Written In Sand

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Extra! Extra! Read all about it! Naturalists win elections! Naturalists win elections! Read all about it!

The money. It's always about the money.

Who cares that a nation can never realize or sustain material prosperity as long as it is spiritually impoverished?

No, we are immersed in such a soupy fog of naturalism that very few Americans, including very few Catholics, seem to understand that a nation that permits the daily slaughter of over four thousand innocent preborn babies in their mothers' wombs under cover of law will never be blessed with long term material prosperity.

We are immersed in such a soupy fog of naturalism that very few Americans, including very few Catholics, seem to understand that a nation that has accepted almost entirely uncritically the chemical assassination of children by means of contraceptive pills and devices, thereby denying the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage as the principal end of marriage, the procreation and education of children, is overthrown in favor of hedonistic self-interest, dooms itself both demographically and economically over the course of time.

There would be no need for massive government entitlement programs if parents welcomed children generously, nurturing them in a thorough grounding in the Catholic Faith, teaching them that it is their responsibility to pool their resources to care for them, their parents, if they become incapable of caring for themselves as they grow older.

A world shaped by the Catholic Faith would be characterized by citizens who are concerned first and foremost with the pursuit of the sanctification and salvation of their immortal souls, not by an engrossment in the pursuit of material pleasures almost to the exclusion of everything else.

Holy Mother Church has long taught us that we must be concerned about the common temporal good, that the civil authorities must indeed foster that common temporal good. Those civil authorities, however must foster that temporal good in light of man's Last End, the possession of the glory of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost for all eternity in Heaven, not as an end in and of itself.

True pope after true pope has made this point very clear.

Pope Saint Pius X did so in Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906:

That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man's eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man's supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it.

 

Pope Pius XI did so in Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922:

Men today do not act as Christians, as brothers, but as strangers, and even enemies. The sense of man's personal dignity and of the value of human life has been lost in the brutal domination begotten of might and mere superiority in numbers. Many are intent on exploiting their neighbors solely for the purpose of enjoying more fully and on a larger scale the goods of this world. But they err grievously who have turned to the acquisition of material and temporal possessions and are forgetful of eternal and spiritual things, to the possession of which Jesus, Our Redeemer, by means of the Church, His living interpreter, calls mankind.

22. It is in the very nature of material objects that an inordinate desire for them becomes the root of every evil, of every discord, and in particular, of a lowering of the moral sense. On the one hand, things which are naturally base and vile can never give rise to noble aspirations in the human heart which was created by and for God alone and is restless until it finds repose in Him. On the other hand, material goods (and in this they differ greatly from those of the spirit which the more of them we possess the more remain to be acquired) the more they are divided among men the less each one has and, by consequence, what one man has another cannot possibly possess unless it be forcibly taken away from the first. Such being the case, worldly possessions can never satisfy all in equal manner nor give rise to a spirit of universal contentment, but must become perforce a source of division among men and of vexation of spirit, as even the Wise Man Solomon experienced: "Vanity of vanities, and vexation of spirit." (Ecclesiastes i, 2, 14)

23. The same effects which result from these evils among individuals may likewise be expected among nations. "From whence are wars and contentions among you?" asks the Apostle St. James. "Are they not hence from your concupiscences, which war in your members?" (James iv, 1, 2)

24. The inordinate desire for pleasure, concupiscence of the flesh, sows the fatal seeds of division not only among families but likewise among states; the inordinate desire for possessions, concupiscence of the eyes, inevitably turns into class warfare and into social egotism; the inordinate desire to rule or to domineer over others, pride of life, soon becomes mere party or factional rivalries, manifesting itself in constant displays of conflicting ambitions and ending in open rebellion, in the crime of lese majeste, and even in national parricide.

25. These unsuppressed desires, this inordinate love of the things of the world, are precisely the source of all international misunderstandings and rivalries, despite the fact that oftentimes men dare to maintain that acts prompted by such motives are excusable and even justifiable because, forsooth, they were performed for reasons of state or of the public good, or out of love for country. Patriotism -- the stimulus of so many virtues and of so many noble acts of heroism when kept within the bounds of the law of Christ -- becomes merely an occasion, an added incentive to grave injustice when true love of country is debased to the condition of an extreme nationalism, when we forget that all men are our brothers and members of the same great human family, that other nations have an equal right with us both to life and to prosperity, that it is never lawful nor even wise, to dissociate morality from the affairs of practical life, that, in the last analysis, it is "justice which exalteth a nation: but sin maketh nations miserable." (Proverbs xiv, 34)

26. Perhaps the advantages to one's family, city, or nation obtained in some such way as this may well appear to be a wonderful and great victory (this thought has been already expressed by St. Augustine), but in the end it turns out to be a very shallow thing, something rather to inspire us with the most fearful apprehensions of approaching ruin. "It is a happiness which appears beautiful but is brittle as glass. We must ever be on guard lest with horror we see it broken into a thousand pieces at the first touch." (St. Augustine de Civitate Dei, Book iv, Chap. 3)

27. There is over and above the absence of peace and the evils attendant on this absence, another deeper and more profound cause for present-day conditions. This cause was even beginning to show its head before the War and the terrible calamities consequent on that cataclysm should have proven a remedy for them if mankind had only taken the trouble to understand the real meaning of those terrible events. In the Holy Scriptures we read: "They that have forsaken the Lord, shall be consumed." (Isaias i, 28) No less well known are the words of the Divine Teacher, Jesus Christ, Who said: "Without me you can do nothing" (John xv, 5) and again, "He that gathereth not with me, scattereth." (Luke xi, 23)

 

No, we do not listen to our true popes, do we?

Millions upon millions of Catholics continue to spin their wheels and to make generous financial donations to naturalists of both major organized crime families of naturalism in the United States of America in the hope of achieving this or that goal. Those of the "leftist" bent desire what they think will be "social justice" but is actually a perversion of all justice. Those of the "rightist" bent desire to stop the "left" from advancing their agenda of statism that is but the logical, inevitable consequence of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King wrought by the Protestant Revolution and has been institutionalized by the various naturalistic forces of Judeo-Masonry. No "moderate" shade of naturalism can thwart a supposedly more "progressive" kind of naturalism as naturalism is of its demonic nature a denial of the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity in His Most Blessed Mother's Virginal and Immaculate Womb as having any relevance to personal or social order.

Pope Leo XIII made it very clear in Humanum Genus, April 20, 1884, that it matters not who is or who is not a member of some Masonic lodge (United States Representative Eric Cantor, Republican of Virginia, who will be the Majority Leader of the United States House of Representatives in the 112th Congress, is a Freemason, by the way). What matters is the common naturalistic spirit of Freemasonry that defines the modern nation-state:

For, from what We have above most clearly shown, that which is their ultimate purpose forces itself into view -- namely, the utter overthrow of that whole religious and political order of the world which the Christian teaching has produced, and the substitution of a new state of things in accordance with their ideas, of which the foundations and laws shall be drawn from mere naturalism.

What We have said, and are about to say, must be understood of the sect of the Freemasons taken generically, and in so far as it comprises the associations kindred to it and confederated with it, but not of the individual members of them. There may be persons amongst these, and not a few who, although not free from the guilt of having entangled themselves in such associations, yet are neither themselves partners in their criminal acts nor aware of the ultimate object which they are endeavoring to attain. In the same way, some of the affiliated societies, perhaps, by no means approve of the extreme conclusions which they would, if consistent, embrace as necessarily following from their common principles, did not their very foulness strike them with horror. Some of these, again, are led by circumstances of times and places either to aim at smaller things than the others usually attempt or than they themselves would wish to attempt. They are not, however, for this reason, to be reckoned as alien to the masonic federation; for the masonic federation is to be judged not so much by the things which it has done, or brought to completion, as by the sum of its pronounced opinions.

 

Many are celebrating the mixed results of yesterday's "midterm" or "off-year" national elections as a stinging rebuke to our reigning caesar, Barack Hussein Obama.

Sure, the results are a rebuke of Obama because of the "money," not because he is an egregious pro-abort. The results would have been entirely different if the "money" was flowing. The "people" turned on the then caesar, George Walker Bush, and his Republican Party in 2006, rewarding Obama himself in 2008 because of the "money," especially the money that he was expending on the Iraq War, which will be the subject of tomorrow's commentary. Obama will be rewarded in 2012 if the "money" starts flowing again. If not, Obama will be replaced by another caesar who is perceived by the "people" to be favorably dispose to making the "money" flow yet again. Oh, yes, aren't I such a party pooper?

When are we going to learn, my few and seemingly nonexistent readers? When?

What did the Republican "victory" of 1994 accomplish for the true good of the United States of America?

What did George Walker Bush's election of 2000 and his re-election in 2004 accomplish for the true good of the United States of America? (A reminder of the actual Bush the Lesser record on the life issues will be appended below once again.)

Yes, the hideous Catholic pro-abort, Nancy Patricia D'Alesandro Pelosi, will no longer be the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives. Representative John Boehner (R-Ohio), a Catholic who is partly pro-life and partly pro-abortion (making the "life of the mother" exception) who opposed the inclusion of mandates to fund abortion in ObamaCare, will be Pelosi's successor. The issue of abortion was, however, buried in the Republican Party's The Pledge to America:

We will permanently prohibit taxpayer funding of abortion. (Full Document of The Pledge to America )

 

It's nice to be personally opposed to most surgical abortions. It's nice to oppose the taxpayer funding of abortion, especially in ObamaCare. All well and good. It is not good, however, that the singularly most pressing issue facing the very survival of the United States of America today, the chemical and surgical assassination of the innocent preborn, is relegated to a mere mention in a campaign "pledge" whose terms will be almost impossible to fulfill given the fact that the United States Senate remains in control of the Democratic Party. The "money" trumps the babies once again.

Furthermore, as I have pointed out in various articles leading up to yesterday's elections, it will be impossible to repeal ObamaCare en toto as Republicans lack a veto-proof majority in the House of Representatives and as the Democrats are, as just noted, still the majority party in the United States Senate. It might be possible to repeal the mandate that forces all Americans to purchase health-insurance, although it is more likely that that--and other provisions--of ObamaCare will be struck down ultimately in a five to four decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, not by Congressional action.

The overall election results yesterday are not a ringing endorsement of the Republican Party or its own agenda of naturalism. Many contests, especially those for the United Sates Senate, were decided quite narrowly.

Partly pro-life, partly pro-abortion former United States Representative Patrick Toomey narrowly defeated United States Representative Joseph Sestak, a pro-abortion Catholic to fill the seat that is held at present by the Democrat turned Republican turned Democrat named Arlen Specter.

The egregious pro-abort and serial liar, United States Representative Mark Kirk (R-Illinois), narrowly defeated the Treasurer of the State of Illinois, Alexi Giannoulias, himself a pro-abort.

Republican challenger Ron Johnson won his race over incumbent United States Senator Russ Feingold in Wisconsin by 4.8% of the vote, which is a pretty narrow win.

Other Republicans, as predicted, lost rather substantially, including the pro-abortion Catholic Linda McMahon in Connecticut, who lost to that state's Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal, another pro-abort and serial liar.

Christine O'Donnell lost massively in the State of Delaware, as she ran away from the social issues, whose depth she has never understood and chose not to articulate during the course of her campaign, focusing, of course, on what the "people" wanted, namely, "the money."

Sharron Angle, one of the first Tax Enough Already party candidates to win a Republican nomination, lost to United States Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid by a wider margin than had been anticipated, in part the victim of her own unwillingness to discuss issues in the final weeks of her campaign and in part because the reigning caesar and his wife invested a great deal of time, energy and effort in saving their ally, who will now redouble his efforts to save as much as he can of the Obama agenda, including ObamaCare. Caesar Barackus Obamus Ignoramus has said that he has no intention of "re-litigating" the health-care debate (see Calling Election Results 'Humbling,' Obama Promises to Work With G.O.P.)

Carly Fiorina lost rather substantially to United States Senator Barbara Boxer in California.

It appears as though another pro-abortion Catholic, United States Senator Patricia Murray, will hold on to win her bid for a fourth term against Republican challenger Dino Rossi, although very narrowly. 

Yesterday's results show that there are indeed divisions within the country that the shifting of economic trends can reverse rather easily. And such must always be the case when people live on the shifting sands of naturalism rather than having themselves firmly planted upon the bedrock provided by the Catholic Faith.

Yes, Republicans did win Democratic Party held seats in the States of North Dakota and Indiana by landslide proportions. They also held onto Republican seats in the States of Kentucky, Kansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Iowa, Utah, Idaho, Arizona, Oklahoma, Ohio, Louisiana, Alabama and Georgia by very wide margins. Republican incumbent John Thune was uncontested for re-election in the State of South Dakota. Republicans certainly are poised to capture the United States Senate in 2012 if the "money" does not start flowing again.

Republicans also captured six gubernatorial seats from the Democrats without losing one of their own, managing to capture control of nineteen state legislatures, something that will make it possible for them to redraw legislative and Congressional district lines to their favor after the final 2010 United States Census figures are released.

So what?

Although certain state legislatures may be inclined to pass even more limits on surgical baby-killing than exist at this time in various states, which is certainly commendable if such legislation contains no "exceptions" to the inviolability of innocent human life, the plain truth of the matter is abortion is "so yesterday" insofar as Republicans in the United States Senate are concerned. And please don't give me the drivel about the partial ban on partial-birth abortions (see An Illusion of a Victory) that was signed into law in 2003 by then President George Walker Bush after two vetoes by then President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton in 1995 and 1997. That was a distraction from beginning to end as every direct, intentional killing of an innocent human life is a violation of the Fifth Commandment no matter what means are used to exterminate that life.

As noted four days ago in More Devils Go, More Always Enter, the Obama agenda will be stalled in the next Congress that convenes on January 3, 2011. Various House committees will launch investigations of the little tyrants who work for the reigning caesar. Other than that, however, the results of yesterday's elections are simply written in the sand as the "people" will throw out those who got elected yesterday if they don't get their jobs and their money.

Don't kid yourselves, ladies and gentlemen: yesterday's results would have been far, far different if the economy was better. The "people" could care less about statism and even ObamaCare, which did hurt a lot of House Democrats from fairly "conservative" districts, if the "money" issues were not affecting them directly. Yesterday's results are written in the sand. They presage nothing other than the fact that the "people" are upset.

The "people" were upset in 1994. Who got re-elected in 1996? The dope from Hope, Arkansas, that's who.

No election is a victory when men believe that they can somehow retard evil with means merely natural.

We must keep praying our Rosaries, making many sacrifices in reparation for our sins and those of the whole world, offering up the sufferings of the present moment with joy and gratitude to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

As noted three days ago, we must be about the business of proclaimg anew what Protestants and conciliarists alike reject: the Social Reign of Christ the King.

What are we waiting for?

 

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

 

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

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

See also: A Litany of Saints

Appendix A

Bush the Lesser: Deja Vu All Over Again

(From "We Don't Want to Learn Anything," November 11, 2008)

Let the hysteria begin! Yes, the very same people who have been willfully deaf, dumb, and blind in the past eight years as one anti-life policy after another has been pursued by the administration of the alleged "pro-life" "conservative," George Walker Bush, are screaming loud and long over the openly pro-abortion policies that will be pursued by the incoming administration of Barack Hussein Obama and Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.

Get over the hysteria, please. The Obama-Biden administration will simply do what the administration of William Jefferson Blythe Clinton and Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., did as soon as it took office of January 20, 1993, namely, reverse the few Executive Orders and policies that had been issued during the administrations of Ronald Wilson Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush and George Herbert Walker Bush and James Danforth Quayle from January 20, 1981 to January 20, 1993. Then President Clinton used several strokes of a pen to reverse various policies of the Reagan-Bush and Bush-Quayle administrations that sought, we were told, to restrict Federal funding for international family planning organizations involved in promoting abortion and to limit the Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

One of the Executive Orders issued by President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton on January 22, 1993, authorized the Food and Drug Administration to conduct experiments to determine whether to market the human pesticide, RU-486, the French abortion pill. Clinical trials of this chemical abortifacient were conducted, and an article The New York Times in 1995 indicated that women were getting pregnant deliberately in order to try to kill their children by means of these clinical trials of RU-486, which were being conducted at the time by the Population Council. The United States Food and Drug Administration approved the marketing of RU-486 on September 28, 2000.

Then Texas Governor George Walker Bush was asked just five days later, during his first debate with then Vice President Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., whether he would reverse the Food and Drug Administration's decision to market the human pesticide. Here is the transcript of the responses that Bush and Gore made to moderator Jim Lehrer of the Public Broadcasting System:

MODERATOR: New question, new subject. Governor Bush. If elected president, would you try to overturn the FDA's approval last week of the abortion pill RU-486?

BUSH: I don't think a president can do that. I was disappointed in the ruling because I think abortions ought to be more rare in America, and I'm worried that that pill will create more abortions and cause more people to have abortions. This is a very important topic and it's a very sensitive topic, because a lot of good people disagree on the issue. I think what the next president ought to do is to promote a culture of life in America. Life of the elderly and life of those women all across the country. Life of the unborn. As a matter of fact, I think a noble goal for this country is that every child, born or unborn, need to be protected by law and welcomed to life. I know we need to change a lot of minds before we get there in America. What I do believe is that we can find good, common ground on issues of parental consent or parental notification. I know we need to ban partial birth abortions. This is a place where my opponent and I have strong disagreement. I believe banning partial birth abortions would be a positive step to reducing the number of abortions in America. It is an issue that will require a new attitude. We've been battling over abortion for a long period of time. Surely this nation can come together to promote the value of life. Surely we can fight off these laws that will encourage doctors to -- to allow doctors to take the lives of our seniors. Surely we can work together to create a cultural life so some of these youngsters who feel like they can take a neighbor's life with a gun will understand that that's not the way America is meant to be. Surely we can find common ground to reduce the number of abortions in America. As to the drug itself, I mentioned I was disappointed. I hope the FDA took its time to make sure that American women will be safe who use this drug.

MODERATOR: Vice President Gore?

GORE: Well, Jim, the FDA took 12 years, and I do support that decision. They determined it was medically safe for the women who use that drug. This is indeed a very important issue. First of all on the issue of partial birth or so-called late-term abortion, I would sign a law banning that procedure, provided that doctors have the ability to save a woman's life or to act if her health is severely at risk. That's not the main issue. The main issue is whether or not the Roe v. Wade decision is going to be overturned. I support a woman's right to choose. My opponent does not. It is important because the next president is going to appoint three and maybe even four justices of the Supreme Court. And Governor Bush has declared to the anti-choice group that he will appoint justices in the mold of Scalia and Clarence Thomas, who are known for being the most vigorous opponents of a woman's right to choose. Here is the difference. He trusts the government to order a woman to do what it thinks she ought to do. I trust women to make the decisions that affect their lives, their destinies and their bodies. And I think a woman's right to choose ought to be protected and defended.

MODERATOR: Governor, we'll go to the Supreme Court question in a moment, but make sure I understand your position on RU-486. If you're elected president, you won't support legislation to overturn this?

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)

I very rarely write sentences consisting of capitalized words to make a point emphatically. The English language permits us to choose words without having to resort to capitalized words and multiple exclamation points at the end of sentences. I will make an exception in this instance, however: THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA HAS FULL POWER TO DIRECT HIS SUBORDINATES TO REVERSE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS MADE BY A PREDECESSOR'S ADMINISTRATION.

George Walker Bush decided NOT to reverse the decision announced by the Food and Drug Administration on September 28, 2000, because he did not want to run the risk of electoral rejection for doing so. To assert that the President of the United States of America is powerless to reverse an administrative decision demonstrates a woeful ignorance of the Constitution of the United States of America or a deliberate effort to wash one's hands of a decision that one prefers to see stand as it was made.

As I demonstrated one year ago this month in Selective Use of Executive Power, President George Herbert Walker Bush and President George Walker Bush both pushed the limits of executive power to accomplish those things that truly mattered to them in their respective administrations. The younger President Bush was reported by a Republican member of the House of Representatives to have said that the Constitution is just a (expletive deleted) piece of paper when he, Bush, was questioned about the constitutionality of his administration's warrantless wiretapping and surveillance of American citizens residing in the United States of America. Bush never cared about constitutional limits, issuing all manner of orders to approve the use of "enhanced interrogation" (torture) on suspects held by third-party contractors in foreign countries.

It is beneath contempt for anyone to assert that George Walker Bush is "pro-life" when he has had nearly eight years to reverse the marketing of the human pesticide, RU-486. Eight years. Eight years. All it would have taken for George Walker Bush to reverse the marketing of RU-486 is to direct the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, which is a division of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, to reverse the marketing decision. It is that simple. Bush has chosen NOT to do this.

Don't fault the fully pro-abortion Barack Hussein Obama for having the integrity to use his absolute commitment to abject evil as the basis for the executive orders that he will issue within the first days of his presidency come January 20, 2009. He is pro-death. He is consistently pro-death. He will act with consistency in his commitment to advancing his pro-death decision. He does not pretend to be one thing while acting in a way that contradicts his stated positions, at least not on the issue of taking the lives of innocent children by chemical or surgical means.

George Walker Bush, quite to the contrary, has said he is "pro-life" while refusing even to take a simple measure as directing the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration to reverse the marketing of RU-486. How many Catholics, no matter where they fall across the ecclesiastical divide, have held him accountable for this refusal to his executive power to reverse RU-486? This is one simple measure that could have been taken to reverse a little bit of the legacy of William Jefferson Blythe Clinton and Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. One simple measure. It was not taken.

Indeed, one can see in Bush's meandering, rambling response to Jim Lehrer ninety-seven months, eight days ago today all of the incoherency of his alleged "pro-life" position, including his absurd contention that "good people" can "disagree" on this issue, something Bush would never say about racism or anti-Semitism. God has given us the Fifth Commandment, which admits of no exceptions. It is that simple.

One of the first duties of those in civil power is to stop the shedding of innocent blood. Bush, who believes that innocent preborn children can be sliced and diced (or burned or vacuumed) in their mothers' wombs in certain "hard" cases, could have stopped the shedding of the blood of some babies if he directed a reversal of the Food and Drug Administration decision to market RU-486, choosing not to do and stating in the October 3, 2000, debate that the did not think he could do so as long as the pesticide was deemed "safe" for women? Not only is RU-486 unsafe for women, many of whom have died from the drug, it is deadly for babies.

Barack Hussein Obama is going to the executive powers of the office of the President of the United States of America to advance his policies of evil. George Walker Bush has refused to use those executive powers for the good. Indeed, the Food and Drug Administration under his own presidential watch made the following decision on August 24, 2006, approving over-the-counter sales to women over the age of eighteen for the "Plan B" "emergency contraceptive," which is, all protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, 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 is, 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." And this exculpates one from denouncing Bush? Reprehensible. Absolutely reprehensible.

The hysteria at the moment involves President-elect Barack Hussein Obama's likely lifting of the "gag" order that was imposed by President George Walker Bush on January 22, 2001, that prevents, it is said, international "family planning" agencies such as Planned Parenthood from performing surgical abortions on their premises or for using its own facilities to refer for surgical abortions elsewhere. The "gag" order issued by the current President Bush, however, is a "gag," as in a joke, as I have explained over and over again under the Christ or Chaos banner in the formerly printed journal (1996-2003) and the current website (February, 2004, to the present).

The George Walker Bush version of the "Mexico City" policy, as the "gag" order is called, is 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 permits 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 "Mexico City" policy permits 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 is 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 he 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, of course, the domestic and international "family planning" programs that have been funded to the hilt by the administration of George Walker Bush and Richard B. Cheney have 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)

Evil, much evil, has been done by the George Walker Bush administration under the cover of a "pro-life" mask. Barack Hussein Obama, who has no qualms at all about supporting evil quite openly and without any apology whatsoever, is merely going to remove the mask from what has been a cruel joke played on "pro-life" Americans in the past eight years, a joke that almost next-to-none of them want to recognize as such.

Similarly, many are aghast that President-elect Barack Hussein Obama will restore full Federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research on stem-cell lines created after 9:00 p.m. on Thursday, August 9, 2001, the time and date chosen by the current President Bush to forbid Federal funding on embryonic human beings created thereafter. Although draconian researchers continue to decry this preposterous decision to let some babies be killed while protecting others, most "pro-life" Americans overlooked the simple fact that embryonic stem-cell research on embryonic human beings created after 9:00 p.m. on Thursday, August, 9, 2001, has continued by means of private funding. "W" has not sought to end the private funding of such embryonic stem-cell research and has himself continued full Federal funding on embryonic human beings created artificially and frozen before that time and date.

President Bush the younger used his first address to the nation on that Thursday evening on August 9, 2001, to express his support for "in vitro fertilization, an immoral means to create a human being artificially:

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)

 

President-elect Barack Hussein Obama and his former opponent, United States John Sidney McCain III, R-Arizona, both supported the restoration of full Federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research during their recently concluded campaigns. McCain would have done the same thing that Obama is said to ready to do once he assumes office. Why the hysteria?

I mean, the supposedly "electable" candidate in the Republican presidential primaries and caucuses of 1996, the hapless, inarticulate, ever-mercurial thirty-third degree Mason named Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., was one of the first members of the United States Senate to come out in open support of then President William Jefferson Clinton's executive order restoring Federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research. No one in the "pro-life" "establishment" (National Right to Life Committee, Priests for Life, Christian Coalition) held that against him when they urged voters, however quietly, to support Dole over Patrick Joseph Buchanan.

Why is Obama's support for this evil so terrible while it is apparently no "big deal" that Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., and John Sidney McCain III supported this same evil during their campaigns for the presidency? Blindness? Compromise? Wishful thinking? Utter stupidity? Hypocrisy? Why is it bad for a Democrat to support an evil while it is necessary to be silent when Republicans do so? As far as I know, God created the Catholic Church, not a political party, to be the means of ordering the lives of men and their nations

The outgoing President, George Walker Bush, funded embryonic stem-cell research up to a certain time and date and had not a problem in the world with the private funding of such "research" on human beings created thereafter. Obama is, once again, just removing the mask as he shows his integrity quite openly as a supporter of one evil after another. Bush has pretended to be "pro-life" while pursuing policies that have done much to advance the killing of innocent human beings here and abroad, to say nothing of the thousands upon thousands of Iraqi children who have been wounded and/or born with birth defects as a result of the monstrous use of depleted uranium bombs by the military forces of the United States of America.

Mrs. Judie Brown pointed out the mythology associated with the contention that George Walker Bush "stopped" the Federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research when he did no such thing even when he vetoed bills to "expand" the funding he approved on August 9, 2001:

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.)

 

We will also hear, of course, that President-elect Obama is going to be appointing a Cabinet full of pro-aborts. This will certainly be the case, and this is terrible. Granted. Tell me, however, who raised their voices in objection to the appointment of pro-aborts such as Colin Powell, Tom Ridge, Andrew Card, Michael Chertoff, Alberto Gonzales, Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Christine Todd Whitman, Michael Mukasey, Mary Matalin, et al., to various positions in the current administration? Who? Who in the clergy has spoken up? Who in the laity has spoken up? Or is it easier to blind one's eyes and cover one's ears in order not to have the moral responsibility to speak up and to state the simple truth that no one who supports a single abortion, whether chemical or surgical, under cover of law, is qualified to hold any office of public trust, whether elected of appointed, at any level of government (state, local, national)?

My friends, why don't we want to learn from the facts of our situation? Why do we get our eyes closed and our mouths shut during the administration of an alleged "pro-life" conservative who has governed as a statist and as a fascist as he has campaign for and with one pro-abort politician in his own political party after another (Rudolph William Giuliani, George Pataki, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Rick Lazio, et al.). Bush even endorsed the fully pro-abortion United States Senator Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, against a partly pro-life/partly pro-abortion challenger, then United States Representative Patrick Toomey in 2004. How can you claim, as Bush does, that you are working for a day when every child "will be welcomed in life and protected by law" when you support the surgical killing of babies in some instances yourself and when help to elect men and women who support abortion, both chemical and surgical, in all instances?

Some will no doubt point out that the pending "Freedom of Choice Act" (FOCA) which is designed to overturn all state restrictions on surgical baby-killing, stands a good chance of passage in the 111th Congress that assembles on January 6, 2009. It must be remembered (and remembering the facts of public policy does not appear to be one of the strengths of those who call themselves "pro-life") that the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE) was approved by the United States Senate by a vote of 69-30 on May 12, 1994, as several "pro-life" Republican senators voted in favor of this bill designed to protect abortuaries from all organized, peaceful efforts to block access to their bloodied doors. Among those "pro-life" Republican senators were Christopher Bond, R-Missouri, David Durenberger, R-Minnesota, John Danforth, R-Missouri, Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, and Hank Brown, R-Colorado, in addition to the then extant Republican pro-aborts in the United States Senate (Arlen Specter, Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, James Jeffords, R (now an independent who caucuses with the Democrats)-Vermont, John Chafee, R-Rhode Island, the egregious Robert Packwood, R-Oregon, and the thirty-third degree Mason Alan Simpson, R-Wyoming. (Roll call vote on S. 636, 00112.) There will be at least two Republicans, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, in the Senate and several in the United States House of Representatives who will vote for FOCA, which is the logical extension of FACE, which was never reversed during the eight years of the administration of President George Walker Bush, now was it?

Although the special Federal Bureau of Investigation task force designed to investigate "clinic violence" under the terms of FACE that was created by then United States Attorney General Janet Reno in 1994 was phased out in the year 2000, its functions are still being handled by the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice, which "guarantees" access to "reproductive health care." The Republican "pro-life" administration has been about the business of "enforcing" FACE. It's the "law of the land" after all, right? And it was this Republican "pro-life" administration that argued before the Supreme Court of the United States of America on December 4, 2002, that Joe Scheidler, a Catholic hero who has saved countless babies and the souls of their mothers from the consequences of child killing, should have had his conviction on the grounds of the Hobbs Act upheld, contending that Scheidler was engaged in the equivalent of banditry by trying to talk women out of killing their children. United States Solicitor General Theodore Olson argued that Scheidler was depriving a legitimate business, an abortuary, from the money that would have been derived from their “clients” had not Scheidler “interfered.” Ah, yes, the administration of George W. Bush wants to save babies. I forgot.

Don't be surprised or outraged that an open pro-abort named Barack Hussein Obama is being faithful to his hideous views. What those who call themselves "pro-life" should be outraged about is that the man they have indemnified for eight years by means of their blissful ignorance or willful silence, George Walker Bush, has been responsible for perpetrating one of the most successful confidence schemes ("con" games, if you will) in the history of American government. This man, for whose conversion we must continue to pray once he leaves office as we have done while he has held the Presidency of the United States of America (and he might very well "convert" to the conciliar structures soon after his departure), has the blood of countless thousands upon thousands of innocent human beings on his hands all the while as he has been hailed as "pro-life" when he has been nothing of the sort whatsoever.

Although some have complained about the repetitive nature of these essays, repetition is, after all, the mother of learning. People forget. They don't want to be reminded of First and Last Things. They don't want their eyes opened to the actual facts of our situation, preferring to believe in various mythologies to convince themselves that a "lesser evil" has done "lesser" amounts of harm than some supposedly "greater" evil. When confronted with the facts as they have been outlined above, however, many pro-life Americans, including, all too sadly, many Catholics don't want to know anything that will disturb their consciences in the slightest as they prepare for the next great exercise of our Judeo-Masonic electoral farce in the year 2012.

Let me repeat once again, therefore, a simple fact of life: Barack Hussein Obama will be more honest in promoting in agenda of evil than the outgoing administration has been as it has masked its evil under the empty slogan of "pro-life" as its efforts have been enabled by intellectually dishonest "leaders" who enjoy their access to the halls of power in the White House when Republicans are in power. That is the only substantial difference between what will happen in the next four years and what has happened in the past eight years, admitting that there will areas where the incoming administration will take full advantage of the opportunity that has been handed to them to further solidify their agenda of evil for the future, knowing full well that what gets passed in a Democrat Party administration will never be reversed in a Republican Party administration. Democrats use their opportunities as they believe in their agenda of evil Republicans squander theirs as they give only empty rhetoric to being "pro-life."

We must remember that we are in a diabolical trap created by the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King by the Protestant Revolt and institutionalized by the ethos of Judeo-Masonry and the vast array of naturalistic ideologies and philosophies and movements allied with it. There is no secular, religiously indifferentist, nondenominational or interdenominational way by which our problems are going to be resolved. And while there is no stopping the next president's executive orders, each of which will be a fait accompli that will have the full support of the majority party in both Houses of the Congress of the United States of America, even efforts, no matter how futile, to stop Congressional passage of FOCA must be based upon right principles of Catholic truth in order to help a few souls find their way out of the trap created by the scions of Modernity and enabled by the lords of the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

There can be no compromise with Modernity or Modernism. None whatsoever. Our goal must be, as ever, to plant the seeds for what Pope Saint Pius X urged us in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910, to restore: the Catholic City:

This, nevertheless, is what they want to do with human society; they dream of changing its natural and traditional foundations; they dream of a Future City built on different principles, and they dare to proclaim these more fruitful and more beneficial than the principles upon which the present Christian City rests.

No, Venerable Brethren, We must repeat with the utmost energy in these times of social and intellectual anarchy when everyone takes it upon himself to teach as a teacher and lawmaker - the City cannot be built otherwise than as God has built it; society cannot be setup unless the Church lays the foundations and supervises the work; no, civilization is not something yet to be found, nor is the New City to be built on hazy notions; it has been in existence and still is: it is Christian civilization, it is the Catholic City. It has only to be set up and restored continually against the unremitting attacks of insane dreamers, rebels and miscreants. omnia instaurare in Christo.

 

We help to restore the Catholic City every time we receive Holy Communion worthily in a true offering of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition by a true bishop or a true priest.

We help to restore the Catholic City as we spend time each day in prayer before Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament.

We help to restore the Catholic City with each Rosary we pray.

We help to restore the Catholic City with each good, sincere, humble, integral Confession we make of our sins.

We help to restore the Catholic City with each blessed Green Scapular we pass out to a lost soul who has been abandoned to the ways of the world by the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

We help to restore the Catholic City by consecrating ourselves to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, offering up all of our prayers and penances and sacrifices and mortifications and humiliations to His Most Sacred Heart through her Immaculate Heart.

We help to restore the Catholic City by enthroning our homes to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

We help to restore the Catholic City by fulfilling Our Lady's Fatima Message in our own lives as best we can.

We help to restore the Catholic City by remembering that this is the time that God has ordained from all eternity for us to live in, seeking therefore to cooperate with the graces He won for us by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross and that flows into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, the Mediatrix of All Graces, to persevere to the point of our dying breaths in states of Sanctifying Grace as members of the Catholic Church.

The final triumph belongs to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. We must never despair. We must simply ask her to be valiant, faithful and tireless champions of her Divine Son, Christ the King, at all times and in all circumstances, looking never for "results" in this life, seeking only to remain faithful to Our King through her, Our Queen, until we draw our dying breaths.

Our Lady of Guadalupe, Patroness of the Americas and of the unborn, pray for us.

Appendix B

Columnist Chuck Baldwin, a Protestant "minister," on the George Walker Bush Anti-Life Record (March 10, 2005)

It is time to ask some hard questions about the preponderance of leaders and organizations commonly identified as the Religious Right. Are they gullible, naïve, or willingly ignorant? How can anyone who truly believes that unborn babies deserve the right to life continue to support President George W. Bush? His track record on the life issue screams betrayal! Let's get real: on the subject of protecting the lives of unborn babies, Bush is just so much hot air!

American Life League president Judy Brown, columnist Thomas Droleskey, Howard Phillips, CovenantNews.com web host Jim Rudd, and many others have provided the American people with incontrovertible documentation regarding G.W. Bush's dismally pathetic record on the life issue. They have chronicled facts including:

Practically everyone in Bush's cabinet is pro-abortion. Bush is the first president to authorize stem cell research. In fact, his appointee to directorship of the National Institute of Health, Dr. Elias Zerhouni, is a pioneer in embryonic stem cell research. President Bush even blocked a vote on a congressional amendment that would have banned the patenting of human embryos.

President Bush has done nothing to remove abortifacients such as RU-486 from the shelves. He even supported the National Organization of Women (NOW) in their racketeering suit against Joe Scheidler and other pro-life advocates.

President Bush has approved millions of taxpayer dollars in funding for Planned Parenthood. He has authorized federal funding for abortion providers overseas to levels even higher than those authorized by President Bill Clinton!

Speaking of overseas funding for abortion, President Bush's $15 billion AIDS package provides payments to organizations that provide abortions including the International Planned Parenthood Federation.

President Bush even admitted his opposition to overturning Roe v Wade by stating emphatically, "there will be abortions. That's a reality." Of course, the President's wife Laura has also publicly said she is opposed to overturning Roe v Wade.

President Bush has repeatedly said that he has no litmus test on the life issue when it comes to appointing federal judges. Why does the Religious Right claim he intends to do something he has plainly and repeatedly denied? Again, are they gullible, naïve, or willingly ignorant?

Beyond that, how far will the Religious Right go in their compromise and surrender of the life issue? Indications are there is practically no limit to their sellout.

We are already hearing leaders within the Religious Right say they will support the Republican presidential nominee in 2008 even if that nominee is openly pro-abortion. Such talk is obviously an attempt to begin calming potential concerns among pro-life conservatives if and when the Republican Party nominates a pro- abortion presidential candidate, which appears very likely to happen.

For example, a recent national gathering of Republicans voted Rudy Guiliani and Condi Rice as the top two choices to lead the GOP ticket in 2008. Of course, both Guiliani and Rice are pro- abortion. It will be more than interesting to listen to leaders of the Religious Right postulate on how a pro-abortion Democrat is evil but a pro- abortion Republican is righteous! Again, is the Religious Right gullible, naïve, or willingly ignorant?

Perhaps disgusting is a more appropriate word to describe the behavior of the Religious Right. In order to keep its most favored special interest group status, it has compromised and capitulated just about every cardinal principle, including the life issue.

As a result, Republican presidents and congresses will continue to come and go, the Religious Right will continue to bask in the warm glow of Republican acceptance, and millions of pre-born babies will continue to have their little bodies torn apart by the abortionist's scalpel.

Do not fear, however. At least a Democrat is not in the White House. Obviously, that matters little to the more than 4 million unborn babies who have been slaughtered in the wombs of their mothers since G.W. Bush became President. What does matter, of course, is that the Religious Right is happy to embrace the Republican presidential candidate, his or her commitment to the unborn notwithstanding.

Is the Religious Right gullible, naïve, or willingly ignorant? It really doesn't matter. Whatever the motive or whatever the cause, the Religious Right has ceased to be a credible proponent of protecting the lives of unborn children, which leads to the greater question: who will pick up the mantle as the voice for the unborn?  (Is The Religious Right Gullible, Naïve, or Willingly Ignorant?)