Absolute Insanity

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Taking leave of one's senses is not hard to do. I've done it enough in my life to know this for a fact. It so happens, however, that every four years or so that large numbers of otherwise sensible human beings take leave of their senses to believe that "this year's" election is different, that the allegedly greater evils posed by one set of naturalism's false opposites demands our "holding our noses" and voting for other naturalists who are alleged to be somehow less "dangerous" to social order, if not overtly helpful to the restoration of social order.

There will not be very much new in this article. The case I made against participation in our Judeo-Masonic political system that is based upon fraudulent premises and perpetuates fraudulent policies that are inimical to the good of souls and thus to the good against social order was outlined in When Lesser is Greater about eight months ago now. I stand by that piece in its entirety, remembering also that a conference organized by a fairly prominent traditional Catholic, one who is not a sedevacantist, in the City of New York on Sunday, October 4, 2004, came to exactly the same conclusions as related in that article of eight months ago.

As I will explain herein, the conditions that prompted a judgment in the practical order of things in 2004 to abstain from lending credibility to the Judeo-Masonic political process remain the same now as they were then. While I stated most clearly in When Lesser is Greater that the judgment to which I have arrived is personal and not binding upon anyone, I find it nothing less than phenomenal that more that we are eyewitnesses once again to the absolute insanity of various Catholic commentators telling us that it is a Mortal Sin not to vote for the "lesser of two evils" provided by the thoroughly Judeo-Masonic Republican Party.

We have seen various Democrat Party bogeymen in the last thirty-six years come and go, each of whom was going to produce a cataclysm beyond all telling if elected. The rise of each Democrat Party bogeyman, none of whom has been not one whit substantively "more dangerous" than any of the others, has prompted all variety of alarmists on the false opposite of the "right" to warn us how irresponsible it would be of us to "bolt" the Judeo-Masonic Republican Party to vote for a minor party candidate. It has often been the case that Catholic commentators have offered their own warnings, some issuing their equivalent of "papal bulls" that Catholics are morally obliged to follow their own prudential judgments, not one of which is received from the hand of God or bind the conscience at any time.

To wit, the Soviet appeaser and pro-abort former United States Senator George McGovern, D-South Dakota, was portrayed by many Republicans in 1972 to be the quintessence of all evil, making the re-election of the pro-contraception and pro-abortion Richard Milhous Nixon a "necessity." (Yes, I voted for Nixon on November 7, 1972, my first presidential vote. I was, of course, a good Americanist Republican in my misspent youth. My vote for Patrick Joseph Buchanan in the year 2000 was my last presidential vote). It would a Mortal Sin, some people said at the time, to vote for then United States Representative John G. Schmitz, who was running on the American Independent Party (and who I believe was endorsed--and most rightly so--by The Wanderer that year). A Moral Sin, mind you, to vote for one pro-abort rather than to cast a vote of conscience. A Mortal Sin.

The next wave of real hysteria broke out twenty years later, in 1992, when the egregious Governor of Arkansas, William Jefferson Clinton, and his running mate, then United States Senator Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., D-Tennessee, had to be defeated at all costs, prompting us to "hold our noses" and vote for the pro-abortion George Herbert Walker Bush. Oh, I did so, and that was the last time that I cast a vote for a Republican, writing many articles to explain how dangerous the wild man from Hope, Arkansas, was and what damage he would do to the country. Indeed, my first article in The Wanderer, "Magic, You're No Hero," was a rejoinder to Clinton's calling Ervin "Magic" Johnson a "hero" for having contracted a disease by means of immoral behavior. And I wrote a book, A Catholic Survival Guide to the Clinton Administration, which had attracted the interest of one publisher but never wound up being published.

Thinking that our system of fraud and deceit was open to being used for the good, I plunged myself headlong into the candidacy of Patrick Joseph Buchanan in 1995 and 1996, speaking before crowds of varying size, including several thousand who had gathered for the Iowa caucuses at Hempstead High School in Dubuque, Iowa, on the night of Monday, February 12, 1996, serving as Mr. Buchanan's official surrogate speaker there. One of the things that I had to counter almost all of the time was the contention being made by Father Frank Pavone of Priests for Life and Ralph Reed of the Christian Coalition was that voters were morally obligated to vote for Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., in the primaries and the causes as the hapless, in articulate, and ever-mercurial thirty-third degree Mason was said to be more "electable" than Patrick Joseph Buchanan. "Vote your head, not your heart," Ralph Reed kept saying.

The rhetoric was even more strident in the year 2000 as then Vice President Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., in the year 2000 faced off against then Texas, George Walker Bush in the general election. More than one Catholic commentator, including one with Priests for Life , that it would a "Mortal Sin," mind you, to vote for Patrick Buchanan, the nominee of the Reform Party, rather than for the "pro-life" George Walker Bush. Edicts were issued from on high that Catholics would be committing Mortal Sins by voting for Patrick Joseph Buchanan rather than for the big government, anti-life, pro-war "conservative" named George Walker Bush.

There are two aspects to "Mortal Sin" edicts issued in the year 2000 that I want to discuss if ever so briefly.

First, George Walker Bush is not "pro-life. His father, George Herbert Walker Bush, is not "pro-life." Bob Dole was not "pro-life." Richard N. Cheney is not "pro-life." John Sidney McCain III is not "pro-life." Each supports the slicing and dicing of innocent little babies in their mothers' wombs under cover of law in certain "hard cases." Each is simply less pro-abortion than those who support baby-killing under cover of law in all instances without any restrictions whatsoever.

Further, George Walker Bush's election, which was decided in a de facto manner as a result of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Bush v. Gore late on Tuesday, December 12, 2000, did nothing to reverse the United States Food and Drug Administration's decision in September of 2000 to approve the marketing of the human pesticide, RU-486, and did not thing to reverse the "Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances bill." Bush appointed pro-aborts throughout his administration (would he have appointed anyone even suspected of being a racist or an anti-Semite?) and approved "limited" Federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research on stem-cell lines created before 9:00 a.m., Eastern Daylight Saving Time, while praising the evil of in vitro fertilization.

Indeed, why reinvent the wheel? This is what I wrote eight months ago in Secular Saviors to the Naturalist Right, Secular Saviors to the Naturalist Left.

1. Bush has said that abortion is a "difficult" issue about which Americans of "good will" can disagree legitimately. Really? Would he say this about racism or anti-Semitism. Why is the slicing and dicing of little babies a "difficult" issue?

2. Bush has said repeatedly, as he will do in his telephone address to Miss Nellie Gray of the March for Life Education and Defense Fund during the rally on the Ellipse on Tuesday, January 22, 2008, that he wants to work for the day when all children will be "welcomed in life and protected by law." Really? How is this possible when he believes that the law must permit the killing of innocent preborn babies in certain "hard" cases?

3. Bush appointed numerous individuals to his administration who were completely in support of child-killing under cover of law (Andrew Card, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, Tom Ridge, Michael Chertoff, Donald Rumsfeld, Christine Todd Whitman, et al.) and has campaigned with and for completely pro-abortion Republicans (Rudolph Giuliani, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Michael Bloomberg, Kay Bailey Hutchison, George Pataki, Rick Lazio, et al.). Would he have done so for a person tainted with even the whiff, no matter how unjustly, of racism and anti-Semitism? Look at what happened to the thirty-third degree Mason former Senator Trent Lott (R-Mississippi) at the end of 2002 when he, Lott, said that the country would have been off if it had elected his fellow Mason, then outgoing (and now quite late) South Carolina Senator Strom Thumond, once an arch-segregationist, as president in 1948. Bush did everything possible to maneuver Lott out of his position as floor leader of the Republican Party in the United States Senate. The slicing and dicing of little babies is no such impediment to the holding of political power in the eyes of George Walker Bush.

4. Bush, as Governor of Texas, sent a messenger to the platform committee Texas State Republican Convention in 1996 to request that the party's pro-life plank be taken out of its platform, a move that was unanimously rejected by the members of the platform committee. Bush also signed into law a bill naming a portion of a highway in Houston, Texas, after a notorious abortionist, the late John B. Coleman, also appointing an open pro-abortion and supporter of Planned Parenthood and perversity, Martha Hill Jamieson, to the 164th District Court in Houston.

5. The presidential administration of President George W. Bush had increased spending for domestic (Title X) and international family planning programs, thereby supporting the grave evil of contraception and contributing to the chemical assassinations of millions of children in the United States of America and elsewhere in the world.

6. Then Solicitor General of the United States of America, Theodore Olson, argued in an amicus curiae brief in the case of Scheidler v. National Organization for Women before the Supreme Court of the United States of America on December 4, 2002, that Mr. Joseph Scheidler, the President of the Pro-Life Action League who has saved thousands of babies from execution by means of his sidewalk Counseling, was a "racketeer" under the terms of the 1946 Hobbs Act in that he, Scheidler, was taking "business" away from legitimate businesses, namely, abortuaries:

"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."

 

The Supreme Court of the United States got it right in the case of Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, ignoring Olson and rejecting the relentless efforts of the National Organization for Women to apply the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (R.I.C.O.) to sidewalk counseling in front of abortuaries, arguing that only the government, not private organizations, could bring a R.I.C.O. suit.

7. The Bush administration has done nothing to reverse the marketing of the human pesticide, RU-486, approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration of the United States Department of Health and Human Services in the administration of President William Jefferson Clinton in September of 2000. Indeed, Bush said in his October 3, 2000 debate with then Vice President Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., that he would be opposed to reversing that decision if it proved to be "safe" for women, ignoring the fact that the pill is patently unsafe for women and positively lethal for a preborn baby. He has proved true to his word. The Food and Drug Administration under his own administration has simply issued a few warnings about the pesticide. It has done nothing to reverse the marketing of this kill-pill. (See: US Food and Drug Administration.)

8. The Bush administration permitted the Food and Drug Administration to approve on August 24, 2006, over-the-counter sales for the Plan-B "Emergency" contraceptive, which can work as an abortifacient, to women over eighteen years of age. Ah, yes, the "pro-life" president.

9.President George Walker Bush approved "limited" Federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research on August 9, 2001, on stem-cell lines created before 9:00 p.m., Eastern Daylight Saving Time that evening. He has never called for a ban on private funding of such research, which kills a living human being, and endorsed the immoral practice known as in vitro fertilization (artificial contraception) in direct violation of the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law:

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.

 

The conception of a child is a gift from God, not a right. No one may resort to artificial means to conceive a child. This means nothing to Bush, who supports contraception and artificial conception. And, most sadly, Bush's support of these evils matters little, it appears, to even many traditionally-minded Catholics who are too wrapped up in their reflexive Americanism to consider public policy in light of the Deposit of Faith that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has entrusted exclusively to the Catholic Church for their eternal safekeeping and infallible explication.

10. President George W. Bush's much-vaunted Mexico City policy, which forbids the use of "international family planning" funds to be sent to organizations overseas that perform or refer for surgical abortions is fraught with loopholes, including one that permits employees of these organizations to refer for surgical abortions off of the organization's premises, that is, in some other location in the foreign city where its offices are located. The Mexico City policy is a sham. Mrs. Judie Brown, the founder and President of the American Life League put it this way in her blog:

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.

There is so much more. This is only a partial listing, one that does not even take into consideration the hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings who have been killed and wounded by the unjust and immoral invasion of Iraq that George W. Bush unleashed on March 19, 2003.

George W. Bush's anti-life policies have been indemnified at almost every turn by Priests for Life and the ill-named National Right to Life Committee. As noted above, many Catholics just look the other way, subordinating the Faith to the public policy decisions made by a vapid man whose wife has been urging Americans to engage in allegedly "safe" practices that involve direct violations of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments. Hey, you Bushies out there, has the current President Bush contradicted his wife? Why do you support a man who supports such evils? Why?

 

Was I morally obliged in the year 2000 to vote for a man who I knew would do most of the things enumerated above? Many, although not all, of these egregious policies were easy to predict. Some have been chronicled on this site over and over again. Although it does take a bit of work and a good memory, which is nothing other than a gift from God, to remember these things, it does not take a genius to figure out that Republican "conservatives" have been able to advance the devil's agenda in this country and in the world in ways that would be unimaginable for the open pro-aborts in the other organized crime as sleepy "conservative" "pro-life" Americans, including many Catholics across the vast expanse of the ecclesiastical divide, convince themselves of the delusion that all is well and that those who point out the problems are simply "not living in the real world."

While those who read this site are free to make whatever judgments they want, I hope that some, at the very least, will at least consider seriously my contention that more harm has been done to the cause of the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law (and to the cause of limited government enshrined in that Natural Law) by "conservative," statist Republicans than by the Democrat bogeyman and bogeywomen who at least have the personal integrity to up front and open about the evils they support.

Second, over and above the actual facts of George Walker Bush's anti-life and statist positions, does anyone want to contend that Catholic voters had a "moral obligation" to vote for George Walker Bush in 2000 in those states that the polls showed either Bush or Gore with substantial leads. Although I have come to a personal judgment, helped in no small  measure by that conference in the City of New York in 2004, that participation in the electoral process is a waste of time, I did write extensively in 2000 on how those in states that were clearly going for Bush or for Gore in 2000 had a "free throw," so to speak, in voting for a third party candidate. The states of California, Illinois, New York, Massachusetts, Texas, Idaho, Montana, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Maryland (among several others) were simply not "in play" in the year 2000.

And they will not be "in play" in the year 2008.

We elect the President of the United States by means of the terms outlined in Article II of the Constitution and the Twelfth and Twenty-Third Amendments to that Constitution. What matters is not the raw number of popular votes obtained by a candidate nationally, but the number of electoral votes that a candidate's slate of electors wins on a state-by-state basis as a result of winning a plurality of the votes in a particular state (the states of Maine and Nebraska use a combination of statewide system and a Congressional district system).

The campaigns of United States Senator Barack Obama, D-Illinois, and United States Senator John Sidney McCain III, R-Arizona, know this, basing their entire electoral strategies upon winning the so-called "battleground" states, which is why not a dime of advertising will be spent in those states that are clearly "blue" or clearly "red." To assert, as some are saying now what others have said in the past, that one is "morally obliged" to vote for John McCain and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin in those states where voting at all is a moot point (I mean, is there any doubt that Barack Obama is going to win the State of Illinois with something approaching sixty-five to seventy percent of the vote? Does any rational, sane human being want to say that John McCain has a chance of winning California or New York or Massachusetts?) is to attempt to impose upon Catholics an moral obligation that does not exist at all.

One of the ironies in all of this is that naturalists of the left associated with the Democrat Party in the year 2000 claimed that anyone voting for Ralph Nader that year was helping to elect George Walker Bush, that they were "betraying" the principles of the left by doing so. Undaunted by these repeated appeals to this perverted concept of "civic duty." 97,488 naturalists of the left in Florida chose to vote for Ralph Nader on the Green Party line rather than for Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., on the Democrat Party line. They knew that there were few essential differences between Gore and Bush, demonstrating that they believed in their leftism more than Catholics believed in their Catholicism, being unwilling to compromise in their false beliefs while knowing full well that they might be helping to elect George Walker Bush, which is indeed what they did by giving Bush a 537 vote margin that he would not otherwise have had and without which he would not have won Florida's twenty-five electoral votes, the very votes he needed to be elected to the Presidency of the United States of America.

Well, what about those states that are "in play right now in 2008 as the latest Democrat bogeyman, Barack Hussein Obama, makes his play for the White House? That's a fair question, and one that the rest of this article will address.

Readers are free to disagree with the case that I make When Lesser is Greater against participation in our Judeo-Masonic political process. They are free to make whatever practical political judgments they desire, although I will note that it is certainly the case that a Catholic is never permitted to vote for someone who promotes even one abortion, whether chemical or surgical under cover of law, admitting, as I noted eight months ago now, that the principle of proportionality comes into play in making a concrete judgment in the case of those phony pro-life candidates who actually support the slicing and dicing of innocent human beings under cover of law. I just want to raise make a few observations for you to consider in the midst of the absolute insanity that is taking hold of some many otherwise sensible people in this election cycle.

First, Barack Hussein Obama is substantively no different in his policies than William Jefferson Blythe Clinton. I worked against Clinton's election in 1992, and I supported most actively the nomination of Patrick Joseph Buchanan in the 1996 election cycle because I did want to see him get re-elected. Did George Walker Bush reverse any of Clinton's pro-abortion policies, other than signing into law the the partial, conditional ban on partial-birth abortions that left in place at least two other methods by which innocent preborn children can be butchered, something I commented upon at length in An Illusion of a Victory in April of 2007. Obama believes in many bad things. So has George Walker Bush. So does John Sidney McCain III. We've got naturalists to the left and naturalists to the right. The devil wins either way. Period. This is a judgment that I think is sound is supported by the trajectory of degeneration of the Judeo-Masonic electoral process that we have witnesses with our very own eyes in the past half-century.

Second, as noted above, it is frequently the case that greater harm will be done by the apparent "lesser evil" than by the apparent "greater evil," which is why I will abstain from voting once again this year. I could not in any circumstance vote for Barack Hussein Obama, and I will not cast my vote for a man, John McCain, a pro-abort who disagrees with his own party's platform on the matter of exceptions to the inviolability of innocent human life and on Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, and a man who is eager to continue the statist "conservatism" of George Walker Bush and the latter's "Global War on Terror."

Third, as noted four days ago now in Gradually Accepting Naturalism's False Premises, I believe that it is fundamentally wrong to enable the political career of a woman, a self-identified "feminist for life," who has described herself as follows in a set of answers she gave to a website when running for the Governor of Alaska in the year 2006:

• Pro-contraception, pro-woman, pro-life. (Aug 2006)
• Only exception for abortion is if mother's life would end. (Jul 2006)  Sarah Palin on the Issues 

 

Ah, it turns out that Sarah Palin is not so "pro-life" after all. She, too, makes an exception to the absolute inviolability of innocent human life, and she supports the chemical assassination of innocent preborn children by means of abortifacient contraceptives. And contraceptive is of its nature, over and above its being an abortifacient in most cases, a violation of the very Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marital relations. Palin was at one point a supporter of mandatory "compulsory education" in contraception in public schools. I am "morally obliged" to vote for a person who believes that she should promote contraception and that it should be mandated by the civil state that innocent children have their immortal souls exposed to this fundamental life-and-soul-killing lie from the devil himself? I don't think so. Guess again.

Fourth, Sarah Palin is just as much a member of the War Party as George Walker Bush or John Sidney McCain III, and even more tied to the interests of the State of Israel than either of them given her ties to the various Calvinist "dominionist" and "reconstructionist" groups with which she is allied, demonstrating that she positively knows God's Holy Will for such things as the building of an Alaskan pipline!

ANCHORAGE, Alaska - Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told ministry students at her former church that the United States sent troops to fight in the Iraq war on a "task that is from God."

In an address last June, the Republican vice presidential candidate also urged ministry students to pray for a plan to build a $30 billion natural gas pipeline in the state, calling it "God's will."

Palin asked the students to pray for the troops in Iraq, and noted that her eldest son, Track, was expected to be deployed there.

"Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God," she said. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan."

A video of the speech was posted at the Wasilla Assembly of God's Web site before finding its way on to other sites on the Internet.

Palin told graduating students of the church's School of Ministry, "What I need to do is strike a deal with you guys." As they preached the love of Jesus throughout Alaska, she said, she'd work to implement God's will from the governor's office, including creating jobs by building a pipeline to bring North Slope natural gas to North American markets.

"God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that," she said.

"I can do my job there in developing our natural resources and doing things like getting the roads paved and making sure our troopers have their cop cars and their uniforms and their guns, and making sure our public schools are funded," she added. "But really all of that stuff doesn't do any good if the people of Alaska's heart isn't right with God." (Palin: Iraq war 'a task that is from God' - Yahoo! News.)

 

I am "morally obliged" to vote for a member of the War Party who is associated with virulent, anti-Catholics who are rock-ribbed Calvinists to the core of their very beings? I don't think so. Saint Joan of Arc went to the Dauphin, the future King Charles VII, and told him that she was sent by God. Anyone who contends that Sarah Palin, who is associated with various Catholic-hating groups, is a contemporary Saint Joan of Arc is, to put it most charitably, out of his mind with a case of temporary insanity. (And Saint Joan of Arc, as pointed out four days ago, wore masculine clothing to protect her own chastity and that of the solders under her command, not because she felt "comfortable" in doing so. She was instructed by God to do so. Let's get a grip on the insanity, folks.)

"But didn't she give a good speech last night, even a wonderful speech?" Politicians are supposed to give good speeches. Barack Hussein Obama gives a pretty decent stem-winder. Ronald Reagan gave a lot of good speeches in his time. How is the cause of the common temporal good in light of man's Last End any better off in 2008 than in 1980 as a result of those speeches?

Giving a good speech doesn't make one qualified to be President of the United States of America. Oh, by the way, where was the reference to reversing Roe v. Wade in the speech? Did I miss something in reading the text of Governor Palin's address? Hmm. Maybe some of my fellow Catholics would like to ask her if she supports a reversal of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) that permitted the sale of contraceptives to married couples--or if she supports the Supreme Court decision in the case of Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) that permitted the sale of chemical abortifacients to unmarried persons. Good speeches fade into the background after they are given.

What remains after a good speech and after a particular election.is the reality of the Judeo-Masonic political system in which empty rhetoric must give way to the gradual advance of the devil's agenda with each passing year. The mere fact that Democrats are howling in protest about Mrs. Palin's speech proves nothing that naturalists of the left are always consistent in calling their criticism of the naturalists of the right as nothing other than "providing voters with contrasting records and views" while denouncing criticism of themselves as "the old, discredited politics of personal destruction." Alas, the Gambinos and Luccheses and the Colombos and the Bonannos and the Genoveses opposed each other quite violently over their respective organized crime turfs. It is no different in the fraud of our Judeo-Masonic electoral system. No different at all, other than being a bit more "refined," shall we say.

Indeed, I remember telephoning a prominent Catholic journalist after then Texas Governor George Walker Bush gave his acceptance address on Thursday, August 3, 2000, at the Republican National Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The speech containing all manner of "inspired" phrases that invoked the Holy Name of God and references to the Bible and to hope (see Bush Acceptance Speech.) These vacuous references by a vacuous, empty man who does not write his own copy impressed this Catholic journalist, who said to me, "You're full of [expletive deleted]. Bush's speech was not 'Christ or chaos,' but it was full of references to God and Faith and the Bible. You're not going to find anyone criticizing George W. Bush in my household tonight." One wonders if this journalist is still as enthusiastic in his support of Mr. Bush now as he was eight years ago, if my remarks to him at the time that Pope Pius XI's warning in Mit Brennender Sorge, March 17, 1937, against profane references to God to serve purposes or national or personal political expediency ever resonated, or if the journalist is still enthusiastic about George W. Bush and his administration.

For the reasons noted in Gradually Accepting Naturalism's False Premises and outlined just briefly here, it is my judgment in the practical order of things that it is completely morally justified to abstain from the farce that is our Judeo-Masonic electoral system, that the "apparent" good represented by Sarah Palin is not good at all, and that to enable her career will actually do more harm than good for the country because many of our own daughters will be "inspired" (and inspiration comes from below as well as above) that it is a virtuous thing for a mother with young children to electively engage in electoral politics and identifying themselves as "feminists." It is nothing of the sort.

I can only point out once again what Cardinal Silvio Antoniano wrote in the Sixteenth Century, and what Pope Saint Pius X wrote in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910:

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

No, Venerable Brethren, We must repeat with the utmost energy in these times of social and intellectual anarchy when everyone takes it upon himself to teach as a teacher and lawmaker - the City cannot be built otherwise than as God has built it; society cannot be setup unless the Church lays the foundations and supervises the work; no, civilization is not something yet to be found, nor is the New City to be built on hazy notions; it has been in existence and still is: it is Christian civilization, it is the Catholic City. It has only to be set up and restored continually against the unremitting attacks of insane dreamers, rebels and miscreants. omnia instaurare in Christo. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.

 

Believe me, I know that I am winning as few "popularity contests" with articles such as this one as I did last year and earlier this year when critiquing the libertarianism of United States Representative Ron Paul, R-Texas. I know that I am winning as few "popularity contests" with articles such as this one as I did when criticizing George Walker Bush in 1999 and thereafter! I will be adamant and steadfast in an insistence upon the simple truth that there is no naturalistic, interdenominational, nondenominational or electoral "shortcut" to "improve" a situation in the United States of America that is the direct result of the false, naturalistic, anti-Incarnational and semi-Pelagian principles that are its very founding and are the proximate causes of its current chaos. Catholicism and Catholicism alone is the only foundation of personal and social order, and it is absolute insanity to think that a complete secularist named John Sidney McCain III and a Calvinist dominionist named Sarah Heath Palin are going to "restore" the country to anything other than the false principles upon which it was founded.

There is nothing more that I need to add in substantive terms as the electoral process plays itself out in the next sixty-one days. A few commentaries will be written about the presidential and vice presidential debates. How many times can all of this be pointed out in the midst of a mass insanity wherein even some traditionally-minded Catholics who have written to me recently are swept away, saying that God Himself is intervening to "help" the nation as He did on the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe on December 12, 2000, when the case of Bush v. Gore was decided. Another writer explained that a Vice President Palin would have plenty of time with her children and that she would find time to read tracts about the Catholic Faith into which she was baptized. How does one even begin to deal with this irrationality and wishful thinking that borders on absolute insanity?

I do want to point out, merely as a matter of personal privilege, that I am not simply some motor home couch commentator. That is, the study and the teaching of political science has been my life's work as a Catholic. Running of lieutenant governor of the State of New York on the Right to Life Party line in 1986 cost me dearly in my professional career, and speaking in behalf of Patrick Joseph Buchanan in 1995 and 1996 and running in a primary in the Right to Life Party against then Senator Alfonse M. D'Amato ten years ago didn't help matters much. No, it is not fun being out of work in my chosen profession. However, my sins deserve far worse than this. It is better this than Purgatory or worse!

Mind you, this makes me no better than anyone else, and it does not make my judgments on political matters binding upon anyone else. Not all. I do want to point out, however, that my judgments are not simply "whipped up" out of thin air, and I have every confidence, my friends, that my criticisms of John McCain and Sarah Palin in the year 2008 will stand up in the year 2012 as my criticisms of George Walker Bush in 1999 and thereafter have stood up to date.

People can agree or disagree. All well and good. It is simply wrong to make the latest Democrat bogeyman to be an occasion of seeking to impose upon others a prudential judgment in the practical order of things. For "things" will be only worse in 2012 no matter who gets elected.

This is why we need to pray as many Rosaries each day as possible as we offer up our sacrifices and prayers and penances and mortifications and humiliations to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary as we seek to make reparation for our sins and those of the whole world. We can plant seeds for the restoration of the Holy Mother Church and for the Social Reign of Christ the King and of Mary our Immaculate Queen by simply doing our daily duties and enduring our daily sufferings well as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. And in the end, of course, we can be assured that that Immaculate Heart of Mary, and that triumph will not come about as a result of the naturalists of the left or of the right but by our own daily fidelity to Our Lady's Fatima Message.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon, for that is when "things" will get better as First and Last Things as they have been entrusted to the authority of the Catholic Church will become once again the foundation of personal and social order as the lies of naturalism are banished forever.

 

Viva Cristo Rey!

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and at the after of our death.

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

 

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

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

See also: A Litany of Saints

The Novena to Maria Bambina

(begins August 30, 2008, and runs through September 7, 2008)

Mari Bambina--Infant Queen of the universe, intercede for all of us who have recourse to thee!  Do not forget us, thy faithful but lowly subjects who await thy response to our constant prayers !  We long to kneel before thy crib and watch thee sleep, dear little Queen! Choose to look upon us with thy loving childlike gaze and through that gaze send graces to us so that we may rejoice with thee and praise that beautiful day that God chose from all of eternity to begin the Redemption through thy most glorious Immaculate Conception!  Amen.