Always Looking For Those Secular Saviors From the Naturalist Right

Or From the Naturalist Left

by Thomas A. Droleskey

The illusion of secular salvation has been a consistent theme of my teaching and writing even long before I stopped attempting to reconcile the Faith with the naturalistic, anti-Incarnational, semi-Pelagian principles of the American founding in the latter part of the 1980s. That is, I have long recognized the limitations of partisan politics even though I did, albeit quite mistakenly as I have recognized in the last few years, believe that it was possible to use the fora provided in electoral campaigns to speak to the truths of the Faith and thus to help to plant the seeds for the conversion of a few souls here and there. As one who has followed electoral politics since the President Dwight D. Eisenhower-former Illinois Governor Adlai E. Stevenson race of 1956 (yes, I was not even five years old at the time of election on November 6, 1956) and has made the study of government and politics my life's work as a political scientist, I have always found the level of "excitement" in the "rush" of political campaigns to be an interesting commentary on the ability of fallen men to seek salvation in all of the wrong places.

To wit, how many Catholics, for example, were all caught up in the campaign of then Senator John Fitzgerald Kennedy's for the presidential nomination of Democrat Party in 1960 and then supported him in the general election against then Vice President Richard Milhous Nixon that year? A lot. Some of them were awash with enthusiasm over the "young" Kennedy, who was only four years younger than his former colleague in the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate, Nixon, and over the fact that a "good Catholic" was going to be President of the United States of America. More than two-thirds of Catholics voted for a man who did not take his Faith seriously and who endorsed the Americanist "gospel" of the separation of Church and State that would serve as one of the foundations of conciliarism itself within a few years.

Indeed, a mother of schoolmate of mine at Saint Aloysius School in Great Neck, New York, approached my mother outside of the school on November 9, 1960, to say how "wonderful" it was that Kennedy, a Catholic, had been elected. "We've arrived," the woman said with pride. My late mother, Norma Florence Red Fox Droleskey, was pretty blunt in her response: "Arrived at what?" Indeed. My late father, Dr. Albert Henry Martin Droleskey, had said at our dinner table that Kennedy "cheated" on his wife, Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy. I didn't know what they meant except that it was not a good thing to cheat. Kennedy was not, I understood, a "good Catholic." His victory did not represent "progress" for Catholics in the United States of America nor a "change for the better" for the country-at-large. (How did my father know about Kennedy's "cheating"? Well, he had a client or two of his veterinary practice in Queens Village, New York, who were Secret Service agents--or close relatives thereof, who talked about Kennedy's use of tunnels connecting hotels in Manhattan that were used by Kennedy to go from where people thought he was sleeping to where he actually spent a given night, a practice he continued as President, as a New York Daily News photographer told me in the early-1990s.)

The vaunted "Kennedy mystique" was on full display again in 1968 when Senator Robert Francis Kennedy (D-New York) announced on March 16 of that year that he was going to challenge then President Lyndon Baines Johnson for the Democrat Party nomination. Kennedy's followers labeled him as an "idealist," although the actual truth-of-the-matter was that it was a consummated opportunist. Robert Kennedy paved the way for future "carpetbagging" politicians to change residences at the last moment prior to a particular election, running in 1964 for the United States Senate seat then held by Senator Kenneth Keating (R-New York) a year after his brother's assassination. Robert Kennedy lived in Alexandria, Virginia, and maintained a residence in Massachusetts, setting the stage for two other carpetbaggers to hold the Senate seat he won in that election. (James Buckley, who lived in Sharon, Connecticut, and won a three-way race as the nominee of the Conservative Party of the State of New York in 1970 against Representative Richard Ottinger, a Democrat, and the man whom then Governor Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller had appointed to replace Robert Kennedy following his own death on June 6, 1968, a day after he was shot and wounded by would-be assassin Sirhan Bishara Sirhan, Senator Charles Goodell, a liberal Republican in the mode of Rockefeller himself. Native New Yorker and pro-abortion Catholic Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan defeated Buckley in 1976, being succeeded by the carpetbagger from Arkansas, Hillary Rodham Clinton, in the 2000 election.) And Bobby Kennedy waited until four days after Senator Eugene McCarthy (D-Wisconsin) had garnered an unexpected forty-two percent of the vote against a stand-in for President Johnson in the New Hampshire primary to decide whether the beleaguered Johnson, who had gotten the United States of America bogged down in a needless ground war in the Republic of [South] Vietnam, was vulnerable. Kennedy announced for the Democrat Party presidential nomination only after McCarthy showed that Johnson, who announced on March 31, 1968, that he would not run for his party's presidential nomination that year, was indeed vulnerable.

Bobby Kennedy and "Clean Gene" McCarthy both had their cult followings in 1968. McCarthy, not without considerable justification, believed that Kennedy lacked the courage to "test the waters" against Johnson on his own, remaining, most unfortunately, a very embittered man to the time that he died on December 10, 2005, at the age of eighty-nine. "True believers" of Kennedy and McCarthy believed that their respective candidates were "idealists" who were "battling the establishment" to produce "change" for a "better America." They were "building for the future," we were told at the time. It never dawned on the many Catholics who supported these two Catholic members of the United States Senate that their heroes were naturalists and semi-Pelagians of the first order, men who were promising a "better tomorrow" by means of the "reform" of the structures of human institutions, the quintessence of liberalism, rather than on the reform of individual lives in cooperation with the graces for us by the shedding of every single drop of the Most Precious Blood of the Divine Redeemer, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, mankind's one and only Saviour, and that flow into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, the Mediatrix of All Graces.

Those of the "conservative" bent of naturalism developed cult-like adulation of their own heroes in the 1970s and 1980s, especially for Ronald Wilson Reagan. "True believers" of Ronald Reagan brooked no criticism of their demigod. The pro-abortion, pro-Planned Parenthood George Herbert Walker Bush for Vice President in 1980? Be real, man, people told me, the "point" is to get elected. That single choice of George Herbert Walker Bush, a man who believed in very little except that which was wrong, including the New World Order that served as the focal point for the Persian Gulf War of 1991, resulted in the rise of two political dynasties that continue to dominate American politics: the Bushes and the Clintons. Then Arkansas Governor William Jefferson Clinton was able to get elected to the Presidency of the United States of America in 1992 principally because then President George Herbert Walker Bush stood for nothing and was incapable of articulating a coherent train of thought to respond to Clinton's demagoguery and endless lying about matters of public policy (no less those of his own personal life). George Herbert Walker Bush made William Jefferson Clinton electable, thus giving us the latter's wife as a United States Senator from New York and current candidate for the Democrat Party presidential nomination. Anyone who knew anything about electoral politics could see that the elevation of the then former United States Ambassador to the United Nations and the former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, George Herbert Walker Bush, the son of the late Senator Prescott Bush (R-Connecticut), to be Reagan's running mate in 1980 would bode ill for the country in the future. Reaganites did not want to hear the criticism at all. Those of us who criticized the nomination were said to be "party-poopers" and unrealistic people who did "know" how the "real world" worked.

Further invective was hurled at those of us critical of President Ronald Reagan when he nominated Sandra Day O'Connor in 1981 to replace the retiring Associate Justice Potter Stewart of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. O'Connor, as both Howard Phillips of the Conservative Caucus Foundation and Judie Brown of the American Life League testified, had a thoroughly pro-abortion voting record when she was the President of the Arizona State Senate. This mattered nothing to ostensibly "pro-life" Republicans in the United States Senate or to "true believers" in the Reaganite cause. No, Reagan, advised by his second wife Nancy and Deputy White House Chief of Staff Michael Deaver, had to close the "gender gap." Reagan even admitted this himself, albeit inadvertently, when he said in his introduction of O'Connor at the White House on July 7, 2001, that he wanted to find "the best woman possible" to replace Justice Stewart, one of the seven pro-abortion votes on the Supreme Court in the case of Roe v. Wade, January 22, 1973. One pro-abort replaced another. Reaganites would point out in later years that their man gave the Court Antonin Scalia, a positivist who believes that abortion is a matter left up to the people in the states to decide, which it is not, making up for O'Connor. Reagan also gave us Anthony Kennedy following the United State Senate's rejection of the nomination of Robert Bork to replace Associate Justice Lewis Powell on the Supreme Court of the United States. Kennedy proved to be a most reliable pro-abortion vote over the years. Even his opinion in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart, April 18, 2007, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy went out of his way to point out that the conditional, partial ban on partial-birth abortions that the Court upheld in that case was not contrary to Roe v. Wade or Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Robert P. Casey, June 29, 1992, as the law passed by Congress and signed into law by President George Walker Bush on November 5, 2003, did not limit "access" to late-term baby-killing as two other methods to kill babies, the hysterotomy and dilation and evacuation, remained perfectly legal. No, Ronald Reagan was no secular savior. He was not, as some naturalists who believe in the semi-Pelagian heresy that human beings can more or less stir up grace in themselves to save themselves and the world contend, "Ronaldus Magnus."

Reagan's departure from the White House on January 20, 1989, brought us George Herbert Walker Bush and the politics of the New World Order and the economics of the Director of the Office of Management and the Budget Richard Darman, known affectionately in "insider" circles as "Darth Vader." Conservatives were upset, and rightly so, by the policies of what now called the Bush I (or Bush 41) Administration, prompting former White House Director of Communications (1985-1987) Patrick Buchanan to challenge Bush for the Republican Party presidential nomination in 1992. Although I did have my differences with Mr. Buchanan over his unabashed enthusiasm for the founding fathers and for his refusal to promote the Social Reign of Christ the King as the foundation of a just social order, I supported his candidacy in 1992 and again in 1996, working very hard as an unpaid volunteer to address audiences throughout the State of Iowa from December 8, 1995, to the very night of the caucuses on February 12, 1996 (campaigning also in New Hampshire, Florida, and Illinois). I supported Pat because I believed that he was the only completely no-exceptions pro-life candidate who had a legitimate chance of winning the Republican presidential nomination that year and the individual who would be able to articulate some basic truths about just governance in debates with then President William Jefferson Clinton. Buchanan Brigaders, however, saw their cause as having more popular support than it did, believing that their ranks were more numerous than was actually the case.

My criticism of the careerism of the "establishment" Republican contenders in early 1995 was noted by the The Manchester Union-Leader on April 24, 1995:

'Hung Up' on Abortion? Source of Our Problems. Failure of Nerve

Why does The Union Leader place so much emphasis on the issue of abortion in Presidential politics? Or, as one angry reader asked last week: ''Why are you people so damned hung up on this one campaign issue?'' Before we could explain why we are ''hung up,'' she opted to hang up the phone. Nevertheless, it's a fair question, and although we have addressed it many times, most recently in editorials citing the uncomfortably perceptive observations of the saintly Mother Teresa, we believe that it deserves a response even when it is asked by one who apparently doesn't want an answer. This time, however, we are going to bolster our case with some expert testimony.

A recent commentary by Dr. Thomas A. Droleskey, visiting assistant professor of political science at Long Island University's C.W. Post campus, sums up our view of the importance of the abortion issue in Presidential politics. (See excerpts from his article below.) He raises, more articulately than have we, the very same points that The Union Leader has been making, to the apparent chagrin of Presidential candidates and others who are into heavy avoidance of thinking about the major moral issue of this century.

But as was true in the case of slavery, the great moral issue of the 19th Century, it won't go away. Abortion is not some issue that, because discussion of it makes many people uneasy, can be compartmentalized and walled off from all the others. Droleskey, a columnist for The Wanderer, knows that one cannot divorce the devaluation of human life in the continuing abortion holocaust from the nation's other social problems.

To do so would be like professing to believe that, say, the nightmarish terrorism of Oklahoma City has nothing to do with the perpetrators' poverty of spirit and nihilistic outlook on the sanctity of human life.

There are signs everywhere that the American people are awakening to the reality that it is America's values, as reflected in the issues raised by social conservatives, not simply America's economy, that must be defended.

Droleskey agrees with Democratic former Pennsylvania Governor Robert Casey, who explained succinctly what motivated many voters in the November 1994 elections swept by Republicans when he said: ''It's the culture, not the economy.''

Because Dr. Droleskey's commentary, while highly supportive of Patrick Buchanan's candidacy, is applicable to all of the Presidential campaigns, we quote some highly pertinent experts below.

Also, they go a long way toward edifying any critic who wants to know why The Union Leader is ''so damned hung up'' on the issue of abortion in Presidential politics. -Jim Finnegan ----

Source of Our Problems.

We present here excerpts from a timely commentary (see editorial above) by Dr. Thomas A. Droleskey, visiting assistant professor of political science at Long Island University's C.W. Post campus. - -Editors. ---- ...

A candidate who does not understand that most of our social problems are directly traceable to abortion will be incapable of providing any real leadership, nationally or internationally.

The acceptance of a judicially-invented ''right'' to kill children, which contravenes the Divine and natural laws, is responsible for the proliferation of teen pregnancies, the feminization of poverty, the breakdown of families - and the general lowering of a sense of personal responsibility for one's actions. It has also cheapened the value of human life, making it far easier for all manner of murderous mayhem to be committed. As Mother Teresa has noted on a number of occasions, no one is safe if a mother can kill her child in the sanctuary of the womb.

Need we look to the increase in such things as the Long Island Railroad massacre or the murders in Upper Montclair, New Jersey, for proof of her observation?... Were things right in the world, there would be no candidate for public office anywhere except those who were committed to the defense of human life, right from the moment of conception until the time of natural death. But things are far from right with the world. They are very wrong. --

 

All right, all right. I quoted Mother Teresa. Remember, I was an indulterer in those days, all right?

The point of this is, however, that my involvement in the Buchanan campaign centered, albeit mistakenly, as I now realize, on a belief that it was possible to "turn the tide" politically and that the Buchanan campaign represented a legitimate opportunity to to do so. I would not have been involved in Pat's campaign if he had not been completely pro-life and had not been opposed to domestic and international funding for "family planning" programs. My "cause" was not the "conservative" cause. It was the the only and only truly American cause: the Catholic cause. Patrick Buchanan's candidacy was, I thought at the time, a step in the right direction. As is the case in our land naturalism and pluralism, others supporting Buchanan had their own ideas, many of which revolved around a brand of "conservatism" that had no room for Christ the King and Mary our Immaculate Queen.

The Buchanan campaign of 1995 and 1996 had to contend with another phenomenon involving "true believers," that is those associated with the candidacy of Dr. Alan Keyes, former Assistant Secretary of State in the administration of Presidential Ronald Reagan. One rather prominent Catholic lay man nearly decked me the lobby of the Washington Marriott Hotel in a Washington, D.C., hotel after I had criticized Dr. Keyes's Americanism after being asked a direct question by an attendee at a National Wanderer Forum in 1995. "Who are you," this man kept shouting at me, "to criticize Alan Keyes? Who are you? What have you ever run for?" Well, I had run for lieutenant governor of New York on the Right to Life Party line nine years before and was trained in the study of the American founding in my doctoral studies. I did have a few qualifications. Oh, no. I had dared to criticize Alan Keyes, who had been a roommate at Harvard University with the Buchanan-hating neoconservative William Kristol, now the editor of thirty-third degree Mason Rupert Murdoch's National Standard and the son of one of the founders of neoconservatism, Irving Kristol. Shame on me. Keyes, who said at a fund-raiser for a crisis pregnancy center on Long Island in 1997 that "we must avoid all denominationalism" in public life and had said in New Hampshire in 1996 that "a lot of people went to a lot trouble to make sure that that [a Pope's telling rulers what to do] was not going to happen again," had a very fervent core of supporters who believed that criticism of him was forbidden.

All of the above, however, paled into insignificance when compared with the near fascistic support given by "conservative" Catholics to then Texas Governor George W. Bush as he sought the Republican Party presidential nomination in 1999 and 2000. Efforts to point out Bush's actual record as Governor of Texas and the fact that he supported the slicing and dicing of babies as a matter of principle in the so-called "hard cases" and his unabashed support for completely pro-abortion Republican candidates for public office were met with bitter, highly emotional, if not entirely irrational responses as "Do you want to elect Al Gore?" "Don't you realize that we have to accept the lesser of two evils." This irrationality, a product of the Protestant Revolt and the rise of Judeo-Masonry as the substitutes for the true Faith, become even more pronounced with the passage of years. Articles that factually documented the evidence of Bush's anti-life policies were denounced in the harshest terms possible. To be opposed to President George Walker Bush and Vice President Richard N. Cheney was to opposed all truth itself, revealing oneself to be "self-hating American," of all things. Simple rationality was thrown to the wind, a sign of the goose-stepping fascism associated with all forms of nationalism, an ideology which places the love of one's nation over the love of the true Faith, thus making it a direct violation of the First Commandment (see the appendix below for yet  another recitation of the anti-life record of George Walker Bush).

George W. Bush's anti-life policies were indemnified at almost every turn by Priests for Life and the ill-named National Right to Life Committee. As noted above, many Catholics just looked the other way, subordinating the Faith to the public policy decisions made by a vapid man whose wife urged Americans to engage in allegedly "safe" practices that involve direct violations of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments. The now former president never contradicted his wife, did he?

Oh, yes, there are Catholics aplenty who still look to their secular saviors of the naturalist left to "change" the country and the world. Our current caesar, Barack Hussein Obama, portrayed himself to be the agent of "hope" and "change" forty-seven months ago after he had won the Iowa caucuses on January 3, 2008:

“Last night the people of Iowa put America on the road to change. And in four days’ time, New Hampshire, it is your turn.. . . . They said this day would never come. They said our sights were set too high. They said this country was too divided, too disillusioned to ever come together. But on this January night at this defining moment in history, you have done what the cynics said we couldn’t do.” (Race Upended, Candidates Sprint Toward Tuesday Vote.)

 

Ah, another "defining" moment in history. Obama also said nearly four years ago that he saw a country not of red states or blue states, but of "united" states. I yawned and sighed heavily at the time, shaking my head from side to side as the the Obama supporters at the time, much like the supporters of each of the aforementioned candidates in the past who have been cited above believed, believed that the "better America" and the "better word" depended upon the election of their candidate.

Obama, of course, is still at it. The speech that he delivered at Osawatomie High School in Osawatomie, Kansas, on Tuesday, December 6, 2011, the Feast of Saint Nicholas, was nothing other than a manifesto for socialism, more or less parroting the "New Nationalism" that had been outlined by former President Theodore Roosevelt in Osawatomie, Kansas, on August 31, 1910, sixteen days after Pope Saint Pius X had condemned the political ecumenism of The Sillon in France in Notre Charge Apostolique and just a day before the issuance of The Oath Against Modernism. The crowd in Osawatomie applauded vigorously as Obama defended his "New Socialism," if you will, even though he tried to protect himself against being labeled as a socialist by mocking those who had termed Theodore Roosevelt's "new nationalism" as a socialist manifesto, which, of course, it was.

Consider the fact that Teddy Roosevelt's "new nationalism" included proposals for the enactment and implementation of a national health service and social security (which he termed "social insurance), an inheritance tax and a constitutional amendment to permit Congress to pass and for the Federal government to collect an income tax. Although Theodore Roosevelt's third party run on the "Progressive" or "Bull Moose" Party ticket in 1912 divided the Republican vote between himself and President William Howard Taft, his hand-picked successor and fellow Freemason whose "conservatism" disappointed him no end (Taft was crestfallen that his mentor had rejected him so intensely) and resulted in the election of a penultimate statist and globalist, New Jersey Governor Thomas Woodrow Wilson, it is certainly fair to assert that Wilson's "New Freedom" program was simply Theodore Roosevelt's "New Nationalism" with a different label. Wilson's program was premised upon giving Americans "less government" when it was designed to give them more, and more and more and more is what Wilson gave them between March 4, 1913, and March 4, 1921, by the time he, having been more or less incapacitated from a severe stroke on October 2, 1919, after which time his second wife, Edith Bolling Galt Wilson, effectively served as this country's president to continue her husband's statist ways.

Obama's own Osawatomie Socialist Manifesto included the following elegy of praise for the monster civil state of Modernity that is nothing other than a recrudescence of the brutal tyranny of the caesars over their minions in the Roman Empire:

 

And in 1910, Teddy Roosevelt came here to Osawatomie and he laid out his vision for what he called a New Nationalism. “Our country,” he said, “…means nothing unless it means the triumph of a real democracy…of an economic system under which each man shall be guaranteed the opportunity to show the best that there is in him.” (Applause.)

Now, for this, Roosevelt was called a radical. He was called a socialist -- (laughter) -- even a communist. But today, we are a richer nation and a stronger democracy because of what he fought for in his last campaign: an eight-hour work day and a minimum wage for women -- (applause) -- insurance for the unemployed and for the elderly, and those with disabilities; political reform and a progressive income tax. (Applause.)

Today, over 100 years later, our economy has gone through another transformation. Over the last few decades, huge advances in technology have allowed businesses to do more with less, and it’s made it easier for them to set up shop and hire workers anywhere they want in the world. And many of you know firsthand the painful disruptions this has caused for a lot of Americans. . . .

That’s how America was built. That’s why we’re the greatest nation on Earth. That’s what our greatest companies understand. Our success has never just been about survival of the fittest. It’s about building a nation where we’re all better off. We pull together. We pitch in. We do our part. We believe that hard work will pay off, that responsibility will be rewarded, and that our children will inherit a nation where those values live on. (Applause.)

And it is that belief that rallied thousands of Americans to Osawatomie -- (applause) -- maybe even some of your ancestors -- on a rain-soaked day more than a century ago. By train, by wagon, on buggy, bicycle, on foot, they came to hear the vision of a man who loved this country and was determined to perfect it.

“We are all Americans,” Teddy Roosevelt told them that day. “Our common interests are as broad as the continent.” In the final years of his life, Roosevelt took that same message all across this country, from tiny Osawatomie to the heart of New York City, believing that no matter where he went, no matter who he was talking to, everybody would benefit from a country in which everyone gets a fair chance. (Applause.)

And well into our third century as a nation, we have grown and we’ve changed in many ways since Roosevelt’s time. The world is faster and the playing field is larger and the challenges are more complex. But what hasn’t changed -- what can never change -- are the values that got us this far. We still have a stake in each other’s success. We still believe that this should be a place where you can make it if you try. And we still believe, in the words of the man who called for a New Nationalism all those years ago, “The fundamental rule of our national life,” he said, “the rule which underlies all others -- is that, on the whole, and in the long run, we shall go up or down together.” And I believe America is on the way up. (Applause.) (Remarks by the President on the Economy in Osawatomie, Kansas.)

 

Well, yes, a country filled with loads and loads of people who offend God by means of their unrepentant persistence in behavior that is sinful in the objective order of things, leaving aside subjective culpability to God alone, of course, will go down together. Yes, this is true. Absolutely.

Obviously,  that's not the sense that was meant by the socialist Freemason named Theodore Roosevelt and his Communist cousin, Barack Hussein Obama. Both of these naturalists meant that true national greatness was measured in terms of material well-being in general and, in particular, the supposedly "fair" or "just" distribution of such well-being in the name of "economic equality."

The mania for "equality" is such in Modernity that even Catholics have lost sight of the simple truth that inequality is part of the Order of Creation even before the Fall. The woman, for example, is not the "equal" in authority of the man in a family. The man must exercise his authority with gentleness and love. However, he is one who is possessed with the right from God to govern the family so that it will be well-ordered to the things of Heaven while he fulfills the duties of his state-in-life as a husband and a father.

There is no "equality" of intellect or academic ability or athletic ability or musical or artistic talents.

There is no "equality" of physical strength.

And, ultimately, there is no equality in Heaven. While it is true that each of the souls of elect are as happy as they can be, those who loved God more in this life as members of His true Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order, will enjoy the glory of His Beatific Vision more in Heaven than those who loved Him less than they did in this life. The glory of Heaven is such that no one but God Himself will know he is, qualitatively speaking, happier in Heaven than others. It is a fact, however, that inequality exists even in Heaven. Such is part of the Order of Grace (and Redemption) just as much as it is in the Order of Creation (Nature).

Those of the false opposite of the naturalist "right" simply disagree with the methods employed by the their opposite number in the naturalist "left" to achieve material well-being and how to preserve and expand it. Most of those in the "right," including most of the midget naturalists seeking the Republican Party's 2012 presidential nomination, are slaves of the "money" just as much as Barack Hussein Obama and the lemmings who follow him (see America Still Does Not Realize That Her King Is Beckoning).

Caesar Barackus Obamus Ignoramus has his slavish followers, people who have been so conditioned to see the monster civil state of Modernity as the "solution" to their every need that they will support him entirely, which is why his chances of reelection next year remain very high. Entire generations of Americans have been taught in the concentration camps that are public schools and by the popular culture at large that "government" "owes" it to them to provide for their almost every need when "things" don't go right in their lives.

The midget naturalists of the "right" have their own slavish followers, people who become crestfallen when one of their number falls by the wayside slain in the farce of electoral politics or brought low by their own prideful insistence that they are guiltless of any and all accusations leveled against them by others. Did you see all of the glum faces on the supporters of Herman Cain in Atlanta, Georgia, on Saturday, December 2, 2011, as he announced the suspension of his presidential campaign. It was the same look that has greeted supporters of one failed naturalist fate another (see Wasted Time and Money and Effort) in the past. Indeed, the supporters of Henry Ross Perot looked as though they had just been told that their was no tooth fairy when they learned that their champion had decided on July 16, 1992, not to run for president on an independent line (he changed his mind, of course, on October 1, 1992). And thus it must always be in the world of farcical theater that is the circus of the midget naturalists of naturalism as most people still look for secular saviours to admire and follow.

The desire to find a "secular savior" is a perversion of the desire of the human heart to cling to the Divine Redeemer, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Mere mortals put all of their earthly hopes in other mere mortals, projecting onto them preternatural abilities to "lead" and to "solve" problems caused by Original Sin and Actual Sin and of over five centuries of personal and social rebellion waged against the Social Reign of Christ the King as It must be exercised by His Catholic Church. The human hunger for a savior is so deeply ingrained in the souls of us mortals that those who are devoid of the true Faith wind up creating a false, naturalistic faith in the men, ideas and currents of this passing world, arrogating unto those men the sort of filial obedience that should be rendered unto a true pope and his bishops and priests. The lords of Modernity, therefore, become part of a class of high priests and priestesses who comprise a secular magisterium, in which an active role is played by social scientists, alleged educators, psychologists, social engineers, bankers, population control experts, presidents and boards of not-for-profit corporations, leaders of very much for-profit corporations, lawyers, judges, media commentators and all manner of unelected apparatchiks in the nooks and crannies of governmental bureaucracy.

It is is easy to see, of course, how such filial obedience to the secular saviors of the false opposites of the naturalist "left" and the naturalist "right" will lead most people in the world to follow Antichrist himself when he arrives as the world in which is lived at present is governed by principles and people who are the very antheses of the Divine Redeemer Himself, Christ the King.

For our part, of course, we have been warned by God the Holy Ghost Himself not to put our trust in princes:

[2] Praise the Lord, O my soul, in my life I will praise the Lord: I will sing to my God as long as I shall be. Put not your trust in princes: [3] In the children of men, in whom there is no salvation. [4] His spirit shall go forth, and he shall return into his earth: in that day all their thoughts shall perish. [5] Blessed is he who hath the God of Jacob for his helper, whose hope is in the Lord his God:

[6] Who made heaven and earth, the sea, and all things that are in them. [7] Who keepeth truth for ever: who executeth judgment for them that suffer wrong: who giveth food to the hungry. The Lord looseth them that are fettered: [8] The Lord enlighteneth the blind. The Lord lifteth up them that are cast down: the Lord loveth the just. [9] The Lord keepeth the strangers, he will support the fatherless and the widow: and the ways of sinners he will destroy. [10] The Lord shall reign for ever: thy God, O Sion, unto generation and generation. (Psalm 145: 2-10.)

 

The world in which we live has been shaped by forces that have been and continue to be precursors of Antichrist, the "anti-savior," if you will. Saint Anthony Mary Claret recognized this in the middle of the Nineteenth Century:

On Christmas Day God infused into me the love of persecution and calumnies. . . . I dreamed I was imprisoned for a crime of which I was innocent. . . . To one who would have defended me, as St. Peter wished to defend Our Savior, I said: 'Shall I not drink the chalice my Father has given me?'

"On January 6, 1859, Our Lord made known to me that I am like the earth . . . which is trampled upon, yet doesn't speak. I, too, must be trodden underfoot and say nothing. The earth suffers cultivation. I must suffer mortification. Finally, to produce anything, the earth needs water; I, for the performance of good works, divine grace."

How consoling it must have been to hear Jesus promise him divine love, while tenderly addressing him as: "My little Anthony"--on April 27, 1859! And how he strove, ever harder, to obey his Redeemer's injunction, given at 4:25 a.m., on September 4, of that same year: "You have to teach your missionaries mortification, Anthony," to which, a few moments later, Our Lady added, "Thus will you reap fruit in souls, Anthony!"

And, now conditioned to receive supernatural messages in precise words and audible tones, and when they were precepts, to obey perfectly, he was ready for the most glorious promise and the most portentous revelation of all. "At 7:30 on the morning of September 23, Our Lord told me: 'You will fly across the earth . . . to preach of the immense chastisements soon to come to pass.' And He gave me to understand those words of the Apocalypse: 'And I behold and heard the voice of one eagle flying through the midst of heaven, saying with a a loud voice: Woe, woe, woe, to the inhabitants of the earth; by reason of the rest of the voices of the three angels who are yet to sound the trumpet.' this meant that the three great judgments of God that are going to fall upon the world are: 1) Protestantism and Communism; 2) the four archdemons who will,in a truly frightful manner, incite all to the love of pleasure, money, reason and independence of will; 3) the great wars with their horrible consequences."

Can we read this prophecy, set down for us a century ago, just when our world was entering upon the "golden age" of industry and commerce, of the scientific achievement that our grandfathers were assured was destined to create a life so good for all peoples that war would be banished forever, and doubt from whence it came? And do we dare to trace it from the Protestant Reformation to the curse of Communism; from the conquest of materialism to the deification of poor weak human reason and self-determination into "the great wars and their horrible consequences"! Upon the clean tablet of Anthony Claret's selfless spirit Our Lord engraved the warning His servant was to spell out for us" the incredible but inevitable graph of the "progress" of one century--our century! (Franchon Royer, The Life of St. Anthony Mary Claret, published originally in 1957 by Farrar, Straus and Cudahy, and republished by TAN Books and Publishers, 1985, pp. 211-213.)

 

This is a perfect description of what most Americans, including most Catholics, believe that can be effected by the naturalistic farce that is partisan politics. Most people want the restoration of economic well-being without realizing that what we are enduring at the present moment is but a small down payment on the chastisements that have yet to be visited upon us.

Some continue to ask me why I keep writing on this subject when so few people agree with me, when so many people get so angry with me for pointing out simple, irrefutable facts and explain them in light of the immutable teaching of the Catholic Church. My mission, ladies and gentlemen, has never been to be popular. I could have kept my mouth shut about the Faith in the college classroom, as one priest in the conciliar structures told me to do in the 1990s, believe it or not, and have stayed out of the public arena altogether, never running for public office and never writing any articles about the Faith. I could have obtained tenure in one of the college teaching positions that I held if I had done so.

Sinner that I am, however, I have always recognized that I must speak to the truth, that it truly does not profit a man to gain the whole world (or even part of it--elected office, tenure, career success, popularity) and suffer the loss of his own soul. Whether or not people agree with me now or get angry with me is completely irrelevant. It is my hope and prayer that these articles will help others in the future, those who are removed from the passions and irrationality of a given moment, to see the world more clearly through the eyes of the true Faith and to become apostles for the Social Reign of Christ the King and Mary our Immaculate Queen without believing in the illusion of secular salvation, whether from the naturalist right or from the naturalist left. My goal is to die in a state of Sanctifying Grace as a member of the Catholic Church, hoping that the work done in behalf of Christ the King and Mary our Immaculate Queen will help to pay back a small portion of the huge debt that I owe to God as a result of my sins. And I mean this with all of my heart. This is why this work continues despite the lack of donations and all of the financial hardships that my dear, dear and most pure wife suffers with me most willingly and gladly.

Those who are open to considering the perspectives put forth on this site will continue to do so. Those who are not open will never be convinced to abandon their precious "activism" that never "changes" anything and winds up wasting the time, energy, money and effort of thousands upon thousands of people. As was noted a few days ago, praying the Rosary is not "doing nothing." Enthroning your home to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary is not "doing nothing." Learning more about the true and most binding Social Teaching of the Catholic Church is not "doing nothing." Passing this teaching on to your children and grandchildren is not "doing nothing." Passing out Green Scapulars (Our Lady did, cynics take note, please, want Green Scapulars distributed to everyone, thank you very much, to effect their conversion to the true Faith) to those whom God's Providence places in our paths each day is not "doing nothing" (my own wife converted to the Faith before I met her as a result of a Green Scapular her only Catholic sister gave her when she, my wife, was but a poor pagan confused about the purpose of human existence). Passing out blessed Rosaries with Rosary instructional booklets to fallen away Catholics is not "doing nothing." Inviting someone to assist at a true offering of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the catacombs where no concessions are made to conciliarism or to its false shepherds is not "doing nothing." Spending time before Our Beloved in His Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament is not "doing nothing."

We must think supernaturally, never once thinking that the subordination of the Faith to a particular political candidate serves any objective good at all. Indeed, such a subordination is from the devil and reaffirms people in a path that might lead them and their nations straightaway into Hell itself.

Saint Anthony Mary Claret was given the correct path, the one that we must trod, by the Blessed Mother herself:

On various other occasions during that perplexing year [1857] which had brought him home to Spain, he had been blessed by direct messages--in words--from the Blessed Mother. In October: "Now you know; be sorry for the sins of your pat life, and watchful in the future. . . . Do you hear me, Anthony? Be watchful in the future. This is what I have to say to you." And later: "You must be the Dominic of these times in propagating devotion to the Rosary."  (Franchon Royer, The Life of St. Anthony Mary Claret, published originally in 1957 by Farrar, Straus and Cudahy, and republished by TAN Books and Publishers, 1985, p. 211.)

 

 

With total trust in Our Lady and her Most Chaste Spouse, Saint Joseph, the Patron of the Universal Church and the Protector of the Faithful, may we pray as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit so that all men everywhere will live and work and pray with hearts united to the Most Sacred Heart and Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary in one exclamation:

 

Viva Cristo Rey!

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.

 

Appendix

The George Walker Bush "Pro-Life" Record Myth Exploded Again

1. Bush 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 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 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 did 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 forbade 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.