Watch the Midget Naturalists Mud Wrestle

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Americans love their bread and circuses. They just don't have to go to the circus to get amused any longer. Amusement is brought to them in their homes on wide-screen televisions, the internet and a wide variety of forms on home computers, digital video disc players and other such "home entertainment' equipment that seem to be a staple of those homes where a lot of readily disposable income in is available to make the purchase of these items possible.

Partisan politics, however, was a spectator sport long before the advent of radio and television and the internet.

Although the rhetoric of most American politicians in the Nineteenth Century was pure naturalistic hogwash and just outright bombast, city folk and townsfolk would turn out for a political stem-winder that might last up to three hours. Such naturalistic hogwash and bombast was a form of "entertainment," if you will, prior to the days of silent films and radio and television itself. Americans in the Nineteenth Century had the attention span to listen to those three hour stem winders. Lots of ordinary citizens came out, replete with their torchlights if the event was held at night, and, not all too frequently, lots of liquor to "enjoy" the festivities as a musical band or two might play before and after the speech.

Well, we don't have to go out to the local town square to get jollies from listening to naturalists. All one needs to do is to spend his entire life listening to talk radio and/or watching the twenty-four hour-a-day news channels and surfing the internet to get their fill of absolute political junk food that has plenty of calories, so to speak, but no real spiritual or intellectual nutritional value whatsoever.

Indeed. the adversary has used all of obsession with the minutest details of what has become an industry of endless campaigning for elected office to stir up emotions as our naturalists vie with each other for votes in the biennial or quadrennial farces called elections, starting, of course, with primary season. Grave sounding naturalists who fill the airwaves and the internet with their self-promoting, self-important naturalistic hogwash and bombast that "this is the most important election of our lifetime." Why is it that every election is called the "most important election of our lifetime"? Does anyone recognize this to be hyperbole and bombast of the highest order?

Permit me a chance to try to prove this point.

For those of who who are New Yorkers and who are old enough to remember the 1962 elections, can any of you remember a single, solitary issue during the gubernatorial that year between incumbent Governor William Averell Harriman and his challenger, the tycoon named Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller?

This question is for any of you in the country who are old enough to remember the 1962 elections: What were the big issues dividing Republicans and Democrats in the off-year Congressional elections in 1962? Come one, tell me one. Just one (without looking up on the internet, that is).

What were the really big issues that divided Republicans and Democrats in the 1978, 1982, and 1990 off-year Congressional elections?

Sure, there are exceptions to this. Most anyone old enough to remember the 1974 elections can remember that the Democrats won handily around the nation because of the resignation of President Richard Milhous Nixon. The 1994 elections are remembered by many people for the Republicans issuing their "Contract With America." What about 1998 and 2002 and 2006??

It has been thus, at least for them most part, in the realm of partisan politics here in the United States of America.

Many of those who are younger don't realize this. They get all caught up in the emotions and the excitement of a given moment. Although one is not very old as he approaches sixty in one hundred two days, this writer is old enough to have learned, solely by the graces won for us by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ on the wood of the Holy Cross as He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood to redeem us that He sends to us through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces, that American electoral politics is a farce. A farce.

Check back in about ten or twenty or fifty years, however, if we have that long, that is, and see if my analysis of how evil has been advancing and institutionalizing itself in civil society as a result of the compromises that we have made with our naturalistic Judeo-Masonic system has not been correct all along, that elections in the United States of America have been naturalist sideshows from the beginning, as Orestes Brownson pointed out in National Greatness in 1846. Little has changed since then, as I think a dispassionate reading of Mr. Brownson's essay, part of which is excerpted here, will reveal:

As of the individual, so of the nation. In like manner as justice and sanctity constitute the greatness of the individual, so do they constitute the greatness of the nation. "Justice exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people."  The great nation is the holy nation, rich in true  obedience, and carried away by a divine passion for God and all holy things.

Suppose your nation does increase in wealth, in luxury, in refinement; suppose it does fell the primeval forest and enlarge its borders, multiply its manufactures, extend its commerce, and make all climes pour their riches into its lap; what then?  Does it follow that such a nation is great, is glorious, and has reason to applaud herself for her achievements and to exult over the poor and simple? "Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord." Where is it written, Blessed is the nation whose God is Mammon, and whose worship is thrift?  Where are the nations who forgot the Lord, who put their trust in their ships, their traffic, their wealth, and luxuries?  Where is that ancient Tyre, "whose merchants were princes, and her traders the nobles of the earth"? Where are all the nations of the old world, once renowned for their extended commerce, the richness of their stuffs, and the variety of their manufactures?  They have passed away like the morning vapor, and a few solitary ruins alone remain to point the traveller to the seats of their world-renowned idolatry.

Taking the principles we have established, we can easily  answer the question, whether we are or are not a great people, whether the path we are pursuing leads to true nation al greatness, or whether it leads from it. Are we as a people intent on gaining the end for which our Maker de
signed us? Are we remarkable for our humble observance of the precepts of the Gospel? Are we diligent to yield that obedience to which is promised eternal life?  Far, very far, from it. We are a proud, loud-boasting and vain-boasting people. Our god is mammon, and our righteousness is thrift. Is it not so? To what do we point as proofs of our greatness? Is it not to our industrial achievements, our railroads, canals, steamboats, commerce, manufactures, material wealth and splendor?  But where are our moral achievements, the monuments of our enlightened zeal for God, and humble devotion to his will?  Religion we have in name, in form, in many forms and many strange forms; but where is the deep, all-pervading, all-active conviction that this world is not our home, that it is but an inn in which we may lodge for a night, but in which we may not, must not, dwell? Alas! the dominant passion of our country is worldly wealth and worldly distinction. We see it in the general pursuits of the people; we hear it in the almost universal tone of conversation; and we see it distinctly in the general scramble for wealth, in our demoralizing political contentions, and the all-devouring greediness for place and plunder.

If we look at the great political questions which agitate the public mind, we shall perceive that they are all questions concerning wealth, the means of facilitating its acquisition, of making it pass, or preventing it from passing, from the few to the many, or from the many to the few. Such are your bank questions, your tariff questions, your land-distribution questions. If you go beyond these, they are questions of the honors and emoluments of office. Not a pert upstart among us who has made his maiden caucus speech, but regards himself as qualified for any office in the gift of the people, from that of village constable up to that of president of the United States, and feels that he suffers great wrong, and adds another striking example of neglected merit, if not rewarded for his disinterested and patriotic exertions by some snug place with a fat salary. Scarcely a man seems contented to remain in private life, to live in obscurity, unheeded by his countrymen, in all humility and fidelity laboring to discharge his duty to his God, and to win the prize of eternal glory. We love the praise of men more than the praise of God; the low and transitory goods of time more than the high and permanent goods of eternity.

If we are poor, we are discontented, we regard ourselves as most miserable, and rail against Providence, who permits inequalities to obtain among brethren. No one is contented with his lot in life. We are all ill-at-ease. We would all be what we are not,- and have what we have not. And yet, with admirable simplicity, we ask, Are we not a great people? Nearly all the action of the American people, collectively or individually, has reference solely to the affairs of, time. Government sinks with us into a joint-stock concern for the practice of thrift. It has no divine authority, no high and solemn moral mission. In education even, the same low and earthly view obtains. We educate for time. We seek to fit our children for getting on, as we call it, in the world, -to make them sharp, bold, enterprising and successful business men. We teach them, indeed, that knowledge is power,-but power to outstrip their fellows in the pursuit of worldly goods. We teach them, indeed, that sloth is a mortal sin,-but sloth in the affairs of time and sense, not sloth in regard to our spiritual duties. We teach them to respect public opinion, to strive to be respectable, to be honored among men; rarely, and almost always ineffectually, to respect the law of God, to see the honor of God, and to despise that of men. Hence, they grow up timid time-servers, trimmers, moral cowards, afraid to say their souls are their own, to avow their honest convictions, if their convictions chance to be unpopular, or to follow God in the faith and worship he has ordained, if not held in repute, or if embraced only by the poor, the simple, of whom the world makes no account. To make a sacrifice for Christ, to give up all, houses, lands, wife, and children, for God, that we may have treasure in heaven, strikes us as something wholly uncalled for, as folly, as madness, worthy only of the dark ages of monkish ignorance and barbarity. To a worldly end conspire all our education, science, literature, and art.

Whatever cannot be pressed into the service of man as a creature of time and sense is by the immense majority of us condemned as useless and mischievous.

That we measure all things by the standard of this life and this world is evinced by the judgments we pass on other nations. In judging others, we always judge ourselves. Tell us what nation you place highest in the scale of nations, and you tell us what are your own views of what constitutes true national greatness. We, as a people, very generally count highest in the scale of contemporary nations those in which the national energy displays itself most exclusively in an industrial direction, and which are most successful in multiplying wealth and luxury. Since the great events in the sixteenth century, which out of courtesy we must call the reformation, although it was any thing but a reformation, there has sprung up a new social order, not known in the middle ages, and not yet universally adopted in Catholic countries. The whole tendency of this order is in an industrial direction. It places this world before the other, time before eternity, the body before the soul, the praise of men before the praise of God. It esteems the riches of this world more than the riches of divine grace, and bids us strive to live, not in the order of grace, but in the order of nature. Under this order the great aim is to be rich, independent, well off in time; to be distinguished, held in high repute one by another. We reverse the maxim of the Gospel, and say, Be not anxious for the soul, take no need to the worship of God, nor to obedience to his laws; but seek first to get on well in this world, look to the main chance, get rich, honestly, of course, if you can, but get rich, be distinguished, and then the kingdom of God and his justice will be added unto you unto you;--or if not, it will be no great matter.

 

Orestes Brownson wrote this in the year 1846. You tell me how any of this has changed? You tell me how the intervening presidential elections of 1848, 1852, 1856, 1864, 1868, 1872, 1876, 1880, 1884, 1888, 1892, 1896, 1900, 1904, 1908, 1912, 1916, 1920, 1924,1928, 1932, 1936, 1940, 1944, 1948, 1952, 1956, 1960, 1964, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008 have changed just one little bit of Orestes Brownson's description of American national life 162 years ago? We have changed for the worse, not the better, as the residual influences of Catholicism have waned--and as the counterfeit church of conciliarism made its own evil "reconciliation" not only with the principles of 1789 but also with those of 1776 and 1787. Indeed, conciliarism's view of the world and Church-State relations is premised upon the very Americanism that has convinced Catholics to believe that it is through interdenominational and/or nondenominational efforts at the ballot box that "change" is effected in society. The one, conciliarism, could not have occurred with the other, Americanism, as will be noted in the book length manuscript that I am now in the process of writing.

Ours has been been a system of "greater" evils from the very beginning, starting with the contention that men do not need the authority of the Catholic Church to direct them, either personally or socially, and that they can be virtuous on their own without belief in, access to and cooperation with Sanctifying Grace.

Read those passages from Orestes Brownson's "National Greatness" again and judge for yourself if our "electoral process" has changed anything substantively for the "better" other than convincing Catholics to surrender their Faith to the exigencies of career politicians who believe in multiple errors that offend Our Blessed and Saviour Jesus Christ, the very Second Person of the Blessed Trinity Who became Man in Our Lady's Virginal and Immaculate Womb by the power of God the Holy Ghost, and are thus harmful, yes, even unto eternity, of the salvation of the souls for whom He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross.

Memories fade over the course of time. Those who think naturalistically and who do not understand that the entire structure of the modern civil state is built on the house of sand constructed by the evils of the Protestant Revolution and the rise of Judeo-Masonry will have a veritable "Pavlov's Reaction" to the sound of the "election bell," responding to fund-raising appeals and to petition drives that wind up empowering the naturalists more and more.

Thus it is that next year's 2012 national elections are said to be (drum roll, please), the "most important election of our lifetime."

Adherents of the false opposite of the naturalist "left" will seek to "energize" their political base support by threatening the apathetic among their number with what will be termed the ugly spectre of a presidency and both houses of Congress in the control of their ever-hapless false opposites of the naturalist "right."

"Control of the Supreme Court of the United States of America," is at stake, some of these lefties will argue. "Antonin Scalia is seventy-five now. His weight has ballooned up so much that he might fit into some of the clothing of the late Orson Welles or the equally dead Marlon Brando. He could go at any time. You don't want another Scalia getting on the Court, do you?"

Other adherents of the false opposite of the naturalist "left" will argue that Barack Hussein Obama's vision for a "more just" America have been stymied by the "Tea Party fanatics who have captured the Republican Party," an argument, from what I have read, that seems to be gaining some traction among so-called "independent" voters. Why not? Demagoguery works more often than not.

The hapless band of in-fighters who belong to the naturalist "right" will, are arguing that Obama and ObamaCare must go, that his profligate spending programs have bankrupted the country for generations as the "mainstream media" will argue that it was the war mongering and tax cuts of the not-so-pro-life George Walker Bush that made Obama's spending programs necessary. And on and on and on the circus will go.

Several things are guaranteed from the results of the 2012 elections:

1) A naturalist will win the presidency.

2) A naturalist will continue be used, unwittingly to him or her, by God as a means to further chastise the United States of America.

3) Innocent preborn children will continue to slaughtered by chemical and surgical means.

4) The size, the scope and the power of the Federal government of the United States of America will increase, either at a fast rate or at a slower rate than is occurring at this time.

5) The State of Israel will continue to control a good deal of American foreign policy.

6) Economic and social problems and international crises will worsen; leading to--

7) The hysteria over the 2014 off-year national elections and the 2016 presidential elections, which will begin in earnest for the naturalists of "left" no matter who wins enough electoral votes on Tuesday, November 6, 2012, as a defeated Barack Hussein Obama will start his own Oprah Winfrey style television program or as a re-elected Barack Hussein Obama enters into his second term of office, being unable to succeed himself. It is my own contention that a re-elected Caesar Barackus Obamus Ignoramus might seek to start the process of repealing the Twenty-second Amendment, making it possible for him to become a modern day Franklin Delano Roosevelt or yet another contemporary worthy of Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez.

The current hysteria was on display two nights ago in Ames, Iowa, as eight of the nine declared candidates for the 2012 Republican Party presidential nomination "debated" each other. 

The "debate" was hardly that. It was what some have called the spectacle of staged "joint appearances" as midget naturalists mud wrestled with each other and the journalists asking questions, many of them with "inside baseball" questions dealing with the theater of running for the presidency, in a scattershot manner than gave none of the poor midget naturalist mud wrestlers an opportunity to discourse for more than a minute, although some went over their allotted times.

There were the following spectacles two nights ago:

1) Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, a Catholic apostate turned Protestant, ripped into United States Representative Michele Bachmann, who returned fire with glee.

2) Former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, who served as Barack Hussein Obama's ambassador to Red China from August 11, 2009, to April 30, 2011, distinguished himself for two things: (a) looking as though he came straight out of a tanning salon; and (b) displaying the "courage of his convictions" to reiterate his support for "civil unions" for those engaged in both natural and unnatural vice in violation of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments (it is nothing other than stupefying to consider that pro-aborts, pro-lavender agenda Rudolph William Giuliani has some kind of "path" to the Republican nomination after turning in a performance in 2008 that Huntsman is seeking to emulate).

3) Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney answered not a single question directly, sticking to talking points in order to maintain his front-runner status, taking special delight in the mud that his fellow midgets Bachmann and Pawlenty were throwing at each other.

4) Former Speaker of the House of Representative Leroy Newton Gingrich wagged his finger at questioner Chris Wallace, the son of the now retired Mike Wallace of 60 Minutes fame, when asked about losing most of his campaign staff a few months, answering policy questions in a manner that appealed to the talking heads but displayed a lack of comprehension of the root causes of the problems he thinks that he can "resolve."

5) The former chief executive officer of Godfather Pizza, Herman Cain, struggled to keep his balance when asked difficult questions. His "best days" on the campaign trail are behind him as he is baffled and equivocates when asked questions that he is not prepared to answer.

6) Former United States Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pennsylvania) was emphatic, if not eloquent, in his opposition to the "exception" for the legal inviolability of a preborn baby in the event of his having been conceived as a result of a violent assault upon his mother. Very nice. He also supports the "global war on terror" that has killed thousands upon thousands of innocent human beings and helped to bankrupt the national treasury, such as it is, composed of worthless pieces of paper that only have value because our caesars tell us that this is the case.

7) United States Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas) remains his libertarian self, fully supportive of "states' rights" concerning the social issues, including surgical abortion and "gay marriage" if it is the "will of the people" in those states as expressed by popular referenda and/or by state legislatures, correctly denouncing the "global war on terrorism" and dismissing the threat posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran, patting himself on the back for having pointed out the unjust behemoth of the Federal Reserve System long before it became fashionable to do so. Remember this and remember it well: Dr. Ron Paul admitted that he has prescribed "the pill" to women who were his patients in his years as a practicing obstetrician/gynecologist. The birth control pill is an abortifacient no matter how many times Dr. Paul asserts that this is not the case. He is thus responsible for the deaths of countless numbers of babies who had been conceived with a complete genetic code of their very own. (See The Pill Kills - 2011 - How The Pill Kills.)

One candidate who wasn't at the debate was Texas Governor Rick Perry, who will try to steal some thunder from his brother midget naturalists by announcing his candidacy formally today in South Carolina at an event he has organized. And then there is former Alaska Governor Sarah Heath Palin, who just happened to show up at the Iowa State Fair in Des Moines, Iowa yesterday, Friday, August 12, 2011, the Feast of Saint Clare, reminding everyone that "Sarah Barracuda," another Catholic apostate, might yet put on her mud wrestling clothes to join her fellow midget naturalists of the false opposite of the "right." (Yes, there are two other pee wee midget naturalists who aren't in Iowa now seeking the Republican Party presidential nomination, former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson and former Louisiana Governor Buddy Roemer. They are nonentities even in terms of raw naturalism, leaving aside all supernatural considerations.)

Not to be ignored in this farce is the role played by so-called political "experts."

It was laughable to review the comments of some of the "experts" from the false opposite of the naturalist "left"who said that the only winner of the debate held on Thursday evening, August 11, 2011, was Barack Hussein Obama, who, they say, benefited from the Republican in-fighting.

All right.

What about the late United States Senator Paul Tsongas (D-Massachusetts) calling hen Arkansas Governor William Jefferson Blythe Clinton "the pander bear" in 1992?

What about Clinton's going ballistic against the not-so-reverend Jesse Louis Jackson when he had learned, erroneously, that Jackson had endorsed one of Clinton's 1992 rivals for the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party, the pro-abortion "Catholic" United States Senator Thomas Harkin (D-Iowa)?

What about the past and current Governor of California, G. Edmund "Jerry" Brown, Jr., talking about Whitewater (well before all of the investigations associated with that scandal) in a debate with Clinton in 1992, prompting Clinton to strike back at him saying, "Pat Caddell [James Earl Carter, Jr.'s, political pollster and strategist] told me what you, redefining yourself every four years."

Do any of these bright lefty talking heads remember the contest between Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., and Bill Bradley in 2000 or the John Edwards-John Kerry ruckus four years later?

Better yet, what about the knock down, drag out street battle between Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2008?

And these "experts" get paid lots of money for spinning this stuff while some of us (see below) can't even those who support our work and who have the means to help to send along a five dollar bill in times of need. I guess that it's great work if you can get it. (And this is not even to mention the battle between Jimmy Carter and Edward Moore Kennedy in 1980 and the one between Walter Mondale and Gary Hart in 1984. Midget naturalists of the "right" have company in the mud wrestling league with the midget naturalists of the "left.")

As always, the loser in all of this is Christ the King, and if He loses, my few and most penurious readers (just because I haven't updated the donations page as I plan to doesn't mean that the post office box is overflowing with mail; we are getting by right now as a result of two non-tax-deductible financial gifts that made it possible to pay utility bills and groceries while other bills need to be paid), everyone loses. Men lose. Their nations lose.

Remember, what unites the false opposites of the naturalist "right" and the naturalist "left" is the complete and total rejection of the basic truth that Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order. Each, including the Catholics (Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich) in the race, would be aghast at any challenge to accept the truths stated in the following quotations:

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

Here we have, founded by Catholics, an inter-denominational association that is to work for the reform of civilization, an undertaking which is above all religious in character; 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 social reign of the Heart of Jesus is God in His place in the reason, in the conscience, in the heart and in the public life of man; the social reign of Satan, is God excluded from religion, from the conscience, from the heart and from the public life of man; it is humanity laicized and adoring itself.

"There is no middle ground; one must choose. The liberals, the liberals who say to themselves that they are and believe themselves to be Catholic, do not want to choose; they repudiate the social reign of the Heart of Jesus, they accept the social reign of Satan. Despite their verbal protestations, their work is founded on Freemasonry; they are of the party of Satan against the Heart of Jesus" (Canon Gaudeau, La Maison actuelle de Sainte Marguerite Marie, p. 25, de St. Just, pg. 201.) [Selected Writings of Cardinal Pie of Poitiers, Catholic Action Resource Center, Orlando, Florida, October, 2007, pp. 5-8.]

"If Jesus Christ," proclaims Msgr. Pie in a magnificent pastoral instruction, "if Jesus Christ Who is our light whereby we are drawn out of the seat of darkness and from the shadow of death, and Who has given to the world the treasure of truth and grace, if He has not enriched the world, I mean to say the social and political world itself, from the great evils which prevail in the heart of paganism, then it is to say that the work of Jesus Christ is not a divine work. Even more so: if the Gospel which would save men is incapable of procuring the actual progress of peoples, if the revealed light which is profitable to individuals is detrimental to society at large, if the scepter of Christ, sweet and beneficial to souls, and perhaps to families, is harmful and unacceptable for cities and empires; in other words, if Jesus Christ to whom the Prophets had promised and to Whom His Father had given the nations as a heritage, is not able to exercise His authority over them for it would be to their detriment and temporal disadvantage, it would have to be concluded that Jesus Christ is not God". . . .

"To say Jesus Christ is the God of individuals and of families, but not the God of peoples and of societies, is to say that He is not God. To say that Christianity is the law of individual man and is not the law of collective man, is to say that Christianity is not divine. To say that the Church is the judge of private morality, but has nothing to do with public and political morality, is to say that the Church is not divine."

In fine, Cardinal Pie insists:

"Christianity would not be divine if it were to have existence within individuals but not with regard to societies."

Fr. de St. Just asks, in conclusion:

"Could it be proven in clearer terms that social atheism conduces to individualistic atheism? ("Selected Writings of Cardinal Pie of Poitiers, Catholic Action Resource Center, Orlando, Florida, October, 2007, p  22.]

 

If you like good political theater, well, then, be my guest. Electoral politics is nothing other than a complete farce as the devil mocks true social order by raising up all manner of "secular saviors" to promise us a better world by means of human self-redemption as they use the name of God in a Judeo-Masonic sense devoid of all understanding of His Sacred Deposit of Faith. (Please review March of the Midget Naturalists.)

If you do not think that the American electoral system is one of complete farce, consider the fact, if you will be so kind to do so, that in 2007 only 14,302 people paid the thirty dollar entrance fee to the Republican Part of Iowa for the "privilege" of casting their votes. That's right, the fate of the midget naturalists who specialize in mud wrestling and any true in-depth discussion of the actual root causes of social problems depends upon an almost invisible fraction of the 131,000,000 people who showed up at the polls nationwide on November 4, 2008. This is farce. A staged fund-raising event held for the Republican Party of Iowa that is held in Ames, Iowa, in the August preceding a presidential election being contested by various midget naturalists of the false opposite of the "right" can eliminate candidates for national consideration?

Sure, it's great theater, especially to those who like the "excitement" of campaigns, which do indeed generate their own hysteria. However, it only that, theater, a veritable naturalist theater of the absurd featuring midget mud wrestlers who live in a perpetual "cone of silence" demonstrating that they know far less than even Sergeant Hans Schultz.

We must be champions of Christ the King and Mary our Immaculate Queen, champions of the Catholic Church in this time of apostasy and betrayal, champions of the truth that Catholicism is the and only foundation of personal and social order. Those who disagree do so at the peril to the nation they say they love but for which they have a false sense of nationalistic pride that impedes her conversion to the true Faith, which is what Our Lord Himself mandates for each nation on the face of this earth.

We must not be distracted by the side shows of naturalism or conciliarism. We must serve as champions of Christ the King through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, especially by praying as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits, refusing to march along in the parade of the midget naturalists.

We can only stand tall, that is, to stand above the midgets of naturalism, if we stand uncompromisingly with Christ the King as the consecrated slaves of Mary our Immaculate Queen.

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

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.

Saints Pontian and Cassian, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints