Caring Not For Homegrown Terrorists

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Although a great deal of attention has been focused in the American news media on the controversy surrounding the proposal to build a Mohammedan mosque and "community center" near the site where the former twin towers of the World Trade Center in the southern part of the Borough of Manhattan in the City of New York, New York, stood before they were destroyed on Tuesday, September 11, 2001, it is quite telling that so few Americans care to reflect on the fact we live in the midst of homegrown terrorism that takes the lives of over four thousand innocent babies in their mothers' wombs every day by surgical means alone, not counting the thousands who die as a result of the chemical abortifacients that are prescribed by physicians, some of whom might be neighbors or possibly even relatives of ours, and dispensed by pharmacists at your local Walgreen's or Rite-Aid or CVS or at your local mega supermarket.

We have a fixation on what happened in New York City and Arlington, Virginia, and Shanksville, Pennsylvania, nearly nine years ago now without too much concern for the fact that, according to the statistics provided on the home page of the American Life League, there have been 51,462,328 babies killed by means of surgical abortion since the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America that were rendered in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton on Monday, January 22, 1973. That staggering figure does not include those babies who were killed by surgical means in their mothers' wombs between 1967 and 1973 when various states, including Colorado, California, Hawaii, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Alaska, and Washington (and Washington, District of Columbia) decriminalized surgical baby-killing in some or all cases at various stages of a baby's development in his mother's womb.

Who grieves for these children?

Who grieves for the souls of the mothers and their fathers?

Who grieves for the souls of the physicians and nurses and receptionists who have worked in abortuaries and hospitals and other "health care" facilities?

Who grieves for the souls of the politicians and judges and educators and columnists and entertainers or other "celebrities" who have publicly defended the nonexistent "right" of women to kill their babies, who are but the natural fruit of the procreative power given to men and women by God Himself?

Who grieves for the souls of the so-called "theologians" and priests/presbyters and consecrated religious who have "instructed" Catholics that the chemical and surgical execution of innocent children is a matter of "conscience" that they must decide for themselves?

Who grieves for the souls of the conciliar bishops, some real, at least for the first twenty years after the abortion genocide began in this country, and others faux, who have indemnified Catholics in public life who have supported baby-killing under the cover of the civil law?

So few Americans, including so few traditionally-minded Catholics, care to think about the daily slaughter of the preborn, one of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance.

So many Americans, including Catholics all up and down and across the vast expanse of the ecclesiastical divides that exist during this time of apostasy and betrayal, sport "God Bless America" bumper stickers on their vehicles without even thinking about the simple fact that a country that permits the daily slaughter of the preborn by chemical and surgical means and that tolerates, if not openly permits under cover of the civil law, each of the other three sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance (the sin of Sodom, defrauding the widow, withholding wages from the day laborer) and that is responsible for permitting the spread of indecency in motion pictures, magazine, television, newspapers, many of which are now unreadable because of the impure images printed on a daily basis,  and what passes for "music" in this country and around the world. Nations that offend God in such grievous ways will not know His blessings. They are deserving of His chastisement, and the chastisements that we are experiencing at this time are but the logical consequence of the widespread indulgence, promotion and social acceptance of sin as not in the least bit offense to God, harmful to souls or injurious to the common temporal good, if not very survival, of nations.

It is impossible for men to realize material prosperity at home and security from foreign invaders when they permit or are utterly indifferent to those things that are repugnant or opposed to the peace and happiness of eternity, a point that Silvio Cardinal Antoniano, who lived from December 30, 1540, to August 16, 1603, and was made a Cardinal Priest of Holy Mother Church by Pope Clement VIII on March 17, 1599, noted in his treatise on the Christian Education of Youth that was quoted  by Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929:

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

 

What does this mean to Caesar Barackus Obamus Ignoramus or his Vice Caesar, Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., or to the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, United States Representative Nancy Patricia D'Alesandro Pelosi (D-California) or to the Majority Leader of the United States Senate, Harry Reid (D-Nevada)?

Nothing.

What does this mean to the dour Minority Leader of the United States Senate, United States Senator Mitchell McConnell (R-Kentucky) or to the Minority Leader of the United States House of Representatives, United States Representative John Boehner (R-Ohio)?

Not much.

What matters to the naturalists of the false opposite of the "left" is power as they seek to finish the transformation of the United States of America along the lines of Eurosocialism and envirocommunism, going so far in at least one community in the State of Iowa to program Kindergartners and other young children whose parents have had the poor judgment to abuse them by placing them into the brainwashing camps referred to by most Americans as "public schools" to memorize a four digit personal identification number (PIN) that they muse use to order their lunches so as to assure that they, the children, are complying with Federal "nutritional guidelines (see Bite Out of Obesity, or Case of 'Big Brother'?). Only the foolhardy and the naive can believe that this is not a step in the direction of telling Americans of all ages what they can purchase at their local supermarkets according to the "profiles" that have been developed on them when they were in one of these concentration camps as children. Nanny State, U.S.A., indeed.

What matters to the naturalists of the false opposite of the "right" is, well, "being there," that is, just getting elected as they stumble around for some kind of coherent policy direction to address the "pocketbook" issues upon which American elections have almost invariably turned throughout the nation's history, believing that social evils such as abortion, while certainly regrettable and something to be denounced now and again when they get awards from various "mainstream" pro-life groups while voting to support the funding of the chemical assassination of innocent preborn children by means of domestic and international "family planning" programs and while campaigning actively for pro-aborts in their own organized crime family of naturalism, just have to be accepted as part of the legal fabric until a later time. Putting the economic cart before the moral horse will never work as the greatest and most powerful empire in human history, the Roman Empire, collapsed under the weight of rank immorality as the emperors overtaxed Roman citizens to feed that bloated bureaucracies and to fund their needless wars of foreign adventure. Sound familiar?

You think that I am creating straw men? Think again. Think again.

Harkening back to the mantra of the big tent of the late Lee Atwater, who was the Chairman of the Republican National Committee from January of 1989  to the time of his death from brain cancer on February 27, 1991, a short while after his conversion to Catholicism at the hands of the late Father John A. Hardon, S. J., a few would-be aspirants for the Republican presidential nomination are beginning to sing the same old "good people can disagree about the 'difficult' issue of abortion" song that was sung the hapless, inarticulate, mercurial thirty-third degree Mason named Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., in 1995 and 1996 and that was sung by the then Governor of Texas, George Walker Bush, in 1999 and 2000 and was sung by United States Senator John Sidney McCain III (R-Arizona) in 2007 and 2008. Strike up the band, you see, as professional Republicans are at it again in their quest to win "votes" for mere sake of winning "votes."

Case-in-point: the Governor of Mississippi, Haley Barbour, has been singing a big tent tune in Iowa as he explores his viability as a candidate for the presidential nomination of the Republican Party in 2012. This is a report of what he said in a speech in Iowa on June 25, 2009:

Wading into a contentious debate being waged within the Republican Party of Iowa, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour told a crowd of GOP activists and elected officials Thursday night that the only way back into the majority is to resist demands for ideological purity.

Party building is about addition and multiplication, not subtraction and division, Barbour said at a party fundraiser in Des Moines. The GOP must be inclusive, he argued, and that idea extends to even the most divisive political issues. To make his point, Barbour pointed out that he helped pass several anti-abortion bills as governor, eventually garnering his state the reputation as “the safest place in the nation for an unborn child.”  But he said there are good Republicans who don’t agree with him on the issue.

“There are tens of millions of pro-choice Republicans that are just as good Republicans as I am, and we need to support them,” he said, adding: “That’s what party building is about, and don’t think that is giving up your principles.”

The Republican Party of Iowa has suffered historic defeats in the last few elections, finding itself out of control of Terrace Hill and both chambers of the legislature for the first time in decades. As a result, the party has done a lot of soul searching, resulting in a battle between those advocating for a “big tent” party, inclusive of those who may disagree with the party line on some issues, and those who believe any departure from conservative orthodoxy is inexcusable and politically harmful.

Most recently, prominent leaders of Iowa’s ideology-driven social conservative movement criticized state Republican leadership for not doing enough to overturn the Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, saying 2010 could be “the year of the primary.” (GOP must resist quest for purity).

 

This is but a variation of what Governor George Walker Bush said in his first televised debate with the then Vice President of the United States of America, Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., at Washington University in Saint Louis, Missouri, on October 3, 2000:

BUSH: I don't think a president can do that. I was disappointed in the ruling because I think abortions ought to be more rare in America, and I'm worried that that pill will create more abortions and cause more people to have abortions. This is a very important topic and it's a very sensitive topic, because a lot of good people disagree on the issue. I think what the next president ought to do is to promote a culture of life in America. Life of the elderly and life of those women all across the country. Life of the unborn. As a matter of fact, I think a noble goal for this country is that every child, born or unborn, need to be protected by law and welcomed to life. I know we need to change a lot of minds before we get there in America. What I do believe is that we can find good, common ground on issues of parental consent or parental notification. I know we need to ban partial birth abortions. This is a place where my opponent and I have strong disagreement. I believe banning partial birth abortions would be a positive step to reducing the number of abortions in America. It is an issue that will require a new attitude. We've been battling over abortion for a long period of time. Surely this nation can come together to promote the value of life. Surely we can fight off these laws that will encourage doctors to -- to allow doctors to take the lives of our seniors. Surely we can work together to create a cultural life so some of these youngsters who feel like they can take a neighbor's life with a gun will understand that that's not the way America is meant to be. Surely we can find common ground to reduce the number of abortions in America. As to the drug itself, I mentioned I was disappointed. I hope the FDA took its time to make sure that American women will be safe who use this drug. (2000 Debate Transcript; if you want my analysis of this balderdash, please see We Don't Want to Learn Anything.)

 

Behold the wreckage wrought by the Protestant Revolution against the Divine Plan that God Himself instituted to effect man's return to Him through the Catholic Church that has given rise to the injurious babbling caused condemned by Pope Pius IX in Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864. Protestantism has begotten irrationality and sentimentality and pure emotionalism to serve as the visceral substitutes for the truths of the true Faith that have been revealed by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and entrusted exclusively to His Catholic Church for their eternal safekeeping and infallible explication. The cacophonous voices within the over thirty-three thousand different sects of Protestantism could not help but produced naturalism as the lowest common denominator of social discourse, which is distorted and perverted by the fact that men, rejecting the teaching authority and the sanctifying offices of the Catholic Church, believe that they can "figure things out" all on their own and just learn to "disagree" with those who take different positions than they do on matters that no human being on the face of this earth is morally free to reject as they are part of the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law that are immutable and serve as the foundation of personal and social order.

Yet it is that we see countless examples of this in the organized crime family of naturalism known as the Republican Party as its leaders seek to find some means to appeal to "socially moderate" voters who are concerned about the kinds of pocketbook issues that are only going to get worse and worse and worse over the course of time as continue to protect under cover of the civil law and promote all throughout what passes for our popular culture the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance. The aforementioned John McCain used his own variation of the "big tent" song back in 2008:

McCain’s comments Wednesday to the Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes that former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge’s pro-abortion rights views wouldn’t necessarily rule him out quickly found their way into the in-boxes of Christian conservatives. For those who have been anxiously awaiting McCain’s pick as a signal of his ideological intentions, there was deep concern that their worst fears about the Arizona senator may be realized.

In the interview, McCain said “the pro-life position is one of the important aspects or fundamentals of the Republican Party.”

“And I also feel that — and I'm not trying to equivocate here — that Americans want us to work together. You know, Tom Ridge is one of the great leaders and he happens to be pro-choice. And I don't think that that would necessarily rule Tom Ridge out [for vice-president].”

He added: “I think it's a fundamental tenet of our party to be pro-life, but that does not mean we exclude people from our party that are pro-choice. We just have a — albeit strong — but just it's a disagreement. And I think Ridge is a great example of that.” (McCain alarms base with abortion comment.)

 

Just a "disagreement," huh? This diabolical mantra has been repeated over and over again by the likes of the late Lee Atwater, who died without ever retracing his "big tent" approach to promoting pro-aborts for elected office in certain states, and Ralph Reed, the smarmy anti-Catholic bigot who served as the executive director of Pat Robertson's now defunct "Christian Coalition" from 1989-1997, and Bob Dole and George W. Bush and John McCain and Michael Steele, the current Chairman of the Republican National Committee (see Witness For Skulls Full of Mush), and Haley Barbour as the devil has raised up the likes of William Jefferson Blythe Clinton and Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., and John Frederick Kerry and Barack Hussein Obama to make it appear as though we just have to "live" with chemical and surgical baby-killing to get rid of the really bad guys from the false opposite of the naturalist "left." Many "pro-life" Americans, including Catholics, have been so conditioned to accept anyone who appears better than the current Democratic bogeyman of the hour that they suspend all rationality and forget that the particular bogeyman of the hour rose to prominence because of the "compassionate conservatism" of some "hero" and bogeyman slayer of the false opposite of the naturalist "right" (see Socialism, Straight From Your "Pro-Life" Conservative).

These "slayers" of Democratic Party bogeymen are of one mind and one heart with the openly, totally pro-abortion Barack Hussein Obama, who said the following at the University of Notre Dame on Sunday, May 17, 2009:

As I considered the controversy surrounding my visit here, I was reminded of an encounter I had during my Senate campaign, one that I describe in a book I wrote called The Audacity of Hope. A few days after I won the Democratic nomination, I received an email from a doctor who told me that while he voted for me in the primary, he had a serious concern that might prevent him from voting for me in the general election. He described himself as a Christian who was strongly pro-life, but that's not what was preventing him from voting for me.

What bothered the doctor was an entry that my campaign staff had posted on my website - an entry that said I would fight "right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman's right to choose." The doctor said that he had assumed I was a reasonable person, but that if I truly believed that every pro-life individual was simply an ideologue who wanted to inflict suffering on women, then I was not very reasonable.

He wrote, "I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words."

Fair-minded words.

After I read the doctor's letter, I wrote back to him and thanked him. I didn't change my position, but I did tell my staff to change the words on my website. And I said a prayer that night that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me. Because when we do that - when we open our hearts and our minds to those who may not think like we do or believe what we do - that's when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.

That's when we begin to say, "Maybe we won't agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions.

So let's work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term. Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women."

Understand - I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. No matter how much we may want to fudge it - indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory - the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature. (Text of Obama Speech at the University of Notre Dame.)

 

What I wrote at the time some sixteen months ago now is worth repeating to demonstrate that there is far, far more that unites the false opposites of the "left" and the "right" in the United States of American than divides them when it comes to the issue of chemical and surgical baby-killing under cover of the civil law:

There is no "common ground" between truth and error, between good and evil. The precepts of the Fifth Commandment make it clear that it is never permissible to directly intend to kill an innocent human being as the first end of a moral act.

An expectant mother has no "decision" to make when she discovers that she is carrying a child in her womb. She has a baby to nurture unto birth and then to bring to the Baptismal font to be made a spiritual child by adoption of the Most Blessed Trinity, Whose very inner life is flooded into that baby's soul as the Original Sin and that soul's captivity to the devil is flooded out of it. There is no "decision" to be made. There is no "choice" to be made. There is God's Holy Will to fulfill with love and with perfection, made possible by the supernatural helps won for us by the shedding of every single drop of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross and that flow into human hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of all Graces.

Although I have written (and taught) this repeatedly throughout the course of my professional life as a college professor and speaker and writer, let me reiterate this simple truth once again: Every abortion in an attack mystically on the preborn Baby Jesus in the person of an innocent preborn baby in his mother's womb. No one--and I mean no one--can say that he "loves" Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and support as a matter of public law and/or participate in actively the act of dismembering  or burning or poisoning Him mystically in the persons of innocent preborn children by chemical or surgical means.

It is that simple. There is "common ground" to be found. There is only God's Law to be obeyed. Period. (No "Common Ground" Between Truth and Error.)

 

How can the United States of America be made secure from attacks plotted by Mohammedans and others, including the Red Chinese, who pose a far greater threat to the national security and independence of this nation than is posed by agents of al-Qaeda or other Mohammedan groups, as long as we protect homegrown terrorism against the innocent preborn under cover of the civil law? How can we expect to know God's favor, His blessings? How? Is God as indifferent to the daily slaughter of the preborn that is, proximately speaking, the result of the Protestant Revolt against the Social Reign of Christ the King as It must be exercised by His Catholic Church and the subsequent rise of Judeo-Masonry and thus the religiously indifferent civil state as most people are here in the United States of America (and many other placed in the world, of course)? Is He? Why do we think that God is going to "bless" America when laws are enforced that are in utter defiance of the binding precepts of His own Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law that He has written on the very flesh of our hearts?

Republicans such as Haley Barbour, who has the electoral "luxury" of doing a few pro-life things in Mississippi as the electorate in that state is relatively "pro-life," and past harbingers of the big tent rationale for seeking to get the issue of chemical and surgical baby-killing out of electoral politics once and for all so that politicians can concentrate on the "bread and butter" issues as they line their own politics by means of their careers at the public trough, would do well to consider the following questions:

Would one of these Republican naturalists (Lee Atwater, George Herbert Walker Bush, Bob Dole or George Walker Bush or John McCain or Haley Barbour) say that anti-Semitism, the hatred of Jews (and Arabs, it should be pointed out), is just a "difficult" or "divisive" issue that is just a "matter of opinion," as Bush termed abortion in 1999 and 2000, or, in McCain's words, "just a disagreement"? Would a virulent, anti-Semite who wills physical harm, perhaps even under cover of law, to adherents of the Talmud and Arabs, one who might even express views sympathetic to Adolf Hitler's Third Reich, be "welcomed" in the Republican Party? Would an open, rabid anti-Semite be considered as a potential Vice Presidential running mate or as an appointee to the White House staff or the Cabinet or to the Federal judiciary?

Would one of these Republican naturalists (Lee Atwater, George Herbert Walker Bush, Bob Dole or George Walker Bush or John McCain or Haley Barbour) say that racialism, the hatred of any one of the races of people on the face of this earth, is just a "difficult" or "divisive" issue that is just a "matter of opinion," as Bush termed abortion in 1999 and 2000, or, in McCain's words, "just a disagreement"? Would a virulent racialist who hated people of a different skin color (white, brown, black, red, yellow, turquoise) who wills physical harm, perhaps even under cover of law, to those with black or white or yellow or red or turquoise skin be "welcomed" in the Republican Party? Would an open, rabid anti-Semite be considered as a potential Vice Presidential running mate or as an appointee to the White House staff or the Cabinet or to the Federal judiciary?

Why, then, is it that one who believes that little babies, who have committed no crimes whatsoever, can be poisoned and/or butchered in their mothers' wombs under cover of law is deemed qualified to serve in public office, whether elected or appointed? Although the hatred of anyone on the basis of his race or religion is evil, the killing of an innocent human being, no matter the means (abortifacient pills, the various butcheries used by surgical baby-killers, guns, knives, bombs, etc.) used in the killing or the age of the victim (preborn, newborn, infant, toddler, child, adolescent, young adult, middle-aged, elderly), is one of the Four Sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance, and is thus higher in the hierarchy of evils than racial or religious or ethnic hatred.

Sure, this is clear to those of us who are believing Catholics. This is not clear to apostate Catholics and to almost every other category of people, albeit with a few exceptions here and there as the light of natural reason does equip men to see and to accept and even to defend certain basic moral truths even though they do not accept the Catholic Church as the divinely-instituted guardian and infallible explicator of those truths, because of the triumph of the naturalistic ethos of Judeo-Masonry that makes of the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity made Man by the power of God the Holy Ghost in Our Lady's Virginal and Immaculate Womb a matter of complete indifference to personal and social order. It is, you see, a relatively easy thing to consider abortion, whether chemical or surgical in nature, as merely a matter of "opinion" about which one is free to disagree when one considers the Incarnation of God as Man in the Virginal and Immaculate Womb of the woman whose Nativity we celebrated yesterday, Mary Most Holy, to be a matter of complete indifference to order within souls and justice within nations and peace among nations.

Does anyone who is a rational, sane human being believe that Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., or George Walker Bush or John Sidney McCain III understand that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ sanctified the womb of every mother by becoming the Prisoner of His own Blessed Mother's Virginal and Immaculate Womb for nine months before His Nativity in Bethlehem?

Does anyone who is a rational, sane human being believe that Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., or George Walker Bush or John Sidney McCain III understand that every abortion is mystical attack upon Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, Who is in solidarity with every child in every mother's womb, no matter the condition of the child conceived or the circumstances of the conception?

Does anyone who is a rational, sane human being believe that Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., or George Walker Bush or John Sidney McCain III realize that God wills there to be many children born to parents so that they can give him honor and glory here in this passing, mortal vale of tears as members of the true Church He founded upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope, so as to be ready at all times to die in states of Sanctifying Grace and thus enjoy the glory of His own Beatific Vision for all eternity with His Most Blessed Mother, assumed into Heaven this very day?

Does anyone who is a rational, sane human being believe that the likes of George Herbert Walker Bush or Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., or George Walker Bush or John Sidney McCain III or Haley Barbour understand or accept the truth that no level of government--be it local, state or nation--can ever pass any piece of positive civil legislation that puts into question the inviolability of innocent human life or of God's absolute Sovereignty over the sanctity and the fecundity of marriage?

Does anyone who is a rational, sane human being believe that George Herbert Walker Bush or Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., or George Walker Bush or John Sidney McCain III or Haley Barbour understand or accept the truth that the civil government has an obligation to help to foster those conditions in civil society wherein its citizens can better sanctify and save their souls as members of the Catholic Church?

Does anyone who is a rational, sane human being believe that the likes of George Herbert Walker Bush or Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., or George Walker Bush or John Sidney McCain III or Haley Barbour understand or accept the truth that the civil law can never sanction sin, the very thing that caused the God-Man, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, to suffer in His Sacred Humanity during His Passion and Death and caused His Most Blessed Mother's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart through and through with Seven Swords of Sorrow, under cover of law and in every aspect of popular culture.

Does anyone who is a rational, sane human being believe that George Herbert Walker Bush or Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., or George Walker Bush or John Sidney McCain III or Haley Barbour understand or accept the simple truth that Catholicism and Catholicism alone is the sole foundation of personal and social order?

Does anyone who is a rational, sane human being believe that George Walker Bush or Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., or George Walker Bush or John Sidney McCain III or Haley Barbour understand that the United States and other parts of the developed world are undergoing profound economic and demographic and sociological changes as a result of contraception and abortion?

 

Who cares for the homegrown terrorism that so many accept so passively?

 

The cold blooded killing of souls and bodies that so many accept so passively will end only when the Triumph of the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary is made manifest. We can help to usher in that Triumph by remaining faithful to the Immemorial Mass of Tradition, offered at the hands of true priests who understand that concilairism is not Catholicism, by spending time in prayer before the Blessed Sacrament outside of Mass, and by renewing on a daily basis our consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, consoling these Hearts by imitating the simple love of Francisco Marto, who prayed as many Rosaries as he could each day to "console the good God."

We've got Rosaries to pray.

What are we waiting for?

We have a "good God" to console, don't we? Let's go console Him without delay.

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

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.

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

See also: A Litany of Saints