Blood Money Talks Loud and Clear

Part Two

by Thomas A. Droleskey

The continuing furor over the recent remarks that United States Representative Todd Akin (R-Missouri) made in response to a red-herring question about why he opposed the direct, intentional killing of an innocent preborn child who had been conceived as a result of a forcible attack upon his mother, shows yet again that the those who support baby-killing in all instances continue to live down to their reputations of distorting the truth and playing every emotional card available in order to squelch any threats to the lucrative business of killing babies that results in so much blood money for them.

The Todd Akin controversy shows also that career politicians in the organized crime family of the naturalist "right" will tolerate almost anything except those who refuse to relegate the issue of baby-killing to the "back burner" in order to appeal to "moderate" voters.  Although this policy of "zero tolerance" on the part of careerists in the Republican Party is nothing new, there are a whole lot of people with very short memories to whom everything is "new" and who, therefore, are willing to suspend disbelief in order to believe that it is "necessary" to be silent about certain matters in order to make "progress," headless of the fact that their champions of the naturalist "right" are concerned about one thing and one thing alone: getting elected and staying elected. Period.

It is important to put this in perspective as what is happening in the case of Representative Todd Akin is nothing new. It is nothing new at all.

Even most of the founders of the United States of America, the men who had a founding hatred for Christ the King, hoped, at least at first, that public officials would be drawn from the ranks of the better-educated citizenry who would serve for a few years in office and then return to their own businesses or farms. The founders did not expect, at least not at first, the formation of national political parties, no less that those parties would be staffed with career politicians who would make their livelihoods from the holding of government positions throughout the course of their careers, thereby becoming permanent drinkers at the public trough.

While it is true that some of the lines of division that went into the creation of the first national political parties were evident during the ratification campaign of the United States Constitution in 1787 and 1788 (as those who supported the Constitution's ratification were called Federalists and those who opposed it were termed, at least by the Federalists, as Anti-Federalists), the first permanently-established national political parties began to arise in the the 1790s during the first administration of President George Washington as supporters of United States Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton formed the Federalist Party as the means to defend their conceptions of a strong national government, especially as regards banking policies, and a pro-British foreign policy and as supporters of United States Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson formed the Democratic-Republican party as the means to defend states' rights, agrarian individualism (the belief that moral superiority comes from working with one's hands in the soil and that urban areas and bankers were to be distrusted) and a foreign policy that favored the French revolutionaries. Many of the founders, men who had been opposed to permanently-established political parties and to the concept of the career politician, plunged quite merrily into the madness that resulted from the formation of the Federalist Party and the Democratic-Republican Party.

The first national political parties were Congressionally-based entities between the 1790s and the election of 1816, at which point The Federalist Party was  more or less defunct, having failed to win the presidency after the election of John Adams in 1796 and after being reduced to a mere thirty-nine seats (out of 185 seas) in the United States House of Representatives for the Fifteenth Congress (1817-1819). Political parties became popularly-based entities at the local level, replete with massive patronage machines, by the time of the election of Andrew Jackson to the presidency of the United States of America in 1828 and the formation of the modern Democratic Party, engineered principally by United States Senator (and future Vice President and President) Martin Van Buren of New York.

The formation of the modern Democratic Party, that of Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren, institutionalized the political party at the local level as the principal means by which various benefits (government jobs, food, clothing, housing, favors with courts) could be dispensed to voters in exchange for their votes and their volunteer activities during campaigns, which were frequently rough and tumble affairs involving intimidation of opposition candidates (including tarring and feathering them), the distribution of handbills filled with slanders about opposition candidates, the tearing down of the posters of opposition candidates, the stuffing of ballot boxes, and the refusal to count the votes of opposition candidates. Sound familiar? Electoral politics became a spectator sport involving contests between competing sets of naturalists who believed that the voters existed to enable them to have careers at the public expense. Public policy was designed to bribe the voters with their own money by the creation of make-work jobs and projects that rewarded campaign contributors and supporters.

Although fallen human nature is prone to seek self interest at the expense of the common good and in violation of the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law as these have been entrusted to the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, it is also true that a system of pure naturalism that leaves no room for the pursuit of the common temporal good in light of man's Last End, the possession of the glory of the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost for all eternity, must devolve rather quickly into organized corruption founded in the false belief that to the "victors belong the spoils," meaning that moral right is determined by the outcomes of elections. Those who win elections are thus empowered to steal at will and to govern as they want without regard for the moment of their Particular Judgments, which can come at any time.

Pope Pius XI noted this phenomenon in Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922:

 

 

To these evils we must add the contests between political parties, many of which struggles do not originate in a real difference of opinion concerning the public good or in a laudable and disinterested search for what would best promote the common welfare, but in the desire for power and for the protection of some private interest which inevitably result in injury to the citizens as a whole. From this course there often arise robberies of what belongs rightly to the people, and even conspiracies against and attacks on the supreme authority of the state, as well as on its representatives. These political struggles also beget threats of popular action and, at times, eventuate in open rebellion and other disorders which are all the more deplorable and harmful since they come from a public to whom it has been given, in our modern democratic states, to participate in very large measure in public life and in the affairs of government. Now, these different forms of government are not of themselves contrary to the principles of the Catholic Faith, which can easily be reconciled with any reasonable and just system of government. Such governments, however, are the most exposed to the danger of being overthrown by one faction or another. (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.)

Catholic immigrants to the United States of America, first those from Ireland and then, after the War between the States and during the Kulturkampf in Germany and the Risorgimento in Italy, those from eastern and southern Europe, plunged headlong into this spectator sport of electoral politics as it provided them with the fastest means of upward social and economic mobility at a time when there was overt--and sometimes quite violent--discrimination against them on the part of know-nothings and other assorted naturalists associated with Freemasonry. Political bosses and sub-bosses of the Democratic Party in major urban areas opened their doors wide to these Catholic immigrants out of pure political and pecuniary self-interest, not out of an altruistic concern for justice to be done to the persecuted immigrants. And it is out of gratitude to the Democratic Party machinery for its role in the socialization of Catholics into the American "mainstream" that explains the reflexive loyalty of many Catholics to what has become the organized crime family of the naturalistic "left" no matter its institutional support for all manner of moral evils.

Career politicians are concerned only about one thing: securing enough votes to win elections, which are ultimate ends in and of themselves that justify the use of whatever means are considered necessary to accomplish. Nothing other matters to the careerists who populate the infrastructure of local political clubs, which remain the breeding grounds for candidates for local offices such as, to use the example of the County of Nassau in the State of New York, town councilmen, town clerk, town comptroller, town supervisor, county executive, county legislators, county district attorney, county clerk, county assessor, county judgeships, and county comptroller. These political clubs are also the principal, although from from the exclusive, breeding grounds for candidates for state legislative seats (a state senate or a state assembly, as the lower house of the state legislature is called in the State of New York) and for appointed positions in a town or a county.

Most of the those who make up those political clubs have no overriding political philosophy or ideology. Involvement in the political process is a matter of direct personal self-interest (career advancement in elected office, favorable decisions on variations to zoning ordinances, the networking of one's business contacts, contracts to be let out to one's firm for government projects, etc.). With a very few and most rare exceptions, personal self-interest in the engine that drives partisan politics at the state and local level. Although I became a critic of the American founding as I grew in my knowledge of the Faith, I knew as a seventeen year-old volunteer in the local Republican club in Oyster Bay, New York, in the Fall of 1968 that the careerism I observed was not the reason even on the natural level that the founders broke away from the United Kingdom in 1776 (although I did not understand that the careerism I observed forty-one years ago was the natural result of the naturalism of the founders, something that they, the founders did not understand or accept).

There is, after all, no Republican or Democrat way to plough snow or to rebuild sewer lines. Partisan politics at the local level are about winning elections and being able thereafter to solidify one's hold on power by the appointment of one's supporters to various positions so as to make them and their family members dependent upon a particular political party for their very livelihood, which gives them an "incentive" to sell the tickets to the local political club's barbecues and picnics and dances. This is how the political "sausage" is stuffed at the local level in the United States of America, and it is from these local political clubs--and the all important county central political committees to which the more ambitious members of the political clubs aspire to rise with the passage of time--that most future statewide party chairmen and party committee members originate.

Money and jobs, influence and power. These, not ideas, are what matter to most of the apparatchiks who attend the local political club meetings, sell the barbecue and fifty-fifty drawing tickets, and live for the results of the next election so that they can be assured of their jobs and money and influence and power for at least another two or four years. Everything revolves around the party and its survival. The survival of the party is the ultimate purpose for which the civil government at the local level exists, which is why it is so difficult for minor parties in most states to gain ballot access. State legislatures, composed of men and women who have "risen through the ranks" at the local and county levels, have institutionalized the two major organized crime families, the Republicans and the Democrats, in power and place great obstacles in the path of minor parties to gain ballot access, especially for statewide and national office.

One of the means by which political power at the state level is secured over the course of time is by means of public works projects. Although it is possible to build highways, for example, in such a way that could endure the weight of heavy trucks and other vehicles without having their roadbeds crushed, there is an implicit understanding on the part of office-holders and the contractors whose companies are chosen to rebuild highways so that they will be crushed within a short period of time so that new contracts can be let out and yet more workers employed to undertake yet again the perpetual rebuilding process of highways every two years.

Apart from being a very wasteful use of taxpayer dollars so as, in effect, to bribe contractors and their employees to cast votes for the incumbent political party, the desire to build substandard infrastructure projects is offensive to God Himself as everything we do should be for His greater honor and glory and designed, as far as is possible, to stand the test of time by means of the excellence of the effort and the quality of the work performed. Go tell that to a local committeeman of either organized crime family of naturalism and he will look at you as though you have nine heads and twelve pairs of legs.

It is from from the very pragmatic world of personal self-interest and craven careerism that most of the political consultants who help political parties to choose their candidates--and to shape those candidates' messages and their means of "delivery" to the voters--arise and do their dirty work of perpetuating delusional concepts about voting trends that justify their disdain for the "social issues" that they consider to be "divisive" and electorally disadvantageous. What is lost on these political consultants and career politicians who disdain "social issues" is that they are, on the level of pure naturalism, terrible analysts of election results, eager to learn the wrong lessons and to choose candidates who believe in absolutely nothing other than that which they are told believe by their consultants, who base their recommendations on the results of focus-group market polling and research. These pollsters and political consultants believe that there must be a "big tent" to accommodate the "really important" "swing" voters while giving a few rhetorical crumbs in meaningless party platforms to keep the dupes in the "pro-life, pro-life" movement happy that they have not been forgotten after all.

The Republican Party's "big tent" would never have included those who were open racists or people espoused the killing of Jews. Yet it is that those who support the killing of innocent preborn babies are very "tolerated" while men such as Todd Akin are considered pariahs for opposing the direct, intentional taking of innocent human life in all circumstances without exception.

The "big tent" developed as a result of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, July 3, 1989, which upheld a law in the State of Missouri that placed some restrictions on the butchering of innocent preborn children. The Webster case was used by various pro-abortion organizations to claim hat the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the cases of Roe v. Wade, and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973, was in jeopardy, which it was not. As advocacy groups exist to raise funds to permit them to "advocate" in behalf of their erroneous positions, the fruit of the madness of civil liberty and pluralism, the Webster case was just tailor-made for these pro-death organizations to send out direct mailing appeals for massive amounts of money to "fight" the "radicals" who were "turning back a woman's right to choose" so as to force women once again to "go into the back alleys and have unsafe abortions."

The reaction by the pro-death advocacy groups to Webster gave careerist Republican activists and the donors associated with them an opportunity to protest that it was essential for the Republican Party to rid itself of the "narrowness" of its pro-life position. Ralph Reed, the smarmy little director of Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition, kept saying over and over again, "A political party is not a church." Others associated with the Republican Party said that there had to room for a "diversity of viewpoints" on such "divisive" issues as abortion. It was after his inauguration on January 20, 1989, that President George Herbert Walker Bush's handpicked Chairman of the Republican National Committee, Lee Atwater, who was the elder Bush's campaign manager in the then Vice President of the United States of America's campaign against the Democrat Party nominee for President in 1988, Commonwealth of Massachusetts Governor Michael S. Dukakis, explained that it was important for those who support "abortion rights" to be included in the Republican Party as part of a "big tent" able to hold together a group of people with a variety of positions on "difficult" issues. Obviously, President Bush the Elder (or "Bush 41") approved of Atwater's effort.

Lee Atwater's "big tent" movement, which he did not, most unfortunately, repudiate before he died from brain cancer at the age of forty on March 29, 1991 (after having become a Catholic at the hands of Father John A. Hardon, S.J., who informed me first-hand of how some Republican goons tried to keep him from visiting Atwater in the hospital room at one point), did make some inroads in Republican Party circles in the early-1990s, especially as pro-abortion Republican candidates Susan Molinari (1990) and Richard Lazio (1992), won election to the United States House of Representatives from the State of New York, becoming among the first Catholics in the post-Ronald Wilson Reagan era of the Republican Party to run as pro-aborts and to get elected. Their success was followed in the year 1993 when the Presbyterian pro-abort named Christine Todd Whitman (Governorship of the State of New Jersey) and two Catholic pro-aborts, Richard Riordan (Mayoralty of the City of Los Angels, California) and Rudolph William Giuliani (Mayoralty of the City of New York, New York) were elected.

Republicans in the State of New York were in vanguard of promoting the "big tent" as a means of getting rid of the "pro-life" issue once and for all. These careerists were so eager to distance themselves from the language of the national Republican Party platform during the Reagan-era that a then little-known state senator from Peekskill, New York, George Elmer Pataki, engineered the removal of the pro-life plank from the party platform at the party's 1990 state convention. And it was at that convention that then United States Senator Alfonse M. D'Amato told New York University professor Herbert London, an Orthodox Jew who is partly pro-life and partly pro-abortion (making the immoral "life of the mother" "exception), that he, London, could be the Republican nominee for Governor of the State of New York that year if he became "pro-choice." (This is what Dr. London told me in 1998 when I was challenging Senator D'Amato for the United States senatorial nomination of the Right to Life Party, adding, of course, that the former senator has claimed that he has no recollection of saying any such thing.)  London ran on the Conservative Party line and came within several thousand votes of beating the pro-abort who got the Republican gubernatorial nomination that year, a man named Pierre Rinfret, for second place in the election against the Democratic Party incumbent, the Catholic pro-abort named Mario Matthew Cuomo.

This gave birth to an entire generation of pro-abortion Republicans, many of them Catholics, emerged in the 1990s and thereafter. Rudolph William Giuliani, Mayor of the City of New York from 1993 to 2001. Richard Riordan, Mayor of the City of Los Angeles from 1993 to 2001. Christine Todd Whitman, a Presbyterian, Governor of New Jersey from 1994 to 2001. Thomas Ridge, Governor of Pennsylvania from 1995 to 2001. Enrico Anthony Lazio, a member of the United States House of Representatives from Long Island from 1993 to 2001. Susan Molinari, a member of the United States House of Representatives from 1990 to 1997. Susan Collins, United States Senator from Maine, from 1997 to the present. Olympia Snowe, Greek Orthodox, United States Senator from Maine from 1995 to the present. George Elmer Pataki, Governor of New York from 1995 to 2007. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of California from 2003 to the present. There are, of course, many others.

The hapless, inarticulate and ever-mercurial thirty-third degree Mason named Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., attempted into insert a "zero tolerance" for bigotry plank into the Republican Party's national platform in 1996 and to change the platform to express "respect" for a "diversity of beliefs" about baby-killing, an effort that was opposed by Angela "Bay" Buchanan and Dr. Alan Keyes, among others. Dole made sure, however, that the man who had defeated him in the New Hampshire primary on February 20, 1996, and had come very close to defeating him in the Iowa causes on February 12, 1996, Patrick Joseph Buchanan, was not given any speaking role at the Republican National Convention in San Diego, California. Buchanan was allowed to mill around with other Republicans onstage after Dole gave his pathetic acceptance address.

As is well-known, Dole and his running mate, Jack Kemp, another thirty-third degree Mason, ran away from the issue of baby-killing except when speaking to friendly Catholic audiences. Other than that, however, the two Freemasons ignored the issue altogether. Kemp spoke about baby-killing only when asked about it by moderator James Lehrer in the one and only debate between vice presidential candidates, held on October 9, 1996, and called the issue an "emotional" one and that the "debate" over it had to be carried on with "civility and respect," making it appear that there there can be a "debate" about the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment's absolute prohibition on the direct taking of any innocent human life at any time for any reason. 

Dole  himself made not one single reference to the taking of preborn human life in either his debate with President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton on October 6, 1996, or his second on October 16, 1996. Given his efforts to mute all discussion about the life issue prior to and during the Republican National Convention, which was moderated by the supposedly "pro-life" Governor of the State of Texas, George Walker Bush, and the avowedly pro-abortion Governor of the State of New Jersey, Christine Todd Whitman, to showcase the party's diversity ("pro-life" Southern male, pro-death Northern female). I wrote the following for the very first issue of the Christ or Chaos printed journal:

 

 

It is time to tell Bob Dole that we have zero tolerance for his shameless attempt to appease both sides of the abortion issue, relegating us to little more than observers who must go along for the ride in his quest to win.

It is time to tell Bob Dole that we have zero tolerance for his support of the so-called hard cases exceptions. We have zero tolerance for those who contend, as a matter of principle, that there are conditions justifying the direct, intentional killing of innocent human beings.

It is time to tell Bob Dole that we have zero tolerance for his support of fetal experimentation and Planned Parenthood.

It is time to tell Bob Dole that we have zero tolerance for a political party which is maneuvering to put pro-aborts in key positions as the Vice Presidency. [2012 note: Dole played the same game in 1996 that McCain played four years ago, saying he would be "open" to a "pro-choice" running mate. Dole chose his fellow thirty-third degree Mason, Jack Kemp, a partly pro-life, partly pro-abortion former United States Representative from Buffalo, New York, and Secretary of Labor in the George Herbert Walker Bush administration, who rarely spoke about the issue at all except in front of "safe" Catholic audiences.]

It is time to tell Bob Dole that we have zero tolerance for his brand of political bossism and the silence of those opponents deemed to be politically incorrect [namely, Patrick Joseph Buchanan]. . . .

It is time to tell Bob Dole we have zero tolerance for anyone who believes that the promotion of sinful lifestyles must be tolerated for the sake of "diversity".

It is time to tell Bob Dole that we have zero tolerance for his attitude that "you can be pro-choice or pro-life and still very be a very good Republican."

It is time to tell Bob Dole that we have zero tolerance for a Republican Party that recognizes the "pro-choice" position as a morally legitimate position. ("Zero Tolerance for Bob Dole, Christ or Chaos, Volume 1, Number 1, August, 1996. p. 3.)

Also interested in muting all discussion of the life issue in 1996 was the chairman of the Republican National Senatorial Campaign Committee (RNSCC), the junior senator from the State of New York, Alfonse M. D'Amato, who had been elected in 1980 against United States Representative Elizabeth Holtzman and the incumbent United States Senator Jacob K. Javits, who ran on the Liberal Party line after losing a primary to D'Amato in his bed for renomination. D'Amato squeaked by, defeating Holtzman by 80,992 votes, 152,470 of which were cast for him on the Right to Life Party line. Javits received 664,544 votes that would, most likely, have gone to Holtzman. However, it was those votes cast for D'Amato on the Right to Life Party line that made it possible for to him to begin the first of three terms as the junior senator from the Empire State to the pro-abortion Catholic named Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

(Interestingly, Moynihan had defeated United States Senator James Buckley, R-NY, in 1976, who had won his only Senate term in 1970 as the Conservative Party candidate at a time the "liberal" vote was split between the Republican incumbent, Charles Goodell, the late father of current National Football League commissioner Roger Goodell, and United States Representative Richard Ottinger, D-NY. Goodell had been appointed to his seat by Governor Nelson Rockefeller, following the death of United States Senator Robert Francis Kennedy on Wednesday, June 6, 1968, after he had been shot following his victory in the California primary against United States Senator Eugene McCarthy. Buckley won the race in 1970 even though he got only thirty-nine percent of the vote. Goodell actually came in third, garnering twenty-three percent of the vote).

Even though D'Amato owed his Senate career to the votes he got, including the one I cast for him, on the Right to Life Party line in 1980, he was a pure political opportunist who believed, as noted earlier, that it was time for Republican candidates who could take a "pro-choice" position to do so. Indeed, if you will recall, Dr. Herbert London said that D'Amato told him point blank to his face that he, London, could be the Republican Party gubernatorial nominee against Mario Matthew Cuomo is only he switched his position from pro-life to "pro-choice," an offer was not too good for London to refuse. D'Amato also asked County of Nassau District Attorney Denis E. Dillon, with whom I had run for lieutenant governor on the Right to Life Party line, to reach out to me after I had received enough delegate votes at the Right to Life Party convention in May of 1998 to challenge him for the nomination. Denis asked me the following question: "What's it going to take for you to get out of the primary." As I knew at the time, I could have written my own ticket for a job from which I could never get fired. No, there was no deal as D'Amato supported "exceptions," voted to fund "family planning programs" and had, apart from giving us pro-abort Republicans such as George Elmer Pataki and Rick Lazio, who ran such a pathetic campaign against then First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton for the United States Senate in 2000, voted to confirm the thoroughly pro-abortion Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer to serve as Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. No deal. My friendship with Denis Dillon, for whose immortal soul I pray every day, effectively ended then.

One of the reasons I was adamant in my refusal to withdraw from my primary challenge to Senator D'Amato fourteen years ago now (boy, the time sure does fly), although I did tell Mr. Dillon that there would be no need for a primary if D'Amato decided to decline the Right to Life Party endorsement without being replaced by anyone else (the party, that is, would have run a blank line in that instance, neither opposing nor supporting D'Amato, support that he clearly did not deserve, especially as the party itself had a firm "no exceptions" policy that its leaders at the time were willing to overlook in certain instances), was the role that D'Amato played as Chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee in 1996 as he tried to muscle senatorial candidates into being silent about the issue of abortion in exchange for NRSCC campaign cash. In other words, D'Amato was hoping that blood money talked more than principle.

Albert J. Salvi, a state legislator in the State of Illinois, a Catholic, had won the Republican primary in 1996 while running a pro-life campaign. The Democratic Party nominee was United States Representative Richard Durbin, a pro-abortion Catholic and now the Minority Leader of the United States Senate. D'Amato believed that the path to victory in Illinois ran through the path of silence about baby-killing. Salvi took the deal for the NRSCC. His wife was very happy to know that I wanted to interview her husband about this as she was still exercised about D'Amato's strong-arm tactics two years after the 1996 campaign, which her husband lost to the reprobate Durbin. Mr Salvi, though, was unwilling to speak with me. He regretted what he had done and simply did not want to talk about it.

There was, however, a candidate who refused to knuckle under to D'Amato's use of political blackmail, NRSCC campaign cash in exchange for silence on abortion which was well-documented at the time. That candidate was a woman named Ronna Romney, who was running for the United States Senate seat held then and held today by United States Senator Carl Levin (D-Michigan). Ronna Romney is the former wife of G. Scott Romney, who is the older brother of a fellow born six years later, a chap named Willard Mitt Romney. It's a little ironic that a Romney-by-marriage refused to accept silence about abortion in exchange for NRSCC cash while her former brother-in-law, Willard Mitt Romney, was in the vanguard of trying to pressure United States Representative Todd Akin (R-Missouri) to drop out of his own Senate race by 5:00 p,.m., Central Daylight Saving Time, on Tuesday, August 21, 2012, at the same time that Untied States Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) decided to keep Akin from receiving any NRSCC campaign cash.

It's always the same, ladies and gentlemen, in the world of naturalism. Power is the bottom line of career politicians. Talk about "divisive issues"? No, candidates have to win votes.

Lost in this Machiavellian calculus is the simple fact that the country is needlessly "divided" and hopelessly confused on fundamental issues of moral truth because of the very anti-Incarnational, naturalistic, religiously indifferentist and semi-Pelagian principles upon which the modern civil state is founded as part of the rotten aftermath of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King wrought by the Protestant Revolution.

Modernity (the Protestant Revolt, the so-called "Enlightenment," the religiously indifferentist and semi-Pelagian modern state) has convinced almost all but a relatively small handful of Catholics that it is possible for there to be personal and social order absent a due submission to the Deposit of Faith as It has been entrusted to the Catholic Church and absent a reliance upon Sanctifying Grace to overcome and to make reparation for our own sins, which are the proximate causes of all personal and social problems. Thus arises the welter of naturalistic "philosophies" and "ideologies" that are proposed to "reform" societies as "true believers" seek to discern what the guiding lights of their particular naturalistic systems would do today in our own circumstances were they alive to provide this "guidance."

We must remember what Pope Gregory XVI wrote in Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832, when he condemned the fundamental presuppositions of Modernity:

 

This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error," as Augustine was wont to say. When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly "the bottomless pit" is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws -- in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty.

Modernism, enshrined in the very ethos of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, has convinced Catholics that it is neither wise nor even desirable to seek to plant seeds for the restoration of Christendom. That era has "passed," never to be recaptured again. It is possible, therefore, to base personal and social order on something short of Catholicism. This is a lie, a lie that is enshrined in the abomination of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service that offends God so much each time it is simulated as act of "worship" in the name of the Catholic Church.

It is no wonder, therefore, that so many craven career politicians of both major political parties and so many "philosophes" of the current of naturalism known as the "right" can live so very comfortably with the daily slaughter of the preborn by chemical and surgical means. Those who do not view the world clearly through the eyes of the true Faith and who are not committed to restore Christendom by praying as many Rosaries each day as the totally consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary are part of the problem, not any part of a "solution" for social problems, no less a "solution" founded solely on naturalistic grounds that denies the Sovereign Rights of Christ the King and the Queenly Rights of Mary our Immaculate Queen.

It is only when citizens live and work in light of their Last End as members of the Catholic Church that the family, the basic unit of society in which most human problems are to be addressed, takes its rightful place. And it is only when citizens live and work in light of their Last End as members of the Catholic Church that the civil state will be limited in its size, scope and power as its officials, both elected and appointed, seek to promote the common temporal good in light of man's Last End, being willing to submit at all times to the authority of the Catholic Church on all that pertains to the good of souls.

Remember once again these words of Pope Saint Pius X, contained in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910:

. . . .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.

 

Care to disagree? This statement is either true or it is false. A Catholic should understand and accept that it is true and stop wasting his time worrying about which naturalist or which naturalistic "philosophy" is going to "improve" society. Only Catholicism can improve society as it penetrates into the souls of men. It is really that simple.

We give all to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. Each Rosary we pray helps us to give honor and glory to the Most Blessed Trinity and to make reparation for our many sins and those of the whole world. We must never look for results. We must only strive to be faithful and to pray as many Rosaries each day as our states in life permit, being ready at all times to make an accounting for our lives before Christ the King, pleading earnestly that Our Mother and Queen of Mercy, Mary Immaculate, will plead for us then, at the hour of our deaths, as she does with every beat of our hearts that should and must beat in unison with her Immaculate Heart and her Divine Son's Most Sacred Heart.

Every Hail Mary we pray helps to plant the seeds for the restoration of Christendom. Saint Louis de Montfort taught us the following about the power of just one Hail Mary prayed with confident faith:

 

Are you in the miserable state of sin? Then call on the divine Mary and say to her: Ave, which means "I salute thee with the most profound respect, thou who art without sin" and she will deliver you from the evil of your sins.

Are you grouping in the darkness of ignorance and error? Go to Mary and say to her: Hail Mary; which means "Hail thou who art bathed in the light of the Sun of Justice"- and she will give you some of her light.

Have you strayed from the path leading to heaven? Then call on Mary, for her name means "Star of the Sea, the North Star which guides the ships of our souls during the voyage of this life," and she will guide you to the harbor of eternal salvation.

Are you in sorrow? Turn to Mary, for her name means also "Sea of Bitterness which has been filled with sharp pain in this world but which is now turned into a Sea of the Purest Joy in heaven," and she will turn your sorrow to joy and your afflictions into consolation.

Have you lost the state of grace? Praise and honor the numberless graces with which God has filled with all the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and she will give you some of these graces.

Are you all alone, having lost God's protection? Pray to Mary, and say: "The Lord is with thee - and this union is far nobler and more intimate than that which He has with saints and the just - because thou art one with Him. He is thy Son and His Flesh is thy flesh; thou art united to the Lord because of thy perfect likeness to Him and by your mutual love - for thou art His Mother." And then say to her: "The Three Persons of the Godhead are with thee because thou art the Temple of the most Blessed Trinity," and she will place you once more under the protection and care of Almighty God.

Have you become an outcast and have you been accursed by God? Then say to Our Lady: "Blessed art thou above all women and above all nations, by thy purity and fertility; thou hast turned God's maledictions into blessings for us," and she will bless you.

Do you hunger for the bread of grace and the bread of life? Draw near to her who bore the Living Bread Which came down from heaven, and say to her: Blessed be the Fruit of thy womb Whom thou hast conceived without the slightest loss of thy virginity, Whom thou didst carry without discomfort and to Whom thou didst give birth without pain. Blessed be Jesus Who has redeemed our suffering world when we were in the bondage of sin, Who has healed the world of its sickness, Who has raised the dead to life, brought home the banished, restored sinners to a life of grace and Who has saved men from damnation." Without doubt, your soul will be filled with the bread of grace in this life and of eternal glory in the next. Amen. (Saint Louis de Montfort, The Secret of the Rosary, The Twentieth Rose. )

Catholics trust in Our Lady and her Most Holy Rosary and her Fatima Message, not in the "clever" strategies of naturalists who aren't even very good in promoting a consistent form of naturalism.

The twin, matchless Hearts of love that are the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus do not live comfortably with the murder of the preborn. Neither should we. Not once. Never.  We do not seek to keep silent about the truths of the Faith to please the false "pontiff." We do not keep silence about the truths of the Faith to aid the naturalists in their further institutionalization of evil under cover of the civil law.

No, we try to plant the seeds as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus through through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary when all men, celebrating the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary as a result of the fulfillment of Our Lady's Fatima Message, will exclaim with jubilation:

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us!

 

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

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saint Bartholomew, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?