As Blind Now As He Has Ever Been
by Thomas A. Droleskey
There were times during the administration of the most recent caesar emeritus of the United States of America when all manner of morons and other nincompoops accused me of "supporting Democrats" because of my incessant, unrelenting criticism of the "compassionate statist," I mean, "conservative" (how foolish of me), George Walker Bush.
These morons and nincompoops either had short memories or they were entirely ignorant of the fact that scores upon scores of articles of mine were published in The Wanderer and, for about fifteen months or so, in The Arlington Catholic Herald during the administration of the caesar of ill repute in the 1990s, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton. One of those articles, published in early-1994, got some organization at the University of Dayton to withdraw an invitation that had been made to then First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, a full-throated pro-abort, of course, from speaking at that university, which is run by the Society of Mary (the Marianists). Although Mrs. Clinton had not accepted the invitation, it was a scandal, at least in my mind, that she had been invited to speak at the University of Dayton. I was unrelenting in my criticism of the administration of President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton and Vice President Albert Arnold Gore, Jr.
Others of my critics during the years of George Walker Bush and Richard Bruce Cheney had forgotten--or perhaps never cared to do know--that I did my own academic career no favor whatsoever when running for lieutenant governor of the State of New York in 1986 on the Right to Life Party line with the recently deceased Denis Dillon, who was the district attorney of the County of Nassau, New York, from January 1, 1975, to December 31, 2005. No, the only thing that mattered the myopic critics was that I criticized the "pro-life" Bush the Lesser, whose actual anti-life record was documented yet again in an appendix that I posted at the end of Written In Sand two days ago now.
Perhaps the one hundred fifty articles or so that I have written in criticism of Barack Hussein Obama since January of 2008 have "redeemed" me in the eyes of those critics. Perhaps not. I really do not care. However, I wanted to remind the few readers of this site that this article, which focuses on the idiocy of the most recent member of the Caesars Emeritus club, George Walker Bush, is thoroughly consistent with the criticisms that I have leveled at "Bush 43" since he announced his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination in 1999.
With the carnage of innocent human beings, including Iraq's tiny population of Catholics, continuing in the country that Bush the Lesser believes that he "liberated" on March 20, 2003, I am not going to sit back and say, "Yes, I miss the likable George Walker Bush." While I pray every day for his conversion to the true Faith, I do not miss George Walker Bush, whose own failed domestic and foreign policies made possible the presidential election of a freshman United States Senator from the State of Illinois, Barack Hussein Obama, whose only real "achievement" up until that time was that he was impressed with his own personal aura. Never forget that it was George Walker Bush's failed policies that made his own brand of naturalism anathema to the voters as they punished his Republican Party in 2006 and 2008 before turning on the current caesar three days ago because of his policy failures, voting for Republicans in spite of how they helped to enable the Bush deficits and the Bush wars from January 20, 2001, to January 20, 2009.
Former President George Walker Bush's new book, Decision Points, reveals that he is absolutely unrepentant about the bloody chaos that he unleashed in Iraq following the unjust and immoral invasion of that sovereign country by American troops under his command on March 20, 2003:
For the most part, Mr. Bush offers a strong defense of his presidency, declaring that his decision to invade Iraq was the right one because “America is safer without a homicidal dictator pursuing” biological or chemical weapons and “the Iraqi people are better off with a government that answers to them instead of torturing and murdering them.” (Bush Considered Dropping Cheney From 2004 Ticket.)
The late dictator of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, was never a threat to the security of the United States of America. He was a typical despot who was woefully ignorant of he outside world. The murderous despots who govern Red China have killed over thirty-five million people (and that's a low estimate, see
Table 1.2 ) since the late President Chiang Kai-Shek's government was overthrown in 1949 by the murderous forces of the maniacal Communist named Mao Tse-Tung. These murderous despots pose a real military and economic threat to the security and even survival of the United States of America.
George Walker Bush did not go to war with Red China as it has a military force that can fight back with real, honest-to-goodness nuclear weapons.
George Walker Bush did not go to war with Red China because multinational corporations that have allegiance to no nation, including the United States of America, make lots and lots of lots of money off of the virtual slave labor in that country.
George Walker Bush did not go to war with Red China as most American manufacturing jobs have been exported there to take advantage of that virtual slave labor.
George Walker Bush did not go to war with Red China because it was not in the interests of the State of Israel, whose willing client George Walker Bush was as he mortgaged American lives and the future economic security of this country to try to create an environment in the Middle East that would "protect" "America's only ally in the Mideast," Israel, whose leaders, of course, have much innocent blood on their hands in the past sixty-two years.
George Walker Bush, avoiding all careful policy reviews that need to be undertaken before prosecuting a just war, went by his "gut" to invade Iraq, and he is as blind now to the truth of the great moral responsibility that he bears on his immortal soul for the bloodletting that continues there as he was in 2002 and early 2003 that Saddam Hussein posed no real, imminent or legitimate threat to any national security interests of the United States of America:
Many books by reporters and former insiders have delineated the Bush administration as given to improvisatory decision making, wary of the traditional processes of policy review and inclined to favor loyalty over expertise. In “The Assassins’ Gate,” the New Yorker writer George Packer quoted Richard N. Haass, a former director of policy planning in the State Department, saying that a real weighing of pros and cons about the Iraq war never took place. And in “The Next Attack” Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon wrote that planning efforts for the war were often not coordinated, that many officials were working out of channels, “issuing directives without ever having their plans scrubbed in the kind of tedious, iterative process that the government typically uses to make sure it is ready for any contingency.”
n many respects this volume ratifies such observations. Mr. Bush, famous for being a “gut player,” writes that in assessing candidates for administration jobs, he looked at “character and personality” in an effort to create a culture that “fostered loyalty — not to me, but to the country and our ideals.” In 2006 an aide told him that “several people had spontaneously used the same unflattering term to describe the White House structure,” he writes. “It started with ‘cluster’ and ended with four more letters.” And he writes about “squabbling within the national security team” and how “nothing worked” to cool these turf battles, including his own talks with Mr. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, Vice President Dick Cheney and the national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.
Despite the eagerness of Mr. Bush to portray himself as a forward-leaning, resolute leader, this volume sometimes has the effect of showing the former president as both oddly passive and strangely cavalier.
For instance Mr. Bush writes about the failures to contain deteriorating security conditions in Iraq, continuing fights between the Pentagon and State Department, and his frustrations with Mr. Rumsfeld. But while he says that he had “planned to make a change at Defense as part of a new national security team” in 2004, he adds that he simply couldn’t come up with a replacement for Mr. Rumsfeld. He considered and rejected the ideas of putting Ms. Rice or Senator Joseph I. Lieberman in the job, and was rebuffed by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, who “was enjoying his retirement.”
The situation in Iraq continued to deteriorate over the next two years with more and more soldiers and civilians getting killed and wounded, and in the spring of 2006 a group of retired generals spoke out against Mr. Rumsfeld. “While I was still considering a personnel change,” Mr. Bush writes, “there was no way I was going to let a group of retired officers bully me into pushing out the civilian secretary of defense. It would have looked like a military coup and would have set a disastrous precedent.”
And so Mr. Rumsfeld stayed on in the job until an old friend of Mr. Bush’s from high school and college (whom he had appointed to the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board) suggested Robert M. Gates as a replacement. “Why hadn’t I thought of Bob?” Mr. Bush wonders. (George W. Bush's Memoir 'Decision Points' - Review.)
As I noted consistently in the printed pages of Christ or Chaos and in The Remnant back in 2002 and 2003 before the American invasion and occupation of Iraq began, not one of the conditions necessary for the prosecution of a just war were met. None had even been considered as they did not matter to the "gut" player who used to play video golf, of all things, for an hour a day when he was Governor of the State Texas, from January 17, 1995, to December 21, 2000, George Walker Bush.
George Walker Bush does not realize--and he does not care--that he is morally responsible for the empowering of hordes of Mohammedan thugs in Iraq who were kept under wraps by Saddam Hussein as a gangster, which is what Hussein was, does not want rival gangs muscling in on his territory. George Walker Bush does not realize--and he does not care--that he is morally responsible for blood that Iraqi Catholics continue to shed in attacks that neither his administration or that of his successor, Barack Hussein Obama, have cared to acknowledge out of fear of offending the fragile coalition of Mohammedans that pretends to govern the "liberated" Iraq at this time:
BAGHDAD — Blood still smeared the walls of Our Lady of Salvation Church on Monday. Scraps of flesh remained between the pews. It was the worst massacre of Iraqi Christians since the war began here in 2003.
But for survivors, the tragedy went deeper than the toll of the human wreckage: A fusillade of grenades, bullets and suicide vests had unraveled yet another thread of the country’s once eclectic fabric.
“We’ve lost part of our soul now,” said Rudy Khalid, a 16-year-old Christian who lived across the street. He shook his head. “Our destiny, no one knows what to say of it.”
The massacre, in which 58 people were killed by an affiliate of Al Qaeda, paled before the worst spectacles of violence in Iraq. Since the American invasion, tens of thousands have died here — Sunni and Shiite Muslims — and few of the deaths generated the outrage expressed Monday.
Iraq was once a remarkable mélange of beliefs, customs and traditions; the killings on Sunday drew another border in a nation defined more by war, occupation and deprivation. Identities have hardened; diversity has faded. Nearly all of Iraq’s Jews left long ago, many harassed by a xenophobic government. Iraq’s Christians have dwindled; once numbering anywhere between 800,000 and 1.4 million, at least half are thought to have emigrated since 2003, their leaders say.
“They came to kill Iraq, not Iraqis,” said Bassam Sami, who huddled in a room for four hours before security forces managed to free him. “They came to kill the spirit of Iraq. They came to kill the reason to live, every dream that you want to make true.”
Down the street was Mr. Khalid, as upset as he was anxious at a country that seems to grasp at the mirage of normalcy, fleeting as it might be, only to turn away in disgust at the resilience of violence.
“No one has any answers for us,” he said.
On the morning after security forces stormed the Syrian Catholic church, freeing hostages but leaving far more dead and wounded behind, there were no answers. Not in the statements of outrage from Iraqi leaders, themselves blamed for the dysfunction of the Iraqi state. Not from Pope Benedict XVI, who condemned the “absurd and ferocious violence.” Not from security officials, whose accounts contradicted one another’s and prompted suggestions they might have inadvertently worsened the carnage.
Most of all, not from the survivors, one of whom said the gunmen who seized the church on Sunday evening had only one task in mind.
“They came to kill, kill, kill,” Mr. Sami said.
Not even the police who stood guard at the church, its doors barricaded with barbed wire and its walls lined with roses, orange trees and a plant Iraqis call “the ears of an elephant,” knew quite what to say. One discouraged anyone from entering the shattered doors, under a portico that celebrated the glory of God “on the land of peace.”
“Blood, flesh and bones,” he described the scene. “You can’t bear the smell.”
Knots of survivors, as well as their friends and relatives, stood in the street amid bullet casings and bandage wrappers, some of them crying. The Rev. Meyassr al-Qasboutros, a priest, was among them. His cousin, Wassim Sabih, was one of the two priests killed. Survivors said Father Sabih was pushed to the ground as he grasped a crucifix and pleaded with the gunmen to spare the worshipers.
He was then killed, his body riddled with bullets.
“We must die here,” Father Qasboutros said defiantly. “We can’t leave this country.”
Some survivors echoed his sentiments.
“If we didn’t love this country, we wouldn’t have stayed here,” said Radi Climis, an 18-year-old who wore a floppy bandage on his forehead, where he was wounded by shrapnel from a grenade thrown by the gunmen.
But many others looked in disbelief when asked whether they would stay in a place still so unsettled, so dangerous.
“Why? That’s no question to ask,” said Stephen Karomi, who had come to Baghdad a day before from Qaraqosh, a troubled Christian town in the north. “Everyone wants to leave for one reason: to protect ourselves and to keep our sanity.” (Church Attack Seen as Strike at Iraq's Core; it is interesting to note that this article was originally titled as "Church Attack Seen as Strike at Iraq's Soul" before someone at the august New York Times decided to delete the word "soul." Ah, yes, the unbigoted "left.")
What I wrote in March of 2008 on this site in bears repeating now in light of the latest round of killings of our fellow Catholics in Iraq that do not matter at all to the American policy-makers who created the chaos in this ancient land:
Ah, but the masses of deluded "pro-life" Americans want to convince themselves that "progress" has been made. It has not. Indeed, George Walker Bush has been a moral disaster as the President of the United States of America, a man who has not only presided over an increase of funding for--and expansion of the availability of--abortifacient contraceptives but unleashed a needless, immoral and unjust invasion of a sovereign nation while providing the American public with misleading information about the "evidence" supposedly linking Iraq's now executed dictator Saddam Hussein, a brutal thug in his own right, to be sure, with al-Qaeda and about Hussein's alleged "stockpile" of "weapons of mass destruction." Death and destruction has been visited upon a people whose government posed no legitimate threat to American national security, subjecting American military personnel to injury and death for no good reason as families of National Guardsmen were torn asunder and as the American treasury was pillaged to pay contracting firms, many of whose executives had ties to officials in the Bush administration, to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure that was destroyed by the American bombs which were paid for by American taxpayers. As has been noted on other occasions on this site, the rebuilding of Iraq's infrastructure has been so slipshod that more millions upon millions of American dollars have had to be spent to rebuild the rebuilding process in many places.
The American invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003, nearly five years ago now, displaced a tyrant responsible, most estimates indicate, for around 1.5 million deaths during the thirty-four years or so of his rule in Iraq. Some of those deaths occurred as a result of a stockpile of biological and chemical weapons that the administration of President Ronald Wilson Reagan sold to Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War. Reagan's Middle East Envoy, a chap by the name of Donald D. Rumsfeld, arranged for this sale in a visit to Iraq on December 20, 1983:
Shaking Hands: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983. (National Security Archive, http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ There is an interesting, fact-based article, replete with links to national security documents, available at: Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein.)
Hussein stockpiled the weapons sold to him by the United Sates of America, choosing not to use them in the war against Iran, which did not end until 1988, and used them instead on the Kurds in northern Iraq following the conclusion of the Persian Gulf War in 1991, a war that was launched to expel Iraq's forces from a country, Kuwait, which Hussein believed that American Ambassador April Glaspie on July 25, 1990, had signaled to him was not of significant enough interest for the United States of America to do anything other than express a verbal condemnation in its behalf should he, Hussein, decide to reclaim Iraqi land that was taken away from it following the end of World War I.
Thus it is that the former American "ally" during the era of the Iran-Iraq War, Saddam Hussein, became the focal point of President George Walker Bush's "axis of evil" in 2001, 2002 and 2003 leading up to the American invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003. A man, George Walker Bush, who had said when he was running for President of the United States of American in the year 2000 that he was opposed to efforts to engage in "regime change" and nation-building" did exactly this in Iraq to do the bidding of the State of Israel at the behest of the war-mongering neoconservatives who believed that they could remake the Middle East in a manner that would "help" the Zionists in Israel to crush all opposition to their hegemonic schemes of regional control.
This is what I wrote in November of 2002 about the then impending invasion of Iraq:
The principle of proportionality contained in the Just War Theory requires a very careful and prayerful prudential judgment to be made by a policy-maker prior to the advent of war. This is not a matter of infallibly received truth. This is a judgment that has got to be based on a clear-headed and most realistic assessment of the harm that will be caused by the onset of armed hostilities. The impending war with Iraq will cause far more harm than good, as I outlined in my previous section. Rather than making us more secure, we will be less secure. We will contribute to the furtherance of anti-American sentiment around the world, and will contribute to deteriorating, not improving, the situation within Iraq itself. How many truly innocent Iraqis must die to liberate their country of a man who is far less of a threat to them on a daily basis than American "freedom" is to unborn children every day in this country?
(The Real Enemies Are Within, Part One and
The Real Enemies are Within, Part Two. This excerpt came from part two.)
Please, go tell the Iraqi people that George Walker Bush was the "lesser of two evils." Despite the much vaunted "surge" of overtaxed American forces last year, death and destruction are being dealt upon innocent civilians in Iraq on a daily basis. Sure, Saddam Hussein was a tyrant. As bad as he was, however, he killed the same amount of people during a reign of over thirty years as are killed in this country on an annual basis by means of surgical abortions alone, not counting the millions more who die as a result of abortifacient contraceptives and embryonic stem cell research and in vitro fertilization. Hussein was not allied with al-Qaeda. The last thing that an organized crime head such as Hussein wants is a potential rival to power, which is why Iraq's borders were sealed shut to the likes of al-Qaeda until after the American invasion in 2003 made those borders as porous as the border between the United States of America and the United States of Mexico.
This is what I wrote on this subject ten months ago [that is, in May of 2007]:
Men who reject the Social Kingship of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ never learn from history. Indeed, they believe that they are immune to past mistakes, arrogating unto themselves an air of infallibility and invincibility that deifies their every decision as beyond criticism. Woodrow Wilson did this during World War I, attempting to silence critics with a variety of unjust and even unconstitutional laws and policies that prompted Senator Hiram Johnson (R-California) to remark in 1917:
"It is now a crime for anyone to say anything or print anything against the government of the United States. The punishment for doing so is to go to jail." (quoted in Paul Johnson, A History of the American People.)
Hiram Johnson also noted that "the first casualty when war comes, is truth," an observation that is certainly applicable today as the Bush administration keeps sending American military personnel into the midst of a civil war between various bands of Mohammedans that has no relationship to American national security whatsoever.
A power vacuum in Iraq was created by the insane dreamers who overthrew a despotic thug without realizing that other despots would replace him by means of the ballot box to seek revenge upon the supporters of the now-hanged thug (Saddam Hussein). Borders that were closed tight to Shiite and al-Qaeda operatives have been blow wide open. Thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians have been killed by American bombs and by the carnage that has been unleashed as a result of the unjust American invasion and occupation. Iraq's infrastructure was destroyed and the efforts by American war profiteers, who have been paid by American taxpayer dollars, to reconstruct that infrastructure have been proved to be so shoddy that it is necessary to finance the reconstruction of the reconstruction in many instances. Basic services such as electricity and water are hard to find in areas where they were once plentiful and easy available. Billions of dollars generated by Iraq's oil industry are missing, plundered by the new caste of leaders who are repeating Hussein's own crimes. Iraq's Catholics and members of the various Orthodox sects, both of whom were enjoyed great social mobility during the Hussein regime, are being persecuted with special ferocity that seems not to faze Bush and Cheney in the slightest. Oh, yes, "the first casualty when war comes, is truth." For war that is waged on the basis of the pursuit of the ever-illusory belief that man can forge "peace" and "order without submitting himself to the Deposit of Faith that Our Lord has entrusted solely to the Catholic Church and without having belief in, access to and cooperation with Sanctifying Grace is itself a monstrous lie that winds up worsening conditions and embittering the hearts of men.
Saddam Hussein had a vested interest to protect the lives and the rights of Eastern rite Catholics in Iraq. As a secular Mohammedan, Hussein's Baath Party and his clan from Tikrit mattered far more to him than making Iraq into what it has become, a stronghold of Shiite Mohammedanism that has pitted Shiites against the Sunnis in pitched battles that were impossible during his brutal, autocratic rule (just as Josip Broz Tito held the warring ethnic and religious factions in the artificial entity known as Yugoslavia together by brute force until his own death in 1980, at which point the Balkans began to collapse and then dissolve into warfare and "ethnic cleansing," following by William Jefferson Blythe Clinton's NATO intervention and bombing of Serbia in behalf of the Mohammedans in Bosnia and Kosovo). Catholics are protected in Iraq no more. Their ranks have been decimated by the largely unreported, at least in the Western press, of attacks upon them by Mohammedans (that "religion of peace" George W. Bush, the "lesser of the two evils," keeps talking about) and by the exodus of many thousands of them into other Middle Eastern countries to flee from the violence and destruction.
So it is that the Chaldean Catholic Archbishop of Mosul, the Most Reverend
Paulos Faraj Rahho, was kidnapped on February 29, 2008. His body was found in Mosul on Wednesday, March 12, 2008. Leaving aside the late Archbishop's association with the counterfeit church of conciliarism (issues of survival in Iraq have taken precedence over issues of the Faith about which we have been so greatly and so rightly concerned here in the West), he was killed for his Faith in Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and for being a visible representative of the Catholic Church in Iraq. He was targeted because he was a Catholic, a true bishop of an ancient and venerable Eastern rite of the Catholic Church, whose episcopal lineage was entirely of the Chaldean rite. We must pray for the repose of the immortal soul of Archbishop Rahho and for the safety of other Catholics throughout Iraq as the madness--and there is no other word for it other than madness--unleashed by the United States of America continues unabated.
Oh, there are those who will say that the United States has launched a war against "Islamo-fascism," which is nothing other than an empty slogan. How can the United States presence in Iraq be considered a "crusade" against "Islamo-fascism" when it is believing, practicing Mohammedans of the Shiite sect who have more or less "winked" at the civil war taking place between Shiites and Sunnis and as Catholics and members of Orthodox sects are being harassed and shot at and killed, their stores and homes burned to the ground in many instances. There was no legitimate reason to destabilize the country of Iraq.
This is what was written on this site not even three months ago [in December of 2007, that is]:
Monies spent to make Americans "more secure" have gone to undergirding regimes that are as corrupt and only slightly more tyrannical than that of the United States of America, where the exercise of tyranny is masked under the usual fascist guises of "national security," patriotism" and the newer slogan of "the global war of terror." All the while, you see, Catholics in Iraq and Pakistan and elsewhere in the Mohammedan world have been put more at risk and subjected to all manner of persecution without too many words of concern, no less, protest emanating from Washington, District of Columbia, United States of America.
Oh, well, why should there be any protests over the plight of Catholics in the Mohammedan world in the wake of the American invasion of Iraq, which is not a "crusade" against Mohammedanism or "Islamo-fascism," by the way. George W. Bush has gone out of his way to call Mohammedanism a "religion of peace." The American invasion ousted a corrupt secular Mohammedan dictator and replaced him with equally corrupt religious Mohammedans who fight with each other as they squander American aid money and do little to stop sectarian violence or to come to a meaningful, enforceable agreement on sharing the nation's oil wealth, oblivious to the suffering of Iraq's Catholic community. Please, the the "global war on terror" is not a "Christian" crusade against Mohammedanism. Far from it. If it were, ladies and gentlemen, there wouldn't be such silence in the wake of the persecution of Catholics in Iraq, now would there?
Alas, Mohammedan violence against Catholics is tolerated by the government of the United States of America because it needs someone in Iraq to fill the power vacuum caused by the ouster of Saddam Hussein. Remember, the government of the United States of America was actually complicit in the slaughter of over a quarter of a million Catholics in Mexico in the 1920s and 1930s. The government of the United States of American saw to it that Protestant "churches" and Masonic lodges were started in Catholic lands following its victory in the unjust and immoral Spanish-American War, taking untold numbers of souls out of the Church in the name of American "civil" and "religious" liberty. And the government of the United States of America was mostly deaf, dumb and blind to the plight of Maronite Rite Catholics in Iraq in 2006 as the forces of Zionism bombed their homes in Lebanon, displacing nearly a million of them in the process with hardly a word of this moral disaster being reported by the "mainstream" media. The government of the United States of America will only rarely criticize something done by their Zionist puppeteers in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. How ironic it is that Mohammedan violence against Catholics must now be tolerated in order to do the bidding of the Zionists in the creation of the "democratic" Iraq!
American lives have been wasted in this effort to build "peace and security" on the basis of war conducted under false premises and designed to pursue illusory objectives. American families have been torn apart for months and years on end as their loved ones, including mothers of children who had signed up to serve in the National Guard (which exists to deal with emergencies of various levels in the fifty states and, as a last resort, in other parts of the nation if pressed into service for that purpose), have served in Iraq or been deprived of their fathers because of long stints in rehabilitation centers following injuries sustained in Iraq. Although figures vary, estimates of the Iraqis killed since 2003 range from 300,000 to 600,000, a third of these having been caused by the invading/occupying forces. The American invasion of Iraq has been nothing other than a moral disaster from beginning to end, especially when one considers the war upon souls that the invaders' government unleashed in 2003 when sending in "family planning" information and pills and devices almost immediately in the aftermath of the invasion itself. Ah, yes, American "liberation." American "civil liberty." Americanism will solve all, right?
No. Catholicism is the foundation of personal and social order. Nothing else.
Compounding this moral disaster is the fact that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI believes that the solution to conflicts in the Mohammedan world is for Mohammedan states to embrace the conciliar concept of "religious liberty" that is considered to be an "obligation" in an irreversibly "pluralist" world. While there are some secular and religious Mohammedan intellectuals who may agree with such an approach, at least on some level or another, the plain fact of the matter is that efforts to convince Mohammedans to adopt the heretical notion of "religious liberty" will never succeed. Most believing Mohammedans in Mohammedan countries (yes, even in those Mohammedan countries that are more secular than Iran, for example) do not accept pluralism of any kind. Public displays of Christian symbols are forbidden in Saudi Arabia, where the oligarchs who enjoy their oil wealth do not want to offend mullahs who could arouse enough people to rise up and send them off to exile. The spirit of Gaudium et Spes and Dignitatis Humanae is not coming to a Mohammedan nation anytime soon.
Indeed, Ratzinger/Benedict shows himself to be a driven man by the way that he promotes "religious liberty" and "healthy secularity," extolling the pluralism of the United States of America as the "model" for the rest of the world. He has an evangelical zeal for these false concepts. Imagine if he had true apostolic zeal to seek with urgency the conversion of those who are steeped in false religions, including those, such as Talmudic Judaism and Mohammedanism and Hinduism and Buddhism and animism, whose adherents have souls that are steeped in the ravages of Original Sin, inclining them all the more to engage in acts of violence and to hate others rather than to forgive past injuries and to will their good. No, Ratzinger/Benedict must adhere to the iron-laws of conciliarism just as any other revolutionary must cling to his ossified formulas long after their false premises have been exploded and been proven to be harmful for men and their nations. Ratzinger/Benedict must mouth Judeo-Masonic platitudes about "brotherhood" and "solidarity" while refusing repeatedly to explain to non-Catholic leaders who visit him (yes, I know, another non-Catholic leader) that Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order.
Alas, one cannot give what he does not possess. As Joseph Ratzinger does not believe that Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order, you see, he is incapable of exhorting others to accept the true Faith. The Prince of Peace need not apply for the rights of absolute exclusivity as the one and only means of personal and social order.
As a true conciliar revolutionary committed to false ecumenism and inter-religious "dialogue," Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI believes that it is "enough" for Catholics to have a "place" in the marketplace of ideas. A permanent place in the "marketplace" of ideas is not "good enough" for God.
While, as Pope Leo XIII noted in Libertas, June 20, 1888, the Catholic Church will adapt herself to the "marketplace" to make use of it for her own purposes of evangelization, she does so without making any concessions to an inherent human right of those steeped in errors to propagate their false beliefs. She will tolerate false beliefs in those situations where she lacks any authority to suppress them. She never halts her efforts, however, to convert men and their nations to the true Faith. The "marketplace" can be used to the Church's advantage over time. It is not an end in and of itself to which Catholics must accommodate themselves, thereby dismissing the obligation of the civil state to recognize the true Church and accord her the favor and the protection of the laws. The Catholic Church has always insisted that she is the sole means by which human beings can know about God and the sole means by which their souls may be sanctified so as to have dwelling within them the graces won for them by the very Prince of Peace Himself and that flow into their hearts and souls through the loving hands of His Most Blessed Mother.(The Prince of Peace Need Not Apply.)
Both George Walker Bush and Barack Hussein Obama are blind to this truth: The path of true peace, that of the Divine Redeemer, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, runs through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, not through the illusory and delusional promises made by candidates for public office of the two major organized crime families in the United States of America, the Democrat Party and the Republican Party.
There is, as I indicated in When Lesser is Greater in January of 2008, no such thing as a "lesser" evil as the false opposites of the naturalist "right" and the naturalist "left" contend with each other to see who can be the better statist, who can be the better at using the brute power of American imperialism or the surrender of American national sovereignty to Judeo-Masonic international organizations to achieve "peace" and "security." Both the Republicans and Democrats are but two sides of the same naturalistic, religiously indifferentist, anti-Incarnational and semi-Pelagian coin. Anyone who thinks that enabling either of these two sets of naturalists will produce social order is sadly mistaken.
And how many people were jubilant over the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Bush v. Gore on December 12, 2000? Such people had no reason to be jubilant as anyone who was informed about the truth knew that there was no essential difference between the statist George Walker Bush and the statist Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., just as there is little essential difference between the Republicans and Democrats who will serve in the 112th Congress as each of them without any exception at all believes that it is possible to build the "better" world absent a due subordination to the Deposit of Faith as It has been revealed to us by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and entrusted by Him, Christ the King, to His true Church for Its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication.
Catholicism is the one and only foundation of social order. Anyone who does not believe this is part of the problem, not part of any "solution" to restore this or any other country.
The Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary is the path to personal and social peace. Hasn't Our Lady herself told us so in her Fatima Message? Shouldn't we pray as many Rosaries each day as our states in life permit and also add the devotion of her Seven Dolors to our daily spiritual life if we have not done so already? We must stand by the foot of the Cross of the Divine Redeemer, Christ the King, as we seek to make reparation for our own sins and those of the whole world.
Father Frederick Faber alluded to this in The Foot of the Cross:
Lastly, we must say a few words of the measures and dimensions of her Compassion. We have drawn such a picture of it as we are able. It not only falls far below the truth, but it sensibly falls fall below the real image of it in our own minds. A thousand unexpressed thoughts are teasing us at this moment, but the difficulty is how to express them fitly. Words do not seem to be measures for them. They are thoughts of love; and love does not speak; it burns. Moreover, there must be limits to all things except loving. There are not limits there. Love is an eternal work. Love alone can measure the Compassion of Mary. Think of the sufferings of Jesus. They open at our feet like a huge abyss. Can we fathom their dreadful depths? Or do we not rather shrink in conscious nothingness from a task so hopeless and so rash? Yet Mary's Compassion contains that world-wide abyss, measures it, and holds its miraculously within its own dimensions. It we speak of the beauty of Jesus, straightway the vision of a shoreless sea, which no horizon bounds, over which the sun is rising and setting at the same moment, the half disk sunken in the west already rising in the east, and the waters rolling on and on for evermore. Yet as are the waters of that beauty, so were the waters of Mary's bitterness. By an opposite miracle to that of Moses, the wood of the Cross thrown into those waters of beauty has converted them into bitterness. If we think of men's cruelty in the Passion, it is a mystery nearer to our understanding; yet it is not that nearness almost an infinite distance? Are we not obliged to call to our aid the theory of diabolical possession? even then the horrors of the Passion are almost incredible, because they are so nearly inconceivable. Yet these horrors were but a part of Mary's Compassion; and truly, compared with the wrath of the Father, and the beauty of Jesus, they were the very least part of it. If we think of her deep love of Jesus, it is only to delight in its interminable magnificence. It is beyond our definitions, out of the sphere of our comprehension. We make wild comparisons of all angels and of all saints, indulge in fanciful arithmetic, repeat our superlatives, but we only do so to convince ourselves more satisfactorily that it is all beyond us, just as a man uses violence with himself to be sure he is awake. Yet the dimensions of that love do not each to the dimensions of her Compassion, because there is another love yet, to which it marvellously outstretches. It is the deep love of Jesus for her. Who can tell it? Who can speak of it even figuratively? for where is our figure to come from? Yet the breadth, and the depth, and the height of that love of Jesus for His Mother are the only true dimensions of her Compassion. Here are five abysses, five measure, five standards, His sufferings, His beauty, men's cruelty, her deep love of Him, His deep love of her. We must do our poor best with them all, and we shall reach a view of our Blessed Mother's Compassion which will be good for us and acceptable to her, but it will be below the truth. A work which Jesus sand Mary made together, out of God's wrath and man's sin, and the Hypostatic Union, and the sinlessness of a pure creature, must be a marvel about which at best we can but stammer, and lovingly go wrong; and such a work is Mary's Compassion. Our task is ended, and love will give our poor thoughts a truth of its own which will make them good for souls.
It is a beautiful and a dread sight to see all the sorrows of fallen earth resumed in the broken heart of our own Mother. Has it moved us? Then why not for the rest of life, in sober panic at the world, and worldliness, go and sit at our Mother's feet and meditate her griefs? Is there a fitter work for prodigals come back to their Heavenly Father? Compassion with her is already compassion with Jesus; and we may say that compassion with the Invisible Creator Himself is the devotional feeling out of which we shall serve Him most generously, and realize Him most tenderly as our Eternal Father,--eternal because He has been--blessed be His Majesty!--from all eternity, and eternal because we shall be--blessed be His compassion!--with Him, His happy sons, His pardoned, sons to all eternity. Truly Mary lays up evermore in the lap of God. Truly by some celestial logic of their own, all Christian things, be they doctrines or devotions, come out at last in that one compendious, melodious, alone-sufficing world, Eternal Father! (Father Frederick Faber, The Foot of the Cross, published originally in England in 1857 under the title of The Dolors of Mary, republished by TAN Books and Publishers, pp. 404-406.)
We must not be as blind to these truths as have been our caesars. We must understand that real "change" is the changing of souls to the true Faith, starting with our own on a daily basis as we cling to the true Faith in the Catholic catacombs at this time:
We must never forget these words of Pope Saint Pius X, contained n Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910:
Here we have, founded by Catholics, an inter-denominational association that is to work for the reform of civilization, an undertaking which is above all religious in character; for there is no true civilization without a moral civilization, and no true moral civilization without the true religion: it is a proven truth, a historical fact.
The true religion is Catholicism, not conciliarism, not any secular, naturalistic ideology of the "left" or of the "right." We must enfold ourselves into the love of the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary and the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus as we make reparation for our own many sins, which are so responsible for the worsening of the state of the Church Militant on earth and of the world-at-large, as we seek to restore all things in Christ the King and Mary our Immaculate Queen.
May our prayers help the likes of George Walker Bush and Barack Hussein Obama, both of whom are so blind to the truths of First and Last Things as they live in their own little "bubbles" of delusional self-protection, to convert to the true Faith, which will make it possible for them to see themselves and the world-at-large clearly as they stand squarely at the foot of the Cross of the Divine Redeemer, Christ the King, and lift it high as the only foundation of true human liberty and a just social order at home and with other nations.
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?
Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us!
Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
