Without Any Rational Foundation

by Thomas A. Droleskey

A Catholic scholar and researcher wrote to me last week to request hard copies of the printed journal Christ or Chaos, which was published between August of 1996 and June of 2003, for archival purposes. We had a very pleasant and professional exchange of e-mails as he expressed with respect the fact that he had his disagreements with me but nevertheless found my work challenging.

Alas, I do not have anything resembling a full set of issues of the old printed journal whose work has been continued on this website since February 20, 2004. I have never been an archivist of my printed work. The many articles that appeared in The Wanderer between Thursday, October 18, 1992, and Thursday, January 6, 2001, have disappeared as a result of various computer crashes and my own utter lack of discipline to back-up the files of my documents. The same is true of articles that appeared in The Remnant between December 15, 2002, and April 30, 2006, and Catholic Family News and most of my articles on the Seattle Catholic website that have been expunged from view.

It's all dust. Every bit of it. As I have noted on several occasions in the past, I have kept most of the older articles on this site as a matter of integrity as it would be disingenuous to claim that I have not had to renounce earlier positions, held in all sincerity, when I came to realize that they were mistaken. There are worse things than to admit that one has been wrong.

All of that having been noted, I do indeed stand behind much of my past work, especially as it relates to the Social Kingship of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and as it relates to the application of moral principles to the concrete circumstances in which we find ourselves today. One such article was found recently. It dates back to December of 1996 and was published after the "lesser evil"-"greater evil" hysteria had taken place that year as the hapless thirty-third degree Freemason Robert Joseph Dole, Jr. (whose running mate was the thirty-third degree Freemason Jack Kemp), and the redistributionist/relativist/rascal/pathological liar named William Jefferson Blythe Clinton roused played their respective roles in the circus of midget naturalists.

2012: The Same As In 1996, The Same As In 1912, The Same As In 1812

As will occur this year if Willard Mitt Romney loses to Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro in thirteen days, 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," blamed the hapless Dole's defeat on the no-exceptions to abortion plank in the national platform of the Republican Part that survived Dole's efforts to excise it. Angela "Bay" Buchanan, Dr. Alan Keyes and Gary Bauer led the effort to save the plank, something that meant absolutely nothing to Dole in 1996 or to George Walker Bush in 2000 and 2004 or to John Sidney McCain III in 2008 or to Willard Mitt Romney, who is running advertisements to boast of his support for contraception and the surgical execution of innocent babies (see Romney Ad Touts Moderate Views on Abortion), this year. Willard Mitt Romney may have some personal desire to see Roe v. Wade overturned. However, he will do nothing to make this possible other than making the same kind of symbolic gestures George Walker Bush did. Moreover, I think that there is a better than even chance that a "President" Willard Mitt Romney running for re-election in 2016 would seek to change the Republican Party platform once and for all on such a "divisive issue" as the surgical execution of innocent preborn children.

The "Lesser of Two Evils" Drives the State to Tolerate More and More Evils Over the Course of  Time

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.

It would be a sin in the objective order of things, therefore, for those yet attached to our Judeo-Masonic electoral system to vote for a candidate who supports any of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance, whether completely or partially, if a better candidate for whom to vote was available. No one may support a candidate who believes that men have a right, whether complete or conditional, to dispense with the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law or the Natural Law in the name of "popular sovereignty" or in the name of "states' rights."

Case Study from the 1996 Republican Presidential Party Primary/Caucus Process and 1996 and 2000 General Elections

Here are some concrete examples.

In 1996, "Father" Frank Pavone of Priests for Life and Ralph Reed of the Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition and the apologists for the Republican Party in the National Not-So-Right-to-Life Committee kept telling very uninformed pro-life voters in Republican presidential primaries and caucuses that they "had" to vote for Senate Majority Leader Robert Joseph Dole, Jr. (R-Kansas), a thirty-third degree Mason, over Patrick Buchanan because Dole was the "electable" candidate. "You have to choose the lesser of two evils" voters were told over and over and over again. A lesser of two evils? Bob Dole the more "electable" candidate? These were judgments, and very bad ones, that Dole's apologists made and then repeated as a mantra in late-1995 and early-1996 before Dole's nomination was assured.

Were those judgments in accord with Catholic teaching? No, they were not.

First, Dole's "pro-life" apologists presented Dole as a "pro-life" candidate. He was nothing of the sort. Dole supported the slicing and dicing of innocent preborn babies in their mothers' wombs under cover of law in the "hard" cases. He was one of the first Republicans to support newly-inaugurated President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton's Executive Order to permit the use of Federal funds for embryonic stem-cell research, going on television to support Clinton and voting for legislation that provided the funds for such immoral research. Dole also voted to confirm pro-abortion nominees Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer as Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., was not pro-life. Dole openly supported pro-abortion politicians in the Republican Party. To contend that Bob Dole was "pro-life" was a serious and egregious misrepresentation of the facts.

Second, there was one completely pro-life candidate in the Republican race at the time, Patrick Joseph Buchanan (Dr. Alan Keyes's position on the life of the mother exception, which was murky in 1996, became clearer in subsequent years; Representative Robert K. Dornan, R-California, made an "exception" in the case of the life of the mother). There was a genuine "good" in the Republican presidential nominating race in 1996. No, not "perfect," a "good," that is one who understood that the civil law could never permit the direct, intentional taking of a single innocent human life under any circumstances. To reward the partly pro-abortion Dole over the fully pro-life Buchanan was an erroneous judgment.

Third, the judgment that Bob Dole was the most "electable" candidate was not binding under pain of sin. It was a judgment, and a very bad one. Anyone who knew anything about electoral politics (and most people do not follow the details of electoral politics or the actual intricacies of public policy decision-making) knew that Bob Dole believed in nothing (he told an audience in 1995, I'll be anything you want me to be. If you want to be Reagan, I'll be Reagan.") and that his lack of a belief in anything substantive made him most inarticulate. As I wrote at the time in 1996, Bob Dole was sure to be eviscerated in debates with the masterful demagogue, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton. Patrick Buchanan may not have defeated Bill Clinton in 1996. However, he would have been able to have exploded Clinton's sophistries and outright lies in the presidential debates.

The point of this is that the "lesser of two evils" mantra chanted with respect to Bob Dole in 1996 was not founded in a solid application of Catholic principles but in a reflexive desire to get the "mainstream" candidate nominated. A judgment of the practical order was made that was unsound and helped to prevent the American public from being able to listen to ideas that might have forced them to reconsider their uncritical acceptance of at least some of the lies of modernity.

The same held true in 2000 when those of us who were pointing out then Texas Governor George Walker Bush's anti-life record and who predicted, quite accurately, as it turned out, what he would do if he won the Presidency of the United States of America. "Gotta vote for the lesser of two evils" we were told over and over again during the general election. "Gotta"? Quite interesting.

Indeed, I kept telling people in 1999 and 2000 that George Walker Bush was a pro-abort, that anyone who supports a single abortion under cover of law, no less says that "abortion is a difficult issue about which people of good will can legitimately disagree" (what's difficult about slicing and dicing a baby?), is not "pro-life" but simply less pro-abortion than those who are completely pro-abortion. It was wrong to vote for him, especially when there was a third party candidate who was completely pro-life. (You want a review his actual record again? I have once again appended this record for your perusal and consideration to dispel the notion that that establishment Republicans desire to reverse the decisions of the Supreme Court in the United States of America in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973.)

Ah, I was told, Pat Buchanan can't win. "All the polls show this to be so." True enough. A vote for Patrick Buchanan in 2000, however, was not a vote to enable a man whose views of abortion were deficient. Pat did not contend that state legislatures have the "right" to "permit" baby-killing if this was the "will: of the citizenry. It was a vote of conscience for a candidate who stood for the defenseless preborn.

"Oh, no, people told me. Gotta go with the winner." When I pointed out that it was wrong not only in the moral order to vote for George W. Bush but quite stupid in the practical order of things, people just recoiled. That is, I pointed in those states where Bush was certain to lose by large margins (Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, California, Delaware, Maryland, Vermont) a vote for Bush was a truly wasted one for pro-life voters. Similarly, a vote in the states that Bush was projected to--and actually did--win by large margins--was a wasted vote. (Such states were: Texas, Idaho, Montana, Utah, Kansas, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Alabama, North Carolina, Georgia, Kentucky, Indiana, Virginia, West Virginia.) Why not, if one was predisposed to vote, as I was at the time, vote for a candidate of conscience. Very few states are ever really "in play" for the presidency. Only about seven such states (Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, North Carolina, Virginia and Wisconsin) are in "play" with thirteen days remaining before the election on Tuesday, November 6, 2012, acknowledging, of course, that "early voting" has been underway in some states, including the pivotal state of Ohio, for two weeks now.

As  noted five months ago, we elect the President of the United States of America, after all, as the result of fifty-one discrete elections held on the same day. Whichever candidate's slate of electors receives one more popular vote in a state (or in the District of Columbia, which has three electoral votes) wins all of that state's electoral votes (save for Maine and Nebraska, which apportion two of their electoral votes on the basis of the statewide vote and the rest on the basis of which candidate's slate of elections wins the popular vote in its Congressional districts), the same principle as running for statewide office or for the U.S. Senate on a statewide basis. Pro-life voters in the states listed above, which Gore won quite handily, as predicted (and as was thoroughly predictable), had a "free throw" without their going to bed worried about having "elected Al Gore." Not even this practical line of reasoning, which is different from the considerations of the particular moral conditions in which it might be permissible for vote for an alleged "lesser of two evils," something that I contend does not exist at the presidential level of American politics (although it might exist at the state and local level), mattered to people. "Gotta vote for the lesser of two evils," I was told over and over again. "Bush will be better than Gore."

No "Gotta" in "Having" to Vote for the "Lesser of Two Evils"

No, there's no "gotta" in "having" to vote for the "lesser of two evils." That is, there is no moral imperative to vote for the lesser of two evils. There is, as I will explain later, no moral imperative to vote in a system where no rational good can be accomplished by doing so.

Admitting that there might instances where a choice of the "lesser of two evils" might be permissible, no one has to accept the "lesser of two evils." The case that I have been making for the past sixteen years, one that continues to anger a lot of people, is that there is no such thing as a "lesser of two evils between the major political parties in the United States of America. Indeed, most "mainstream" Republicans want all "social issues" (contraception, abortion, so-called "gay marriage") out of the business of elections and governance.

To wit, Former President George Herbert Walker Bush was indignant in 1996 as one his of proteges, the fully pro-abortion, Dolly Madison McKenna, 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. Bush the Elder, who ran a pathetic re-election campaign against William Jefferson Blythe Clinton and Henry Ross Perot in 1992, 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.

Just Another Manifestation of Gerald Rudolph Ford, Jr., and George Herbert Walker Bush and Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., et al.

Although more articulate than the likes of past establishment figures of the organized crime family of naturalism of the false opposite of the naturalist "right" such as Gerald Rudolph Ford, Jr., George Herbert Walker Bush, Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., George Walker Bush and John Sidney McCain III, Willard Mitt Romney is as mercurial as any one of them. As horrible and as demagogic as the pro-abort and master cover-up artist of the Benghazi tragedy named Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro is, the currently reigning caesarian statist is not wrong when he using the term "Romnesia" to describe the the ever-shifting positions of the former Mormon missionary who had worked for thirty months between 1966 and 1968 to take Catholics out of the true Faith in France and who twice ran in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as a full-throated pro-abort and a supporter of "gay rights."

Romney calculates his every move to what he thinks is his political advantage, which is why he gave Obama/Soetoro a "free pass" on the Benghazi tragedy in their final debate on Monday, October 23, 2012, at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida. Never mind the fact that Romney shirked his responsibility as a citizen of the United States of America to lay out before the American people the disgraceful cover-up of the fact that Obama/Soetoro refused to order any kind of rescue effort of the Americans trapped in the consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on Tuesday, September 11, 2012, because he did not want to contravene the decision of the Mohammedans who are said to constitute the "governing" authorities in Libya to deny "permission" for the Americans to do so and thus risk angering his "allies" in the "Islamic world." It is a legitimate issue to challenge the president of the United States of America in a public forum about his decision to let Americans die rather than to offend the "sensibilities" of of the tribal chieftains who control part of Libya at this time. Obviously, as I have noted recently in Thursday Night At The Fights and Choosing To Live In States Of Apoplexy, the United States of America had no business being involved in Libya in the first place.

That Willard Mitt Romney did not do this on Monday evening, October 23, 2012, is reminiscent of then Vice President George Herbert Walker Bush's refusal to answer a reporter's question during his general election campaign against Commonwealth of Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis in 1988, saying that he had "the big 'mo'" (as in "momentum") and was not going to go "off message" and thus run the risk of saying something that had not been cleared by his campaign's chief guru, Lee Atwater. Romney believes that his campaign is gaining traction in the "swing states" and thus continued to do what he has done throughout this campaign, "play it safe," which is playing to lose. If Romney does lose what is in purely naturalistic terms a "winnable" election, which is entirely possible, he will have no one else to blame but himself and his refusal to expose the lies of the reigning caesar when he had a chance to do so.

If Romney does win enough electors on Tuesday, November 6, 2012, to cast at least two hundred seventy electoral votes for him in their respective state capitals on Wednesday, December 17, 2012, he will govern as he campaigned. That is, a "President" Romney will calculate his every move for his political advantage in 2016 just as surely as Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro has done for the past four years.

ObamaCare is here to stay. Although I explained why this is the case nearly four months ago now, the simple answer is this: even if Democrats lose control of the United States Senate in thirteen days, something that is unlikely to happen but is still not out of the realm of possibility, United States Senator Harry Reid (D-Nevada), the floor leader of the organized crime family of the naturalist "left" in the United States Senate, would filibuster any effort to repeal ObamaCare if his party in is in the minority. And, quite obviously, any effort to do so if Harry Reid remains the Majority Leader of the United States Senate is "dead on arrival."

A presidential administration of Willard Mitt Romney and Paul Davis Ryan would be concerned about one thing and one thing alone: Conserving The Welfare State.

Did Dwight David Eisenhower reverse the statist policies of the preceding twenty years of Democratic Party rule under Franklin Delano Roosevelt and then Harry Truman?

No.

Did Richard Milhous Nixon or Gerald Rudolph Ford, Jr., reverse the statist policies of Lyndon Baines Johnson's "War on Poverty" and "Great Society" programs?

No.

Did Ronald Wilson Reagan or George Herbert Walker Bush, Jr., reverse the domestic policies that had been in place for the preceding forty-eight years by the time Reagan was sworn in on January 20, 1981?

No.

Did George Walker Bush reverse the statist policies of William Jefferson Blythe Clinton?

To quote the fictional Ralph Kramden, "Don't make me laugh." Please review the following articles to dispel any romantic notions about the monster war monger named George Walker Bush: Y2K's Lesser Evil Has Brought Us Great Evils, Go Tell Iraq's Catholics--and American Babies--About The "Lesser of Two Evils", Socialism, Straight From Your "Pro-Life" Conservative, Blame George Walker Bush and, among zads of others, Want to Reconsider the Lesser of Two Evils Business, Folks.

Yet it was that there those in 2001 who kept insisting after the inauguration of President George Walker Bush that we had keep "hoping" that he would seek to reverse Roe v. Wade even though his nascent administration was filled to the rafters with pro-aborts and that his nominee for Attorney General, former United States Senator John Ashcroft (R-Missouri), had to choke on the words that Bush the Lesser's political mastermind, Karl Rove, and his White House Counsel, Alberto Gonzales, told him to say during his confirmation hearings before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary in January of 2001 that "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land" and that, of course, the Bush administration would do nothing to "unsettle" such "settled law." Ashcroft's eyes fell downward as he uttered those fateful words. Those who refused to open their eyes to the constant, unremitting betrayals of Bush the Lesser and his cronies, chronicled in Appendix A below, had no rational basis to keep believing in the political tooth fairy. Yet it is that so many people, including traditional Catholics, of all people, have permitted the hysteria of the present moment to believe that Willard Mitt Romney, whose anti-life record is chronicled yet again in Appendix B, is going to "work to reverse Roe v. Wade." This is as absolutely delusional and without any rational foundation in any fact whatsoever as it was when similar contentions were made in 2000 and 2001 about George Walker Bush.

This is what I wrote on March 12, 2001, in a complete state of utter exasperation at the "Bush will work to reverse Roe v. Wade" mania that was causing many Catholics to close their eyes to the actual truth of the situation:

Although it appears the Devil may be withdrawing his protection from Bill and Hillary Clinton, he is not yet through using them to effect his evil purposes. The continued focus on the corrupt pair means that otherwise rational human beings are not focusing on what President Bush is not doing on the life issue. A number of very rational people have told me, “Well, we just have to hope in Bush.” Excuse me, folks, but there is no rational basis for such hope. None whatsoever.

As his presidency proceeds through its second month, it is becoming very clear that George W. Bush intends to run a typical Republican administration. The fact that he has seen fit to appoint one out-and-out pro-abort after another to key positions is proof positive that the man does not understand the prophetic nature of the life issue. As I have kept pointing out rather doggedly for the past two years, Bush would never say that racism or anti-Semitism was a matter of “opinion” over which “good people” might disagree legitimately. He would never appoint overt racists or anti-Semites to his administration. However, he does consider those who support the slicing and dicing of little babies to be perfectly acceptable to hold positions of trust. Not only that, pro-abortion Secretary of State Colin Powell evidently has won some internecine battles to determine who will represent the United States at the United Nations, and they will include two militant pro-abortion feminist holdovers from the Clinton administration! Wake up, ladies and gentlemen, it is not morning again in America.

More to the point is the fact that the president has refused to take some very simple steps to stop certain types of baby-killing immediately. Bush has done nothing to reverse the Food and Drug Administration’s decision to permit the marketing of the human pesticide, RU-486; we must commend Judie Brown, president of the American Life League, for her singular efforts to hold him accountable for that dereliction. Now, Sen. Bob Smith, the well-meaning New Hampshire Republican, said he would introduce legislation to regulate the distribution of RU-486. (He’s the GOP dropout who, after a committee chairmanship opened up following the death of Rhode Island Sen. John Chafee in 1999, dropped back into the party he once denounced on the floor of the Senate.) Smith issued a statement couched in the belief that limiting the distribution of the human kill pill is all that can be done “as long as [the pill] is legal.” As long as it is legal? Well, then, Senator Smith, why not publicly pressure your president — whom you once considered running against on the Constitution Party ticket — to reverse the decision of the FDA, and not on the grounds of the pill’s danger to a woman’s life and health? Though such concerns are legitimate and well-documented, they are secondary to the fact that the first object of the abortion pill is to kill a human being!

George W. Bush doesn’t want to go there. He doesn’t want to spend political capital fighting that battle. Instead, on January 22 he tossed eager pro-lifers a crumb by signing an Executive Order restoring the prohibition (laid down by Ronald Reagan and George Bush the First) on the use of federal taxpayer funds to support international family planning agencies that perform or promote abortions. That order was a good thing in and of itself, but such “family planning agencies” have more than enough of their own funds to kill babies by means of surgical abortion. Not one child will be saved by Bush’s measure, although Bush’s order gave the multitudes much to cheer about.

In actuality, of course, the U.S. government does fund abortions overseas. Our taxpayer dollars fund the distribution of abortifacient contraceptives here and around the world. We are helping to impose a holocaust of the unborn on a global scale, destroying lives, wrecking families, and consigning large numbers of people to lives of the instability bred by a defiance of the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity of marital relations. The U.S. government is an active agent in the destruction of that Sovereignty, helping ensnare poor and illiterate people into the misery produced by contraception and sterilization. Indeed, the International Planned Parenthood Federation is promoting the distribution of the “morning after pill” around the world. That baby-killing agent is not covered by President Bush’s Executive Order of January 22. George W. Bush has no intention at all of stopping any of that activity.

Judie Brown reports that James Shelton, a physician with the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), has said that the intrauterine device (IUD) does not cause pelvic inflammation in women — and hence can “safely” be used to prevent conception. Brown notes: “He does not state the scientific fact that the device aborts tiny persons whose lives begin at conception. COMMENT: Will President Bush stop all foreign support for abortion, including those advocated by Shelton?” (Communique, Feb. 16, 2001) The answer — as Brown knows only too well — is a flat-out, permanent “No.”

What has happened to right-thinking people? They have lost a sense of urgency about the life issue, coming to accept contraception and abortion as regrettable evils that are a part of the “reality” of our social landscape. It is just such good, well- meaning people who actually enable do-nothing, careerist politicians such as Bush when they fail to hold the feet of such men and women to the political fire. No, no, can’t do that. Might wind up electing another Democrat. Can’t have that, now, can we? Go tell that to the unborn children who are dying at the same rate during the Bush administration as they did during the Clinton-Clinton-Gore administration.

In addition to his inaction on RU-486 and on the funding of chemical abortions overseas, President Bush has done nothing to stop the National Institutes of Health from funding research and experimentation by “scientists” who harvest embryonic stem cells for a variety of supposedly humanitarian reasons. “It is an outrage that President Bush has not yet stopped the federal funding of research on stem cells harvested from embryonic babies,” Judie Brown notes in a February 14 news release issued by the American Life League. “President Bush must repeal the National Institutes of Health’s guidelines, which allow funding for scientists who experiment on stem cells harvested from embryonic children, children who have been killed in the harvesting process.”

Brown calls upon the president to introduce legislation “which would outlaw the destruction of embryonic persons, whose lives begin at conception/fertilization. There is never a justification for the wanton destruction of even one human being, regardless of the noble platitudes set forth in defense of such egregious practices. The act of killing these tiny boys and girls is not unlike the forced killing and harvesting of body parts from detainees in Chinese labor camps.”

Brown notes that Bush could end the practice unilaterally and that he could call upon Congress to pass a permanent ban. Again, folks, it’s not on the Bush radar screen. Though he ordered the Department of Health and Human Services to “review” the NIH guidelines, HHS chief Tommy Thompson is a strong supporter of embryonic stem cell research and transplantation. Oh, I forgot. The National Right to Life Committee and its Wisconsin affiliate both call Tommy Thompson pro-life. The fact that he supports the harvesting of embryonic stem cells from human beings who must be killed to harvest their cells does not in the least interfere with his being called pro-life. I forgot. Sorry.

When, oh, when, my friends, are we going to wake up? We do not have a pro-life friend in the White House. No one who supports one abortion as a matter of principle is pro-life. George W. Bush is a typical Republican. Government is about the business of “solving” people’s problems. Remember, one of the perduring effects of the Protestant Revolt is the rise of the purely secular state and the purely secular culture. The business of daily life is the making of money, not the pleasing of God by the fulfillment of the obligations imposed upon us by our freely chosen state-in-life. The business of government is to assist people in the making of money (either through the collectivist policies of the Democratic Party or through the somewhat less collectivist, somewhat more free-market-oriented policies of the Republican Party). The principal business of government is not, therefore, the pursuit of justice according to the standards of the splendor of Truth Incarnate. Oh, no, can’t have that in a secular, pluralistic, religiously indifferentist society. All issues pertaining to the pursuit of fundamental justice founded in the splendor of Truth Incarnate must be subordinated to the pursuit of material success. To dwell on “difficult” moral issues is to unnecessarily divide “good” people and divert our attention from the more- pressing demands that face the nation and the world.

Mark my words. Mark them well. George W. Bush will accomplish as much for the life issue as did Ronald Reagan and Bush’s father, George H.W. Bush. Minor tinkering will be done on the margins, including the unnecessarily conditional ban on partial-birth abortions, which, as I have noted repeatedly, will not save a single child. However, it will all be a show of action, veritable window- dressing that can be erased by the next administration just as easily as a drawing on an Etch-A-Sketch can be erased with a shake of the board. There is no rational basis for investing any hope in George W. Bush and his administration. I will give him credit where credit is due. But I will not place the virtue of hope in a man who demonstrated as governor of Texas and as a candidate for the presidency his utter lack of understanding of the life issue — and his total comfort with appointing pro-aborts to the judiciary and other key positions.

Do we pray for the new president? Of course. We pray for his conversion. He is a nice, amiable man. However, he is also a very shallow, uninformed, unread man. He is a product of his theologically relativistic background. Remember, the Bushes believe in contraception, and the Bush women (except for Jeb Bush’s wife, Columba) believe in abortion. No one who practices and believes in contraception can come to understand the evil he is doing (and how that evil is an abortifacient in and of itself in most instances — and leads to surgical abortions) unless he is converted to the true Faith.

We do not put our trust in the princes of this world. Our focus must be on planting the seeds for the only thing that will serve as the antidote to the poison of all relativism (both secular and theological) and indifferentism: the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ. A nation that does not recognize Our Lord’s Social Kingship or the authority of His true Church as the ultimate arbiter on matters of fundamental justice degenerates into the confusion we find ourselves at present. There is no way out except for the slow, methodical process of cooperating on a daily basis with the graces won for us by the shedding of our Lord’s Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross, in order to convert ourselves so that we may be able to assist in the conversion of this nation.

We must place our trust in Christ the King and Mary our Queen, not the false messiahs of a false world that wants us to believe all will be well if we are silent about the rights of God and the duties of man to obey Him as He has revealed Himself to us through His true Church. (Thomas A. Droleskey, "No Rational Basis," Christ or Chaos, March 12, 2001. See also No Rational Basis.)

 

Those who believe that a Willard Mitt Romney-Paul Davis Ryan administration would be any different have absolutely no rational foundation to make such an assertion. To expect a calculating man such as Romney to govern in any way other than which he campaign in the general election is to ignore facts and to project into the mind of a careerist politician one's fondest hopes for the future. This is the same thing that traditionally-minded Catholics attached to the conciliar structures do when closing their eyes to all of the many offenses against the honor and majesty of God that have been committed by their "only friend in the Vatican," Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict.

I mean, the man who threw United States Representative Todd Akin (R-Missouri) under the bus because he is opposed to the killing of babies in instances where a baby has been conceived as a result of a forcible assault upon his mother is going to turn around and be a "pro-life champion (see Blood Money Talks Loud And Clear, Blood Money Talks Loud And Clear, part two, Only So Much Tolerance In The Republican Big Tent, Herods To The Naturalist Right, Herods To The Naturalist Left, Karl Rove: Self-Anointed Political Godfather, Remaining Unapologetic In Support Of Evil and Appealing To Everything But Christ The King) once in office? All right. Keep believing in fantasies.

Although I realize that no amount of evidence that I can bring to dispel to the myths of the desire to "keep hope alive" in naturalists who are not our friends, it is nevertheless my duty, at least as I see it, to tamper baseless enthusiasm for men whose inaction once in office will only institutionalize evil under cover of the civil law while "pro-life" voters go to sleep in the false assurance that "all is well" and that "we just have to give 'President' Romney 'time' to move things our way, if not now, then certainly in a second term."

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.

"Exceptions"  As the "Lesser of Two Evils"?

Although some who have written recently on the "necessity" of voting for the "lesser evil" have gone so far as to say that those who support the surgical execution of babies in certain "hard cases" are not disqualified from the votes of "pro-life" voters as there are very the "numbers" of babies actually killed in such cases constitute a very small percentage of such killings.

This is specious reasoning.

First, those in public life, such as Willard Mitt Romney, who boast of their support of the surgical execution of innocent preborn babies in the "hard cases" do so as a matter of principle. They believe that it is morally licit under the civil law to directly intend to kill innocent human beings. This is far, far different than the case of a legislator who is opposed as a matter of principle to all baby-killing but who votes for "imperfect" legislation that permits killing in the "hard cases" as he recognizes the evil of such killings and is still committed to working as far as is possible to do more given the realities of a social milieu that has become accustomed to the killing of the innocent as an exercise in "human rights."

Words have meaning. It is wrong to contend that there is any instance in which the civil law may permit the direct, intentional killing of an innocent human. It makes a mockery of all logic and, as Mrs. Judie Brown, the President and Founder of the American Life League, has noted for a long time, "dumbs down" the meaning of the term "pro-life" to insist that one is indeed "pro-life" while believing that it is nevertheless morally permissible to accept the killing of babies in certain cases. This is harmful to public discourse.

Second, although Mrs. Brown has noted that President Ronald Wilson Reagan came to believe in the morally illicit nature of the direct, intentional killing of babies by the time he left office on January 20, 1989, after years of supporting the "hard case" exceptions, there are almost no other instances one can cite of a politician who believes in the direct, intentional killing of innocent babies in some "hard cases" of doing anything other than providing rhetorical lip service and supporting legislative proposals that either have no chance whatsoever of passage or, if passed, of being signed into law and that, if signed into law, do nothing of any real substance except to provide eager "pro-life" Americans with a few crumbs to satisfy them that "something" is being done when this is not, of course, the case at all.

Third, Willard Mitt Romney goes beyond the three "hard cases" (forcible assault by a stranger, a violation of chastity by a relative and alleged threats to the life of a mother) to stress that he is in favor of the direct, intentional killing of innocent preborn babies when it is alleged that a mother's health is endangered. This is a public flaunting of utterly meaningless no exceptions plank as found in the Republican Party's national platform (see (My views on abortion rights are clear.)

This is what I wrote two months ago when Romney expressed this "new" and more "moderate" view that is designed to cater to the "women's vote" in swing states:

 

 

Yes, Willard Mitt Romney believes that innocent babies may be executed surgically in the usual "hard cases" and also if it is alleged that a mother's health, not only her life, is said to be endangered. This is what William Jefferson Blythe Clinton and Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., offered Congressional Republicans in order for them to support what was only partial ban on partial-birth abortions that included an "exception" in the event that a mother's life is endangered even though pro-abortion doctors testified that there was never any circumstance in which it is necessary to kill a child by using the "dilation and extraction" method. Critics of the Clinton-Gore proposal, which was championed by then United States Senate Minority Leader Thomas Daschle (D-South Dakota), a pro-abortion Catholic, and the then and current United States House of Representatives Minority Leader, Nancy Patricia D'Alesandro Pelosi, as the price for their supporting passage of the partial-birth abortion ban in the administration of President George Walker Bush, pointed out that a "health of the mother" exception could be used to cover anything, including "emotional health," to justify the use of the dilation and evacuation method of in the later stages of a child's development in his mother's womb.

Health of the mother? Health of the mother? Health of the mother?

Why don't you just come right out and say it, Willard Mitt Romney? Despite all of your cliches about "life," you don't care how many babies get killed in this country by chemical and surgical means every day. Indeed, you told Scott Pelley that abortion is an issue for the Supreme Court of the United States of America to decide, that "it's been settled for some tine in the courts." You have not a blessed clue about this issue and what is even more important is the simple fact that you do not care.

Willard Mitt Romney, you do not realize that the issue of the shedding of innocent human life under cover of the civil law is not "settled" in the courts.

Willard Mitt Romney, you do not realize that the issue of the shedding of innocent human life under cover of the civil law is not "settled" in national, state or local legislatures.

Willard Mitt Romney, you do not realize that the issue of the shedding of innocent human life under cover of the civil law is not "settled" by orders issued by executives or by "decisions" of the voters in a referendum.

No, Willard Mitt Romney. A thousand times no.

The true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Blessed Trinity, Whom you  mock with you false worship of a false conception that makes Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ a "spirit brother" of the devil, "settled" this from all eternity. He has inscribed His immutable laws on the very flesh of our hearts. He has written it with his own finger on the tablets of stone that He gave to Moses atop Mount Sinai. This binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment's injunction, "Thou shalt not kill," can never be "unsettled" by any action undertaken by one man or by a number men acting collectively in the name of the others in an institution of civil governance. Men are to obey the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law as they have been entrusted to and are taught definitively and infallibly by the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order.

It's even worse than all of this if you consider a not-so-surprising statement out of the mouth of Willard Mitt Romney's own sister, contained in an article in today's issue of The New York Times about a "conservative "super political action committee ("Super PAC") devoted to women's issues:

 

What is missing from the all-inclusive spot? Any discussion of the social issues — abortion, same-sex marriage, insurance coverage for birth control — that have at times engulfed the Republican nominating contest. “We don’t talk social issues,” said Mary Ann Carter, policy director for the Young Guns Network, who manages the pavilion, as several young women from the convention milled about the space sipping coffee and shopping for souvenirs. “We talk about the economy. We talk about health care. We talk about energy.”

This refrain is often heard in and around the convention these days. In dozens of interviews, women at the convention made clear that social issues are now taking a back seat. Even those who passionately agree (or disagree) with the new conservative party platform — calling for traditional marriage, public display of the Ten Commandments and a sweeping ban on abortion — did not seem to want to discuss the subject. (The one exception was Mr. Romney’s sister Jane, who on Wednesday declared that if Mr. Romney is elected president, a ban on abortion is “never going to happen.”)

Instead, women at the convention preferred to point to opening night on Tuesday, when a parade of Republican women took to the podium, including Ann Romney, who spoke about her family, and Gov. Nikki R. Haley of South Carolina, who preached a gospel of economic empowerment, free of meddlesome government rules and regulations.

Being visible was one way, Republican women said, to counter the Obama campaign’s charge that their party is waging a war on women.

“They’re doing the soft love approach,” said Sandra Stroman, a convention participant from Chester, S.C. “They’re holding up our women in this party and putting those women in front of the cameras, saying, ‘Here are our Republican women. Do they look like we have waged war against them?’ ”

With the intention of appealing to voters beyond the party’s base, many Republican women are simply avoiding the mention of abortion or gay rights because they are seen as too divisive in such a close, contentious race. Some acknowledge deliberately playing down their own views as a strategic move. Instead, they want to talk about the economy, just like the Romney campaign.

“Anything that gives women the idea that they can’t find friends in the Republican Party is unhelpful,” said Kristen Soltis, a pollster who is an adviser to Restore Our Future, a pro-Romney super PAC.  (Republican Women Play Down Social Issues.)

I have been telling you for two decades now that this day was coming, that the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist "right" was going to bury the issue of the inviolability of innocent human life once and for all, that most "pro-lifers" would accept this because they have been conditioned to think only in terms of naturalism while failing to understand that compromise with a "lesser evil" out of the fear of a "greater evil" winds up increasing on an incremental basis the dose of the so-called "lesser evil" that is considered "acceptable." Well, I guess it's easy to keep believing in the political equivalent of the tooth fairy. It's easier than thinking. It's easier than seeing the world through the supernatural eyes of the Holy Faith.

Behold your "lesser of two evils" in 2012. Lots and lots of luck to you.

Those who campaign by refusing to speak out forcefully in condemnation of the moral evils of our day in order to appeal to "swing" voters will govern in the exact same manner so as to win re-election. I have been trying to hammer home this point for decades now. People get so agitated and so excited by the events of the moment that they choose most voluntarily not to think that this is so.

Willard Mitt Romney is a slave of false, Americanist religion and a practitioner of craven careerist politics, reinventing himself constantly to be whatever he needs to be in order to "win" for the sake of winning.

Sadly, Paul Davis Ryan, a well-meaning product of the false conciliar religion and of the "heavy metal" noise of the world is equally of the devil, champions the religious indifferentism that is a cornerstone of the modern civil state, a cornerstone that is composed of nothing other than sand from a sand castle, destined to collapse over the course of time as the waves of turbulent events wash it away.

The fact that a man such as Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetero can rise to prominence, be elected as President of the United States of America and remain popular with between two-fifths and one-half of Americans of voting age is the direct product of a country founded in the false belief that "one religion"--or "no religious belief at all"--is as good as another as long as we abide by a "common moral creed," something that is at the heart of Judeo-Masonry and denies outright the Sovereignty of Christ the King over men and their nations. Barack Hussein Obama is a product of the myths of Americanism that Willard Mitt Romney and his vice presidential running-mate, United States Representative Paul Davis Ryan (R-Wisconsin), believe are at the foundation of social order. Great work if you can get it, I suppose. Such a false belief is no path to personal sanctity. It is no path to true social order.

As my dear wife noted to me around 12:40 a.m. today, Wednesday, isn't ironic that "Eve," the "moderate" woman voter, gets to decide which serpent will chastise us?

Fourth, perhaps most important of all, though, is the fact that even the direct, intentional killing of the innocent preborn is not to be "reduced" to numbers. The killing of even one innocent human being, whether under cover of the civil law or not, is a crime that cries out to Heaven for vengeance. It is never to be minimized. Indeed, to minimize such killing by way of making a partly pro-life/partly pro-abortion candidate for public office seem "less evil" that one who supports the killing of babies on an unrestricted basis is to become a ready accomplice of careerists who think that we exist to enable them to gain office even if they do nothing of substance once in office.

Fifth, one of those who wrote recently on the subject of the "lesser evil" conceded that, yes, it could be a legitimate concern that support for a "lesser evil" candidate might result in a fully pro-abortion candidate one day. Could? Might?

Excuse me, let me list for you some of the naturalists of the organized crime family of the "right," many of whom are Catholic, who have indeed run as open pro-aborts and who have been enabled as "lesser evils" by "pro-life" voters.

Former New York Governor George Elmer Pataki. Many Catholics voted for Pataki in 1994 in order to "get rid" of Mario Matthew Cuomo. Where did  that get my native state? Have you looked you at who is the Governor of New York is at this time. Yes, of course, Andrew Mark Cuomo. Great progress, huh? That sure did prevent the "greater evil," didn't it? Wake up, Sherlocks, you live in fantasy-land to think that your "lesser evils" have accomplished anything than empowering the devil to give us increasingly higher and higher doses of the so-called "lesser evil."

I digress.

Back to the list of fully pro-abortion Republicans.

Former Mayor of the City of New York Rudolph William Giuliani.

Current Mayor of the City of New York Michael Rubens Bloomberg.

Current Republican Party nominee for the United States Senate from the State of Connecticut, Linda McMahon.

United States Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois.

United States Senator Susan Collins of Maine.

Retiring United States Senator Olympia Snow of Maine.

Former California Governor and former United States Senator Pete Wilson of California.

Former Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The late United States Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who was endorsed by both President George Walker Bush and then United States Senator Richard John Santorum in a 2004 primary election against partly pro-life/partly pro-abortion United States Representative Patrick Toomey, who now holds Specter's former seat in the United States Senate.

Former New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman.

United States Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts.

Retiring United States Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas.

Former United States Representative Eric "Rick" Lazio of New York.

Former United States Representative Susan Molinari of New York.

Former Governor of Pennsylvania and former Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge.

There are scores upon scores of others.

Willard Mitt Romney might as well be amongst their ranks as his "health of the mother" exception would make it easy for a baby-killer just to check a box and claim that a baby had to be killed because his mother's "emotional health" "required" it.

We do not have to wait for the "lesser evil" scenario to give us fully pro-abortion Republicans.

Wake up. The reality is right in front of the faces of those who choose to close their eyes to the folly of the "lesser of two evils" mantra.

Many Different Judgments About the "Lesser Evil"

As noted before, several of those who have written to support the view that it a vote in favor of a "lesser evil" candidate is the morally "prudent" choice. This is nothing other than a subjective judgment in the practical order of things that binds the consciences of no one. Moreover, as I have attempted to demonstrate once again at length thus far in this article as I have done in so many others as well, is to illustrate that such a strategy in the practical order of things has only emboldened career politicians to feed pro-life some rhetoric now and again a few crumbs to keep them on their naturalist reservation.

Obviously, this is a matter where Catholics of good will can disagree. Those of us who reject the "lesser of two evils" argument in the context of the realities that face us today and in light of the practical consequences of decades' worth of concessions made to support supposed "lesser evils" must concede that it is permissible in some cases to accept such a situation.

Similarly, those who support the "lesser of two evils" argument must concede that that it is can be a moral necessity to do so and that there are powerful arguments against it.

Here is one of those arguments:

 

Discussion of the "lesser evil" brings to the fore the question of the tolerance of evil. Pope Leo writes: "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 be the public welfare, and entail greater evils on the state, it would not be lawful; for such case the motive of is wanting." (Pope Leo XIII, Libertas Praestantissimum, June 20, 1888.)

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.

"[HOWEVER]...

"(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.)

No, it's not just crazy Droleskey, who, after all, knows nothing after having received three degrees in political science, teaching at the college level for thirty years, giving peer reviewed papers at professional conferences, running for public office and having served as a surrogate speaker in two different presidential campaigns. No, no, no. Don't listen that nut, Droleskey, whose articles on these very topics once had a wide circulation in established print journals before--eegads--he came to recognize that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and his four immediate predecessors as spiritual robber barons who are enemies of Christ the King and of the souls He redeemed by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood.

There are, though, others apart from the crazy sedevacantist Droleskey who understand the hard realities of a political system founded on false principles and how efforts to "hold back the tide" politically by enabling the so-called "lesser of two evil" result always and invariably in the further institutionalization of evil--and silence about it--from well-meaning citizens, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, who live their lives in terrified fright of some supposed "greater evil." I simply do not know many many more times the points made in Devils Without Tails can be repeated.

What I do want to emphasize at this point is the simple fact that it is not to let the "perfect be the enemy of the merely good" to conclude that Willard Mitt Romney is not a "good" worthy of our support. This is a judgment, one that I believe is reasoned and well-supported by the weight of evidence. All one needs to do is to examine the evidence that has been of the similarities between the supposed "lesser" and "greater" evils in the current round of naturalist madness that will end in thirteen days is to study with care Mr. Hugh Akins's Mitt Romney Definitely NOT the Moral Choice for Christians. I heartily endorse this fine summary of the currently unfolding farce. Readers of this site will see that Mr. Akins makes many of the same points that have been made here repeatedly, ad nauseam, ad infinitum.

No matter what you decide to do and how you decide to act, I can guarantee you this, however: the illusion of a "respite" that Catholics think would be provided by a "President" Mitt Romney will be used by the adversary the cover he loves to use to convince us that "all is well" and that our time of chastisement has come to an end. No, the chastisement will continue as God will not be mocked. He will never bless land and bestow His favor upon it when so many sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance are not only committed under cover of the civil law but celebrated in the popular culture with a shamelessness that would have made even the pagans of ancient Rome blush.

How can the devil not when a man who believes that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and Satan are "spirit brothers" and as that man's false religion uses his current public visibility that could lead to his electoral triumph the means to win "converts" anew. Yes, you see, Willard Mitt Romney is still winning converts to Mormonism.

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

What About the Moral Obligation to Vote as Taught by Pope Pius XII?

As noted earlier in this long commentary, President George Walker Bush, the supposed "lesser" evil in the November 7, 2000, presidential election against Vice President Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., has did incalculable damage to the prestige of the United States of America while doing nothing to stop the killing of a single innocent human life under cover of law and while increasing funding, both domestically and internationally, for the chemical assassination of children by means of international "family planning" programs, threatening legitimate personal liberties with his fascistic "Patriot Act." Bush involved us in a moral and geopolitical and economic nightmare in Iraq that contributed in no small measure to placing the United States of America  in an economic recession that played a very large role in the election of United States Senator Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro (D-Illinois) four years ago now.

Wouldn't a "President" Al Gore have done lots of bad things?

Yes, he sure would have.

I carried no brief for Al Gore. My last presidential vote before going into the land of abstention in 2004, was for Patrick Joseph Buchanan, who appeared as the presidential candidate in the State of New York on the Right to Life Party line. A Gore presidency, as horrible as it would have been, would have carried one advantage, however: all manner of "conservatives" would not have enabled his horrible policies as they did with Bush's. There would have been vocal opposition to Gore rather than a steady stream of "conservative" voices justifying Bush, who accomplished much of what Gore would have done domestically, at almost every turn, if not more. Most "conservatives" were asleep during the eight years that George Walker Bush governed as a leftist and a statist, serving the interests of multinational corporations while also serving the interests of the State of Israel repeatedly. Gore would have been worse?

There is a special irony here: George Walker Bush would not have become president of the United States of America if he did not win the electoral college vote of the State of Florida, which he won--and he did win--by a margin of 547 votes. Bush would not have won the popular vote in the State of Florida, however, unless 97,421 leftists had cast their votes for Green Party presidential nominee Ralph Nader. These leftists knew that there was no real difference between Bush and Gore. They believed in their leftism more than Catholics believed in their Catholicism as they, the Catholics, shunned a completely pro-life Catholic to vote for the "lesser of two evils," Bush, who was transformed into a folk hero of the pro-life movement in the process.

As mentioned before, to vote for a "lesser of two evils" is a judgment, not a moral imperative. This is especially the case when one considers the fact the two major political parties represent but slightly different shades of statism, that they are really "false opposites" of the naturalism produced by Judeo-Masonry. Why enable them?

But, some will protest, don't we have an "obligation" to vote? After all, Pope Pius XII said that we did, right. End of story.

Wrong. One must still make a prudential judgment.

Although there have been some scholarly treatises, one written in the 1950s and the other written more recently, that seek to justify the voting for a "lesser evil," both of these treatises have conceded the point that one who makes a judgment in good conscience about the nature of candidates if he does not vote for such a "lesser evil" and, perhaps, decide from abstaining to participate in an election, although it is always possible to cast a vote for a write-in candidate of one's choice or to vote for an acceptable third party candidate if any are running for the same office.

Father Peter Scott's analysis of Pope Pius XII's allocutions on voting is just as good as the others that have been offered to us again this year:

It is certainly true that the modernists consider democracy, and the right to vote, as sacrosanct, an immediate consequence of human dignity, directly connected with their humanistic religion.

Reacting against this, knowing as we do how much the electoral system is unjust, realizing how much modern democracy is based upon the false liberal principle of human freedom, which rejects all objective divine and moral law, being aware of the narrow margin of choice between the candidates, and also having the impression (though mistaken) that one man’s vote will not make a real difference in such a secular, ungodly system – we might easily conclude that one is not obliged to vote at all.

Yet the Church’s teaching on the subject is by no means new. Without approving the modern system of democracy and its false principle of the sovereignty of the people, the Church nevertheless binds us to contribute towards the common good of society, by an obligation of legal justice. This principle is expressed well by Pope Pius XII in his April 20, 1946, discourse to Italian Catholic Action:

 

The people are called on to take an always larger part in the public life of the nation. This participation brings with it grave responsibilities. Hence the necessity for the faithful to have clear, solid, precise knowledge of their duties in the moral and religious domain with respect to their exercise of their civil rights, and in particular of the right to vote.

In fact, Pope Pius XII had clearly explained that it is precisely on account of the anti-Catholic and secular spirit that surrounds Catholics that they have the duty to defend the Church by the correct exercise of their right to vote. It is to prevent a greater evil. He had stated on March 16, 1946, to the parish priests of Rome:

The exercise of the right to vote is an act of grave moral responsibility, at least with respect to the electing of those who are called to give to a country its constitution and its laws, and in particular those that affect the sanctification of holy days of obligation, marriage, the family, schools and the just and equitable regulation of many social questions. It is the Church’s duty to explain to the faithful the moral duties that flow from this electoral right.

Pope Pius XII was even more explicit two years later, again when speaking to the parish priests of Rome. He explained that in the precise circumstances of the time it was an obligation under pain of mortal sin for all the faithful, both men and women, to use their right to vote, since the common good depended upon all Catholics voting wisely.

Here is the text of March 10, 1948:

In the present circumstances, it is a strict obligation for all those who have the right to vote, men and women, to take part in the elections. Whoever abstains from doing so, in particular by indolence or weakness, commits a sin grave in itself, a mortal fault. Each one must follow the dictate of his own conscience. However, it is obvious that the voice of conscience imposes on every Catholic to give his vote to the candidates who offer truly sufficient guarantees for the protection of the rights of God and of souls, for the true good of individuals, families and of society, according to the love of God and Catholic moral teaching.

 

This application of the Church’s social teaching to the particular situation of the time is in accord with the teaching of the moral theologians, who speak of the grave sin of omission for those who simply neglect to elect good, Catholic representatives, and of the duty of doing all in our power of encouraging suitable laymen to work towards using the electoral system to obtain worthy lawmakers.

But how far we are removed from this situation. Clearly, we are no longer in the circumstance of having to choose between Catholic and non-Catholic, morally upright and liberal representatives. All the alternatives are liberal, the deception and the manipulation of the public by the media is rampant. In practice, it generally comes down to the question of whether or not it is permissible to vote for an unworthy candidate (e.g., a candidate who only approves abortion in cases of rape or incest), for he would at least (we suppose) be the lesser evil. In such a case, there can be no obligation to vote, for all the reasons mentioned by Pope Pius XII that could oblige, no longer apply. Nevertheless, it is still permissible to vote in such a case, provided that one can be sure that there truly is a lesser evil, and that there is a grave reason to do so (e.g., to avoid abortion on demand, or promotion of unnatural methods of birth control), and one has the good intention of providing for the good of society as best one can. This is called material cooperation. However, it can never be obligatory.

Consequently, in the rare case where there are informed Catholic candidates who publicly support the teaching of the Church, there is a strict moral obligation to vote, under pain of mortal sin. Where there is a clear gain possible from the correct use of a vote for some other candidate, it can be recommended or counseled. However, when there is no clear advantage it would be better to abstain, so as not to contribute even to a material participation. (Catholic Principles for Voting.)

 

What rational good does one seek to accomplish? Is one participating in a fraudulent electoral system that is controlled by the prevailing naturalist elites? There is, as a prelate with whom I spoke nearly five years ago this precise matter, no magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church whatsoever that obliges Catholics to vote in a fraudulent system, such as a Communist system. Instead of having a one-party monopoly as exists in Communist and other totalitarian nations, we have a two party oligarchy that rigs ballot access to prevent minor party candidates from running for office. We also have a system of "journalism" controlled by the organized forces of naturalism, much of it Judeo-Masonic, that keep certain candidates out of televised debates. It is a total fraud from beginning to end.

Others will continue to protest that they are trying to keep a supposedly "greater evil" out of office? As noted just above, one can come to a completely defensible conclusion (one which I always qualify as being noninfallible and not having been received from the hand of God) that we have reached the point that the civil state, as noted by Pope Leo XIII in Libertas, has been driven to tolerate all manner of evils and that to choose to live comfortably with ever increasingly higher doses of a supposedly "lesser" evil obliterates any and all distinctions between "greater" and "lesser" evils. The results in our system, especially in elections for Federal offices, at present are most predictable: evil (abortion, at least in part, contraception, perversity, usury, the false freedoms of speech and press and religion, religious indifferentism, the interests of multinational corporations, threats to our national security caused by lax enforcement of immigration laws, legal positivism, Zionism) wins. Evil always wins. Evil is advanced either by great leaps or incrementally. Evil, though, advances in either case. So few people seem to notice. Fewer still seem to care.

Pope Leo XIII explained in Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885, that it Catholic participation in national politics is considered to be a good thing "in general," explaining that there might arise circumstances when such participation would be ill-advised or unwarranted:

 

Furthermore, it is in general fitting and salutary that Catholics should extend their efforts beyond this restricted sphere, and give their attention to national politics. We say "in general" because these Our precepts are addressed to all nations. However, it may in some places be true that, for most urgent and just reasons, it is by no means expedient for Catholics to engage in public affairs or to take an active part in politics. Nevertheless, as We have laid down, to take no share in public matters would be as wrong as to have no concern for, or to bestow no labor upon, the common good, and the more so because Catholics are admonished, by the very doctrines which they profess, to be upright and faithful in the discharge of duty, while, if they hold aloof, men whose principles offer but small guarantee for the welfare of the State will the more readily seize the reins of government. This would tend also to the injury of the Christian religion, forasmuch as those would come into power who are badly disposed toward the Church, and those who are willing to befriend her would be deprived of all influence. (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)

 

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.)

Pope Pius IX had explained in a statement to French pilgrims nearly a decade after the issuance of Quanta Cura that the "universal franchise" would lead to "universal madness:"

 

 

To allow the masses, invariably uninformed and impulsive, to make decisions on the most serious matters, is this not to hand oneself over to chance and deliberately run towards the abyss? Yes, it would be more appropriate to call universal suffrage universal madness and, when the secret societies have taken control of it as is all too often the case, universal falsehood." (Pope Pius IX, Statement to French pilgrims, May 5, 1874, cited by Abbe Georges de Nantes, CCR # 333, p. 24.)

Although Pope Pius IX's successor, Pope Leo XIII, encouraged Catholics in France to participate in elections in the Third Republic in the belief that there was enough residual Catholicism left in the land that is the Church's eldest daughter but had suffered nearly a century of decimation following the onset of the French Revolution on July 14, 1789, the same Pope Leo XIII forbade Italian Catholics from participating in elections in Italy given the hostility of the Masons there to Holy Mother Church and to the interests of Catholics. Pope Saint Pius X himself decided in 1904 that Catholics in Italy should participate in elections if worthy candidates supportive of Church teaching presented themselves for election.

No matter what judgment one makes about voting in a particular election and/or the offices for which one decides to cast a vote if there are truly worthy candidates for certain offices and not for others, I do not think that anyone in his right mind can question the prophetic insight expressed by Pope Pius IX to French pilgrims on May 5, 1874. The "universal franchise" has indeed resulted in "universal madness. Each campaign in the United States of American is indeed controlled by high-moneyed interests and various groups naturalists as the masses believe in and vote in support of "universal falsehood" time and time again.

Again, those who have bothered to read this article with care can come to whatever conclusions they desire. The ultimate decision as to whether to participate in a system that requires one to accept increasingly higher and higher doses of the so-called "lesser evil," which is, just to remind you one more time, as Bishop Geraldo de Proenca Sigaud of Brazil noted over sixty years ago, characterized by the following:

 

"(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.)

What you do is up to you. It is a matter of one's personal conscience informed by the facts of the situation in which we live as we seek to apply binding moral principles to our decisions.

We will celebrate the Feast of Christ the King this coming Sunday, October 28, 2012. We must always remember that we have to battle for Christ the King in our own daily lives. 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.)

 

What can be a better description of the Judeo-Masonic electoral system in the United States of America? What can be a better description of the insanity of the naturalism of the "left" and the naturalism of the "right" now on fully display in the histrionics of the 2012 presidential campaign?

With full confidence in Our Lady's Immaculate Heart, may we rise above the histrionics, the silliness, the emotionalism and the apoplexy engendered by naturalism to pray and to work for the restoration of the Catholic City as the fruit of the triumph of that same Immaculate Heart.  We may not see the results with our own earthly eyes. Please God and by the intercession of Our Lady, especially by means of her Most Holy Rosary, that we die in states of Sanctifying Grace, may it be our privilege to see the results from eternity, where those who have won the only election that matters, God's favor for all eternity, will praise and glorify Christ the King forever in Heaven.

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.

See also: A Litany of Saints

Appendix A

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?

Appendix B

The Work of George Walker Bush and Other "Pro-Life Pols" to Undermine the "Pro-Life" Cause in the Realm of Electoral Politics

(Extracted from earlier articles)

Partisans of President George Herbert Walker Bush, such as the man who succeeded Lee Atwater as Chairman of the Republican National Committee following Atwater’s death, Richard Bond, blamed Bush’s defeat on the pro-life plank in the Republican party platform, to say nothing of the “intolerant” speech given by Patrick Joseph Buchanan at the party’s national nominating convention in Houston, Texas, in 1992. Thus, completely pro-abortion candidates were embraced by the Republican Party around the nation (Christine Todd Whitman for Governor of New Jersey in 1993; Rudolph Giuliani for Mayor of the City of New York in 1993; Richard Riordan for Mayor of the City of Los Angeles in 1994; George Pataki for Governor of the State of New York in 1994; Tom Ridge for Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in 1994; Susan Collins for U.S. Senator from Maine in 1996; Olympia Snowe for U.S. Senator from Maine in 1994; Susan Molinari and Rick Lazio for seats in the House of Representatives in the 1990s, and on and on and on). These completely pro-abortion Republican candidates were enabled at almost every turn by the National Right to Life Committee’s political action committee and the political action committees of its state affiliates. Candidates of conscience were condemned as being tools of the pro-aborts to keep “good” Republicans out of office. Those attempting to keep the life issue alive in the context of electoral politics were denounced as unrealistic dreamers who did not live in the real world and who did not want to accept the imperfections of American party politics. In essence, a Republican pro-abort was better than a Democrat pro-abort.

Indeed, the betrayal of the pro-life cause within the ranks of the leadership of the Republican Party was quite vast as early as 1990. It was in that year that Herbert London, a professor of public administration at New York University, sought the Republican Party nomination for Governor of the State of New York. As an observant Jew, London did make the life of the mother exception. However, his opposition to abortion on demand even with that immoral and unnecessary exception was thought to be a political liability by then Senator Alfonse M. D’Amato. According to what London told me in 1998 when I was challenging D’Amato for the Senatorial nomination of the New York State Right to Life Party, D’Amato told him the following: “Herb, change your position from pro-life to pro-choice and you’ll be this party’s nominee for governor.”

D’Amato denies such a conversation took place. London stands by his account, which I believe is true. Rejecting London, the Republican Party chose a nonentity pro-abort by the name of Pierre Rinfret, who barely finished second in the statewide voting in November of 1990, just 22,000 votes ahead of London, who received the nomination of the Conservative Party. Mario Cuomo got a free pass back to a third term as Governor of New York. My own vote that year, four years after I had run for Lieutenant Governor on the Right to Life Party line with Nassau County District Attorney Denis Dillon, went for the Right to Life Party nominee.

Determined not to take any chances with the life issue in 1994, D’Amato groomed a little known State Senator, George Pataki, who had once been rhetorically “pro-life,” and presented him as the man who could finally get Cuomo out of the governor’s mansion in Albany, New York. Many pro-life activists took leave of their senses at this time, convincing themselves that Pataki just “had” to say he was “pro-choice” in order to beat Cuomo. I posed the following question to these folks when I spoke with them: Why should I vote for a liar who is afraid to defend the truth? Of course, I also raised what turned out to be the real truth of the matter: what if Pataki really has changed what little mind he possesses? What if he really is pro-abortion? Doesn’t that matter to you. Sadly, it did not. And Pataki, who has governed in such a way as to make Cuomo’s twelve years look like an exercise in fiscal conservatism, has used the pulpit provided him by the governorship of New York to support abortion and contraception and sodomy, marching proudly in the so-called “Gay Pride Parade” down Fifth Avenue each year. Amazingly, a man who had run for Mayor on the Conservative and Right to Life Party lines against Rudolph Giuliani and David Dinkins in 1993, George Marlin, was one of the first to jump on the Pataki bandwagon, contradicting the very rationale for his own candidacy against Giuliani by doing so. And it should not be overlooked that Pataki, along with D’Amato, were among the fiercest demagogues smearing Patrick Joseph Buchanan with the charge of anti-Semitism when he ran for President in 1996.

As all of this was going on within the Republican Party at the state and local levels, Republican Senators enabled Bill Clinton’s anti-life policies at almost every turn between in 1993 and 1994. Apart from voting for the chemical abortion of babies by means of “family planning programs” (something that was in force during the Reagan and Bush I years), all but three Republican Senators (Bob Smith, Jesse Helms, Don Nickles) voted to confirm the notorious pro-abort, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, to the United States Supreme Court in 1993. Some people told me at the time that Republicans had to vote for Ginsburg lest they be accused of being opposed to a Jewish woman! Never mind babies. Never mind truth. No, human respect and political expediency mattered more than anything else. It came as no surprise, therefore, that all but eight Republican Senators voted to confirm the pro-abortion Stephen Breyer in 1994. Almost all of Clinton’s 180 pro-abortion nominees to the Federal judiciary between 1993 and 1996 were confirmed by so-called “pro-life” Republican Senators.

Furthermore, then Senate Minority Leader Robert Joseph Dole told CSPAN in January of 1993 that he proudly supported Clinton’s Executive Order to permit fetal tissue experimentation, something that he voted to support on the floor of the Senate one month later (along with the “pro-life” junior Senator from New York, Alfonse M. D’Amato). The so-called Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Bill (FACE) passed with the overwhelming support of allegedly “prolife” Republicans in both houses of Congress in 1994. And Republicans did nothing to try to reverse Clinton’s Executive Order authorize the United States Food and Drug Administration to conduct tests on the human pesticide, RU-486.

Indeed, Republicans were silent in 1995, when they actually controlled both houses of Congress, as a report in The New York Times indicated that women were getting pregnant deliberately in order to participate in the tests of the French abortion pill.

Sadly, most pro-life Americans have very short and selective memories, placing their trust repeatedly in career politicians who fail the cause of the babies over and over and over again. Thus, there was great enthusiasm in 1994 when Republicans captured control of both houses of the United States Congress simultaneously for the first time since the election of 1952. That enthusiasm, again, was misplaced. Then Representative Newt Gingrich, who became Speaker of the United States House of Representatives in January of 1995, and Bob Dole, who once again became Senate Majority Leader that same month, had no intention of moving the agenda of the sanctity of innocent human life. Indeed, they desired to play politics with the issue of life in order to energize the pro-life political base for the 1996 elections. The principal means by which they did this was by emphasizing the issue of partial-birth abortions. Let me explain.

It is sometimes the case that the enemies of life and of truth make true statements. For example, Vladimir Lenin was not wrong when he said that “the capitalists will sell us the rope we will use to hang them.” That is, in their shortsighted desire to make money, capitalists usually ignore the fact that selling goods to potential enemies might wind up in those goods being used against them in war. In like manner, you see, the pro-aborts were not wrong in 1995 when they asserted that the issue of partial-birth abortions was being used for the political advantage of Republicans. It was. Where the pro-aborts were absolutely wrong, however, was in asserting that Republicans were trying to use the issue of partial-birth abortions as a “wedge issue” so as to limit all abortions. Most of the Republicans involved in the effort to conditionally ban partial-birth abortions believed in 1995 and 1996 that that effort would be the end of the abortion issue in electoral politics forever. As such a broad consensus had developed in the nation in opposition to this form of child-killing, careerists could claim that they had done all they could do in the context of the realities of “popular culture.” The only thing we could do after that, many believed at the time, was simply to persuade women not to have abortions, that the culture “was not ready” for a total ban on all abortions without exception, something that the culture will never be “ready for” without leadership in the pulpit and courage from those who run for and serve in public office.

The procedure referred to as partial-birth abortion was devised by a baby-killer in 1992 to be a less invasive way to a mother of killing a child in the later stages of pregnancy. Technically called intact dilation and extraction, partial-birth abortion was meant to be a replacement for the child-killing procedure known as dilation and evacuation, a gruesome process by which a child is carved up within his mother’s birth canal. The “advantage” of partial-birth abortion for a baby-killer is that its breach of the baby in the birth canal permits him to be partially delivered so that the baby-killer can reach in to pierce the baby’s skull with scissors without threatening to perforate the mother’s birth canal, something that happens all the time in the dilatation and evacuation method of child-killing.

It is important to review (once again) these horrible, gruesome facts.

Why? For this simple reason: even if a complete and total no-exceptions ban on all partial-birth abortions had been enacted by Congress and sustained eventually by the United States Supreme Court, it would not have likely saved one baby as the other procedures to kill a baby in the later stages of pregnancy would remain perfectly legal (dilation and evacuation, hysterotomy, saline solution abortions). While the debate over partial-birth abortions did help to illustrate the particular brutality of one form of child-killing, it also misled even a lot of well-meaning pro-lifers into thinking that partial-birth abortion was more of a crime morally than methods of baby-killing used in the earlier stages of pregnancy. Child-killing is child-killing. Suction abortions are just as heinous morally as partial-birth abortions. Many people, however, have lost sight of this fact.

The emphasis on conditionally stopping partial-birth abortions reduced the definition of the term “pro-life” to only being conditionally opposed to one form of child-killing in the later stages of pregnancy. As Judie Brown of the American Life League has noted so frequently, this has resulted in the “dumbing down” of the term “pro-life.” Indeed, as has been demonstrated from 1996 to this day, even those who are absolutely committed to the horrific and unjust decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Roe v. Wade are considered by the National Right to Life Committee and by Priests for Life as being legitimately “pro-life” as long as they express some limited opposition to partial-birth abortions. Thus, Bob Dole, who was enabled by those two organizations and the Christian Coalition, only spoke about partial-birth abortions in his quest for the Republican presidential nomination in 1996–and only spoke about that during the general election that year before safe Catholic audiences. He mumbled the phrase “partial birth” once as a throw away line in one of the debates he had with President Bill Clinton, careful not to use the word “abortion” after the words “partial birth.”

 

 

Appendix C

Willard Mitt Romney's Anti-Life Record

 

Take a look also at comments Romney made in 2002, eight years after his debate with Edward Moore Kennedy, when running for Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What was one of those actions?

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

According to States News Service on October 2, 2006,

 

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

 

Romney loves to take credit for it.

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

From Chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006:

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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