Midget Apostates Endorsing Midget Naturalists
by
Thomas A. Droleskey
It should be clear by now to the eight or twelve people who read these articles now and again, especially after the after the latest five-ring circuses, held at Saint Anselm College in Goffstown, New Hampshire last evening, Saturday, January 7, 2012, and this morning in Derry, New Hampshire, that the midget naturalists who are running for the 2012 Republican Party presidential nomination for the privilege of losing to incumbent president Hugo Chavez Ortega Obama are just massive welters of error and confusion, some of it wrought by the errors of Modernity, including the sentimentally-driven ethos of Protestantism and Judeo-Masonry, and the errors of Modernism, especially as seen in the waffling answers given by a lifelong Catholic, former United States Senator Richard John Santorum (R-Pennsylvania), and a convert to the conciliar brand of conservatism, Newton Leroy Gingrich, the former Speaker of the United States of America, on whether the sale of contraceptives could be prohibited by state legislatures.
Former Senator Santorum, who is a full-throated supporter of the "global war on terror" and who helped to enable the career of the nefarious former United States Senator Arlen Specter (see Blame George Walker Bush), and former House Speaker Gingrich indicated that neither has any understanding of the simple fact that God's laws trump human laws, and that, regardless as to the pragmatic realities that would make such a prohibition difficult to enact and enforce at this time without a severe social disruption, no human legislature has any right from God to do anything other than to prohibit the sale of pills and devices, many of which are abortifacients, that deny His Sovereignty over the sanctity and fecundity of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. No human legislature has any right, no matter United States Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas), to permit or condone anything contrary to the immutable precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law as to do so is offend God and to harm the good of souls, both temporally and eternally, thus sowing the seeds for the internal decay and self-destruction of society. What is harmful to the eternal good of the souls is, quite necessarily, harmful to the temporal good of men and their nations, which must be pursued in light of man's Last End, namely, the possession of the glory of the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost for all eternity in Heaven.
Even some in the secular media understood this soon after various federation of Protestant groups began to endorse the use of a certain type of contraceptive by married couples in "limited" or "extraordinary" circumstances over eighty years ago:
The Federal Council of Churches in
America some time ago appointed a committee on "marriage and the home,"
which has now submitted a report favoring a "careful and restrained" use
of contraceptive devices to regulate the size of families. The
committee seems to have a serious struggle with itself in adhering to
Christian doctrine while at the same time indulging in amateurish
excursions in the field of economics, legislation, medicine, and
sociology. The resulting report is a mixture of religious obscurantism
and modernistic materialism which departs from the ancient standards of
religion and yet fails to blaze a path toward something better.
The mischief that would result from an
an attempt to place the stamp of church approval upon any scheme for
"regulating the size of families" is evidently quite beyond the
comprehension of this pseudo-scientific committee. It is
impossible to reconcile the doctrine of the divine institution of
marriage with any modernistic plan for the mechanical regulation of
human birth. The church must either reject the plain teachings of the
Bible or reject schemes for the “scientific” production of human souls.
Carried to its logical conclusion, the committee’s report if carried
into effect would lead to the death-knell of marriage as a holy
institution, by establishing degrading practices which would encourage
indiscriminate immorality. The suggestion that the use of legalized
contraceptives would be “careful and restrained” is preposterous. If the
churches are to become organizations for political and 'scientific'
propaganda they should be honest and reject the Bible, scoff at Christ
as an obsolete and unscientific teacher, and strike out boldly as
champions of politics and science as substitutes for the old-time
religion. ("Forgetting Religion," Editorial, The Washington Post,
March 22, 1931.)
Pope Pius XI, writing in Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930, explained that no institution of civil governance has any right to endorse the frustration of the primary end of marriage, the procreation and education of children, and that it is not up to the "people," as Dr. Ron Paul explained last evening, to decide the matter. It is up to God, and He has spoken very clearly on this matter, dealing a death blow to anyone, including former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, a Mormon, that those engaged in perverse sins against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments are entitled to "civil union" benefits or that they should be recognized by law as fit to adopt children to raise in their environment of what is, objectively speaking, eternal death:
49. To begin at the very source of these evils, their basic principle lies in
this, that matrimony is repeatedly declared to be not instituted by the Author
of nature nor raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a true sacrament, but
invented by man. Some confidently assert that they have found no evidence of the
existence of matrimony in nature or in her laws, but regard it merely as the
means of producing life and of gratifying in one way or another a vehement
impulse; on the other hand, others recognize that certain beginnings or, as it
were, seeds of true wedlock are found in the nature of man since, unless men
were bound together by some form of permanent tie, the dignity of husband and
wife or the natural end of propagating and rearing the offspring would not
receive satisfactory provision. At the same time they maintain that in all
beyond this germinal idea matrimony, through various concurrent causes, is
invented solely by the mind of man, established solely by his will.
50. How grievously all these err and how shamelessly they leave the ways of
honesty is already evident from what we have set forth here regarding the origin
and nature of wedlock, its purposes and the good inherent in it. The evil of
this teaching is plainly seen from the consequences which its advocates deduce
from it, namely, that the laws, institutions and customs by which wedlock is
governed, since they take their origin solely from the will of man, are subject
entirely to him, hence can and must be founded, changed and abrogated according
to human caprice and the shifting circumstances of human affairs; that the
generative power which is grounded in nature itself is more sacred and has wider
range than matrimony -- hence it may be exercised both outside as well as within
the confines of wedlock, and though the purpose of matrimony be set aside, as
though to suggest that the license of a base fornicating woman should enjoy the
same rights as the chaste motherhood of a lawfully wedded wife.
51. Armed with these principles, some men go so far as to concoct new species
of unions, suited, as they say, to the present temper of men and the times,
which various new forms of matrimony they presume to label "temporary,"
"experimental," and "companionate." These offer all the indulgence of matrimony
and its rights without, however, the indissoluble bond, and without offspring,
unless later the parties alter their cohabitation into a matrimony in the full
sense of the law.
52. Indeed there are some who desire and insist that these practices be
legitimatized by the law or, at least, excused by their general acceptance among
the people. They do not seem even to suspect that these proposals partake of
nothing of the modern "culture" in which they glory so much, but are simply
hateful abominations which beyond all question reduce our truly cultured nations
to the barbarous standards of savage peoples. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)
Neither Santorum or Gingrich understand this. They cannot articulate it. They waffle because, no matter the effectiveness of former Speaker Gingrich's speaking about an anti-Christian bias that exists in the administration of Caesar Barackus Obamus Ignoramus and in the "mainstream" media, they do not want to "offend" those who do not understand that (a) contraception is evil in se and that (b) no one is engaged in a "loving" relationship with another if he is doing anything that impedes the salvation of that person's immortal soul. Indeed, such a person, leaving subjective judgment to God alone, does not love himself as we must will what God wills for us, which is our eternal good, which is absolutely incompatible with a persistence in a lifetime of un rep en ant Mortal Sins. The Holy Family of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph is the model of family love, not any kind of "union" that brings together people to live lives of unrepentant sin.
To even use the word "gay" to describe those whose human self-identity is based upon such a persistence in a state of unrepentant Mortal Sin and/or to refer to the phrase "gay community," as was done in the debate on Meet the Press on the National Broadcasting Company television network this morning, which I watched via the internet after Holy Mass on this Feast of the Holy Family, is to concede that those who persist in sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance are correct in organizing together to lobby for "rights" to receive legal protection and recognition and popular support for their sins.
It is morally repugnant to see the likes of Willard Mitt Romney and Richard John Santorum and others use the word "gay" and the phrase "the gay community" (Francis "Cardinal" George will have to wait two days before his own rhetorical concessions to the devil are highlighted on this site). This is, no matter Santorum's criticism of sins of perversity in his town hall meetings, morally repugnant. Those who use the rhetoric of the adversary wind up conceding everything him sooner rather than later. And though Dr Ronald Paul said that he does not like the use of the terms "gay rights" or "women's rights, his advertence to "liberty" is misplaced as the one and only true standard is liberty is that of the Holy Cross, and anything and everything that is contrary to the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law is not "liberty" but licentiousness that leads people to personal ruin and nations into the abyss. It is not the "gospel of liberty," Dr. Paul, it is the Gospel of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, He Who is the King of all men and all nations, as it has been entrusted to and proclaimed by the Catholic Church that we must defend. Any other "gospel" is false. It is from the devil. Libertarianism is of the devil as it seeks to "liberate" man from sweet yoke of Christ the King and His Holy Cross (see Showing Libertarianism's True Biases).
James Richard "Rick" Perry? Any man who aspires to be President of the United States of America to send American troops back into the fractured and fracturing country of Iraq is simply not fit for the job.
Former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman? Well, what more can be said about a footnote in American presidential politics? Not much.
Willard Mitt Romney's performance last night and this morning?
To quote Oliver Norvell Hardy and his principal imitator in the 1950s, the fictional Ralph Kramden, "Don't make me laugh."
Willard Mitt Romney, the man who belongs to the American-centric sect founded by a charlatan named Joseph Smith that teaches that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and Lucifer are "spirit brothers?"
Willard Mitt Romney?
Apart from stating his own support for contraception as part of a "right to privacy" (saying at one point later in the debate that "John Adams wrote the Constitution," an absolute falsehood as John Adams had nothing to do with the Constitutional Convention in 1787 as he was serving as the American ambassador to the Court of Saint James in England) while not answering directly a question put to him by moderator George Stephanapoulos, the one time spokesflack for William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, Willard Mitt Romney said that "contraception is working pretty well." He got a good deal of applause when he said that. A great deal of applause.
Yes, Willard Mitt Romney, contraception has worked and is working very well. It has worked and continues to work very well to undermine the stability of families, to contribute to the unparalleled epidemic of divorce and remarriage and stepchildren upon stepchildren--and thus to feelings of betrayal and abandonment, to the feminization of poverty in many instances as married women are abandoned by their faithless husbands, to the undermining of the innocence and purity of children, who have been subjected to the diabolical assaults against them in America's Concentration Camps and conciliar schools and "religious education" programs by means of explicit instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments, and to the promotion of perverse sins against nature. Contraception has contributed to the depopulation of Western nations, which has changed the demographics of almost every nation in Western Europe and is changing the demography of the United States of America. And it is this depopulation of the West that has made governments and employers dependent upon an immigrant labor force. Yes, Willard Mitt Romney, contraception is working well--to serve the purposes of the very fallen angel whom your false religious sect blasphemously contends is a "spirit brother" of Our Lord.
We should not be surprised, therefore, to find that the midget naturalist by the name of Willard Mitt Romney, whose performance last evening was self-assured even as he dodged various answers (he really believes that he is going to be the Republican nominee, and I see no reason at this point to change a word of what I wrote about this in And The Winner Is. . . .), has been endorsed by five midget apostates who have served at various times as American ambassadors to the Holy See:
“We the undersigned former U.S. Ambassadors to the Holy See —Thomas
Melady, Ray Flynn, James Nicholson, Francis Rooney and Mary Ann Glendon —
are united in our wholehearted support for the candidacy of Mitt Romney
for the Presidency of the United States because of his commitment to
and support of the values that we feel are critical in a national
leader.
“Although our political affiliations are diverse, we recognize the
importance of family and traditional values in American life. We also
share the conviction that Governor Romney has the experience, vision and
commitment to the common good that our country needs at this crucial
moment in history.
“In particular, our support is based on Governor Romney’s superior
understanding of America’s key role in our increasingly interdependent
world and his appreciation of the fact that sound economic and social
policies must rest on a healthy culture. From our knowledge of Governor
Romney and his wife Ann, as well as his outstanding record in defense of
marriage and the family, we are confident that he understands the
importance of strong families as pillars of a vibrant economy and a
flourishing polity. We also know that Mitt Romney is a staunch defender
of the principle that every human being should be welcomed in life and
protected by law from conception to natural death.
“Last but not least, Mitt Romney understands that America owes its
freedom and prosperity to the distinctive legal heritage that is the
bedrock of our society. He is a staunch defender of the Constitution and
the rule of law.
“At this juncture in the nation’s affairs, we believe that it is
important to support the one candidate who is best qualified by virtue
of experience, intelligence and integrity to build on all that is best
in our country’s traditions and to lead it to a future where every
American has the opportunity to reach his or her highest potential. That
candidate is Mitt Romney.”
Thomas Patrick Melady (U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See 1989-1993)
Raymond L. Flynn (U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See 1993-1997)
James Nicholson (U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See 2001-2005)
Francis Rooney (U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See 2005-2008)
Mary Ann Glendon (U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See 2008-2009) (Ambassadors to Holy See Endorse Mitt Romney)
Ambassador Thomas Melady, how can anyone be said to uphold "traditional family values" when he supports contraceptions and says that it is "working well"?
Ambassador Raymond Flynn, former Mayor of the City of Boston, Massachusetts, how can anyone be said to uphold "traditional family values" when he supports contraceptions and says that it is "working well"?
Ambassador James Nicholson, former Chairman of the Republican National Committee and partisan of Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., how can anyone be said to uphold "traditional family values" when he supports contraceptions and says that it is "working well"?
Ambassador Francis Rooney, how can anyone be said to uphold "traditional family values" when he supports contraception and says that it is "working well"?
Ambassador Mary Ann Glendon, how can anyone be said to uphold "traditional family values" when he supports contraceptions and says that it is "working well"?
Discerning readers with long memories will understand also that the press release shows the heavy hand of the The National Not-So-Right-Life Committee in the inclusion of the canned line, used over and over again by the not-so-pro-life George Walker Bush, that Romney "is a staunch defender
of the principle that every human being should be welcomed in life and
protected by law from conception to natural death." What an affront to truth.
Am bass a or Melady, how can anyone be said to be "a staunch defender
of the principle that every human being should be welcomed in life and
protected by law from conception to natural death" when he believes that the civil law may permit the deliberate, willful execution of innocent preborn human beings in their mothers' wombs in certain "hard cases"? Do not the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment prohibit all direct, intentional killing? How can one who supports the surgical slicing and dicing of innocent human beings in even one instance be termed a "staunch defender of the principle that every human being should be welcomed in life and protected by law from conception to natural death" when he believes that the civil law should afford "exceptions" to such protection? How?
Ambassador Flynn, how can anyone be said to be "a staunch defender
of the principle that every human being should be welcomed in life and
protected by law from conception to natural death" when he believes that the civil law may permit the deliberate, willful execution of innocent preborn human beings in their mothers' wombs in certain "hard cases"? Do not the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment prohibit all direct, intentional killing? How can one who supports the surgical slicing and dicing of innocent human beings in even one instance be termed a "staunch defender of the principle that every human being should be welcomed in life and protected by law from conception to natural death" when he believes that the civil law should afford "exceptions" to such protection? How?
Ambassador Nicholson, how can anyone be said to be "a staunch defender
of the principle that every human being should be welcomed in life and
protected by law from conception to natural death" when he believes that the civil law may permit the deliberate, willful execution of innocent preborn human beings in their mothers' wombs in certain "hard cases"? Do not the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment prohibit all direct, intentional killing? How can one who supports the surgical slicing and dicing of innocent human beings in even one instance be termed a "staunch defender of the principle that every human being should be welcomed in life and protected by law from conception to natural death" when he believes that the civil law should afford "exceptions" to such protection? How?
Ambassador Rooney, how can anyone be said to be "a staunch defender
of the principle that every human being should be welcomed in life and
protected by law from conception to natural death" when he believes that the civil law may permit the deliberate, willful execution of innocent preborn human beings in their mothers' wombs in certain "hard cases"? Do not the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment prohibit all direct, intentional killing? How can one who supports the surgical slicing and dicing of innocent human beings in even one instance be termed a "staunch defender of the principle that every human being should be welcomed in life and protected by law from conception to natural death" when he believes that the civil law should afford "exceptions" to such protection? How?
Ambassador Glendon, how can anyone be said to be "a staunch defender
of the principle that every human being should be welcomed in life and
protected by law from conception to natural death" when he believes that the civil law may permit the deliberate, willful execution of innocent preborn human beings in their mothers' wombs in certain "hard cases"? Do not the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment prohibit all direct, intentional killing? How can one who supports the surgical slicing and dicing of innocent human beings in even one instance be termed a "staunch defender of the principle that every human being should be welcomed in life and protected by law from conception to natural death" when he believes that the civil law should afford "exceptions" to such protection? How?
Take a look at this "staunch defender
of the principle that every human being should be welcomed in life and
protected by law from conception to natural death" as he debated then United States Senator Edward Moore Kennedy (D-Massachusetts, see
Another Victim of Americanism; Behold The Free Rein Given to Error; Behold The Free Rein Given to Error; Unfortunate Enough to Be A Baby; Unfortunate Enough to Be A Baby; Beacon of Social Justice?; Spotlight On The Ordinary; What's Good For Teddy Is Good For Benny; Sean O'Malley: Coward and Hypocrite: More Rationalizations and Distortions):
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?)
Ambassadors Melady, Flynn, Nicholson, Rooney and Glendon are simply being true to the illogic of conciliarism itself, which has made its "reconciliation" with the principles of Modernity that can never provide any kind of "bedrock legal structure," unless, of course, one considers quicksand to be a "bedrock" foundation for social stability.
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.)
The former American ambassadors to the Vatican do not realize or accept this truth. Then again, neither does the man who they believe is the "pope," a man who has bestowed awards of one kind or another on some of them.
We must make sure, therefore, to cleave to true Catholic Faith without making any concessions to concilairism, whose apostate apologists are always seeking to make their own reconciliations with the midget naturalists of Modernity.
"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
