism and positivism.

A world steeped in all manner of secular political ideologies comes not only to reject the Deposit of Faith but to make war against all that is contained therein, especially as it relates to matters of the sanctity of marital relations and the stability of the family.

Contraception gave rise to abortion. Contraception also gave rise to the mentality which resulted in artificial conception. If a child's conception can be prevented as suits "partners," then it stands to reason that a child can be conceived "on demand" by using the latest technology science has to offer.

The Church has condemned artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization on a number of occasions as offenses to the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity of marital relations. Yet it is the very rejection of the Church's affirmation of what is contained in the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law which leads people, including George W. Bush, into thinking that artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization are morally licit to help couples deal with the problem of childlessness, ignoring the simple little truth that no one is entitled to a child.

Children are gifts from God to be accepted according to His plan for a particular couple. If a married couple cannot have a child on their own, they can adopt -- or they can use their time to be of greater service to the cause of the Church in the evangelization of the true Faith. No one, however, is entitled to a child.

Indeed, the whole tragedy of harvesting the stem cells of living human beings has arisen as a result of discoveries made by scientists experimenting on human beings conceived in fertility clinics to help couples conceive artificially.

That George W. Bush endorses this immoral enterprise (which is big business, by the way) and actually commends it as a way to "help" couples is deplorable.

It is as though he is saying the following: "We are not going to kill any more Jews for their body parts. We will only use the body parts of the Jews we have killed already. After all, we have people who will benefit from this research, do we not?"

Living human embryos do not have the "potential" for life, as Bush asserted on August 9, 2001. They are living human beings! To seek to profit from their destruction is ghoulish, and will only wind up encouraging the private sector to fund all stem-cell research, creating more "stem cell lines" from the destruction of living human beings. ("Preposterous," Christ or Chaos, September, 2001)

Mrs. Judie Brown, the president and founder of the American Life League, wrote a retrospective on Caesar Georgii Bushus Ignoramus's stem cell decision some years later:

You have probably heard that right at the top of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's agenda is the promise of "hope to families with devastating diseases."

What she is promising, of course, is a Congressional action that will result in tons of federal tax dollars being spent on failed research using the dead bodies of embryonic children.

The White House, of course, is saying "the president has made it clear he believes in stem cell research so much -- the administration has done more to finance stem cell research, embryonic and otherwise, than any administration in history."

You see, Bush never really banned research using the bodies of embryonic children, he merely curtailed how much research could be done using tax dollars. So it would appear that everyone ... Democrat and Republican ... is on the same page.

The tragic reality underlying such statements is that over the course of the last 34 years, politicians and a whole lot of pro-lifers have let the principle of personhood slide away into oblivion for the sake of winning elections. And the result is staring us all in the face. (Embryo Wars.)

7) The George Walker Bush version of the "Mexico City" policy, as the "gag" order that prohibited international family planning organizations from killing babies on an "elective" basis on their premises or referring women to abortuaries was called, was fraught with holes and exceptions as to make it an utter sham that convinces the average "pro-life" American that "something" is being done to save lives when the truth of the matter is that Bush's executive order permitted employees of international "family planning" agencies in foreign countries to refer for abortions on their own time in any off-site location of their choosing. In other words, the "Bush 43" "Mexico City" policy permitted an employee of the International Planned Parenthood chapter in Nairobi, Kenya, for example to say, "Look, there are things I can't tell you now. Meet me at the Nairobi McDonald's after I get out of work. I can tell you more then." The employee was then free to speak frankly about surgical abortion, to recommend the killing of a child as the only "sensible" option, to recommend a specific baby-killer and a specific place for the baby to be killed.

Here are the specific conditions outlined by the Bush executive order that re instituted the "Mexico City" policy in 2001:


1) American taxpayer funds are only denied to organizations that promote abortion as a means of "family planning." This means that direct counseling in behalf of abortion can be done if a woman claims some that she falls into one of the three usual "exceptions" (rape, incest, alleged threats to her life) for seeking an abortion.

2) Employees of international "family planning" organizations may meet with their clients off of the premises of those organizations to counsel them to use abortion as a means of "family planning" and to direct them where to kill their babies surgically.

3) International "family planning" organizations can propagate in behalf of abortion abroad as long as they "segregate" their funds. That is, such organizations must use "private" funds for promoting abortion, not the monies provided by the Federal government of the United States of America. There is, however, no accounting oversight to determine how these funds are "segregated," if they are in fact "segregated" at all.

Moreover, as noted above, the domestic and international "family planning" programs that were funded to the hilt by the administration of George Walker Bush and Richard Bruce. Cheney killed untold hundreds of thousands of children each year by means of chemical abortifacients. Mrs. Judie Brown, the founder and President of the American Life League, explained it as follows on December 18, 2007:

While many are celebrating the Congressional passage of a bill that contains the Mexico City Policy, there are those of us who are not so quick to throw a party.

The policy was contained in a piece of legislation that also provides an increase in funding for Planned Parenthood. But that's not really the worst of it.

The Mexico City Policy contains exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother ... standard fare for the pro-life politicos these days. The problem is, they fail to point out that the Mexico City Policy does not and cannot prohibit our tax dollars from paying for abortion; it can only prevent our tax dollars from paying for some abortions. Why, you may ask, did I use the word "some"?

Well, the Mexico City Policy will pay for surgical abortion in the cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother in addition to paying for chemical abortions caused by RU-486, the morning-after pill and the various birth control methods that can cause abortion.

Further, it is not clear what happens when an organization agrees to refrain from paying for abortion with U.S. tax dollars, but chooses to use those dollars to pay for other "services," thus freeing up other money to subsidize the killing.

In other words, the Mexico City Policy is fraught with problems that result in death.

So when some claim that America is no longer an "exporter of death," they are really not being totally honest with the public. America is still the number one exporter and subsidizer of preborn child killing, period. Of that there is no doubt. (AMERICA'S DEADLY EXPORT

8) George Walker Bush's Food and Drug Administration not only did not reverse the Clinton Food and Drug and Administration to market RU-496, the French abortion pill, the human pesticide. The Bush administration fully funded the use of RU-486 in both domestic and international "family planning" programs. Moreover, George Walker Bush's Food and Drug Administration approved over-the-counter sales of the so-called "Plan B" "emergency contraceptive" that is, of course, an abortifacient:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where was the outrage from Catholics when this decision was announced?  

Where were the e-mails sent out in a frenzy to oppose this decision?  

Where were the voices to denounce George Walker Bush for what he was, a consummate "pro-life" fraud from beginning to end?  Where?  

Indeed, I have met Catholics, both in the clergy and laity alike, who, upon being informed of this fact, shrug their shoulders and say, "Gore or Kerry would have done worse. Obama is doing worse now " And this is supposed to exculpate one from not hav ingdenounced Bush at the time did these terrible things? Reprehensible. Absolutely reprehensible.

9) The partial, conditional ban on partial-birth abortions remains little more than a political ruse designed to convince "pro-life" voters that something substantive was being done to stop the killing of babies. There is a needless "life of the mother" exception in the ban, meaning that babies are still being killed by this method if it can be claimed that a mother's life is endangered. Moreover, killing a baby by which is termed medically by the euphemism of "intact dilation and extraction" is no more morally heinous than killing a baby by any other method at any other age. Killing a baby by means of a suction abortion or by a saline solution abortion or by a dilation and evacuation abortion (where the baby is carved up by a butcher inside of the birth canal) is no less morally heinous than partial-birth abortion. Each is the same crime before God: willful murder, one of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance.

Also, as I have pointed out repeatedly since this issue came to forefront of public debate over twenty years ago, there are two methods--the hysterotomy and dilation and evacuation--by which babies may be killed in the later stages of pregnancy. These methods can still be used to kill babies in the later stages of pregnancy with complete legal impunity. Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy specifically referred to these two methods when upholding the constitutionality of the partial-birth abortion ban in Gonzales v. Carhart, April 18, 2007:

D&E and intact D&E are not the only second-trimester abortion methods. Doctors also may abort a fetus through medical induction. The doctor medicates the woman to induce labor, and contractions occur to deliver the fetus. Induction, which unlike D&E should occur in a hospital, can last as little as 6 hours but can take longer than 48. It accounts for about five percent of second-trimester abortions before 20 weeks of gestation and 15 percent of those after 20 weeks. Doctors turn to two other methods of second-trimester abortion, hysterotomy and hysterectomy, only in emergency situations because they carry increased risk of complications. In a hysterotomy, as in a cesarean section, the doctor removes the fetus by making an incision through the abdomen and uterine wall to gain access to the uterine cavity. A hysterectomy requires the removal of the entire uterus. These two procedures represent about .07% of second-trimester abortions. Nat. Abortion Federation, 330 F. Supp. 2d, at 467; Planned Parenthood, supra, at 962-963. (Text of the Court's Opinion; see also An Illusion of a Victory.) 

10) George Walker Bush's first Solicitor General of the United States of America, Theodore Olson, submitted the following brief to the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Joseph Scheidler v. National Organization for Women to argue that the sidewalk counseling activities of pro-life champion Joseph Scheidler, the founder of the Pro-Life Action Network, constituted "banditry" under terms of the Hobbs Act of 1946 as he was depriving legitimate business, abortuaries, of their income. Can anyone say "pro-life fraud," thank you very much? 

"It is irrelevant under the Hobbs Act whether the defendant is motivated by an economic purpose, as the lower courts that have addressed the issue have correctly recognized. The text of the Hobbs Act contains no requirement of an economic motive. As explained, when a person uses force or threats to compel a business to cede control over what goods or services the business will offer, the defendant obtains the victim's property by acquiring the power to decide how the business will be conducted. That conclusion holds true whether or not the defendant has a profit-making objective.

"A contrary conclusion would allow a defendant to hijack legitimate businesses by wrongful acts of violence, threats, or fear simply because the defendant had a non-economic objective. That result would defeat the government's strong interest in protecting interstate commerce under the Hobbs Act by prosecuting extortionists who are motivated by causes other than financial gain. For instance, an economic motive requirement would immunize a defendant from prosecution under the Hobbs Act even though the defendant threatened acts of murder against a bank that loaned money to foreign nations whose policies the defendant opposed, against a retail store that sold products to which the defendant objected, or against any other business that used its land or other valuable property for a purpose that the defendant found unpalatable.

"Those acts have deleterious effects on interstate commerce, whether or not the defendant directs the use of such property for his own financial gain. To exempt such conduct from the Hobbs Act would retreat from the Act's purpose to 'protect the right of citizens of this country to market their products without any interference from lawless bandits.' In sum, when the defendant uses wrongful force or threats to wrest control over the victim's business decisions, the defendant obtains that property interest." (Brief of United States Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson in the case of Joseph Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, December 4, 2002.)


This could go on interminably. Although wearying, I have compiled this list yet again because I know that people forget and need to be reminded of basic facts that are always fresh in my mind as this my area of study and of active personal involvement for a long time. It is important to keep these facts in mind, especially to realize that Theodore Olson, has led efforts to reverse California Proposition 8 (see Meathead Meets Meathead and Irreversible By Means Merely Human), believed that saving babies from death was akin to stealing money from baby-killers in violation of interstate commerce! He made this argument in behalf of the "pro-life" administration of President George Walker Bush and Vice President Richard Bruce Cheney. Don't any of you think that George Walker Bush was "pro-life." He was an indemnifier of baby-killers in this country who funded chemical baby-killing in all instances and whose administration funded surgical baby-killing in the "hard cases."

The fact that the current completely pro-abortion team of President Barack Hussein Obama and Vice President Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., are doing more terrible things should not make us pine for the "good old days" of Bush-Cheney. Those days were not so "good" for preborn babies in the United States of America and elsewhere in the world, to say nothing for innocent lives in Iraq and Afghanistan who were subject to indiscriminate American bombing or other military action and/or who have suffered from the destabilization of their countries by the American presence there.


Appendix B

The Work of George Walker Bush and Other "Pro-Life Pols" to Undermine the "Pro-Life" Cause in the Realm of Electoral Politics

Partisans of President George Herbert Walker Bush, such as the man who succeeded Lee Atwater as Chairman of the Republican National Committee following Atwater’s death, Richard Bond, blamed Bush’s defeat on the pro-life plank in the Republican party platform, to say nothing of the “intolerant” speech given by Patrick Joseph Buchanan at the party’s national nominating convention in Houston, Texas, in 1992. Thus, completely pro-abortion candidates were embraced by the Republican Party around the nation (Christine Todd Whitman for Governor of New Jersey in 1993; Rudolph Giuliani for Mayor of the City of New York in 1993; Richard Riordan for Mayor of the City of Los Angeles in 1994; George Pataki for Governor of the State of New York in 1994; Tom Ridge for Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in 1994; Susan Collins for U.S. Senator from Maine in 1996; Olympia Snowe for U.S. Senator from Maine in 1994; Susan Molinari and Rick Lazio for seats in the House of Representatives in the 1990s, and on and on and on). These completely pro-abortion Republican candidates were enabled at almost every turn by the National Right to Life Committee’s political action committee and the political action committees of its state affiliates. Candidates of conscience were condemned as being tools of the pro-aborts to keep “good” Republicans out of office. Those attempting to keep the life issue alive in the context of electoral politics were denounced as unrealistic dreamers who did not live in the real world and who did not want to accept the imperfections of American party politics. In essence, a Republican pro-abort was better than a Democrat pro-abort.

Indeed, the betrayal of the pro-life cause within the ranks of the leadership of the Republican Party was quite vast as early as 1990. It was in that year that Herbert London, a professor of public administration at New York University, sought the Republican Party nomination for Governor of the State of New York. As an observant Jew, London did make the life of the mother exception. However, his opposition to abortion on demand even with that immoral and unnecessary exception was thought to be a political liability by then Senator Alfonse M. D’Amato. According to what London told me in 1998 when I was challenging D’Amato for the Senatorial nomination of the New York State Right to Life Party, D’Amato told him the following: “Herb, change your position from pro-life to pro-choice and you’ll be this party’s nominee for governor.”

D’Amato denies such a conversation took place. London stands by his account, which I believe is true. Rejecting London, the Republican Party chose a nonentity pro-abort by the name of Pierre Rinfret, who barely finished second in the statewide voting in November of 1990, just 22,000 votes ahead of London, who received the nomination of the Conservative Party. Mario Cuomo got a free pass back to a third term as Governor of New York. My own vote that year, four years after I had run for Lieutenant Governor on the Right to Life Party line with Nassau County District Attorney Denis Dillon, went for the Right to Life Party nominee.

Determined not to take any chances with the life issue in 1994, D’Amato groomed a little known State Senator, George Pataki, who had once been rhetorically “pro-life,” and presented him as the man who could finally get Cuomo out of the governor’s mansion in Albany, New York. Many pro-life activists took leave of their senses at this time, convincing themselves that Pataki just “had” to say he was “pro-choice” in order to beat Cuomo. I posed the following question to these folks when I spoke with them: Why should I vote for a liar who is afraid to defend the truth? Of course, I also raised what turned out to be the real truth of the matter: what if Pataki really has changed what little mind he possesses? What if he really is pro-abortion? Doesn’t that matter to you. Sadly, it did not. And Pataki, who has governed in such a way as to make Cuomo’s twelve years look like an exercise in fiscal conservatism, has used the pulpit provided him by the governorship of New York to support abortion and contraception and sodomy, marching proudly in the so-called “Gay Pride Parade” down Fifth Avenue each year. Amazingly, a man who had run for Mayor on the Conservative and Right to Life Party lines against Rudolph Giuliani and David Dinkins in 1993, George Marlin, was one of the first to jump on the Pataki bandwagon, contradicting the very rationale for his own candidacy against Giuliani by doing so. And it should not be overlooked that Pataki, along with D’Amato, were among the fiercest demagogues smearing Patrick Joseph Buchanan with the charge of anti-Semitism when he ran for President in 1996.

As all of this was going on within the Republican Party at the state and local levels, Republican Senators enabled Bill Clinton’s anti-life policies at almost every turn between in 1993 and 1994. Apart from voting for the chemical abortion of babies by means of “family planning programs” (something that was in force during the Reagan and Bush I years), all but three Republican Senators (Bob Smith, Jesse Helms, Don Nickles) voted to confirm the notorious pro-abort, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, to the United States Supreme Court in 1993. Some people told me at the time that Republicans had to vote for Ginsburg lest they be accused of being opposed to a Jewish woman! Never mind babies. Never mind truth. No, human respect and political expediency mattered more than anything else. It came as no surprise, therefore, that all but eight Republican Senators voted to confirm the pro-abortion Stephen Breyer in 1994. Almost all of Clinton’s 180 pro-abortion nominees to the Federal judiciary between 1993 and 1996 were confirmed by so-called “pro-life” Republican Senators.

Furthermore, then Senate Minority Leader Robert Joseph Dole told CSPAN in January of 1993 that he proudly supported Clinton’s Executive Order to permit fetal tissue experimentation, something that he voted to support on the floor of the Senate one month later (along with the “pro-life” junior Senator from New York, Alfonse M. D’Amato). The so-called Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Bill (FACE) passed with the overwhelming support of allegedly “prolife” Republicans in both houses of Congress in 1994. And Republicans did nothing to try to reverse Clinton’s Executive Order authorize the United States Food and Drug Administration to conduct tests on the human pesticide, RU-486.

Indeed, Republicans were silent in 1995, when they actually controlled both houses of Congress, as a report in The New York Times indicated that women were getting pregnant deliberately in order to participate in the tests of the French abortion pill.

Sadly, most pro-life Americans have very short and selective memories, placing their trust repeatedly in career politicians who fail the cause of the babies over and over and over again. Thus, there was great enthusiasm in 1994 when Republicans captured control of both houses of the United States Congress simultaneously for the first time since the election of 1952. That enthusiasm, again, was misplaced. Then Representative Newt Gingrich, who became Speaker of the United States House of Representatives in January of 1995, and Bob Dole, who once again became Senate Majority Leader that same month, had no intention of moving the agenda of the sanctity of innocent human life. Indeed, they desired to play politics with the issue of life in order to energize the pro-life political base for the 1996 elections. The principal means by which they did this was by emphasizing the issue of partial-birth abortions. Let me explain.

It is sometimes the case that the enemies of life and of truth make true statements. For example, Vladimir Lenin was not wrong when he said that “the capitalists will sell us the rope we will use to hang them.” That is, in their shortsighted desire to make money, capitalists usually ignore the fact that selling goods to potential enemies might wind up in those goods being used against them in war. In like manner, you see, the pro-aborts were not wrong in 1995 when they asserted that the issue of partial-birth abortions was being used for the political advantage of Republicans. It was. Where the pro-aborts were absolutely wrong, however, was in asserting that Republicans were trying to use the issue of partial-birth abortions as a “wedge issue” so as to limit all abortions. Most of the Republicans involved in the effort to conditionally ban partial-birth abortions believed in 1995 and 1996 that that effort would be the end of the abortion issue in electoral politics forever. As such a broad consensus had developed in the nation in opposition to this form of child-killing, careerists could claim that they had done all they could do in the context of the realities of “popular culture.” The only thing we could do after that, many believed at the time, was simply to persuade women not to have abortions, that the culture “was not ready” for a total ban on all abortions without exception, something that the culture will never be “ready for” without leadership in the pulpit and courage from those who run for and serve in public office.

The procedure referred to as partial-birth abortion was devised by a baby-killer in 1992 to be a less invasive way to a mother of killing a child in the later stages of pregnancy. Technically called intact dilation and extraction, partial-birth abortion was meant to be a replacement for the child-killing procedure known as dilation and evacuation, a gruesome process by which a child is carved up within his mother’s birth canal. The “advantage” of partial-birth abortion for a baby-killer is that its breach of the baby in the birth canal permits him to be partially delivered so that the baby-killer can reach in to pierce the baby’s skull with scissors without threatening to perforate the mother’s birth canal, something that happens all the time in the dilatation and evacuation method of child-killing.

It is important to review (once again) these horrible, gruesome facts.

Why? For this simple reason: even if a complete and total no-exceptions ban on all partial-birth abortions had been enacted by Congress and sustained eventually by the United States Supreme Court, it would not have likely saved one baby as the other procedures to kill a baby in the later stages of pregnancy would remain perfectly legal (dilation and evacuation, hysterotomy, saline solution abortions). While the debate over partial-birth abortions did help to illustrate the particular brutality of one form of child-killing, it also misled even a lot of well-meaning pro-lifers into thinking that partial-birth abortion was more of a crime morally than methods of baby-killing used in the earlier stages of pregnancy. Child-killing is child-killing. Suction abortions are just as heinous morally as partial-birth abortions. Many people, however, have lost sight of this fact.

The emphasis on conditionally stopping partial-birth abortions reduced the definition of the term “pro-life” to only being conditionally opposed to one form of child-killing in the later stages of pregnancy. As Judie Brown of the American Life League has noted so frequently, this has resulted in the “dumbing down” of the term “pro-life.” Indeed, as has been demonstrated from 1996 to this day, even those who are absolutely committed to the horrific and unjust decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Roe v. Wade are considered by the National Right to Life Committee and by Priests for Life as being legitimately “pro-life” as long as they express some limited opposition to partial-birth abortions. Thus, Bob Dole, who was enabled by those two organizations and the Christian Coalition, only spoke about partial-birth abortions in his quest for the Republican presidential nomination in 1996–and only spoke about that during the general election that year before safe Catholic audiences. He mumbled the phrase “partial birth” once as a throw away line in one of the debates he had with President Bill Clinton, careful not to use the word “abortion” after the words “partial birth.”