Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us

          June 12, 2013

Where The "Lesser Of Two Evils" Have Led Us:

The Gates Of Hell

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Anyone who thinks that the fratricidal warfare that has been going on in traditional Catholic circles for forty years now is endemic only to those who reject the "Second" Vatican Council and the "magisterium" of the conciliar "popes" should have been involved in the pitched battles that some of us experienced in the pro-life movement in starting in the 1970s and into the 1980s.

As a veteran of such battles, ladies and gentlemen, I was able to witness how long simmering feuds erupted into blazing assaults over the course of time. Although there were plenty of disputes over turf battles and and personalities, to be sure, a great many of the disputes within the pro-life movement that I experienced personally revolved around the castigation by "incrementalists" of the absolutist (no exceptions, no compromise) approach to electoral politics and legislative policy taken by those of us who recognized that the so-called "lesser of two evils" always results in the triumph of a greater evil over the course of time. "Pro-life" incrementalists view absolutists as unreasonable and unrealistic dreamers who let the "perfect" become the "enemy of the good" over and over again.

Dr. Charles E. Rice, a sedeplenist who is one of the foremost experts on the Natural Law alive, writing in the August 27, 1998, issue of The Wanderer, attempted to explain the philosophical and practical flaws of the incremental approach to politics and legislation at a time that I was opposing then United States Senator Alfonse M. D'Amato's bid for re-nomination by the Right to Life Party of the State of New York:



Sen. D'Amato will face a pro-abortion Democratic opponent in the fall. While a voter could morally vote for a pro-abortion candidate who is less objectionable on abortion than his opponent, he should not. The tactic of voting for the less objectionable of two pro-abortion candidates is a tactic of incremental surrender. The incremental strategy of accepting the legalization of abortion in some cases concedes that some innocent human life is negotiable after all. The pro-death movement is a guaranteed winner against an opposition that qualifies its own position by conceding that there are some innocent human beings whom it will allow to be directly and intentionally killed. That approach in practice has mortgaged the pro-life effort to the interests and judgment of what Paul Johnson called "the great human scourge of the 20th century, the professional politician." (Modern Times, 1985, p. 510.)

When a politician says he favors legalized abortion in life of the mother, rape and incest, or other cases, he affirms the nonpersonhood of the unborn child by proposing that he be subjected to execution at the discretion of another. The politician's pro-life rhetoric will be drowned out by the loud and clear message of his position, that he concedes that the law can validly tolerate the intentional killing of innocent human beings. Apart from exceptions, of course, Sen. D'Amato is objectionable as well for some of his other stands on abortion and for his positions on other issues, including especially the homosexual issue.

Pro-lifers could increase their political impact if they were single-issue voters, treating abortion as an absolutely disqualifying issue. Any candidate who believes that the law should treat any innocent human beings as nonpersons by tolerating their execution is unworthy to hold any public office, whether President, trustee of a mosquito abatement district, or senator. (Dr. Charles E. Rice, "Pro-Life Reflections on Sen. D'Amato, The Wanderer, August 27, 1998.)

As predicted on this site eight months ago now, the hapless anti-life Willard Mitt Romney's loss to to unapologetically pro-death Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro on Tuesday, November 6, 2012, resulted in all manner of "professional" Republicans, many of whom have risen through the ranks of naturalism after cutting their political eye-teeth the wards and precincts of local party clubhouses and know no other life than that of "getting out the vote" in order to win for the sake of "winning" as they do and say anything that they have to in order to achieve "victory in November," to start pounding their toy "tom-toms" once again in preparation for making war once again on the influence that so-called "social conservatives" have had in assuring the defeat of candidates such as Romney, who, it should be noted, run away from the "social issues" during this pathetic campaign last year. The war drums are being beaten down by future careerists within the ranks of the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist "right" in an effort to stress that there is only one thing that voters care about: the money, the money, the money, and, yes, right again, the money, the money and the money:

WASHINGTON, D.C., June 8, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Republican Party chairman Rience Priebus thanked the College Republican National Committee for releasing a new, 95-page report stating that the Republican Party needs to stop defending traditional values like marriage and defunding Planned Parenthood if it wants to appeal to the youth vote.

The report, called “Grand Old Party for a Brand New Generation,” examines voter trends among those 18-29 and claims young voters have problems with the GOP’s views on hot-button sexual issues. The party’s traditional-minded positions on both same-sex-marriage and reproductive issues were cited in the report as turn-offs to young adults.

“Perhaps no topic has gotten more attention with regards to the youth vote than the issue of gay marriage,” the report says. “[Y]oung people are unlikely to view homosexuality as morally wrong, and they lean toward legal recognition of same-sex relationships.”

The report states that only 21 percent of young voters in a Spring 2012 Harvard Institute of Politics survey felt that religious values should play a more important role in government, and only 25 percent felt homosexual relationships were wrong. And the group’s own March 2013 survey found that 44 percent of young voters said that same-sex marriage should be legal across the country, while 26 percent said that it should be up to states to decide.

Only 30 percent said marriage should be legally defined as only between a man and a woman.

“In the focus groups this issue repeatedly came up as one that made young voters wary of supporting the GOP,” the group said. For that reason, they added two questions to their survey “to gauge how young voters would respond to a candidate who opposes same-sex marriage.”

The survey asked respondents if they would be more or less likely to vote for a candidate who opposed same-sex marriage. Some 39 percent said it would make them less likely to vote for the candidate, including 51 percent of young independent voters. About one-third said that the issue would make no difference to them.

Wrote the College Republicans, “Surveys have consistently shown that gay marriage is not as important an issue as jobs and the economy to young voters. Yet it was unmistakable in the focus groups that gay marriage was a reason many of these young voters disliked the GOP.”

One young man in the College Republicans’ Columbus focus group said, “In this last election, everyone said that the biggest issue was the economy. I think to a lot of people that definitely was the case…but if there is just that one thing – a lot of those social issues that you can’t get behind – and see, everything is in two buckets, and if one of those things in those buckets is something you just can’t agree with then [it doesn’t] matter what else is there, economic or otherwise.” (College Republicans to GOP: Back off Planned Parenthood, contraception, same-sex ‘marriage’)


Longtime readers of my work, whether in The Wanderer, The Remnant, Catholic Family News, Celebrate Life, The Latin Mass: A Journal of Catholic Culture, The Arlington Catholic Herald, the printed pages of Christ or Chaos and on this website that has been live since February 20, 2004, know that I have been completely consistent in my rejection of the "lesser of two evils" slogan as serving only one end: the incremental institutionalization of more and more evils.

Although some who have written on the "lesser evil" as being the morally principled and "good" position to take by citing Saint Thomas Aquinas's teaching on the subject, it is nevertheless true that a decision to accept a "lesser evil" time and time again accustoms those trapped in the farce of naturalism to accept increasingly higher doses of evil as morally necessary tolerate in order to avoid being overtaken by the supposedly "greater evil." Pope Leo XIII explained were this logic takes a state over the course of time

Yet, with the discernment of a true mother, the Church weighs the great burden of human weakness, and well knows the course down which the minds and actions of men are in this our age being borne. For this reason, while not conceding any right to anything save what is true and honest, she does not forbid public authority to tolerate what is at variance with truth and justice, for the sake of avoiding some greater evil, or of obtaining or preserving some greater good. God Himself in His providence, though infinitely good and powerful, permits evil to exist in the world, partly that greater good may not be impeded, and partly that greater evil may not ensue. In the government of States it is not forbidden to imitate the Ruler of the world; and, as the authority of man is powerless to prevent every evil, it has (as St. Augustine says) to overlook and leave unpunished many things which are punished, and rightly, by Divine Providence. But if, in such circumstances, for the sake of the common good (and this is the only legitimate reason), human law may or even should tolerate evil, it may not and should not approve or desire evil for its own sake; for evil of itself, being a privation of good, is opposed to the common welfare which every legislator is bound to desire and defend to the best of his ability. In this, human law must endeavor to imitate God, who, as St. Thomas teaches, in allowing evil to exist in the world, "neither wills evil to be done, nor wills it not to be done, but wills only to permit it to be done; and this is good.'' This saying of the Angelic Doctor contains briefly the whole doctrine of the permission of evil.

But, to judge aright, we must acknowledge that, the more a State is driven to tolerate evil, the further is it from perfection; and that the tolerance of evil which is dictated by political prudence should be strictly confined to the limits which its justifying cause, the public welfare, requires. Wherefore, if such tolerance would be injurious to the public welfare, and entail greater evils on the State, it would not be lawful; for in such case the motive of good is wanting. And although in the extraordinary condition of these times the Church usually acquiesces in certain modern liberties, not because she prefers them in themselves, but because she judges it expedient to permit them, she would in happier times exercise her own liberty; and, by persuasion, exhortation, and entreaty would endeavor, as she is bound, to fulfill the duty assigned to her by God of providing for the eternal salvation of mankind. One thing, however, remains always true -- that the liberty which is claimed for all to do all things is not, as We have often said, of itself desirable, inasmuch as it is contrary to reason that error and truth should have equal rights.

And as to tolerance, it is surprising how far removed from the equity and prudence of the Church are those who profess what is called liberalism. For, in allowing that boundless license of which We have spoken, they exceed all limits, and end at last by making no apparent distinction between truth and error, honesty and dishonesty. And because the Church, the pillar and ground of truth, and the unerring teacher of morals, is forced utterly to reprobate and condemn tolerance of such an abandoned and criminal character, they calumniate her as being wanting in patience and gentleness, and thus fail to see that, in so doing, they impute to her as a fault what is in reality a matter for commendation. But, in spite of all this show of tolerance, it very often happens that, while they profess themselves ready to lavish liberty on all in the greatest profusion, they are utterly intolerant toward the Catholic Church, by refusing to allow her the liberty of being herself free. (Pope Leo XIII, Libertas Praestantissimum, June 20, 1888.)

Whether someone or some thing represents a "lesser" evil is a judgment of the practical order. Catholics in the United States of America have become so used to the mantra of "voting for the lesser of two evils" that they invoke this mantra without understanding the proper distinctions and qualifications that need to be made when arriving at a judgment of the practical order. This is how the pro-life statist fraud named George Walker Bush got elected President of the United States of America on November 7, 2000, and re-elected on November 3, 2004, even though Bush the Lesser was indignant in 1996 at the time he was Governor of the States of Texas as one his of proteges, the fully pro-abortion, Dolly Madison McKenna, who was in a runoff election against a Democrat, Ken Bentsen, the nephew of the late United States Senator and Secretary of the Treasury Lloyd Bentsen, faced active opposition from pro-life absolutist activists. The then Governor George Walker Bush was frothing at the mouth against the "unrealistic" pro-lifers.

Also joining in the fray was Governor George Walker Bush's father, former President George Herbert Walker Bush, who ran a pathetic re-election campaign against William Jefferson Blythe Clinton and Henry Ross Perot in 1992. Bush the Elder was enraged that Al Clements, the larger-than-life leader of pro-life forces in Texas whom I had the privilege of meeting in the 1990s when I spoke at Holy Rosary Church in Houston, Texas, urged Republicans to cast blank ballots rather than to vote for the egregious McKenna. The attitude of both Bush the Elder and his son, then Governor George Walker Bush, about the issue of abortion in public life was quite revealing, and it is one of the reasons I stood steadfast against Bush the Lesser in 2000 as he was a pro-life fraud and feckless warmonger from beginning to end:


Now that the elections are almost over and Republicans have a diminished majority in the United States House of Representatives, Texas Republicans have managed to create a fracas out of what sounds like a political no-brainer: would they like to send one more Republican to Congress?

If the Republican is Dolly Madison McKenna, who favors abortion rights and who made it into a runoff election by campaigning as the candidate of the ''sensible center,'' some conservative Republicans here say the answer is no.

''The last thing the Republican Party needs is this high-profile woman parading around Congress saying: 'Look! I won on a pro-choice platform,'' snapped Al Clements, who was chairman of the committee that wrote the state Republican Party's vigorously anti-abortion platform earlier this year.

Mr. Clements and several other anti-abortion Republicans are urging the party's voters to cast blank ballots on Tuesday when Ms. McKenna faces a freshman Democrat, Representative Ken Bentsen, for a redistricted seat in a special election that many analysts say had presented a golden opportunity for Republicans to swipe a seat from the Democrats.

For the Republicans, the intraparty feud over whether to support Ms. McKenna is a potential embarrassment that has dragged both Gov. George W. Bush and his father into the fray. Both men appeared at Ms. McKenna's side last week, urging all Republicans, whatever their feelings about abortion, to turn out for her.

''It's ridiculous, absolutely absurd,'' former President George Bush, now a Houston resident, said of the anti-abortion leaders' call for a boycott. ''You agree on 99 percent,'' he said of Ms. McKenna's conservative economic message. ''If that's not good enough, then too darn bad.''

More than just a local squabble that represents a footnote to the November elections, the battle over Ms. McKenna casts a spotlight on the something that has troubled the Republican Party for years and could continue to do so as the party fights to keep control of Congress in 1998 and win back the White House in 2000. Should it be a ''big tent,'' open to divergent views on social issues like abortion and gay rights, or should it solidify its conservative core by emphasizing unyielding positions on these issues? (Republican Opposition to Party's Candidate Could Elect Democrat.)

"Big" Al Clements knew that Catholics don't say it's "too darn bad" for the babies when they are asked to support careerists who believe that the innocent preborn may dispatched under cover of the civil law or that their execution is so socially "divisive" with "swing" voters that it is best to say nothing during an election and to do even less if one gets elected. We just have "to live" the the "reality" of our situation. Al, who I believe played minor league baseball for a time, was quoted in the Reading Eagle on December 11, 1996, "If you vote for the lesser of two evils, you're still voting for evil." Al was a stand-up Catholic. He called them as he saw them, and he did battle in the trenches of Texas Republican politics and lobbied the Texas State Legislature for a long time in behalf of the innocent preborn.

This is what I wrote at the time in the December, 1996, issue of the printed pages of Christ or Chaos (Volume 1, Issue 5, one of the few copies of the old journal that I have in my possession):

Too darn bad? With that one statement, uttered with about as much philosophical reflection as he possesses, former President George Bush has summarized what most establishment Republicans believe about the life issue. It's just "too darn bad" that pro-life Republicans do not like the act that the party is embracing  pro-aborts, and running them as candidates. The only thing that really matters to them is economic prosperity. Pro-lifers will just have to learn to shut up and accept whatever crumbs the plutocrats who run the Republican establishment decide to give them. After al, party unity and electoral viability are what really matter, not "ideological" crusades.

While there are a lot of good, strong pro-lifers like Al Clements at the grassroots level of Republican Party politics around the nation, the plain fact of the matter is that there are also a lot of George Bushes still calling the shots from the upper echelons. There are a lot of men and women, such as Bush, who who do not understand--nor want to be informed---why abortion is the single most important issue facing our nation at present. They do not want to discuss the daily dismemberment of four thousand little human beings in their mothers' wombs. They do not want to discuss the power that the pharmaceutical industry, which profits handsomely from the manufacture and sale of contraceptives, wields within the Republican Party (which goes a long way toward explaining why we have received only lip service from Republican administrations and many of its candidates in the past two decades). And they do not want to do anything that might even remotely disturb the consciences of those who believe in the slogans and catch-phrases that have been used to justify the American genocide that has been perpetrated upon the unborn, and which is now being visited upon the chronically and terminally ill, as well as the elderly.

George Herbert Walker Bush and Bob Dole lost their respective races against Bill Clinton not because they were "saddled" with  a pro-life plank in the Republican Party's platform, as many commentators and Republican professionals, including columnist James Pinkerton, are contending. They lost because they stood for nothing. They could articulate less than nothing. Having no understanding of the fact that justice is rooted in the Sovereignty of God over men and their nations, neither Bush or Dole saw the importance of emphasizing an issue, abortion, that made them feel uncomfortable. Indeed, both tried to avoid the issue at every possible opportunity. And both saw no problem in appointing pro-aborts to positions in the government or on their own staffs. It was just politics-as-usual for their careerists.

How much more evidence do we nee before we come to understand that politics-as-usual has failed the cause of justice in this country? Pro-lifers are expected to be content with the fact that a very flawed bill that limited some late-term abortions got to the President's desk, overlooking the cruelty that takes place in each and every abortion at every stage of development in a mother's womb. We are expected to be happy that those who say they are pro-life get elected to Congress, although House Speaker Newt Gingrich an Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott have no intention of letting pro-life legislation get through the one hundred fifth Congress. So many good pro-life Americans just sit around, believing that the "next election" will be better for our cause. And when nothing happens after 1998, a lot will say that we have to until until 2000.

It is my view that the national establishment of the Republican Party is so corrupted by careerism and the moneyed interests which support contraception and abortion, to say nothing of active homosexual behavior, that it is irredeemable. Strong words, yes. But what is it going to take to convince good people of the stark reality that has been hitting us in the head again and ain in the last two decades? Is it really worthy continuing to fight a battle in a political party that is committed institutionally first and foremost to its own perpetuation in power as an end in and of itself?

Bill Clinton's Presidency is not the worst thing that ever happened to this nation. Clinton is merely a symptom of the diseases of relativism positivism which are amok in our land. Moreover, it is plan for all pro-lifers to see how bad Clinton is--and to mobilize against his policies founded in one unbridled evil after another. And Clinton does us a favor, because he is so brazen about his support of evil under the guise of compassion, of identifying which Republicans are willing to denounce him publicly for this policies of his that contravene the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law.

Far worse than Bill Clinton, I believe, is the situation we faced during the Bush Presidency, as well as in the Reagan Presidency: namely, the appearance of having a pro-life President, one who makes rhetorical promises but who does little to move the culture to to direct policy in accord with his rhetoric. Such a situation leaders those pro-lifers whose Republican ties run deep into criticizing other pro-lifers who express impatience with the inaction of a Republican administration on the life issue. The survival of a particular President or of the Republican Party becomes more important than speaking out forcefully in behalf of the appointment of pro-life Cabinet officers and Federal judges--or working to en fetal experimentation or FACE [the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act] or funding for Planned Parenthood. The net result of such a situation is to convince man like George Herbert Walker Bush and George Walker Bush that they can get away with shallow pro-life rhetoric, without having to to anything substantive on the issue, all the while counting on the blind support of pro-lifers at the polls.

What Al Clements has done in Teas is to throw down the gauntlet to the Bushes and the Bob Doles and Jack Kemps and William Bennetts and Pete Wilsons and William Welds and George Patakis and the Christine Todd Whitmans and the Alfonse D'Amatos and the Rudolph Giuilianis and the Haley Barbours within the Republican Party. As Al has said, "If you vote for the lesser of two evils, you're still voting for evil." And the Republican establishment wants to make sure that pro-lifers get nothing other than he "lesser of two evils" in as many election as they can get away with in the upcoming years. (Thomas A. Droleskey. "It's Too Darn Bad," Christ or Chaos, Volume 1, Issue 5, December, 1996.)


While I have come to understand since that time that the corrupt nature of the American electoral processes is simply the result of the false, anti-Incarnational, religiously indifferentist, naturalistic and semi-Pelagian principles at the root of the the nation's very founding, which itself occurred in the wake of the Protestant Revolution's overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King and the subsequent rise of triumph of one Judeo-Masonic naturalistic "philosophy" and ideology after another, the analysis about the consequences of enabling the "lesser of two evils" time and time again that I provided sixteen years ago is, I believe, as sound today as it was at the time.

President George Walker Bush Paved The Way For Complete Access to the "Plan B" Baby-Killing Pill

Although many pro-life Americans are understandably upset that the administration of President Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro and Vice President Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., has decided not to appeal a Federal judge's order to make the so-called "Plan B" abortifacient pill available for sale on an over-the-counter basis without any age restrictions whatsoever, it must be remembered that Y2K's "Lesser Evil," the man who gave us two needless, unjust, unconstitutional and immoral wars and profligate spending--in the name of "compassionate conservatism, you understand--on such social engineering boondoggles as "no child left behind" and the "Medicare prescription coverage" programs, made this result inevitable.

Let me refresh your memories a bit.

George Walker Bush's Food and Drug Administration not only did not reverse the Clinton Food and Drug and Administration to market RU-496, the French abortion pill, the human pesticide. The Bush administration fully funded the use of RU-486 in both domestic and international "family planning" programs. Moreover, George Walker Bush's Food and Drug Administration approved over-the-counter sales of the so-called "Plan B" "emergency contraceptive" that is, of course, an abortifacient:

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today announced approval of Plan B, a contraceptive drug, as an over-the-counter (OTC) option for women aged 18 and older. Plan B is often referred to as emergency contraception or the "morning after pill." It contains an ingredient used in prescription birth control pills--only in the case of Plan B, each pill contains a higher dose and the product has a different dosing regimen. Like other birth control pills, Plan B has been available to all women as a prescription drug. When used as directed, Plan B effectively and safely prevents pregnancy. Plan B will remain available as a prescription-only product for women age 17 and under.

Duramed, a subsidiary of Barr Pharmaceuticals, will make Plan B available with a rigorous labeling, packaging, education, distribution and monitoring program. In the CARE (Convenient Access, Responsible Education) program Duramed commits to:

  • Provide consumers and healthcare professionals with labeling and education about the appropriate use of prescription and OTC Plan B, including an informational toll-free number for questions about Plan B;
  • Ensure that distribution of Plan B will only be through licensed drug wholesalers, retail operations with pharmacy services, and clinics with licensed healthcare practitioners, and not through convenience stores or other retail outlets where it could be made available to younger women without a prescription;
  • Packaging designed to hold both OTC and prescription Plan B. Plan B will be stocked by pharmacies behind the counter because it cannot be dispensed without a prescription or proof of age; and
  • Monitor the effectiveness of the age restriction and the safe distribution of OTC Plan B to consumers 18 and above and prescription Plan B to women under 18.

Today's action concludes an extensive process that included obtaining expert advice from a joint meeting of two FDA advisory committees and providing an opportunity for public comment on issues regarding the scientific and policy questions associated with the application to switch Plan B to OTC use. Duramed's application raised novel issues regarding simultaneously marketing both prescription and non-prescription Plan B for emergency contraception, but for different populations, in a single package.

The agency remains committed to a careful and rigorous scientific process for resolving novel issues in order to fulfill its responsibility to protect the health of all Americans. (FDA Approves Over-the-Counter Access for Plan B for Women 18 and Over .)


Where was the outrage from Catholics when this decision was announced?

Where were the e-mails sent out in a frenzy to oppose this decision?

Where were the voices to denounce George Walker Bush for what he was, a consummate "pro-life" fraud from beginning to end?



Indeed, I have met Catholics, both in the clergy and laity alike, who, upon being informed of this fact, shrug their shoulders and say, "Gore or Kerry would have done worse. Obama is doing worse now " And this is supposed to exculpate one from not have denounced Bush at the time did did these terrible things? Reprehensible. Absolutely reprehensible. Obama/Soetoro and his pro-abortion, pro-perversity Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, who remains a Catholic in "good standing" in the Archdiocese of Kansas City, Kansas, are simply doing now what would have been done in an Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., and Joseph Lieberman administration. All the "lesser of two evils" strategy has done is to simply allow various evils to become such an accepted fact of life in order to make it possible for other evils to be proposed and then codified in civil law.

This is how we have come to the point of unrestricted access to the over-the-counter sales of baby-killing pill that could wind up in the hands of girls who are, say, nine, ten or eleven years of age:

The Justice Department said it would stop fighting a court order requiring it to remove all age restrictions on the sale of Plan B One-Step without a prescription.

Obama had previously said he was uncomfortable with removing all age restrictions on the sale of the so-called "morning after pill." He said over a year ago that "as the father of two daughters," he supported his Health secretary's decision to block over-the-counter sales for younger teens. But a federal judge excoriated the administration's defense of age limits on the pill, calling it a nakedly political decision divorced from science.

he administration's sudden reversal came after the Food and Drug Administration had sought to block the judge's order requiring it to make Plan B available without a prescription to women and girls of all ages.

But late Monday, the Justice Department said in a letter to the judge, Edward R. Korman, that it "is voluntarily withdrawing its appeal in this matter."

The administration's defense of age limits had angered women's health groups, who accused the White House of playing politics with a scientific question.

The Planned Parenthood Federation of America praised the administration's decision Monday.

“This is a huge breakthrough for access to birth control and a historic moment for women’s health and equity," Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards said in a statement. "The FDA’s decision will make emergency contraception available on store shelves, just like condoms, and women of all ages will be able to get it quickly in order to prevent unintended pregnancy."

The decision to stop defending age restrictions in the courts, though, will surely anger anti-abortion rights activists, who see Plan B as a form of abortion.

The Justice Department said Monday that the FDA only intended to remove age restrictions from Plan B One-Step — a one-pill version of the emergency contraceptive. A two-pill form will still carry age restrictions.

Last year, scientists at the FDA recommended making Plan B available without any age restrictions. They were overruled by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

Korman would later say Sebelius's intervention was "politically motivated and that, even without regard to the Secretary’s motives, was so unpersuasive as to call into question her good faith."

Obama, though, had defended Sebelius's actions, saying he was uncomfortable with young girls having easy access to the drug.

Korman ordered the FDA to remove all age restrictions on Plan B One-Step and has routinely hammered Sebelius's intervention as well as the FDA's appeals of his ruling. (Obama administration will approve Plan B pill for women and girls of all ages.)


George Walker Bush's "Patriot Act" made it possible for Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro's quasi-police state surveillance of our communications and banking records. (More on this in tomorrow's commentary, God willing and Our Lady interceding.)

George Walker Bush's "no child left behind" made it more possible for Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro to propose a binding "common core" curriculum as a means of making sure that no one child will be left behind, so to speak, when it comes to glories of relativism, statism, feminism, evolutionism, globalism, "inclusiveness" and environmentalism (see Common Core: From Luther To Mann To Bismarck To Obama.)

George Walker Bush's "Troubled Assets Relief Program" made it possible for the monstrous bottomless pit that was and remains Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro's own "economic stimulus" package.

George Walker Bush's "Medicare prescription coverage program" made it more possible for Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro to attempt to nationalize the entire health care industry by means of his so-called Affordable Care and Patient Protection (ObamaCare) program that is only not "affordable" but make it more possible to kill off more and more "useless" people who suffer from various maladies that are deemed by a committed of naturalist gangsters too costly to treat.

George Walker Bush's anti-life record, provided to you yet again in the appendix below, made the decision announced by Attorney General Eric Holder's United States Department of Injustice not to appeal United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York Judge Edward Korman's decision to lift all age restriction on over-the-counter sales of the "Plan B" baby-killing potion absolutely inevitable.

Naturalism of the false opposite of the "right" is simply incapable of retarding the naturalism of the false opposite of the "left." Yes, I will repeat myself again: Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order. Nothing else.

The conciliar revolutionaries do not believe this. Indeed, many of them have been their own "compromises" with the "Plan B" baby-killing pill.

How can one express outrage at the hideous pro-abortion, pro-perversity administration of Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro for refusing appeal Judge Korman's order or New York City Mayor Michael Rubens Bloomberg's distribute g the so-called "Plan B" "emergency" abortifacient to children in the concentration camps known as the New York City Public School system when the conciliar "bishops" of Germany have approved the use of this baby-killing pill by women who have been assaulted?


Roman Catholic-run hospitals can prescribe limited emergency contraception to rape victims, German bishops said Thursday as they sought to contain fallout from an embarrassing recent case in which two hospitals refused to treat a woman.

In a statement issued at the end of a regular meeting in the western city of Trier, the German Bishops Conference said Catholic hospitals still can't provide drugs that would lead to the death of an embryo.

The German church was under pressure to clarify its stance after two Catholic hospitals in Cologne turned away a rape victim because of concerns over the pill. Cologne's archbishop, Cardinal Joachim Meisner, said last month that the church was "deeply ashamed by this incident because it goes against our Christian mission."

At the end of January, Meisner said it was "justifiable" in such cases to provide drugs that prevent conception. He later said he had consulted with Pope Benedict XVI's secretary, Georg Gaenswein, and was told that "everything is all right."

For decades, Catholic hospitals have in cases of rape allowed the use of spermicidal wash to impede sperm from reaching an egg and drugs to prevent the victim from ovulating. The rationale is that rape is an act of violence against a woman; to prevent the attack from continuing, a hospital can use drugs to impede conception.

Church teaching, however, holds that life begins at conception, and thus forbids the use of drugs that would intercept, dislodge or abort a fertilized egg, according to the Rev. Robert Gahl, a moral theologian at Rome's Pontifical Holy Cross University.

"This new determination by the German bishops is in full continuity with church teaching, and specifies how best to implement new pharmaceutical technology," Gahl said.

Thursday's statement by the bishops stressed that rape victims "can of course receive human, medical, psychological and pastoral help in Catholic hospitals.

"That can include prescription of the `morning-after pill,' insofar as it has a preventive and not an abortive effect. Medical and pharmaceutical methods which result in the death of an embryo still may not be used."

It said the bishops "trust that practical treatment in Catholic-run facilities will take place on the basis of these moral and theological guidelines."

The statement did not specify any timeframe within which the morning-after pill can be prescribed. That pill contains a higher dose of the female progestin hormone than is in regular birth control pills. Taking it within 72 hours of unprotected intercourse can cut the chances of pregnancy by up to 89 percent. But it works best within the first 24 hours.

If a woman already is pregnant, the pill has no effect. It prevents ovulation or fertilization of an egg.

Meisner's diocese has said that approval for emergency contraception does not extend to RU-486, which terminates pregnancy by causing the embryo to detach from the uterine wall. (German bishops OK emergency contraception assault cases. For a refutation of the false claims made by the German conciliar "bishops," please see Crushed By The Weight Of Error, Part Two and Victim Of His Own Obliviousness.)

Lest one protest to the effect that the case of the German conciliar "bishops" is an isolated one, permit me to remind you that the conciliar "bishops" of Wisconsin and Connecticut refused to oppose legislation approving the use of the "Plan B" baby-killing pill for use by women who have been victims of assault.

Who was the "Archbishop" of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, when the conciliar "bishops" of the Badger State decided not to oppose legislation in the Wisconsin State Legislature to approve the use of "Plan B" baby-killing pill in cases of assault?

You got it.

Timothy Michael Dolan.

Yes, the Wisconsin Conference of "Catholic" "Bishops" did not oppose legislation two years ago to require all hospitals, including Catholic hospitals, to distribute "emergency contraceptives," which are abortifacients, to women after violent assaults. Only two conciliar "bishops" in Wisconsin, as far as can be determined at this writing, Robert C. Morlino of Madison, Wisconsin,  and Jerome Listecki of La Crosse, Wisconsin, opposed the position taken by the Wisconsin Conference of "Catholic" "Bishops" (Wisconsin Bishop breaks from conference and opposes emergency contraceptives). Timothy Dolan did not issue any statement that contradicted the policy announced by the official lobbying arm of the conciliar "bishops" of Wisconsin:


May 1, 2007 / 12:01 pm (CNA).- The Wisconsin Catholic Conference has decided not to oppose a bill that would require all hospitals, including Catholic health facilities, to distribute emergency contraceptives to female victims of rape.

A spokesperson for the conference said the group removed its objections to the bill after it was revised to allow hospitals to give women a pregnancy test before providing emergency contraception reported The Wisconsin Capital Times. The bill reportedly also includes the right to conscientious objection.

Kim Wades of the Wisconsin Catholic Conference told the newspaper that many Catholic hospitals are already dispensing emergency contraception to rape victims.

Emergency contraception, most often referred to as Plan B or the morning after pill, is composed of a high dose of birth control pills that has shown to prevent pregnancy if taken within 72 hours of intercourse.

Sue Armacost of Wisconsin Right to Life said her group is not taking a stand on the bill, and that it is important to the group that the Catholic bishops were not opposing the bill, reported The Wisconsin Capital Times.

The only group lobbying against the bill is Pro-Life Wisconsin. Matt Sande, the group's director of legislation, said in a news release he opposed the bill because emergency contraception can work to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus and he considers this "pre-implantation chemical abortion."

The bill is likely to pass the Democratic-controlled Senate and Gov. Jim Doyle would sign the bill if it makes it to his desk. (No opposition from Wisconsin Catholic Conference re emergency contraceptives.)

Mrs. Judie Brown, the founder and President of American Life League, with which Pro-Life Wisconsin is affiliated, wrote the following analysis of this scandal, which had the implicit support, it appears, of the then conciliar "archbishop" of Milwaukee, Timothy M. Dolan, and all but one of the other bishops in Wisconsin, an analysis that focused also on a similar tack taken by the conciliar "bishops" in Connecticut:


Recent reports from Connecticut and Wisconsin leave us wondering what in the world is going on in the world of "Catholic" health care. It would seem that the appropriate treatment for a victim of criminal rape has become a question of whether Catholic hospitals can be put in the position of doing the unthinkable. Reports from Connecticut were the first to come to our attention. The Connecticut state senate approved a bill that would require all hospitals — including the four Catholic hospitals in the state — to provide Plan B emergency contraceptive pills to rape victims.

What is most startling about this turn of events in Connecticut is that the state's Catholic bishops asserted their opposition to this law by advising the lawmakers that "Catholic hospitals provide emergency contraception to rape victims in the vast majority of cases. In fact, it is an extreme rarity when this medication would not be provided."

This statement is astounding. The Vatican's Pontifical Academy for Life condemns the morning-after pill and makes no exceptions for cases of rape treatment, whether or not conception/fertilization has occurred. The academy goes so far as to say that this pill represents a good example of the absolute unlawfulness of any drug that has the potential to be an abortive agent. The academy makes it perfectly clear that anyone who is an agent in the provision of this drug is morally responsible for the outcome. Apparently this warning has not been taken seriously by either the Connecticut or Wisconsin Catholic hierarchy.

As if this dilemma were not already confusing to most Catholics, in the aforementioned statement to lawmakers the Connecticut bishops also wrote, "This bill is a violation of the separation of Church and state. The Catholic bishops of Connecticut are responsible for establishing and determining what moral guidelines Catholic institutions should follow; not the Connecticut General Assembly." But subsequent to this statement, these bishops dropped their opposition to the bill.

A similar scenario is playing out in Wisconsin, but with an added twist. It seems that there were lawmakers in the state who strongly opposed the measure requiring every hospital in the state — including Catholic hospitals — to provide the morning-after pill to rape victims. But when the Wisconsin Catholic bishops dropped their opposition to the bill, the lawmakers followed suit.

The outcome is at this moment uncertain, but the entire question of providing rape victims with abortive pills is seriously problematic from the Catholic perspective. There is a serious challenge facing these bishops and Directive 36 of the "Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services" published by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is not helping. While the directives are designed to provide moral guidance in situations like this, Directive 36 (to which bishops in both states have referenced) is vague.

Directive 36 states:

Compassionate and understanding care should be given to a person who is the victim of sexual assault. Health care providers should cooperate with law enforcement officials and offer the person psychological and spiritual support as well as accurate medical information. A female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault. If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization. It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum.

The two words in this directive that are playing havoc with the lives of preborn babies are "appropriate testing." Try as we might, and as many Catholic physicians have, we cannot identify a single test that provides one hundred percent assurance that a preborn child has not been conceived. One Catholic doctor, Chris Kahlenborn, pointed out in his analysis of the problem, "EC [emergency contraception] has the potential to abort a newly conceived child in the preovulatory, ovulatory and postovulatory phases. Because the potential for abortion exists, it cannot be ethically given to rape victims in any stage of the menstrual cycle" [emphasis added].

In other words, even though the directive suggests that there are tests in existence that provide the treating doctor with the evidence he needs to assure that the morning-after pill is not going to abort a human embryonic child, there is no test that can assure beyond doubt that a human embryo in fact is not already there. As I told members of Congress several years ago, Catholic hospitals have a serious problem in determining how to respond to sexual assault. It seems that any number of experts in the medical and ethical field are not clear about the means for determining whether or not fertilization might have occurred. And furthermore, they seem to be waffling about the clear evidence that indicates how the so-called "emergency contraceptive" interferes with the normal development of the new life. Thus, even though Directive 36 provides a caveat for potential use of Plan B, the actual facts of the matter would prevent its use.

The larger question in this current debate is why any Catholic facility would ever have a single type of contraceptive on hand in the first place. While it is clear that laws are being passed that require the use of this deadly drug, it is not at all clear why not a single Catholic hospital is willing to stand its ground, refuse to use what the Church teaches are unethical drugs and go to court if necessary to protect its right as a Catholic facility to be Catholic in every aspect of its health care. Separation of church and state is a bogus argument. The idea that a state can require any Catholic facility to do evil simply because the state says it must is outrageous. But if bishops are going to comply with whatever the state requires, then no distinct difference is going to exist between morally ethical Catholic health care and its secular counterpart.

A Catholic moral theologian, Msgr. William Smith, put this entire situation in the proper perspective when he wrote, "It's wrong to say you can use anything that has abortifacient properties. Emergency contraception is double talk ... Catholic hospitals are not free to prescribe or provide anything with abortifacient properties without contradicting their witness." Amen!  (Catholic hospitals and the 'emergency contraception' conundrum)


And on and on it must go in a world where Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is not King and His Most Blessed Mother is not honored as its Immaculate Queen.

There is, of a course, a common thread that ties the agents of Antichrist in the realm of Modernity and those in the realm of Modernism together: both have used various "incremental" means to advance their respective and inter-related revolutions that winds up leading to the very gates of hell itself

Mr. Hugh Akins drew upon the wisdom of a Brazilian bishop, His Excellency Geraldo de Proenca Sigaud, the Bishop of Jacarezinho, Parana, Brazil, from January 1, 1947, to December 20, 1960, and the Archbishop of Diamantina, Minas Gerais, Brazil, from December 20, 1960, to September 10, 1960, to explain this point at length in Synagogue Rising:


Bp. [Geraldo de Proenca] Sigaud [the Bishop of Jacarezinho, Parana, Brazil, from January 1, 1947, to December 20, 1960, and the Archbishop of Diamantina, Minas Gerais, Brazil, from December 20, 1960, to September 10, 1960] gives fair warning about how the Revolution infiltrates and permeates the Church and Christian society through the "lesser evil" tactic. "Among the many ways the Revolution permeates surreptitiously into the stronghold of the Church, the first door is called the 'lesser evil.' This tactic may be compared with the famous Trojan Horse. Catholic doctrine teaches that if we cannot avoid some evil we may choose to permit some lesser evil in order to avoid the greater evil on condition we do not directly commit evil ourselves.


"(1) The liberals think a lesser evil is a small evil that is not worth fighting against;

"(2) Very many Catholics and even priests are of the opinion that conflict harms the Church as if She were not by Her very nature militant. This is why they allow evil to occupy without combating it under the pretext of prudence, charity, and apostolic diplomacy.

"(3) THEY DO NOT REALIZE THAT EVIL--EVEN A LESSER EVIL-IS ALWAYS AN EVIL, and that is why they do not seek to limit or suppress it. They live daily with the"lesser evil" and thus they forget the greater good as something horrible. For example, the separation of Church and State and that divorce be allowed among Catholics." (Bishop Geraldo de Proenca Sigaud, as cited by Hugh Akins in Synagogue Rising.)


Another example, of course, and no bout the more grievous one, is in lending invaluable support and assistance by means of backing the "lesser evil," to the Synagogue of Satan in its total war against the Mystical Body of Christ. Some Catholics who've made a habit of voting the "lesser evil" will continue to do so until they vote into office, on the world scene, the Antichrist himself, who being wholly sanitized by the corrupt Zionist-controlled media, will be portrayed before the unsuspecting peoples of earth as the most moderate and hopeful, least radical and most compassionate, and least corrupt candidate, compared to the raving lunatics competing with him. Antichrist could just as easily be a Republican conservative, a Christian Zionist, a Masonic "anti-Communist," even a Conciliarist "Catholic" wholeheartedly endorsed by the pope in Rome. He might even present himself a "traditionalist," cheered on by the many "lesser evil" traditionalists who see-no-evil in the likes of Benedict, Bush, McCain, Santorum, Gingrich, the Talmud, Israel, Zionism or Holaucastism.

It is by this shameless compromising that evil is ever moving forward, every advancing, ever conquering. "All tepidity and every thoughtless compromise," says Pius XII, "all pusillanimity and every vacillation between good and evil...all that, and all that can be added to it. has been and is a deplorable contribution to the evil which today is shaking world." (Pope Pius XII, radio message Ancora ua quinta volta, to the world, December 24, 1943, quote in Directives to Lay Apostles.) (Hugh Akins, Synagogue Rising, Catholic Action Resource Center, 2012, pp. 694.695. Mr. Akins recommends a write-in vote for Ron Paul. Readers of this site are familiar with my critiques of him. I suggest, however, that those who are participating in the gala on November 6, 2012, to cast a write-in vote for one of the greatest champions of Christ the King alive today, Mr. Hugh Akins.)

Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order. Nothing else.

Have I made myself clear on this point at last?

Pope Pius IX explained what would happen in those nations where errors proliferate under the slogans of "freedom of religion" and "freedom of conscience" and "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press:"


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

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

We must proclaim Christ the King no matter may come our way in this passing, mortal vale of tears, as His consecrated slave through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Pope Pius XI, writing in Quas Primas, December 11, 1925, put the matter this way:

The faithful, moreover, by meditating upon these truths, will gain much strength and courage, enabling them to form their lives after the true Christian ideal. If to Christ our Lord is given all power in heaven and on earth; if all men, purchased by his precious blood, are by a new right subjected to his dominion; if this power embraces all men, it must be clear that not one of our faculties is exempt from his empire. He must reign in our minds, which should assent with perfect submission and firm belief to revealed truths and to the doctrines of Christ. He must reign in our wills, which should obey the laws and precepts of God. He must reign in our hearts, which should spurn natural desires and love God above all things, and cleave to him alone. He must reign in our bodies and in our members, which should serve as instruments for the interior sanctification of our souls, or to use the words of the Apostle Paul, as instruments of justice unto God. If all these truths are presented to the faithful for their consideration, they will prove a powerful incentive to perfection. It is Our fervent desire, Venerable Brethren, that those who are without the fold may seek after and accept the sweet yoke of Christ, and that we, who by the mercy of God are of the household of the faith, may bear that yoke, not as a burden but with joy, with love, with devotion; that having lived our lives in accordance with the laws of God's kingdom, we may receive full measure of good fruit, and counted by Christ good and faithful servants, we may be rendered partakers of eternal bliss and glory with him in his heavenly kingdom. (Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas, December 11, 1925.)


Christ the King must reign in our minds, not naturalism of the "left" or naturalism of the "right."

The Rome of the pagan emperors was not converted at the ballot box. It was converted by the missionary activity of the Apostles and those who followed them, over thirteen million of whom shed their blood in defense of the Holy Faith.

Why do we think the conversion of the modern civil state will take any less than that?

Why do we think that we are exempt from suffering for the Faith?

Why do we even think that we deserve some respite from the inexorable growth of the size and power of the modern civil state that is has arisen in the wake of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King?

This is why we must fulfill that part of Our Lady's Fatima Message that we are able to fulfill, praying as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit to make reparation for our sins and those of the whole world, being willing to suffer gladly anything and everything that we are asked to suffer for the restoration of the Church Militant on earth and for the restoration of Christendom in the world. Our Lady wants to protect us in the folds of her mantle in these troubling times. Will we let her? Will we run to her as we renew daily our total consecration to her Divine Son through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart?

These words of Pope Leo XIII, contained in Sapientiae Christianae and quoted above, should give us cause before we continue to rush into the insanity of listening the naturalist babblers babble on and on about "issues" that they do not understand clearly or fully because they believe in one naturalist falsehood after another:


Nor can such misgivings be removed by any mere human effort, especially as a vast number of men, having rejected the Christian faith, are on that account justly incurring the penalty of their pride, since blinded by their passions they search in vain for truth, laying hold on the false for the true, and thinking themselves wise when they call "evil good, and good evil," and "put darkness in the place of light, and light in the place of darkness." It is therefore necessary that God come to the rescue, and that, mindful of His mercy, He turn an eye of compassion on human society. (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890.)

Yes, overthrow the Social Reign of Christ the King and you must overthrow all truth, natural and supernatural, in the process. It is that simple. Things are going to get much, much worse in the years ahead. Much worse.

We must simply do our parts to sanctify our souls as we seek to make reparation for our sins and those of the whole world, keeping in mind that God has known from all eternity that we would be alive in these challenging times. There is work for us to do as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through His Most Blessed Mother's Immaculate Heart. We must consider it our privilege to do this work as we pray as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit.

Do not live in fear. Our Lord told us not to fear those who kill the body, fear only him who can destroy the soul:


And I say to you, my friends: Be not afraid of them who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will shew you whom you shall fear: fear ye him, who after he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell. Yea, I say to you, fear him.

Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God? Yea, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not therefore: you are of more value than many sparrows. And I say to you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God. But he that shall deny me before men, shall be denied before the angels of God. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but to him that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven.

And when they shall bring you into the synagogues, and to magistrates and powers, be not solicitous how or what you shall answer, or what you shall say; For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what you must say. (Luke 12: 4-12.)

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us!

Saint Joseph, Patron of Departing Souls, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saint John of San Facundo, pray for us.

Saints Basilides, Cyrinus, Nazarius and Nabor, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints


A Brief Summary of George Walker Bush's Actual Anti-Life Record

Although I have assessed the horrific anti-life record of the presidency of George Walker Bush a great deal in my writing between 2001 and 2009, it might be wise to review the facts (yes, just the facts ma'am) once again), leaving aside, of course, the fact that thousands of innocent Iraqis have been killed, wounded or displaced from their country as a result of the "pro-life" president's attempt at regime change there to replace one set of corrupt thugs with another set of corrupt thugs who have the respectable "cover" provided them by having been elected (sort of sounds like the United States of America, doesn't it):


1) George Walker Bush said constantly in 1999 and 200 during his campaign for the Republican Party presidential nomination that abortion was a "difficult" issue about which people of "good will" could disagree. What's difficult about knowing that killing a baby is morally wrong? Would he say that people of "good will" could disagree about racism or anti-Semitism?

2) George Walker Bush support "exceptions" to the Fifth Commandment's absolute prohibitions to the direct, intentional taking of any innocent human life. When challenged by Dr. Alan Keys in a televised debate in Manchester, New Hampshire, in December of 1999 as to how he could justify the killing of preborn babies under any circumstances, the then Texas Governor grimaced, visibly annoyed at having been forced to confront his own mutually contradictory position, and said: "I can't explain it. It's just how I feel." Bush does not realize that he is not pro-life, that he is simply less pro-abortion than others in public life who are unconditionally pro-abortion.

3) George Walker Bush denied in his first debate with then Vice President Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., held on October 3, 2000, at Washington University in Saint Louis, Missouri, that he could do anything to reverse the United States Food and Drug Administration's authorization to market RU-486, the human pesticide, unless it had been determined to be "unsafe" for women. What about the fact that that pill is always deadly for babies?

    BUSH: I don't think a president can unilaterally overturn it. The FDA has made its decision.

    MODERATOR: That means you wouldn't, through appointments, to the FDA and ask them to --

    BUSH: I think once a decision has been made, it's been made unless it's proven to be unsafe to women.

    GORE: Jim, the question you asked, if I heard you correctly, was would he support legislation to overturn it. And if I heard the statement day before yesterday, you said you would order -- he said he would order his FDA appointee to review the decision. Now that sounds to me a little bit different. I just think that we ought to support the decision.

    BUSH: I said I would make sure that women would be safe who used the drug.  (2000 Debate Transcript) [Droleskey comment: Uh, Mister Former President, the President of the United States of America can make appointments to the Food and Drug Administration who could indeed overturn such a decision by means of an administrative fiat.)

4) George Walker Bush said consistently throughout his eight years as President of the United States of America that he was working for the day when every child would be welcomed in life and protected by law." How can one claim that he is in favor of "welcoming every child and protecting him "by law" when he believes that the civil law licitly can permit the killing of certain children at certain times? How can one claim that he is in favor of "welcoming every child" and protecting him "by law" when he campaigned actively for politicians in his own political party who were completely pro-abortion (Rudolph Giuliani, Michael Bloomberg, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Susan Collins, Olympia Snow Arlen Specter--whom Bush endorsed over a partly pro-life/partly pro-abortion opponent, Patrick Toomey, in a Republican Party primary in 2004, et al.)? How can one claim that he is in favor of "welcoming every child" and protecting him "by law" when he appointed pro-abort after pro-abort. some of whom are listed above, to the upper echelons of his administration. Some of others over the years were Tom Ridge, Michael Mukasey, Alberto Gonzales, The Supreme Court? John Roberts and Samuel Alito? Sure. Remember Harriet Miers? If you don't, read these articles: The Triumph of Protestantism and Posturing and Preening

5) George Walker Bush was proud of the fact that his administration increased the amount of money being spent by our tax dollars on domestic and international "family planning" programs, which, of course, dispatched innocent preborn babies to death by chemical means. Here is a letter sent in behalf of then President Bush to United States Representatives Carolyn Maloney (D-New York) on May 25, 2006:

The Honorable Carolyn B. Maloney
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Ms. Maloney:

Thank you for your letter to President Bush to request his views on access to birth control. The President has asked that I respond on his behalf. This Administration supports the availability of safe and effective products and services to assist responsible adults in making decisions about preventing or delaying conception.

The Department of Health and Human Services faithfully executes laws establishing Federal programs to provide contraception and family planning services. The Title X Family Planning Program and Medicaid are each significant providers of family planning services.

Additionally, this Administration strongly supports teaching abstinence to young people as the only 100 percent effective means of preventing pregnancy, HIV, and sexually transmitted infections (STIs).

I will provide this response to the other signatories of your letter.
Sincerely yours, John O. Agwunobi, Assistant Secretary for Health (Bush Supports Contraception Letter)


Contraception, of course, of its very evil nature, over and above the fact that most contraceptives serve as abortifacients that kill babies chemically or act to expel fertilized human beings from implanting in the uterus, is denial of the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage.

6) George Walker Bush made announced at 9:00 p.m. on Thursday, August 9, 2001, that he was going to permitted the use of Federal taxpayer dollars to fund embryonic stem cell research on embryonic human beings whose "lines" were created before the time of his announcement. In so doing, of course, Bush authorized the death of those human beings and at the same time justify the immoral, evil practice of in vitro fertilization while doing nothing to stop the privately funded death and destruction of such embryonic human beings on those "lines" created after the date and time of his announcement:

My administration must decide whether to allow federal funds, your tax dollars, to be used for scientific research on stem cells derived from human embryos.  A large number of these embryos already exist.  They are the product of a process called in vitro fertilization, which helps so many couples conceive children.  When doctors match sperm and egg to create life outside the womb, they usually produce more embryos than are planted in the mother.  Once a couple successfully has children, or if they are unsuccessful, the additional embryos remain frozen in laboratories. (Remarks by the President on Stem Cell Research.)


This is what I wrote at the time in the printed pages of Christ or Chaos:

Indeed, this whole controversy is the direct result of the rejection of the teaching authority of the Church on matters of faith and morals, as well as on matters of fundamental justice. For it is the rejection of the Deposit of Faith our Lord entrusted to Holy Mother Church that gave rise to the ethos of secularism and religious indifferentism, which became the breeding grounds for secularism and relativism and positivism.

A world steeped in all manner of secular political ideologies comes not only to reject the Deposit of Faith but to make war against all that is contained therein, especially as it relates to matters of the sanctity of marital relations and the stability of the family.

Contraception gave rise to abortion. Contraception also gave rise to the mentality which resulted in artificial conception. If a child's conception can be prevented as suits "partners," then it stands to reason that a child can be conceived "on demand" by using the latest technology science has to offer.

The Church has condemned artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization on a number of occasions as offenses to the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity of marital relations. Yet it is the very rejection of the Church's affirmation of what is contained in the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law which leads people, including George W. Bush, into thinking that artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization are morally licit to help couples deal with the problem of childlessness, ignoring the simple little truth that no one is entitled to a child.

Children are gifts from God to be accepted according to His plan for a particular couple. If a married couple cannot have a child on their own, they can adopt -- or they can use their time to be of greater service to the cause of the Church in the evangelization of the true Faith. No one, however, is entitled to a child.

Indeed, the whole tragedy of harvesting the stem cells of living human beings has arisen as a result of discoveries made by scientists experimenting on human beings conceived in fertility clinics to help couples conceive artificially.

That George W. Bush endorses this immoral enterprise (which is big business, by the way) and actually commends it as a way to "help" couples is deplorable.

It is as though he is saying the following: "We are not going to kill any more Jews for their body parts. We will only use the body parts of the Jews we have killed already. After all, we have people who will benefit from this research, do we not?"

Living human embryos do not have the "potential" for life, as Bush asserted on August 9, 2001. They are living human beings! To seek to profit from their destruction is ghoulish, and will only wind up encouraging the private sector to fund all stem-cell research, creating more "stem cell lines" from the destruction of living human beings. ("Preposterous," Christ or Chaos, September, 2001)


Mrs. Judie Brown, the president and founder of the American Life League, wrote a retrospective on Caesar Georgii Bushus Ignoramus's stem cell decision some years later:

You have probably heard that right at the top of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's agenda is the promise of "hope to families with devastating diseases."

What she is promising, of course, is a Congressional action that will result in tons of federal tax dollars being spent on failed research using the dead bodies of embryonic children.

The White House, of course, is saying "the president has made it clear he believes in stem cell research so much -- the administration has done more to finance stem cell research, embryonic and otherwise, than any administration in history."

You see, Bush never really banned research using the bodies of embryonic children, he merely curtailed how much research could be done using tax dollars. So it would appear that everyone ... Democrat and Republican ... is on the same page.

The tragic reality underlying such statements is that over the course of the last 34 years, politicians and a whole lot of pro-lifers have let the principle of personhood slide away into oblivion for the sake of winning elections. And the result is staring us all in the face. (Embryo Wars.)


7) The George Walker Bush version of the "Mexico City" policy, as the "gag" order that prohibited international family planning organizations from killing babies on an "elective" basis on their premises or referring women to abortuaries was called, was fraught with holes and exceptions as to make it an utter sham that convinces the average "pro-life" American that "something" is being done to save lives when the truth of the matter is that Bush's executive order permitted employees of international "family planning" agencies in foreign countries to refer for abortions on their own time in any off-site location of their choosing. In other words, the "Bush 43" "Mexico City" policy permitted an employee of the International Planned Parenthood chapter in Nairobi, Kenya, for example to say, "Look, there are things I can't tell you now. Meet me at the Nairobi McDonald's after I get out of work. I can tell you more then." The employee was then free to speak frankly about surgical abortion, to recommend the killing of a child as the only "sensible" option, to recommend a specific baby-killer and a specific place for the baby to be killed.

Here are the specific conditions outlined by the Bush executive order that re instituted the "Mexico City" policy in 2001:





1) American taxpayer funds are only denied to organizations that promote abortion as a means of "family planning." This means that direct counseling in behalf of abortion can be done if a woman claims some that she falls into one of the three usual "exceptions" (rape, incest, alleged threats to her life) for seeking an abortion.

2) Employees of international "family planning" organizations may meet with their clients off of the premises of those organizations to counsel them to use abortion as a means of "family planning" and to direct them where to kill their babies surgically.

3) International "family planning" organizations can propagate in behalf of abortion abroad as long as they "segregate" their funds. That is, such organizations must use "private" funds for promoting abortion, not the monies provided by the Federal government of the United States of America. There is, however, no accounting oversight to determine how these funds are "segregated," if they are in fact "segregated" at all.

Moreover, as noted above, the domestic and international "family planning" programs that were funded to the hilt by the administration of George Walker Bush and Richard N. Cheney killed untold hundreds of thousands of children each year by means of chemical abortifacients. Mrs. Judie Brown, the founder and President of the American Life League, explained it as follows on December 18, 2007:

While many are celebrating the Congressional passage of a bill that contains the Mexico City Policy, there are those of us who are not so quick to throw a party.

The policy was contained in a piece of legislation that also provides an increase in funding for Planned Parenthood. But that's not really the worst of it.

The Mexico City Policy contains exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother ... standard fare for the pro-life politicos these days. The problem is, they fail to point out that the Mexico City Policy does not and cannot prohibit our tax dollars from paying for abortion; it can only prevent our tax dollars from paying for some abortions. Why, you may ask, did I use the word "some"?

Well, the Mexico City Policy will pay for surgical abortion in the cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother in addition to paying for chemical abortions caused by RU-486, the morning-after pill and the various birth control methods that can cause abortion.

Further, it is not clear what happens when an organization agrees to refrain from paying for abortion with U.S. tax dollars, but chooses to use those dollars to pay for other "services," thus freeing up other money to subsidize the killing.

In other words, the Mexico City Policy is fraught with problems that result in death.

So when some claim that America is no longer an "exporter of death," they are really not being totally honest with the public. America is still the number one exporter and subsidizer of preborn child killing, period. Of that there is no doubt. (AMERICA'S DEADLY EXPORT)


8) George Walker Bush's Food and Drug Administration not only did not reverse the Clinton Food and Drug and Administration to market RU-496, the French abortion pill, the human pesticide. The Bush administration fully funded the use of RU-486 in both domestic and international "family planning" programs. Moreover, George Walker Bush's Food and Drug Administration approved over-the-counter sales of the so-called "Plan B" "emergency contraceptive" that is, of course, an abortifacient:

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today announced approval of Plan B, a contraceptive drug, as an over-the-counter (OTC) option for women aged 18 and older. Plan B is often referred to as emergency contraception or the "morning after pill." It contains an ingredient used in prescription birth control pills--only in the case of Plan B, each pill contains a higher dose and the product has a different dosing regimen. Like other birth control pills, Plan B has been available to all women as a prescription drug. When used as directed, Plan B effectively and safely prevents pregnancy. Plan B will remain available as a prescription-only product for women age 17 and under.

Duramed, a subsidiary of Barr Pharmaceuticals, will make Plan B available with a rigorous labeling, packaging, education, distribution and monitoring program. In the CARE (Convenient Access, Responsible Education) program Duramed commits to:

  • Provide consumers and healthcare professionals with labeling and education about the appropriate use of prescription and OTC Plan B, including an informational toll-free number for questions about Plan B;
  • Ensure that distribution of Plan B will only be through licensed drug wholesalers, retail operations with pharmacy services, and clinics with licensed healthcare practitioners, and not through convenience stores or other retail outlets where it could be made available to younger women without a prescription;
  • Packaging designed to hold both OTC and prescription Plan B. Plan B will be stocked by pharmacies behind the counter because it cannot be dispensed without a prescription or proof of age; and
  • Monitor the effectiveness of the age restriction and the safe distribution of OTC Plan B to consumers 18 and above and prescription Plan B to women under 18.

Today's action concludes an extensive process that included obtaining expert advice from a joint meeting of two FDA advisory committees and providing an opportunity for public comment on issues regarding the scientific and policy questions associated with the application to switch Plan B to OTC use. Duramed's application raised novel issues regarding simultaneously marketing both prescription and non-prescription Plan B for emergency contraception, but for different populations, in a single package.

The agency remains committed to a careful and rigorous scientific process for resolving novel issues in order to fulfill its responsibility to protect the health of all Americans. (FDA Approves Over-the-Counter Access for Plan B for Women 18 and Over .)


Where was the outrage from Catholics when this decision was announced? Where were the e-mails sent out in a frenzy to oppose this decision? Where were the voices to denounce George Walker Bush for what he was, a consummate "pro-life" fraud from beginning to end? Where? Where? Indeed, I have met Catholics, both in the clergy and laity alike, who, upon being informed of this fact, shrug their shoulders and say, "Gore or Kerry would have done worse. Obama is doing worse now " And this is supposed to exculpate one from not have denounced Bush at the time did did these terrible things? Reprehensible. Absolutely reprehensible.

9) The partial, conditional ban on partial-birth abortions remains little more than a political ruse designed to convince "pro-life" voters that something substantive was being done to stop the killing of babies. There is a needless "life of the mother" exception in the ban, meaning that babies are still being killed by this method if it can be claimed that a mother's life is endangered. Moreover, killing a baby by which is termed medically by the euphemism of "intact dilation and extraction" is no more morally heinous than killing a baby by any other method at any other age. Killing a baby by means of a suction abortion or by a saline solution abortion or by a dilation and evacuation abortion (where the baby is carved up by a butcher inside of the birth canal) is no less morally heinous than partial-birth abortion. Each is the same crime before God: willful murder, one of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance.

Also, as I have pointed out repeatedly since this issue came to forefront of public debate over fifteen years ago, there are two methods--the hysterotomy and dilation and evacuation--by which babies may be killed in the later stages of pregnancy. These methods can still be used to kill babies in the later stages of pregnancy with complete legal impunity. Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy specifically referred to these two methods when upholding the constitutionality of the partial-birth abortion ban in Gonzales v. Carhart:

D&E and intact D&E are not the only second-trimester abortion methods. Doctors also may abort a fetus through medical induction. The doctor medicates the woman to induce labor, and contractions occur to deliver the fetus. Induction, which unlike D&E should occur in a hospital, can last as little as 6 hours but can take longer than 48. It accounts for about five percent of second-trimester abortions before 20 weeks of gestation and 15 percent of those after 20 weeks. Doctors turn to two other methods of second-trimester abortion, hysterotomy and hysterectomy, only in emergency situations because they carry increased risk of complications. In a hysterotomy, as in a cesarean section, the doctor removes the fetus by making an incision through the abdomen and uterine wall to gain access to the uterine cavity. A hysterectomy requires the removal of the entire uterus. These two procedures represent about .07% of second-trimester abortions. Nat. Abortion Federation, 330 F. Supp. 2d, at 467; Planned Parenthood, supra, at 962-963. (Text of the Court's Opinion; see also An Illusion of a Victory.)


10) George Walker Bush's first Solicitor General of the United States of America, Theodore Olson, submitted the following brief to the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Joseph Scheidler v. National Organization for Women to argue that the sidewalk counseling activities of pro-life champion Joseph Scheidler, the founder of the Pro-Life Action Network, constituted "banditry" under terms of the Hobbs Act of 1946 as he was depriving legitimate business, abortuaries, of their income. Can anyone say "pro-life fraud," thank you very much?

"It is irrelevant under the Hobbs Act whether the defendant is motivated by an economic purpose, as the lower courts that have addressed the issue have correctly recognized. The text of the Hobbs Act contains no requirement of an economic motive. As explained, when a person uses force or threats to compel a business to cede control over what goods or services the business will offer, the defendant obtains the victim's property by acquiring the power to decide how the business will be conducted. That conclusion holds true whether or not the defendant has a profit-making objective.

"A contrary conclusion would allow a defendant to hijack legitimate businesses by wrongful acts of violence, threats, or fear simply because the defendant had a non-economic objective. That result would defeat the government's strong interest in protecting interstate commerce under the Hobbs Act by prosecuting extortionists who are motivated by causes other than financial gain. For instance, an economic motive requirement would immunize a defendant from prosecution under the Hobbs Act even though the defendant threatened acts of murder against a bank that loaned money to foreign nations whose policies the defendant opposed, against a retail store that sold products to which the defendant objected, or against any other business that used its land or other valuable property for a purpose that the defendant found unpalatable.

"Those acts have deleterious effects on interstate commerce, whether or not the defendant directs the use of such property for his own financial gain. To exempt such conduct from the Hobbs Act would retreat from the Act's purpose to 'protect the right of citizens of this country to market their products without any interference from lawless bandits.' In sum, when the defendant uses wrongful force or threats to wrest control over the victim's business decisions, the defendant obtains that property interest." (Brief of United States Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson in the case of Joseph Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, December 4, 2002.)


This could go on interminably. Although wearying, I have compiled this list yet again because I know that people forget and need to be reminded of basic facts that are always fresh in my mind as this my area of study and of active personal involvement for a long time. It is important to keep these facts in mind, especially to realize that Theodore Olson, has led efforts to reverse California Proposition 8 (see Meathead Meets Meathead), believed that saving babies from death was akin to stealing money from baby-killers in violation of interstate commerce! He made this argument in behalf of the "pro-life" administration of President George Walker Bush and Vice President Richard Bruce Cheney. Don't any of you think that George Walker Bush was "pro-life." He was an indemnifier of baby-killers in this country who funded chemical baby-killing in all instances and whose administration funded surgical baby-killing in the "hard cases."

The fact that the current completely pro-abortion team of President Barack Hussein Obama and Vice President Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., are doing more terrible things should not make us pine for the "good old days" of Bush-Cheney. Those days were not so "good" for preborn babies in the United States of America and elsewhere in the world, to say nothing for innocent lives in Iraq and Afghanistan who were subject to indiscriminate American bombing or other military action and/or who have suffered from the destabilization of their countries by the American presence there.

We are dealing with false opposites of the naturalist "right" and the naturalist "left," both of whom are concerned about their own power. Why fall into their traps?

© Copyright 2013, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.