Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
September 4, 2010

Two Different Caesars, Same Old Spin

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Here is another assignment for you eager readers out in cyberspace. It might be helpful to re-read Longer Than World War II before reading this brief article as there is no need to reiterate all of the points about the American invasion and occupation of Iraq that I have been making in various places (the printed pages of Christ or Chaos from the Fall of 2002 until the demise of that publication in June of 2003, The Remnant newspaper and website from January 31, 2003, through early-2006, the Daily Catholic website, the Seattle Catholic website from which my articles were purged several years ago, and, of course, this website) since the war drums began to be banged by our then caesar, President George Walker Bush, and his vice caesar, Richard Bruce Cheney in the Fall of 2002. There is simply no need to repeat all of those points yet, part of my "new and improved" program of reducing these articles so that you will not have to spend a lot of time reading them online or spend a lot of money to keep you supplied in ink and paper for your printers.

There are, however, a few points that I do want to highlight in this brief article now that our current caesar, Barack Hussein Obama, has addressed the nation on the end of combat operations in Iraq. Come to think of it, didn't the most recent caesar before, George Walker Bush give a speech on the end of major combat in Iraq? Two different caesars, same old spin.

I. The False Premises of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq

Readers of this site know that I am wary of details of various conspiracy theories as I attempt to keep the focus in my articles on the ultimate conspirator against the sanctification and salvation of our immortal souls, the devil, who prowls about the world like a roaring lion seeking to devour our souls. To be sure, there are, for example many unanswered questions as to how the crashing of two jetliners into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in the Borough of Manhattan in the City of New York, New York, on the morning of Tuesday, September 11, 2001, caused those buildings to pancake down to the ground,. It is also curious that officials of the government of the State of Israel informed the Israeli nationals who worked in those buildings to stay away from them that day as an Israeli film crew "just happened" to be filming that part of lower Manhattan from across New York Harbor in New Jersey that morning, I also realize that none of the unanswered questions about the attacks on the territory of the United States of America that took place nearly nine years ago are going to answered until the Last Day at the General Judgment of the Living of the Dead. I happen to be of the mind that it is pointless to try to "find out" the "true cause" of events such as who killed President John Fitzgerald Kennedy or what happened to the former Teamsters' Union President James Riddle Hoffa at the Machus Red Fox Restaurant on the afternoon of July 30, 1975. We have not been created to spend our days trying to unravel mysteries that have nothing at all to do with the sanctification and salvation of our immortal souls.

That having been stipulated, let me stipulate for the purposes of this article that I find it eminently plausible that there were, regardless of the possible involvement or foreknowledge of the American or the Israeli intelligence communities, Mohammedans who plotted to attack the twin towers of the World Trade Center in 2001 as had happened on February 26, 1993, as a means of expressing outrage over continued American support of the policies of the State of Israel.

Ramzi Yousef, one of the chief masterminds behind the February 26, 1993, bombing that killed six people and injured over a thousand others, listed his occupation as "terrorist" on his A-95 immigration card when he entered the United States of America prior to that first bombing, being given permission, after a brief time in detention upon his arrival here in September of 1992, to enter the country legally even though he had listed his "occupation" clearly and honestly for customs and immigration agents to see for themselves. Yousef admitted this in U. S. District Court for the Southern District of New York before he was sentenced by Federal District Court Judge Kevin Duffy on January 8, 1998:


You keep talking also about collective punishment and killing innocent people to force governments to change their policies; you call this terrorism when someone would kill innocent people or civilians in order to force the government to change its policies. Well, when you were the first one who invented this terrorism.

You were the first one who killed innocent people, and you are the first one who introduced this type of terrorism to the history of mankind when you dropped an atomic bomb which killed tens of thousands of women and children in Japan and when you killed over a hundred thousand people, most of them civilians, in Tokyo with fire bombings. You killed them by burning them to death. And you killed civilians in Vietnam with chemicals as with the so-called Orange agent. You killed civilians and innocent people, not soldiers, innocent people every single war you went. You went to wars more than any other country in this century, and then you have the nerve to talk about killing innocent people.

And now you have invented new ways to kill innocent people. You have so-called economic embargo which kills nobody other than children and elderly people, and which other than Iraq you have been placing the economic embargo on Cuba and other countries for over 35 years. . . .

The Government in its summations and opening statement said that I was a terrorist. Yes, I am a terrorist and I am proud of it. And I support terrorism so long as it was against the United States Government and against Israel, because you are more than terrorists; you are the one who invented terrorism and using it every day. You are butchers, liars and hypocrites. (Excerpts From Statements in Court.)


Ramzi Yousef, of course, is the nephew of a man who is only three years older than he is. His uncle is none other than Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the man who masterminded the September 11, 2001, attacks on twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York, New York, and at the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia. Although many readers of this site might disagree, it is my judgment that, yes, the plan behind these immoral and unjustified attacks on American targets was the work of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda organization in retaliation for uncritical American support for the policies of the State of Israel, leaving all other considerations of the possible involvement and/or foreknowledge of the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad, as a means of "involving" the United States of America into a "global war on terror" to make the Middle East safe for "America's only ally," Israel, for the Last Day. Such foreknowledge and/or involvement on the part of Mossad or any other intelligence agency will be impossible to prove or disprove in this passing, mortal vale of tears.

What is known with reasonable certainty, however, is that Osama bin Laden acted through his al-Qaeda organization that he, who fought with the United States-backed and financed Mujahideen in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion and occupation of that country from December 27, 1979, to February 15, 1989, formed after the Soviets had withdrawn in utter defeat from Afghanistan to plan the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States of America. He has told us so in his very own words:

O American people, I am speaking to tell you about the ideal way to avoid another Manhattan, about war and its causes and results.

Security is an important foundation of human life and free people do not squander their security, contrary to Bush's claims that we hate freedom. Let him tell us why we did not attack Sweden for example.

It is known that those who hate freedom do not possess proud souls like those of the 19, may God rest their souls. We fought you because we are free and because we want freedom for our nation. When you squander our security we squander your's.

I'm surprised by you. Despite entering the fourth year after September 11, Bush is still deceiving you and hiding the truth from you and therefore the reasons are still there to repeat what happened.

God knows it did not cross our minds to attack the towers but after the situation became unbearable and we witnessed the injustice and tyranny of the American-Israeli alliance against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, I thought about it. And the events that affected me directly were that of 1982 and the events that followed - when America allowed the Israelis to invade Lebanon, helped by the US sixth fleet.

In those difficult moments many emotions came over me which are hard to describe, but which produced an overwhelming feeling to reject injustice and a strong determination to punish the unjust.

As I watched the destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me punish the unjust the same way [and] to destroy towers in America so it could taste some of what we are tasting and to stop killing our children and women.

We had no difficulty in dealing with Bush and his administration because they resemble the regimes in our countries, half of which are ruled by the military and the other half by the sons of kings ... They have a lot of pride, arrogance, greed and thievery.

[Bush] adopted despotism and the crushing of freedoms from Arab rulers _ called it the Patriot Act under the guise of combating terrorism ...

We had agreed with [the September 11] overall commander, Mohammed Atta, may God rest his soul, to carry out all operations in 20 minutes before Bush and his administration take notice.

It never occurred to us that the commander-in-chief of the American forces [Bush] would leave 50,000 citizens in the two towers to face those horrors alone at a time when they most needed him because he thought listening to a child discussing her goat and its ramming was more important than the planes and their ramming of the skyscrapers. This had given us three times the time needed to carry out the operations, thanks be to God ...

Your security is not in the hands of [Democratic presidential candidate John] Kerry or Bush or al-Qaida. Your security is in your own hands and each state which does not harm our security will remain safe. ("God knows it did not cross our minds to attack the towers")


Do not discount everything in what Osama bin Laden said in 2004 merely because he used the violent means used by the blasphemous false "prophet" himself, Mohammed, to "avenge" the real injustices that have been perpetrated by the foreign and military policies of the government of the United States of America over the course of its existence. Even those who plan the mass murder of innocent civilians can get their facts straight even as they are steeped in the ravages of Original Sin and their own Actual Sins (as is the case with any adherent of the Talmud or, in the case of Osama bin Laden, the Koran). Karl Marx, for example, saw the real injustices being perpetrated by capitalists upon workers in Germany and England in the middle of the Nineteenth Century. The reality of the injustices he saw are not invalidated because his prescription to remedy those injustices were of the devil himself (see Appendix A below for yet another attempt to explain that the excesses of Calvinist capitalism and the socialistic-communistic response to those excesses are but two sides of the same diabolical coin).

Yes, the government of the United States of America has used unjust and immoral tactics to "win" various wars.

It was immoral to firebomb residential neighborhoods of Dresden, Germany, on February 13 and 14, 1945.

It was immoral to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan, on August 6, 1945, and on Nagasaki, Japan, on August 9, 1945.

Do not believe the nationalistic swill propagated by American myth-makers that the lives of over half a million Americans would have been lost in hand-to-hand-combat on the islands of Japan to "win" World War II in Asia if those atomic bombs had not been dropped. Japan was willing to surrender conditionally before the dropping of those atomic bombs. The Americans did not accept Japan's offer of a conditional surrender as the dictator of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Joseph Stalin, insisted at the Potsdam Conference (July 17, 1945 to August 2, 1945) upon an unconditional surrender of Japan as a condition for the Soviets entering the war in the Pacific so that they could recover claims lost in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05. Here is the relevant part of the Potsdam Declaration, which was issued on July 26, 1945, that referred to the demand for Japan's "unconditional" surrender:

We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction. (Potsdam Declaration.)


The precepts of the Just War Theory demand that there must be an end to hostilities during warfare as soon the wound to justice that necessitated the use of force can be mended in a just manner. Even the prosecution of a just war brings with it the unintentional deaths of innocent civilians and the spread of disease and the destruction of fields and crops and livestock and national infrastructure. The Catholic Church teaches us that hostilities must cease as soon as the terms of a just peace can be realized so as to prevent the further loss of life and property. To yield to the demands of the brutal mass murdered and dictator Joseph Stalin, whose nation's participation the the Pacific theater of World War II was not necessary to secure the defeat of the Japanese Empire, was unjust in and of itself, and the dropping of a a true weapon of mass destruction upon civilian population centers, which just happened to contain the largest concentration of Catholics of anywhere in Japan, was a further injustice. That Osama bin Laden sees this as the injustice that it was does not make his perception invalid.

That having been noted, however, Osama bin Laden's reaction to the injustices of the governments of the United States of America, which have included the funding and indemnification of the brutal, murderous policies of the State of Israel against the Palestinians and the Lebanese and anyone and everyone else who gets in the way of Israeli objectives, is itself unjust and immoral.

In seeking to strike out violently to "avenge" the injustices committed by the government of the United States of America over the course of its history, however, Osama bin Laden has been entirely faithful to the example of death and destruction practiced by the founder of his false religion and that was visited upon thoroughly Catholic areas in North Africa and the Near East and the Iberian Peninsula in the Seventh Century that was halted in southern France at the Battle of Tours (Poitiers) on October 10, 732, by the Catholic forces led by Charles Martel. The same swath of Mohammedan death and destruction was visited upon the Balkans in Europe, where many Christians succumbed to the Mohammedan demand of "convert or die!", and was used in attempts to penetrate the very heart of Christendom during  the Battle of Lepanto, October 7, 1571, and the Battle of the Gates at the Gates of Vienna, on September 13, 1683. Osama bin Laden has been--and continues to be--completely faithful to his false religions precepts of death and destruction that were practiced by its founder and that have been used throughout the course of Mohammedan history to conquer lands and people.

Far from being that "religion of peace" referred to by former President George Walker Bush and by the current caesar, President Barack Hussein Obama, Mohammedanism has spread its falsehoods by death and destruction from the very beginning. It is on the verge, however, of conquering Europe as indigenous Europeans have contracepted and aborted themselves so thoroughly that they will be in the minority of the population of their formerly Catholic nations by the middle of this century barring the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary prior to that time. Osama bin Laden is not an "Islamic aberration." He is a faithful son of the false, blasphemous mass murderer named Mohammed.

As a faithful son of the false religion of Mohammedanism, therefore, Osama bin Laden had many reasons to "hate" the policies of the United States of America as forgiveness is not to be found in the lexicon of a true son of Mohammed. In addition to the reasons stated in his 2004 tape recording that was issued just prior to the American presidential election between the partly pro-life and partly pro-abortion Methodist named George Walker Bush and the completely pro-abortion Catholic named John Frederick Kerry, Osama bin Laden had hated the Americans, once the bankrollers of the Mujahideen with whom he fought against the Soviets in Afghanistan, for using his own native Saudi Arabia after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990, as a staging grounds for Persian Gulf War of January 17, 1991, to February 28, 1991. Osama bin Laden, who seethed with contempt for the libertine secularist named Saddam Hussein, the late dictator of Iraq, wanted to be of service to his homeland in fighting Hussein. All of that changed, however, when King Fahd of Saudi Arabia, agreed to let the Americans set up operations in Saudi Arabia, something that bin Laden believed was sacrilegious to the "sacred" territory of his homeland. His crusade against the United States of America began then and there.

Thus it is, my good and very few readers, that, despite the protestations of the administration of President George Walker Bush, there was no link between the delusional Saddam Hussein and the attacks that took place on American soil on September 11, 2001. There were not, as has been noted on this site and in many of my other writings in the past eight years, no "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq as Hussein had used the stockpile of such weapons that had supplied to him in 1985 by the administration of then President Ronald Wilson Reagan for use in Iraq's ongoing war with the Islamic Republic of Iran against the Kurds in northern Iraq shortly after the end of the Persian Gulf War.

For those of you who did not complete the assignment given at the beginning of this brief article, here is a little reminder of the the cozy relationship between President Reagan's special Mideast Envoy, a chap named Donald Rumsfeld, a thirty-third degree Mason, and Saddam Hussein in 1985:


  Shaking Hands: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983.  (National Security Archive, http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ There is an interesting, fact-based article, replete with links to national security documents, available at: Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein.)


The premises for the invasion and occupation of Iraq offered by former President George Walker Bush were false. The real goal of the invasion and occupation was "regime change" to make the Middle East "safe for Israel," a goal that was outlined in 1998 in a letter to President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton on Iraq that was signed by some of the very neoconservative war hawks that would serve in the "Bush 43" administration and offer to the American people one falsehood after another as they tried to make a war of aggression appear to be a "necessary" means of "preemptive" self-defense.

There is a little problem with this, you see, according to the Just War Theory: war is never to be undertaken as a first resort. It is to be undertaken only as a regrettable last resort after all means to arrive at peaceful resolution of a conflict have been exhausted. Then again, how could all peaceful means be exhausted when the men who lied about the premises that supposedly justified the invasion and occupation of Iraq wanted to prosecute such a war in the first place?

II. As Combat Forces Leave Iraq

The neoconservative war hawks thought that the Iraqis would embrace their "liberators" with joy even though large numbers of their fellow citizens were killed by American bombs and as they were deprived of their infrastructure that provided them with such little things as running water and sanitation for human waste, electricity, and a regular supply of food.

These neoconservatives were shocked when their delusional groundswell of gratitude from the Iraqis did not materialize, shocked even further by the influx of Mohammedans from other countries, taking advantage of the porous Iraqi borders produced by the instability that resulted from the American invasion and the toppling of the regime of Saddam Hussein, to wage acts of terrorism upon Iraqi civilians and to seek to kill and wound as many of our own military personnel as possible, not one of whom should ever have been put in harm's way to do the bidding of the cowardly sycophants of Israel in Bush the Lesser's administration. There was no "end game strategy," something that I noted to a retired lieutenant general of the United States Marines, a man who played a major role in the Persian Gulf War of 1991, in September of 2002, would result in years upon years of an endless American involvement in Iraq that would cost us precious American lives, engender bitterness among the Iraqis and inspire homegrown and foreign terrorists to use Iraq as their own personal staging ground to "avenge" the American invasion and occupation of Iraq.

The past nearly ninety-months have seen a sea of American and Iraqi blood shed as the members "new and improved" regime, which consists of the very Mohammedans whom some Catholic defenders of the nonexistent "morality" of the American invasion and occupation of America believed were meant to be defeated in a veritable "crusade" for Christendom itself (!), lined their dirty pockets with American taxpayer dollars and as American contractors "rebuilt" the Iraqi infrastructure in such a shoddy, incompetent manner that most of the work they did has had to be done over again, sometimes more than once (see Blackwater Won Contracts via Web of Companies). The violence in Iraq is as yet ongoing (see Qaeda in Iraq Says It Was Behind Latest Attacks; al-Qaeda in Iraq, of course, is not the same organization as Osama bin Laden's, although the latter certainly has supported the influx of Mohammedan"fighters" into Iraq to fight the American invaders and occupiers). No end is in sight. The end result is going to be another "strongman" who will come to power in Iraq to "restore" order and the infrastructure.

The current caesar, Barackus Obamus Ignoramus, continues same policy as our former caesar, Georgii Bushus Ignoramus, concerning the violence that has been visited upon the small minority of Catholics and Orthodox Christians by the believing, sectarian Mohammedans who have replaced the libertine secularist Saddam Hussein who, as a clever politician, more or less left Iraq's Christians alone to live in peace. What is this common policy of our current and most recent caesars: silence.(See More Christians Killed in Iraq, Chaldean bishop says U.S. accountable for death of Archbishop of Mosul, and Go Tell Iraq's Catholics--and American Babies--About The "Lesser of Two Evils".)

Once again, solely for the benefit of those who did not complete the assignment above, let me include the following passage from the article about this subject in March of this year:


Neither the George Walker Bush administration or that of his successor, Barack Hussein Obama, have cared much to stop the violence against Christians as to do so would mean angering members of warring Mohammedan factions who are deemed "necessary" to build a "democratic" Iraq. The lives of Chaldean Rite Catholics and members of the various Orthodox sects are as expendable to American policy-makers, who have, of course, sanctioned outright torture and introduced contraception into country almost immediately after the first wave of the American invasion began seven years ago today, as the lives of Palestinian Arabs and the Lebanese are to the murderous thugs in the government of Israel and in that country's defense forces. Too bad. The "better" world must be built. Too bad that so many innocent lives must be killed. Too bad.

The United States of America is as vulnerable to attack from without now as it was seven years ago today. Diligent intelligence work has thwarted several credible efforts to attack our territory once again, including an attack that was to take place within the New York City subway system. Alas, the leaders of this country do not understand that we can never make this country secure from attacks without as long as our laws sanction the deliberate assaults upon the innocent preborn day in and day out. The Rome of the Caesars fell to barbarian invaders in large measure because of the social decay found within the empire (in addition to the cost of needless foreign wars, over-regulation of the economy, bloated bureaucracies, the cult of personality of the ruling class--sound familiar?). The United States is not exempt from such a fate. (Please see We've Done This to Ourselves, Empires Come and Go--Including Ours, and No Homeland Security for the Preborn.)


Partisans of George Walker Bush point with pride to the "progress" that they allege has been made in Iraq since the "surge" (a "surge" that made necessary because Bush's End of Major Combat in Iraq speech aboard the U. S. S. Lincoln on May 1, 2003, was just a wee bit premature, necessitating the current caesar's end of combat operations in Iraq on August 31, 2010!) of American forces that began when it was announced to the nation by former President Bush on January 10, 2007. That "progress" is but an illusion. There is still no "new" government in place following parliamentary elections in Iraq on March 7, 2010. Around fifty thousand United States military personnel will remain in Iraq, still vulnerable to attacks from indigenous and foreign Mohammedan groups as the corrupt Iraqi authorities vie with the corrupt Afghan authorities to bilk Americans of as many hundreds of billions of dollars as possible. As I wrote in The Remnant on January 31, 2003, "For what?"

Partisans of George Walker Bush always will be convinced that the former caesar's war in Iraq was a just one. Partisans of Barack Hussein Obama will be convinced he "kept" his word to withdraw combat troops from Iraq as he continues his attempt to build upon Bush's work of transforming the American economy along the lines of Eurosocialism to conform to the disproved ideology of the envirocommunists. Two different caesars, same old naturalistic spin.

III. Conclusion

And on and on it must go in a world of naturalism where no one in either of the two major organized crime families of naturalism, the Republicans or the Democrats, understands that a nation that slaughters the innocent preborn by surgical and chemical means and promotes all manner of vile evils under cover of the civil law and whose "popular culture" exports these evils worldwide can ever make itself secure from foreign-based threats. There can be no "homeland security" for nation if it does not provide that security for the innocent preborn, if indeed it refuses to recognize that the only true security for men and their nations is to be found in the Cross of the Divine Redeemer, Christ the King, as It is held high by the Catholic Church that Our King Himself founded upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope.

Mind you, Catholics are not pacifists. Not at all. The true God of Divine Revelation sanctioned wars to be fought in His Holy Name. Many examples of this are to be found in the Old Testament. Pope Urban II preached the First Crusade in 1095 to recapture the Holy Land from the Mohammedans who had captured and occupied it. od Himself asked Saint Joan of Arc to take up His standard for him in order to help the Dauphin, the future King Charles VII of France, to expel the English from French territory once and for all. This all puts the lie to what Caesar Barackus Obmaus Ignoramus said in his Nobel speech of December 10, 2009 ("no"holy war can ever be a just war"), showing Obama to be as ignorant of truth and history as Caesar Georgii Bushus Ignoramus.

Yes, God has indeed ordained holy and wholly just wars. We must use our Catholic reason, however, when we are bereft of true Catholic leadership and see our sons and daughters marched off to wars, such as Iraq, to fulfill the nation-building, regime-changing dreams of the neoconservative war hawks and to wars, such as one that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization waged in the Balkans with the full support of the globalist William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, designed to support Mohammedans at the expense of Christians that also wind up helping to undermine legitimate American national sovereignty.

No, we cannot rely upon the judgment of the conciliar "popes" on matters of war and peace as, no matter how correct they might be in some instances, such as Iraq, it is usually for the very wrong reasons and without, of course, recognizing that our recent wars, quite apart from being chastisements sent by God to punish us for our sins, have been made all the more possible by the refusal of these "popes" to explain that there can be no peace among nations if men are not at peace with God by means of being in states of Sanctifying Grace as members of the Catholic Church. The conciliar "popes" have desired the same kind of "multilateral," "globalist" approach to "world peace" as desired by the likes of Caesar Gulielmi Clintonus Ignoramus and Caesar Barackus Obamus Ignoramus. They are part of the problem!

Moreover, the conciliar "popes" have denounced the Crusades (see Believing His Own Stuff) and are opposed even to the just imposition of the death penalty upon malefactors convicted of the commission of heinous crimes after the administration of due process of law as is the Natural Law right of civil states to employ. We are told lies and half-truths by civil leaders intent on war for the sake of war. This is why we must use our Catholic reason to understand true moral principles so as to assess the facts facing us in any given situation with sobriety and without being stirred up by nationalistic sentiments of war fever, admitting, quite of course, that Catholics of good will might disagree about such conclusions given the fact that we have no ultimate authority, a true pope or a Catholic monarch, to guide us.

Unlike the adherents of the Talmud in the State of Israel who have treated the Palestinians and the Lebanese and other Arabs with brutality and many injustices over the past sixty two-years--and unlike Osama bin Laden in his confederates in al-Qaeda and related organizations, including the Mohammedan Hamas in Gaza and the Iranian-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon, Catholics do not seek to exact revenge on their enemies. They pray for the conversion of the enemies of Christ the King and the true national security and domestic order of their nations. While it may be necessary for duly authorized civil authority to undertake the use of armed force to defend the legitimate nationals security interests of their nation when it is facing imminent attack--or has been attacked--after exhausting all peaceful means to prevent the outbreak of armed hostilities, individual Catholics pray fervently for the conversion of every non-Catholic and for those baptized Catholics who are promoting evil under cover of the civil law and/or are steeped in the personal indulgence of such evil in their own lives.

Moreover, believing Catholics recognize that their own sins have made them enemies of Christ the King and Mary our Immaculate Queen, which is why they seek to live more and more penitentially with each passing day, offering up all of their prayers and sacrifices and sufferings and humiliations with joy and gratitude to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary in reparation for their own sins and those of the whole world. None of us is free from the guilt of having worsened the state of the Church Militant here on earth and the world-at-large by means of our sins. We have much, therefore, for which to make reparation as we seek to serve Christ the King faithfully as His totally consecrated slaves through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Catholics also understand that true patriotism is not a emotional feeling of sentimentality. True patriotism is an act of the will. A genuine patriot wills the good of his country, the ultimate expression of which is its conversion to the Catholic Faith and thus to the Social Reign of Christ the King. A genuine patriot, while praying for the safe and quick return of his nation's troops from armed hostilities even in the case of unjust wars, does not demand or place into jeopardy the safety of his nation's military forces by criticizing his government's prosecution of unjust wars. No amount of empty emotionalism can make the prosecution of unjust and immoral wars that have no well-defined "end" to pursue (how does one define "stability" in Iraq or the "pacification" of the Taliban in Afghanistan?) just and moral.

Merely wishing unjust and immoral wars to be just exercises of genuine patriotism does not make such wars just and moral. We must deal with facts and facts alone. We must be guided Catholic truth and that alone. True patriotism is not measured by a jingoistic nationalism that overlooks the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law while ignoring at the same time the actual geopolitical, military facts of a given situation that has been used as a pretext for the onset of armed hostilities.

As we pray for the dead and the wounded and for the families in the United States of America and in Iraq that have been rent asunder as a result of this needless war, we must endeavor to be more diligent to fulfill Our Lady's Fatima Message in our own daily lives. We must live more penitentially/ We must pray more Rosaries. We must spend more time in fervent prayer, if at all possible, before Our Blessed Lord Saviour Jesus Christ's Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament. We must be more earnest about making reparation to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary for our own many sins.

We should also understand that it is not "American exceptionalism" of George Walker Bush and his neoconservative war hawks or the "globalism" of the Nobel Prize for Peace laureate Barack Hussein Obama that is the foundation of order within countries and peace among them. It is Catholicism. Nothing else. Nothing else at all. (See Appendix B for yet another review of what constitutes true peace as found in Pope Pius XI's first encyclical letter, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922).

Catholicism is the one and only foundation of social order. You have heard this before? You will keep hearing until the day I die or the day that I am unable to continue work on this site as a result of physical and/or mental infirmity, whichever shall first occur (and I realize that some of you believe that the latter condition obtains at the present time). Catholicism is the only and only foundation of personal and social order. Period.

We must enfold ourselves into the love of the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary and the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus as we make reparation for our own many sins, which are so responsible for the worsening of the state of the Church Militant on earth and of the world-at-large, as we seek to restore all things in Christ the King and Mary our Immaculate Queen.

Remember, of course, that today is the eleventh Saturday in Bishop McKenna's 2010 Rosary Crusade. We pray the Glorious Mysteries of Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary today, honoring especially the First Glorious Mystery, the Resurrection of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ from the dead on Easter Sunday, as we pray for the Virtue of Faith. We must hold fast to the unchanging and unchangeable truths of the Catholic Faith at all times as we have faith in the promises of Our Lady that she made at Fatima, namely, that her Immaculate Heart will triumph in the end. Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?


Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us!

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Saint Joseph, 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 A

From Dr. George O'Brien's Discussion of the Common Roots of Calvinist Capitalism and Communism

The thesis we have endeavoured to present in this essay is, that the two great dominating schools of modern economic thought have a common origin. The capitalist school, which, basing its position on the unfettered right of the individual to do what he will with his own, demands the restriction of government interference in economic and social affairs within the narrowest  possible limits, and the socialist school, which, basing its position on the complete subordination of the individual to society, demands the socialization of all the means of production, if not all of wealth, face each other today as the only two solutions of the social question; they are bitterly hostile towards each other, and mutually intolerant and each is at the same weakened and provoked by the other. In one respect, and in one respect only, are they identical--they can both be shown to be the result of the Protestant Reformation.

We have seen the direct connection which exists between these modern schools of economic thought and their common ancestor. Capitalism found its roots in the intensely individualistic spirit of Protestantism, in the spread of anti-authoritative ideas from the realm of religion into the realm of political and social thought, and, above all, in the distinctive Calvinist doctrine of a successful and prosperous career being the outward and visible sign by which the regenerated might be known. Socialism, on the other hand, derived encouragement from the violations of established and prescriptive rights of which the Reformation afforded so many examples, from the growth of heretical sects tainted with Communism, and from the overthrow of the orthodox doctrine on original sin, which opened the way to the idea of the perfectibility of man through institutions. But, apart from these direct influences, there were others, indirect, but equally important. Both these great schools of economic thought are characterized by exaggerations and excesses; the one lays too great stress on the importance of the individual, and other on the importance of the community; they are both departures, in opposite directions, from the correct mean of reconciliation and of individual liberty with social solidarity. These excesses and exaggerations are the result of the free play of private judgment unguided by authority, and could not have occurred if Europe had continued to recognize an infallible central authority in ethical affairs.

The science of economics is the science of men's relations with one another in the domain of acquiring and disposing of wealth, and is, therefore, like political science in another sphere, a branch of the science of ethics. In the Middle Ages, man's ethical conduct, like his religious conduct, was under the supervision and guidance of a single authority, which claimed at the same time the right to define and to enforce its teaching. The machinery for enforcing the observance of medieval ethical teaching was of a singularly effective kind; pressure was brought to bear upon the conscience of the individual through the medium of compulsory periodical consultations with a trained moral adviser, who was empowered to enforce obedience to his advice by the most potent spiritual sanctions. In this way, the whole conduct of man in relation to his neighbours was placed under the immediate guidance of the universally received ethical preceptor, and a common standard of action was ensured throughout the Christian world in the all the affairs of life. All economic transactions in particular were subject to the jealous scrutiny of the individual's spiritual director; and such matters as sales, loans, and so on, were considered reprehensible and punishable if not conducted in accordance with the Christian standards of commutative justice.

The whole of this elaborate system for the preservation of justice in the affairs of everyday life was shattered by the Reformation. The right of private judgment, which had first been asserted in matters of faith, rapidly spread into moral matters, and the attack on the dogmatic infallibility of the Church left Europe without an authority to which it could appeal on moral questions. The new Protestant churches were utterly unable to supply this want. The principle of private judgment on which they rested deprived them of any right to be listened to whenever they attempted to dictate moral precepts to their members, and henceforth the moral behaviour of the individual became a matter to be regulated by the promptings of his own conscience, or by such philosophical systems of ethics as he happened to approve. The secular state endeavoured to ensure that dishonesty amounting to actual theft or fraud should be kept in check, but this was a poor and ineffective substitute for the powerful weapon of the confessional. Authority having once broken down, it was but a single step from Protestantism to rationalism; and the way was opened to the development of all sorts of erroneous systems of morality. (Dr. George O'Brien, An Essay on the Economic Efforts of the Reformation, IHS Press, Norfolk, Virginia, 2003.)

[Dr. O'Brien went on to state that true pope after true pope has stated concerning the necessity of men and their nations subordinating themselves to the Catholic Church as they pursue the common temporal good in light of man's Last End.]

There is one institution and one institution alone which is capable of supplying and enforcing the social ethic that is needed to revivify the world. It is an institution at once intra-national and international; an institution that can claim to pronounce infallibly on moral matters, and to enforce the observance of the its moral decrees by direct sanctions on the individual conscience of man; an institution which, while respecting and supporting the civil governments of nations, can claim to exist independently of them, and can insist that they shall not intrude upon the moral life or fetter the moral liberty of their citizens. Europe possessed such an institution in the Middle Ages; its dethronement was the unique achievement of the Reformation; and the injury inflicted by that dethronement has never since been repaired. (George O'Brien, An Essay on the Economic Effects of the Reformation, first published in 1923, republished by IHS press in 2003, p. 132.)


Appendix B

From Pope Pius XI's Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922

We have already seen and come to the conclusion that the principal cause of the confusion, restlessness, and dangers which are so prominent a characteristic of false peace is the weakening of the binding force of law and lack of respect for authority, effects which logically follow upon denial of the truth that authority comes from God, the Creator and Universal Law-giver.

The only remedy for such state of affairs is the peace of Christ since the peace of Christ is the peace of God, which could not exist if it did not enjoin respect for law, order, and the rights of authority. In the Holy Scriptures We read: "My children, keep discipline in peace." (Ecclesiasticus xli, 17) "Much peace have they that love the law, O Lord." (Psalms cxviii, 165) "He that feareth the commandment, shall dwell in peace." (Proverbs xiii, 13) Jesus Christ very expressly states: "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's." (Matt. xxii, 21) He even recognized that Pilate possessed authority from on High (John xiv, 11) as he acknowledged that the scribes and Pharisees who though unworthy sat in the chair of Moses (Matt. xxiii, 2) were not without a like authority. In Joseph and Mary, Jesus respected the natural authority of parents and was subject to them for the greater part of His life. (Luke ii, 51) He also taught, by the voice of His Apostle, the same important doctrine: "Let every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God." (Romans xiii, 1; cf. also 1 Peter ii, 13, 18)

If we stop to reflect for a moment that these ideals and doctrines of Jesus Christ, for example, his teachings on the necessity and value of the spiritual life, on the dignity and sanctity of human life, on the duty of obedience, on the divine basis of human government, on the sacramental character of matrimony and by consequence the sanctity of family life -- if we stop to reflect, let Us repeat, that these ideals and doctrines of Christ (which are in fact but a portion of the treasury of truth which He left to mankind) were confided by Him to His Church and to her alone for safekeeping, and that He has promised that His aid will never fail her at any time for she is the infallible teacher of His doctrines in every century and before all nations, there is no one who cannot clearly see what a singularly important role the Catholic Church is able to play, and is even called upon to assume, in providing a remedy for the ills which afflict the world today and in leading mankind toward a universal peace.

Because the Church is by divine institution the sole depository and interpreter of the ideals and teachings of Christ, she alone possesses in any complete and true sense the power effectively to combat that materialistic philosophy which has already done and, still threatens, such tremendous harm to the home and to the state. The Church alone can introduce into society and maintain therein the prestige of a true, sound spiritualism, the spiritualism of Christianity which both from the point of view of truth and of its practical value is quite superior to any exclusively philosophical theory. The Church is the teacher and an example of world good-will, for she is able to inculcate and develop in mankind the "true spirit of brotherly love" (St. Augustine, De Moribus Ecclesiae Catholicae, i, 30) and by raising the public estimation of the value and dignity of the individual's soul help thereby to lift us even unto God.

Finally, the Church is able to set both public and private life on the road to righteousness by demanding that everything and all men become obedient to God "Who beholdeth the heart," to His commands, to His laws, to His sanctions. If the teachings of the Church could only penetrate in some such manner as We have described the inner recesses of the consciences of mankind, be they rulers or be they subjects, all eventually would be so apprised of their personal and civic duties and their mutual responsibilities that in a short time "Christ would be all, and in all." (Colossians iii, 11)

Since the Church is the safe and sure guide to conscience, for to her safe-keeping alone there has been confided the doctrines and the promise of the assistance of Christ, she is able not only to bring about at the present hour a peace that is truly the peace of Christ, but can, better than any other agency which We know of, contribute greatly to the securing of the same peace for the future, to the making impossible of war in the future. For the Church teaches (she alone has been given by God the mandate and the right to teach with authority) that not only our acts as individuals but also as groups and as nations must conform to the eternal law of God. In fact, it is much more important that the acts of a nation follow God's law, since on the nation rests a much greater responsibility for the consequences of its acts than on the individual.

When, therefore, governments and nations follow in all their activities, whether they be national or international, the dictates of conscience grounded in the teachings, precepts, and example of Jesus Christ, and which are binding on each and every individual, then only can we have faith in one another's word and trust in the peaceful solution of the difficulties and controversies which may grow out of differences in point of view or from clash of interests. An attempt in this direction has already and is now being made; its results, however, are almost negligible and, especially so, as far as they can be said to affect those major questions which divide seriously and serve to arouse nations one against the other. No merely human institution of today can be as successful in devising a set of international laws which will be in harmony with world conditions as the Middle Ages were in the possession of that true League of Nations, Christianity. It cannot be denied that in the Middle Ages this law was often violated; still it always existed as an ideal, according to which one might judge the acts of nations, and a beacon light calling those who had lost their way back to the safe road.

There exists an institution able to safeguard the sanctity of the law of nations. This institution is a part of every nation; at the same time it is above all nations. She enjoys, too, the highest authority, the fullness of the teaching power of the Apostles. Such an institution is the Church of Christ. She alone is adapted to do this great work, for she is not only divinely commissioned to lead mankind, but moreover, because of her very make-up and the constitution which she possesses, by reason of her age-old traditions and her great prestige, which has not been lessened but has been greatly increased since the close of the War, cannot but succeed in such a venture where others assuredly will fail.

It is apparent from these considerations that true peace, the peace of Christ, is impossible unless we are willing and ready to accept the fundamental principles of Christianity, unless we are willing to observe the teachings and obey the law of Christ, both in public and private life. If this were done, then society being placed at last on a sound foundation, the Church would be able, in the exercise of its divinely given ministry and by means of the teaching authority which results therefrom, to protect all the rights of God over men and nations.

It is possible to sum up all We have said in one word, "the Kingdom of Christ." For Jesus Christ reigns over the minds of individuals by His teachings, in their hearts by His love, in each one's life by the living according to His law and the imitating of His example. Jesus reigns over the family when it, modeled after the holy ideals of the sacrament of matrimony instituted by Christ, maintains unspotted its true character of sanctuary. In such a sanctuary of love, parental authority is fashioned after the authority of God, the Father, from Whom, as a matter of fact, it originates and after which even it is named. (Ephesians iii, 15) The obedience of the children imitates that of the Divine Child of Nazareth, and the whole family life is inspired by the sacred ideals of the Holy Family. Finally, Jesus Christ reigns over society when men recognize and reverence the sovereignty of Christ, when they accept the divine origin and control over all social forces, a recognition which is the basis of the right to command for those in authority and of the duty to obey for those who are subjects, a duty which cannot but ennoble all who live up to its demands. Christ reigns where the position in society which He Himself has assigned to His Church is recognized, for He bestowed on the Church the status and the constitution of a society which, by reason of the perfect ends which it is called upon to attain, must be held to be supreme in its own sphere; He also made her the depository and interpreter of His divine teachings, and, by consequence, the teacher and guide of every other society whatsoever, not of course in the sense that she should abstract in the least from their authority, each in its own sphere supreme, but that she should really perfect their authority, just as divine grace perfects human nature, and should give to them the assistance necessary for men to attain their true final end, eternal happiness, and by that very fact make them the more deserving and certain promoters of their happiness here below.

It is, therefore, a fact which cannot be questioned that the true peace of Christ can only exist in the Kingdom of Christ -- "the peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ." It is no less unquestionable that, in doing all we can to bring about the re-establishment of Christ's kingdom, we will be working most effectively toward a lasting world peace.

[In rejecting this, you see, my good and very few readers, the two caesars, Bush the Lesser and Barack Hussein Obama, do indeed sing the same old naturalistic song. So has every other President of the United States of America: see Not A Mention of Christ the King.]


© Copyright 2010, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.