It's Not The "Message," It's The Man

by Thomas A. Droleskey

This will be a mercifully short article as it is as tiring to write about the redundancy of the midget naturalists as it is to write about the conciliar revolutionaries, ever intent to offend God by their actions, which include "joint appearances" and prayers and "blessings" with laymen masquerading as Protestant "bishops" or "ministers" who have a mission from God to serve souls and foster "unity" (see Mr. Mark Stabinski's very fine article, Williams and Ratzinger Pray Together Yet Again,about Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's "joint appearance" with the non-"archbishop" of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, on Saturday, March 10, 2012, at a supposed vespers service at the Church of Saint Gregorio Magno al Celio, an event at which Williams actually preached) and endless efforts to turn our true popes and Church Fathers and Doctors into witnesses in behalf of the the conciliar apostasies that they opposed with all of the Catholic might.

Some of those in the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist "right" are very alarmed that their anointed Bob Dole, former Commonwealth of Massachusetts Governor Willard Mitt Romney, has not as of yet won enough decisive victories in the circus of midget naturalists that has played out in various state primary elections and caucuses. There has been no time since 1976 when an anointed Republican candidate (it was Leslie Lynch King, Jr., that year, a man who was better known as Gerald Rudolph Ford, Jr., who faced a stiff challenge from former California Governor Ronald Reagan) entered into a convention without having secured enough delegate votes to make that farcical exercise into a three or four day coronation ceremony. The "establishment" Republican naturalists are aghast that voters are actually rejecting their anointed one to vote for former United States Senator Richard John Santorum (R-Pennsylvania), and former Speaker of the United States House of Representatives Newton Leroy Gingrich. Some are advising Romney to "fix" his "message:"

 

Even before the results trickled in Tuesday and showed a possible win in Mississippi slipping away, the calls for Romney to enhance his campaign message were already breaking through.

"Note to Mitt R: please, please, please stop talking delegate counts and process!!" tweeted veteran Republican strategist Mike Murphy, a former Romney adviser. "Run for POTUS not county Rep party chairman."

The sentiment was echoed Wednesday morning by Mississippi Sen. Trent Lott, a leading Romney backer who called on the former governor to articulate in greater detail his specific accomplishments in Massachusetts and in the private sector.

Lott pointed to Newt Gingrich's recent focus on lowering the cost of gasoline as an example of how the candidate might drive a message tailored to the pocketbook concerns of everyday citizens.

"Newt has been like a dog with a bone over gasoline prices," Lott told CNN. "Romney needs to focus more on the consistency of a positive message. What's the number one thing people are concerned about? The economy and jobs."

The advice from Chris Devaney, the chairman of the Tennessee Republican Party, was straightforward: Romney "needs to be himself."

Devaney recalled sitting in on a private lunch with Romney and Nashville business leaders two years ago at Vanderbilt University.

Romney, he said, seemed at ease and made an impressive case as to how he would use his experience running Bain Capital and managing Salt Lake City Olympic Games to turn around the economy.

"I think if he got back to doing that, I think he would probably have more success," Devaney said. "I think he needs to focus more on what his strengths are: being a strong business person, being good on the economy and just being himself." (Republicans to Romney: Fix your message.)

 

Willard Mitt Romney has no "message." He is a man who would have been a career politician if he had not been defeated by Edward Moore Kennedy, who was running at that time for sixth term as United States Senator from the People's Republic of Taxachusetts, on November 8, 1994. Indeed, Romney might have even considered running for Republican presidential nomination in the year 2000 if he had beaten the man whose pro-abortion and pro-perversion credentials he tried to outdo in the election campaign (see the appendix below). Romney was merely biding his time while managing the Olympics that were held in Salt Lake City, Utah, from February 8, 2002, to February 24, 2002, during the administration of President George Walker Bush (January 20, 2001, to January 20, 2009). He ran for Governor of Massachusetts in 2002 in order to burnish his electoral credentials to make a run for the presidency in 2007-2008. He was really running for president during much of his one term as the Bay State's governor.

Mitt Romney's "message," such as it is, is simple: "Elect me. I'm electable. Why? I say so. Never mind the fact that I am not winning many primaries now by comfortable margins and losing others. I'm winning delegates. That's all that matters. I'm not going to light my hair on fire to excite the base. No, I just want to get the nomination as I know that the base wants Obama out so badly that they will just have to accept me as their only hope of doing so. I want to the first Mormon president of the United States of America and finish the job that my father had started when he sought the nomination during the 1968 nominating process. That's my message. Elect me."

Romney will be the Republican Party's 2012 presidential nominee precisely because he, a technocrat, is gathering the delegates to take to him to the convention. While it is conceivable that he might not have the requisite 1144 delegates to win the nomination by the time of the convention, he would have far more than Santorum or Gingrich if this happened. A contested convention is not out of the question. However, Willard Mitt Romney, a man who told us that "contraception is working just fine" and that he had last "stood up" for "gay rights" by having answered a question at one of the midget naturalists' debates, is slogging along to become the next Bob Dole,. Willard Mitt Romney is a man who is controlled by media consultants and focus groups. He is a man who is indeed very comfortable talking to business leaders, but who does not understand the concerns of the "base," composed of people who are agitated by our reigning caesar's policies without understanding that we are living through the logical degeneration of the founding principles of the men extolled by Santorum and Gingrich as the architects of limited government, something that can never be realized absent a due submission by civil leaders to the teaching authority of the Catholic Church in all that pertains to the good of souls.

Willard Mitt Romney will get eviscerated by Barack Hussein Obama over the issue of ObamaCare as our caesar knows where the bodies are buried, that is to say, he can produce evidence that proves Romney's own former aides helped to map out the blueprint for the nationalization of the American health care industry that is already causing medical costs to skyrocket and that will continue to wreck the American economy if the "Affordable Care Act of 2010" is not declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States of America at the end of its current term in June, if not before following two days of oral arguments that will be presented on the transferred feast of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Monday, March 26, 2012, and the Feast of Saint John Damascene (and the commemoration of Tuesday in Passion Week) the next day, Tuesday, March 27, 2012.  And make no mistake about it, ObamaCare is costing so much money that even the pro-abortion Catholic Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, has admitted she has no idea how much if the program increases the annual Federal budget deficit:

 

You know Kathleen Sebelius well. She's Secretary of Health and Human Services, which, among other things, makes her in charge of implementing Obamacare.

You'd think she'd know the law inside and out, and that she'd be able to at least semi-coherently answer questions about it at a Senate hearing. But when Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) asks her about the program's effect on the national debt, she melts into a stuttering puddle, and he schools her on the economics of the law.

The most damning exchange occurs when he asks her about healthcare waivers, which would exempt certain employers from having to provide healthcare to their employees, thereby driving up the out-of-pocket expense for individuals. Sebelius, however, seems to have no idea what he's talking about when he asks her about the effect these waivers will have on the system:

 

JOHNSON: Just waivers from having to implement portions of the healthcare law that probably would have allowed those – or forced those workers – off their employer-sponsored care.

SEBELIUS: Again, I’d be happy to answer these questions, but I have no idea what waivers you’re talking about–

JOHNSON: The waivers that HHS has granted to employers not–

SEBELIUS: Which do what?

JOHNSON: Not having implemented sections of the healthcare law.

SEBELIUS: There have been waivers granted to employers, yes.

JOHNSON: And had those waivers not been granted, chances are, those employees probably would have lost their employer-sponsored care, correct?

SEBELIUS: I have no idea. I mean, I’m happy to answer those one at a time and look at the waivers and see what–

JOHNSON: Unfortunately, I’m pretty short on time.

I know Nancy Pelosi said we'd have to pass the bill to see what's in it, but you'd think that two years down the road, Sebelius would know. (Sebelius: 'No Idea' if Obamacare Increases Deficit.)

 

RomneyCare, no matter how it differs with it in some details, helped to pave the way for ObamaCare (Confirmed: Romneycare = Obamacare, RomneyCare: Making a Fool of Every Republican With It and RomneyCare Unleashed Adverse Selection, As Will ObamaCare). Obama will sneer at his suggestion that his own health care takeover mousetrap is substantially different than Romney's, thus neutralizing the one issue that some so-called "swing" or "independent" voters are using as a reason to vote against Obama on Tuesday, November 6, 2012.

This kind of madness is just par for the naturalist course:

For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of "naturalism," as they call it, dare to teach that "the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones." And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that "that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require." From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity," viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;" and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling."

And, since where religion has been removed from civil society, and the doctrine and authority of divine revelation repudiated, the genuine notion itself of justice and human right is darkened and lost, and the place of true justice and legitimate right is supplied by material force, thence it appears why it is that some, utterly neglecting and disregarding the surest principles of sound reason, dare to proclaim that "the people's will, manifested by what is called public opinion or in some other way, constitutes a supreme law, free from all divine and human control; and that in the political order accomplished facts, from the very circumstance that they are accomplished, have the force of right." But who, does not see and clearly perceive that human society, when set loose from the bonds of religion and true justice, can have, in truth, no other end than the purpose of obtaining and amassing wealth, and that (society under such circumstances) follows no other law in its actions, except the unchastened desire of ministering to its own pleasure and interests? (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864.)

 

Again, as I have noted before, I hope--and it is only a hope--that perhaps some of you who think me daft for being a "party pooper" every two years when the mania of the farce of naturalism called elections causes otherwise sane, rational people to lose their minds might come to see that the cavalry is not coming to the rescue. This is because men must be lost in the midst of chaos, intellectually and socially, whenever they do not recognize the simple truth that civil law must be subordinated at all times to the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law as they have been entrusted by Christ the King to His Catholic Church for their eternal safekeeping and infallible explication.

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, 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.

See also: A Litany of Saints

Appendix

Willard Mitt Romney's Anti-Life Record

Q. Mr. Romney, you personally oppose abortion and as a church leader have advised women not to have an abortion. Given that, how could you in good conscience support a law that enables women to have an abortion, and even lets the Government pay for it? If abortion is morally wrong, aren't you responsible for discouraging it?

ROMNEY One of the great things about our nation, Sally [ Sally Jacobs of The Boston Globe ] , is that we're each entitled to have strong personal beliefs, and we encourage other people to do the same. But as a nation we recognize the right of all people to believe as they want, and not to impose our beliefs on other people. I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country; I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate.

I believe that Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years, that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice. And my personal beliefs, like the personal beliefs of other people, should not be brought into a political campaign. Too much has been written about religion in this race. I'm proud of my religious heritage; I am proud of the values that it's taught me. But if you want to know my position on issues, ask me and I'll tell you. I think the low point of this race was when my opponent and their family decided to make religion an issue in this campaign -- brought it out, attacked me for it. I think that's a mistake. I think the time has passed for that. John Kennedy was the one who fought that battle; let that battle live for all of us of all faiths.

KENNEDY I would agree with Mr. Romney that religion has no place in this campaign. And the best way to make sure that it doesn't is not to talk any further about it, and I don't intend to do so.

On the question of the choice issue, I have supported Roe v. Wade. I am pro-choice; my opponent is multiple choice.

I have not only introduced the freedom-of-choice legislation but I have fought -- wrote and saw successfully passed -- the clinic access bill that will permit women to be able to practice their constitutional rights in selection of abortion. And I have also led the fight against judges in the Supreme Court of the United States that refuse to permit a woman's right to choose. (THE 1994 CAMPAIGN; Excerpt From Debate By Kennedy And Romney; The Real Romney, a video clip of this exchange.)

 

Take a look also at comments Romney made eight years later when running for Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

How did this "man of principle" this " staunch defender of the inviolability of innocent human life under cover of the civil law," arrive at his pro-death position in 1994 and 2002? By pure political expediency, that's how:

 

In 1993, Mitt Romney was a successful businessman with an urge to enter public life and a plan to challenge Ted Kennedy for a Senate seat from Massachusetts.

Romney was also a high-ranking official in the Mormon church -- in charge of all church affairs in the Boston area -- with a dilemma over abortion. Romney was personally pro-life, and the church was pro-life, but a majority of the Massachusetts electorate was decidedly pro-choice.

How Romney handled that dilemma is described in a new book, "Mitt Romney: An Inside Look at the Man and His Politics," by Boston journalist Ronald Scott. A Mormon who admires Romney but has had his share of disagreements with him, Scott knew Romney from local church matters in the late 1980s.

Scott had worked for Time Inc., and in the fall of 1993, he says, Romney asked him for advice on how to handle various issues the media might pursue in a Senate campaign. Scott gave his advice in a couple of phone conversations and a memo. In the course of the conversations, Scott says, Romney outlined his views on the abortion problem.

According to Scott, Romney revealed that polling from Richard Wirthlin, Ronald Reagan's former pollster whom Romney had hired for the '94 campaign, showed it would be impossible for a pro-life candidate to win statewide office in Massachusetts. In light of that, Romney decided to run as a pro-choice candidate, pledging to support Roe v. Wade, while remaining personally pro-life.

In November 1993, according to Scott, Romney said he and Wirthlin, a Mormon whose brother and father were high-ranking church officials, traveled to Salt Lake City to meet with church elders. Gathering in the Church Administration Building, Romney, in Scott's words, "laid out for church leaders ... what his public position would be on abortion -- personally opposed but willing to let others decide for themselves."

By Scott's account, Romney wasn't seeking approval or permission; he was telling the officials what he was going to do. Scott quotes a "senior church leader" saying Romney "didn't ask what his position should be, nor did he ask the brethren to endorse his position. He came to explain, and his explanation was consistent with church teachings and policies."

According to Scott, some of the leaders were unhappy with Romney's plan and let him know it. "I may not have burned bridges, but a few of them were singed and smoking," Romney told Scott in a phone conversation.

In Scott's account, Romney displayed plenty of independence from church influence. But why did he feel the need to brief church leaders in the first place? The Romney campaign declined to comment on that or any other aspect of Scott's book. A Mormon church spokesman said only, "I do not know of the meeting, but it is our policy not to comment on private meetings anyway."

Scott has his own view. "[Romney] was not obliged to brief them," Scott said in an interview. "He probably was obliged to let them know as a matter of courtesy before he would take some stands on various issues that would raise eyebrows, because he was a fairly important officer of the church."

In any event, the episode points to a brief period in Romney's life in which his role as a church official and as an emerging political figure overlapped. (Romney declared his candidacy for the Senate on Feb. 2, 1994, and stepped down as a Mormon leader on March 20.)

Romney went on to lose in a campaign that featured Kennedy attacking Romney's religion. Romney pointed out the irony of Kennedy -- whose brother John F. Kennedy faced attacks on his Catholicism in the 1960 presidential campaign -- launching religion-based attacks, but to no avail.

If Romney is the 2012 Republican nominee, he will surely face similar stuff. Much of it will undoubtedly be ugly and unjustified. But there will also be simple questions about Romney's role as a church official at the start of his political career. (Mitt Romney Used Polls to Determine Campaign Position on Abortion.)

This "staunch defender" of the inviolability of innocent human life under cover of the civil law has boasted that he vetoed a bill passed by the Massachusetts General Court, the state legislature, that would have permitted the sale of the so-called Plan B emergency abortifacient to minor girls. That is not the whole story, nor does it say anything about his RomneyCare prototype of ObamaCare specifically included a provision for the appointment of a representative from Planned Parenthood on the state panel overseeing implementation of Romney's version of socialized medicine that has skyrocketed medical and insurance costs in the Bay State:

You should be quite familiar by now with the fact that Mitt Romney gave $150.00 to Planned Parenthood in 1994 when claiming he had always been pro-abortion.

You should also know that in 2004, Mitt Romney says he personally converted to the pro-life position. In fact, according to ABC News on June 14, 2007, “Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has long cited a November 2004 meeting with a Harvard stem-cell researcher as the moment that changed his long-held stance of supporting abortion rights to his current ‘pro-life’ position opposing legal abortion. But several actions Romney took mere months after that meeting call into question how deep-seated his conversion truly was.”

What was one of those actions?

Two months after his pro-life conversion, Mitt Romney appointed Matthew Nestor to the bench in Massachusetts. Romney seeming bowed to political pressure making Nestor a judge even after Nestor, according to the Boston Globe as far back as 1994, had campaigned for political office championing his pro-abortion views.

One year after his pro-life conversion, in July of 2005, Mitt Romney vetoed legislation that would expand the use of the morning after pill arguing that it would contribute to abortions. But just three months later Mitt Romney slid back and signed a bill that expanded state subsidized access to the morning after pill.

Writing in the Boston Globe on October 15, 2005, Stephanie Ebbert noted:

 

Governor Mitt Romney has signed a bill that could expand the number of people who get family-planning services, including the morning-after pill, confusing some abortion and contraception foes who had been heartened by his earlier veto of an emergency contraception bill. … The services include the distribution of condoms, abortion counseling, and the distribution of emergency contraception, or morning after pills, by prescription …

But that’s nothing. Two whole years after the pro-life view had settled into Mitt Romney’s conscience and a year after Mitt Romney had vetoed legislation expanding access to the morning after pill, he expanded access to abortion and gave Planned Parenthood new rights under state law. Yes, that Planned Parenthood.

Mitt Romney is really proud of Romneycare. He champions it as a great healthcare reform for Massachusetts. At one point he claimed it could be a model for the nation, though he now denies that.

According to States News Service on October 2, 2006,

 

“The following information was released by the Massachusetts Office of the Governor: Governor Mitt Romney today officially launched Commonwealth Care, an innovative health insurance product that will allow thousands of uninsured Massachusetts residents to purchase private health insurance products at affordable rates. Commonwealth Care is a key component of the state’s landmark healthcare reform law approved by the Governor in April. ‘We are now on the road to getting everyone health insurance in Massachusetts,’ said Governor Romney. … ‘Today, we celebrate a great beginning.’

 

Romney loves to take credit for it.

The law, in addition to providing healthcare coverage for the uninsured and forcing everyone to have insurance, expanded abortion services in the State of Massachusetts. It also required that one member of the MassHealth Payment Policy Board be appointed by Planned Parenthood of Massachusetts.

From Chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006:

SECTION 3. Chapter 6A of the General Laws is hereby amended by inserting after section 16I the following 6 sections: . . . Section 16M. (a) There shall be a MassHealth payment policy advisory board. The board shall consist of the secretary of health and human services or his designee, who shall serve as chair, the commissioner of health care financing and policy, and 12 other members: … 1 member appointed by Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts … (Massachusetts General Court Website, www.mass.gov, Accessed 2/5/07)

 

In 2007, Mitt Romney was still denying his healthcare plan did this.

 

QUESTION: “I noticed some of the conservative groups back in Massachusetts, they complain about there’s a Planned Parenthood rep mandate to be on the planning board for the health care plan. Is that something you just had to deal with in negotiating with the legislature?”

ROMNEY: “It’s certainly not something that was in my bill.”

(Eric Krol, “Full Text Of Romney Interview,” [Arlington Heights, IL] Daily Herald, 6/17/07)

Except it was. Apparently, like with Obamacare, you had to pass the bill to find out what was in it, but once passed, Romney never read it. (Mitt Romney Not Only Gave Money to Planned Parenthood, He Gave It Power; for a very comprehensive review of Willard Mitt Romney's supposed "conversion" on the issue on abortion, please see How Pro-Life Is Mitt Romney?)