Etch-A-Sketch Midget Candidates And Voters

by Thomas A. Droleskey

The Circus of the Midget Naturalists is over. Over. Done.

Like any bad show (think of My Mother the Car or Pistols n' Petticoats or Grindl or Then Came Bronson), there will be a few more episodes before the Circus of the Midget Naturalists has had its termination notice. It came in Illinois on Tuesday, March 20, 2012. The current coming of Bob Dole, Willard Mitt Romney, an adherent of the false religion started by a Freemasonic confidence man named Joseph Smith (see Pure, Unadulterated Americanism), will be the Republican presidential nominee in 2012, destined to be Mowed Down By A Lord Of The World.

The 2011-2012 edition of the Circus of Midget Naturalists has had its share of colorful characters, some of whom (Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain) vied with each other to become hosts of Peabody's Fractured History while another (James Richard Perry) demonstrated that he was not yet ready for the "big top" as he tried to cram for debates without being conversant in national issues. Two others (Tim Pawlenty, a Catholic apostate, and Jon Huntsman, a Mormon) conjured up a old description of several long forgotten politicians ("Wherever they walked, they never left footprints) as they are even now but footnotes in the current political season.

Yes, there were two others, Gary Johnson and Buddy Roemer, the former Governors of New Mexico and Louisiana, respectively, who dropped out of the Circus of Midget Naturalists to seek the presidential nominations of minor organized crime families of naturalism (Johnson is seeking the Libertarian Party nomination while Roemer is trying to the Reform Party nominee).

The three who are still in the Circus of the Midget Naturalists but who have yet to accept the fact that the series is over (Richard John Santorum, Newton Leroy Gingrich and Ronald Ernest Paul) continue to march to whatever end it is they have set for themselves. The circus in which they have been performing, however, is over. The big top will be taken down soon enough.

The arrogance of power is such that the lead midget's campaign staff is boasting that they can start the general election against the currently reigning caesar, Barack Hussein Obama, by ignoring whatever "tack to the right" that their man, Willard Mitt Romney, made during the primary and caucus season, comparing the switch to a mere shake of an Etch-A-Sketch board:

 

 

Is Mitt Romney an Etch-A-Sketch candidate, one whose positions can be erased with a shake, ready for a new and different drawing?

That’s an analogy that’s getting a lot of discussion today in the Washington professional political class following a comment made by senior Romney aide Eric Fehrnstrom on CNN. Asked whether conservatives Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich had pushed Mr. Romney so far to the right that he’ll have trouble with moderates in a general election, Mr. Fehrnstrom said that wouldn’t be a problem.

“Well, I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign. Everything changes. It’s almost like an Etch-A-Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and restart it all over again,” Fehrnstrom said.

That comment – which appears to imply that Romney can forget what he’s said and take new stands in the fall – came bouncing back to whack the Romney camp faster than a SuperBall pitched against a concrete wall. The Santorum campaign sent out an email alerting reporters to Fehrnstrom’s words, claiming they’re proof that Romney is a Massachusetts moderate.

“We all knew Mitt Romney didn’t have any core convictions, but we appreciate his staff going on national television to affirm that point for anyone who had any doubts,” said Santorum national communications director Hogan Gridley in a statement.

Gingrich piled on, adding via Twitter that “Etch-A-Sketch is a great toy but a losing strategy. We need a nominee w/bold conservative solutions.”

Democratic strategists gleefully retweeted these remarks, hoping to sow chaos in the GOP ranks, while the blogosphere resounded with Romney critics opining as to what other toys he has in his closet: My Little Phony, Gumby, a Hot Wheels Dog Carrier, and so forth.

Very funny. But will this incident hurt Romney, or simply launch a flotilla of bad jokes? We’re guessing the latter. It’ll be gone faster than you can erase a ... well, you know. Etch-A-Sketch references stop here. We promise.

Why? First of all, Romney’s had a pretty good week, in case you didn’t notice. He won the Illinois primary in a walk. Jeb Bush endorsed him, in essence saying to others in the GOP, “it’s time to end this now.”

In other words, Romney has pretty much won. All that’s left is for Santorum and Gingrich to realize that they’ve become zombie candidates. Fehrnstrom’s comments won’t help rivals who have already lost. (Etch-A-Sketch: Can Mitt Romney shake off his aide's Mr. Potato Head Comment?)

Seeking to quickly move on after one of his spokesman blotted out what should have been a banner day for his presidential campaign, Mitt Romney promised wary conservatives that he would not change course if he becomes the Republican nominee.

Speaking to reporters after a town hall meeting in Arbutus, Md., Romney clarified an aide's statement that he would view the start of the general election campaign like an Etch-A-Sketch, suggesting that he could adjust positions he took in a primary campaign dominated by conservatives to please a more centrist electorate in November.

Asked whether Romney’s positions in the primary might be too far to the right to win in November, Eric Fehrnstrom said on CNN: “Well, I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign. Everything changes. It’s almost like an Etch-A-Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and restart all over again.”

Though Fehrnstrom was specifically asked about Romney’s political positions possibly changing, Romney portrayed the comments as being about his organization. Should he be the nominee, Romney said, the nature of the campaign certainly would change "organizationally." But "the issues I'm running on will be exactly the same."

"I'm running as a conservative Republican. I was a conservative Republican governor. I'll be running as a conservative Republican nominee," he said. "The policies and positions are exactly the same."

The Romney campaign had hoped to spend the day talking about its double-digit triumph in Illinois on Tuesday and the endorsement of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. At a town hall meeting outside Baltimore, Romney sought to keep his focus on President Obama, mocking his trip out West to talk about energy prices.

But his rivals seized on the comments from Fehrnstrom, forcing Romney to respond.

A Rick Santorum campaign spokesman showed up at the site of Romney's Maryland campaign kickoff event to hand out miniature versions of the Etch-A-Sketch.

Fehrnstrom's analogy, Alice Stewart told reporters, "confirms what a lot of conservatives have been afraid of. He used to be pro-abortion, he used to be pro-gay marriage, he used to be for a Wall Street bailout, climate change. Now he's talking a different language, but the campaign acknowledged that if need be, if he won the primary, he'd go right back to the middle in order to win the general." (Romney clarifies Etch-A-Sketch remarks to reporter.)

Actually, this is nothing new. Naturalists who are the creatures of focus group polling and the advice given them by their political handlers and marketers always change their positions in order to win as winning is the only thing that matters in American politics. Nothing else.

Most of those who participate as gladiators in the naturalist farce and circus that is electoral politics count on the simple fact that they can use an "Etch-A-Sketch" strategy to campaign for office because most voters themselves live "Etch-A-Sketch" lives in that they do not remember the events of past campaigns or the policy positions they had taken once in office.

Most Americans, diverted by endless other bread and circuses that arouses the senses and excite the passions (such as whether professional football quarterback Tim Tebow, who is some kind of garden-variety Protestant fundamentalist, fit in with the profane characters who comprise the New York Jets, headed by a profane self-promoter by the name of Buddy Ryan), are blank tablets who are apt to believe whatever is beamed into their skulls repeatedly and incessantly in campaign television advertisements. Everything is of the "moment" in this country. Thus it is that people tend believe whatever is told to them at the moment. It's Etch-A-Sketch time.

Indeed, for all of his just criticism of Willard Mitt Romney's being a true "Etch-A-Sketch" candidate, Richard John Santorum is just as much as one himself. Santorum's wife, Karen Santorum, said that the only reason that he brought up the issue of contraception in his campaign was in response to Obama's mandate requiring all employers, including religious institutions, to provide health insurance coverage for contraception and sterilization. The former United States Senator from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has no problem with people using contraception and he would "do nothing" about the matter as he respects the "consciences" of others. He just wants to protect the heresy of religious liberty that created the whole mess in the first place:

Karen Santorum, wife of presidential hopeful Rick Santorum, said Monday that as president, her husband would "do nothing" on the issue of contraception.

"Women have nothing to fear. When it comes to contraceptives, he will do nothing on that issue," she said on CNN's "Piers Morgan Tonight" Monday. "I think the real issue was, what I said, about the religious freedom issue and not allowing the government to be intrusive in our lives."

When pressed on whether a Rick Santorum administration would respect a woman's right to use contraception, she quickly responded, "Absolutely.

The issue is the government forcing people to go against their conscience," she said.

The presidential candidate, known for his conservative social values, took heat last month when the top donor behind a pro-Santorum super-PAC joked about the cost of contraception for women amid the debate over the Obama administration's rule requiring insurance companies to provide birth control for employees.

Santorum was a harsh critic of the president's proposal, which originally required religious organizations such as charities and hospitals to include contraception coverage in their healthcare plans. Obama has since shifted his plan so employees of those organizations could get birth control directly from insurers.

The issue has continued to follow Santorum on the campaign trail.

"It makes me really sad that the media tries to do that to him. They try to make it look like he is something that he's not. Rick is a great guy. He is completely supportive of women," Karen Santorum said.

The former Pennsylvania senator sparred with MSNBC host Joe Scarborough on Monday over whether he had been treated fairly by the news media on the issue of contraception access.

Santorum said it was unfair to take instances where he was talking about his personal religious beliefs and suggest they would result in dramatic changes to social policies.

"The only reason I've been talking about this issue is in respect to government mandates of people of faith," Santorum said on MSNBC. (Karen Santorum says husband 'will do nothing' on issue of contraception.)

 

No, it's always "Etch-A-Sketch" time with the Midget Naturalists of the false opposite of the "right." Romney told us a few months ago that contraception was "working very well" and Santorum supports the nonexistent "right" of women to use it. Neither Romney or Santorum understand that the pro-population control policies that both have supported over the course of decades have contributed mightily to the world's economic woes as there is a direct connection between the de-population of the world and the destruction of the stability of the family, expedited by divorce and, now, by the rise of the homosexualist collective. As goes the family, so go fate of nations. The monster civil state of Modernity has taken the place of the family as a result, having grown to the point of totalitarianism as there is no external check upon its growth that would be provided if men and their nations recognized and respected the Social Reign of Christ the King as It must be exercised by the Catholic Church.

What is true of the naturalist "right" is true also of the naturalist "left."

Indeed, Caesar Barackus Obamus Ignoramus himself knows all about Etch-A-Sketch as he and his political wunderkind, David Axelrod, know that no one is paying attention to the Fast and Furious gun running scandal or United States Attorney General Eric Holder's coverup of it.

Obama and Axelrod want Americans to forget about ObamaCare (although RomneyCare neutralizes that as an issue in the general election as the latter was the model for the former).

Obama and Axelrod know that most people don't know and don't care about. the scandals associated with "green energy" projects such as Solyndra.

Obama and Axelrod know that most people don't know and don't care about the Obama administration's effort to force religious institutions to provide health insurance coverage for contraception and sterilization to their employees.

Obama and Axelrod know that most people don't know and don't care about their administration's refusal to protect the borders of the United States of America and the decision to sue the State of Arizona by daring to seek to protect itself from a wave of violent criminals who have crossed into this country from Mexico.

Obama and Axelrod know that most people don't know and don't care about the caesar's bowing before foreign leaders, thus demeaning American national sovereignty.

Obama and Axelrod know that most people don't know and don't care about the administration's many and varied rank violations of the Constitution of the United States of America, including his making a "recess" appointment to a new Consumer Financial Protection Board even though the United States Senate was in session (see Hugo Chavez Ortega Obama). The Constitution? What's that?

We are living through a great chastisement for our sins and the sins of the whole world. Although so few people want to believe these words, there is no naturalistic "short-cut" to prevent the worsening of this chastisement. We must pray and fast and sacrifice as the consecrated slaves of Christ the King through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, Our Queen. We must stand for Catholic truth as it alone can convert men and their nations to the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which it is impossible to know true social order.

Archbishop Alban Goodier, S.J., who was the Archbishop of Bombay, India, form December 22, 1919, to October 1, 1926, explained in Volume Two of The Public Life of Our Lord Jesus Christ that Our Lord had to teach the Apostles to stand for truth and to reject all human prudence that might impede them from standing for the truth. Archbishop Goodier's reflections should inspire us to reject all "human prudence" that men use to excuse themselves from standing in behalf of Catholic truth in the midst of the world because of the alleged "impossibility" of converting men and their nations to the true Faith:

"From that time Jesus began to shew to his disciples that the Son of Man must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things and be rejected by the ancients and chief priests and scribes and be put to death. And after three days rise again. And he spoke the word openly."

The day on which Simon Peter made his great confession was a landmark and a day of change in many ways. Jesus now no longer hung about the outlying semi-pagan districts; He turned His steps once more towards Galilee. From Caesarea Philippi to the north of the lake, down the upper Jordan Valley, would be a short day's journey; between the hills on either side the road was even. He took that road; as He went along He began to speak to the Twelve of other things which were indeed passing strange. He had come to found a Kingdom, and at last the Kingdom had been founded; that day the foundation-stone had been definitely laid. All during the preceding months he had laboured hard to teach them independence of the Pharisees and Scribes. He had told them expressly not to fear them; to their faces He had defied those men; when they had wished to argue with Him He had turned His back upon them. He had bade His own to beware, not of the men themselves, but of their 'leaven' ; of the doctrine they taught and their subtle devices.

Now on a sudden all was changed. He no longer sought to avoid them; He would go into the very jaws of death. He no longer spoke of His power and authority; He spoke as one who was already doomed. He had just crowned His teaching by the promise that the gates of hell should not prevail against His Church; yet this was immediately followed by emphatic predictions, that He must go into the centre of danger, that there He must suffer, must be rejected, must die. And not only must the people reject Him; that, more or less, the Twelve could understand. Already many had begun to desert Him, many more had never followed Him at all. The talk that they had heard in the bazaar had let them see that the crowds were not to be trusted. But the rejection, so He told them, would be far more serious than that. He would be rejected by the ancients, by the chief priests, by the Scribes, by every authority which they held sacred, and all but infallible, and representative of God Himself. In the end, so they had always dreamed, He would win them to His side; by His miracles, by His words, by the evidence of Himself, He would convince these leaders as He had convinced them. The Old Law would at last recognize its Messias; the priests of the Temple would see in Him their elder Brother, the prophets would be proved to have been fulfilled in Him. Ancients priests, and Scribes would be convinced, and Jerusalem the Golden would own its lawful King.

So they had dreamt, and in the strength of that dream the human side of their minds had clung to Him. What then could He mean by this strange and new language that He spoke? He gave no explanation; He just stated the fact; again and again, when they were alone together, He came back upon it. At first it would seem that again He was speaking to them in parables, and later explain what He meant. Then, since no word of explanation came, they would say that this was a timely warning of opposition that would last yet longer. Lastly, since He continued to repeat it, they were convinced that He was only too depressed; that He was feeling too keenly His recent ill-success, the desertion of the people, the enmity of the Scribes and Pharisees, the weakening of themselves, the Twelve, His own inability to do anything that would appeal. He was too sad; He was losing heart; He was looking into the future with hopeless eyes; perhaps He was saying these things that He might induce them to show Him sympathy and encouragement. For surely what He said could never positively come true; such a doom could never befall the Son of the living God.

Once more Simon, now Peter, spoke up for the rest. He was now the Rock; he must show that he was equal to the task imposed upon him. Along that country lane, in His company, with the Eleven all around him, and not a single enemy in sight, Peter could be very brave. Hay more, he could show what a worthy vicar he would be. If the Master went down, he would be there to lift Him up.  The Kingdom had been established. They must not now look back. Such a debacle as Jesus foreshadowed must not be tolerated for a moment. Besides, for Him to speak like this would have a bad effect upon the rest. The last few months had been hard enough; ever since their successful expeditions, when Jesus had sent them to preach before the Pasch, they had had a trying time. They had shown anxiety of late at the attitude of the Pharisees and Scribes; if this kind of future were all their Master could show them, they, too, might lose heart. He must interfere; He must remonstrate. He was now the Rock; he stood responsible for the loyalty of the rest. The gates of hell were not to prevail against him; must less must they be permitted to prevail against the Master. Perhaps this was a first test for him; if so, like a man he must play his part.

So it came about that on one of these occasions, when Jesus gain came back on this depressing picture, Simon Peter would endure it no longer. He took Jesus aside; he meant to speak strongly, therefore he did not wish to be overheard. Affectionately enough he scolded his Master; he rebuked Him, he pointed out to Him what a mistake was this which He was making: 'And Peter taking him began to rebuke him saying Lord be it far from thee this shall not be unto thee.'

Jesus looked at Peter. At another time, in another place, He might have taken his remonstrance gently, at least with great condescension; by the Jordan, on the lake, in the synagogue at Capharnaum, He had always given Peter  encouragement. But now it was very different; the Peter that now spoke was another man from him who had said: 'Depart from me for I am a sinful man O Lord.' or again: ' Lord, if it be thou bid me come to thee upon the waters'; or who had later cried: 'Lord to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.'

For in this last assumptive manner there was that which might one day prove Peter's downfall. Besides there were others to be considered. The Eleven were behind, looking on. They knew what Peter was doing; if they could not hear his words they could guess from his behaviour, for Peter was always spontaneous. Though Peter was the chosen head, yet even Peter had his place and his duty, and both he and the others must be taught it.

Jesus turned round and stood still. He faced the Eleven coming towards Him, He turned His back on Peter. Then severely, yet not offensively, for Peter clung to Him all the same, He spoke strong words: "Who turning about and seeing his disciples threatened Peter saying Go behind me, Satan. Thou art a scandal to me because thou savourest not the things that are of God but the things that are of men.'

Such was Peter's first lesson as Prince of the Apostles. Not always success as men see it is the truest triumph. There is something far more true than success, and truth alone in the end prevails.

But the lesson begun was not to stop there. Not only to the Twelve had He now begun to teach this new doctrine of suffering, and rejection, and death; He would show that to others also His attitude had changed. And yet in reality it had not changed; He who from the beginning had blessed the poor, and the meek, and those who suffered for the sake of justice, was consistent with Himself. Only from henceforth forward He would emphasize those things which before had been less noticed. He would insist that suffering of some kind were it only that of ordinary life, was a condition of His service; that the first step in the following of Him was to be along the way of the Cross. . . .

He had lifted them up on another plane. In the early days, in the days of His temptations, we had seen how 'The devil took him up and shewed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time and the glory of them', and had said to Him: 'To thee will I give all this power and al the glory of them for to me they are delivered and to whom I will them. If therefore thou falling down wilt adore me and all shall be thine.'

That temptation was no passing thing. It was real, it was persistent, it attacked the soul of every man who was zealous for the spread of the Kingdom, it would continue to the the end of time. At that very moment His followers were affected by it. Because of it the would make Him their King; not least His Twelve dreamed and dreamed again that for the conquest of the world, the gaining of it for the Kingdom, any price would be worth while. 'In a moment of time, the glory of them all shall be thine.'

Who would not give all He possessed for a conquest so glorious!

Jesus would now set Himself to correct that impression. More than all the world to Him was the single soul of any single man; more than a kingdom that reached across the globe, and held the nations in thrall, was a kingdom in a single heart. The Kingdom of God was within Him, it was not of this world; it was in the hearts of other men, not in the things that they possessed. Let a man therefore keep that safe, and all would be well. let him save a single soul, and another, and another, one by one, in that alone would come the conquest.

And then He took another side; He faced and countered another temptation that pursued and would pursue His own. For thus they would reason. To seek to spread the Kingdom, to win the favour and the allegiance of men to Jesus Christ, to conquer the power and glory of the earth, entailed a great risk, demanded great prudence. For this mean must needs be humoured; they must not be offended; the unpleasant things must be glossed over. Jesus of Nazareth might at times be a scandal to the Pharisees and Scribes. His claim, too, openly declared, might shock the people of Nazareth; to the men of Capharnaum His promise might appear too extravagant. His overlordship of the Sabbath and the Temple might offend the citizens of Jerusalem; His powers, too strongly maintained, might arouse opposition, above all His power of forgiving sins. On this account some of His own would be tempted to half-measures. They would suffer human prudence to prevail; they would adapt Jesus Christ and His doctrine to the standards of this earth; they would be ashamed to proclaim Him as He was. It was not a new temptation; it was but another phase of that which we have just seen. to prefer the external kingdom to the kingdom within a human soul, to sacrifice a soul for the kingdom, would in the end lead to this; that for the sake of the Kingdom the King Himself would be sacrificed.

Once for all, then, he would denounce and crush this evil, the greatest save one that could creep into His Church, and of the others He had already given warning. This was the evil that would try her most, and would injure her most, both from within and from without, through all the ages that were to come in high places as well as in corners of the Kingdom. A few days before He had founded His Church on Peter; Peter had responded by saying that which savoured not 'The things are of God but the things that are of men.'

Even in Peter then the danger was imminent. Therefore, now the first time, the Son of Man reveals Himself in all His dignity and might. The kingdom of the earth! Let the kingdoms of the earth hear Him who now speaks and tremble: 'He that shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation of him the Son of Man will also be ashamed when he shall come in the glory of his father with the holy angels.'

It was a tremendous announcement; for those who were versed in the prophets it was also a solemn declaration. Now definitely, at this beginning of His downfall, Jesus declared what He meant by His self-chosen title of the Son of Man. Daniel had foreseen it; Jesus took to Himself the prophet's words: 'I beheld therefore in the vision of the night and lo one like the son of man came with the clouds of heaven. And he came even to the Ancient of days and they presented him before him and he gave him power and glory. And a kingdom and all peoples and tribes and tongues shall serve him. His power is an everlasting power that shall not be taken away and his kingdom that shall not be destroyed.' (Daniel vii, 13, 14.)

As the storm rises against Him, so much the more from henceforward does Jesus assert His supremacy. As here He had foretold His doom, and then in the same breath foretold His victory, so when the end did some, in the same words but more emphatic, He announced the coming of His Kingdom. In all and among all He was always the Master; this feature of His life must never be forgotten during the troubled times which are now to follow. Nowhere more than on Calvary does He show that He is the Lord. (Archbishop Alban Goodier, The Public Life of Our Lord Jesus Christ: An Interpretation, Volume Two. London: Burns, Oates and Washbourne, Ltd., 1931, pp. 1-5; 6-9.)

 

Have you read these passages from Archbishop Goodier's book with care? Read them again. And again. And yet again after that. When you have read these passages and meditated upon them, I ask you to pray three Hail Marys for a reader of this site, a person who lives east of the Alleghenies and west of Dublin, Ireland, for firmly recommending that we purchase Archbishop Goodier's book.

These remarkable passages have application to the state of the world and to those who think that some "strategy" is necessary to shade the truth in order clothe the naked emperor that is Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI with the fiction that he is a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter despite his many defections from the Catholic Faith, including his complete and utter rejection of the Social Reign of Christ the King as a matter of principle, not as a concession to the realities of time.

Archbishop Goodier, who died on March 13, 1939, just thirty-two days before what would have been his seventieth birthday, wrote words that describe both the anti-Incarnational world of the civil state of Modernity that has influenced Catholics to accept with passivity and a shrug of the shoulders the seeming permanence of the way things exist now and the Modernist predilections of the lords of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, men who believe that it is indeed inopportune and imprudent to proclaim what the Catholic Church proclaimed throughout her history concerning the Social Reign of Christ the King.

Readers of this site can choose to believe what they want to act as they will, preferring, quite perhaps, that it is "necessary" to "put aside" the truths of the Holy Faith to combat the evils being wrought by the current caesar. Yet it is that the Etch-A-Sketch naturalists of the false opposite of the "right" who seek to replace the current caesar are themselves creatures and slaves of Modernity's Protestant and Judeo-Masonic contention that it is not necessary for men and their nations to recognize Christ as King and to submit to Him as He has revealed Himself to us exclusively through His Catholic Church in all that pertains to the good of souls, upon which hinges the fate of nations.

The conciliarists have "indeed" put aside the truths of the Catholic Church in order to appear "reasonable" to a pluralistic world. Although I have noted this before, perhaps it is time to point out yet again these words of Pope Saint Pius X, contained in Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906:

That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man's eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man's supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it. . . .Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State. (Pope Saint Pius X, Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906.)

 

 

How can something absolutely false in 1906 and that had been condemned repeatedly by pope after pope become true, good, virtuous and even necessary sixty years thereafter at the "Second" Vatican Council? How? That the conciliar "popes" have ceased condemning the doctrine of separation of Church and State and have, quite instead, embraced and defended and promoted it is yet another proof that have not the Mind of the Divine Redeemer, Christ the King, but are possessed of Modernist heart and soul that is intent on "reconciling" with the anti-Incarnational, religiously indifferentist, naturalist and semi-Pelagian principles of Modernity that are from the devil himself, who is more than happy to use Catholics as enablers of the Etch-A-Sketch Naturalists who can do nothing but continue to perpetuate his own falsehoods while social conditions deteriorate as a result.

As Pope Leo XIII put it in Custodi Di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892:

Everyone should avoid familiarity or friendship with anyone suspected of belonging to masonry or to affiliated groups. Know them by their fruits and avoid them. Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions, and the craving to reconcile the maxims of the Gospel with those of the revolution. These men seek to reconcile Christ and Belial, the Church of God and the state without God. (Pope Leo XIII, Custodi di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892.)

 

May the Rosaries that we pray each day help us to so oriented to the things of Heaven that we come to despite the ways of naturalism and naturalists, becoming apostles only of the Social Reign of Christ the King and of Mary our Immaculate Queen remembering at all times these simple but profound words of Pope Saint Pius X:

. . . . 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. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

 

We must make sure, therefore, to cleave to true Catholic Faith without making any concessions to concilairism, whose apostate apologists such as the midget naturalists who are vying for the one to be defeated by the Uber Statist, Barack Hussein Obama, on November 6, 2012, are always trying to convince the voters that they have the "solutions" to the nation's problems. They do not.

The solution rests with us as we seek to make reparation for our sins, especially during this season of Lent, which is about to enter Passiontide with First Vespers for Passion Sunday on Saturday evening, and pray for the fulfillment of Our Lady's Fatima Message.

The "message" we must convey is that of the restoration of the Social Reign of Christ the King, a message rejected by the lords of Modernity in the world and by the lords of Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism alike.

"Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!"

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.

Saint Isidore the Farmer, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints