Truth Can Never Be Sacrificed on the Altar of Political Expediency

That is it.

I am done.

What is it?

Why am I done?

“It” refers to the farce of naturalism and the way it saps integrity out of the souls of those who know what is right in order to make an offering of their integrity to the false gods of naturalism on the altar of abject political expediency.

I am “done” with this farce as Judeo-Masonic naturalistic farce of electoral politics corrupts almost everyone who believes that the world can be made “better” or that countries can be made “great,” whether for the first time or, as some would say, “again” without a firm profession of Faith in Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and without a due submission to His Holy Catholic Church in all that pertains to the good of souls.

The latest to be so corrupted is the vice-presidential nominee of the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist “right,” the Republican Party, United States Senator James David Vance (nee: James David Bowman), who converted to what he thinks is the Catholic Church in 2019 for all the right reasons. Senator Vance had made it clear in the past that he is firmly opposed to any “exceptions” to the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment and was also very committed to his belief that marriage can take place only between one man and one woman.

However, it did not take long for him to adopt a variation of the “personally opposed” canard in order to adapt himself to the amoral 2024 Republican Party platform that makes the direct, intentional killing of preborn babies in their mothers’ wombs a matter of “popular sovereignty” and supports both “birth control” and in vitro fertilization:

First elected to the Senate in November 2022, Vance declared on the campaign trail that he was “100 percent” pro-life. However, Vance, a self-professed Catholic, is known to be a supporter of “exceptions” in abortion law. In a statement after the passage of Ohio’s pro-abortion constitutional amendment last November, Vance wrote:

[A]s Donald Trump has said, ‘you’ve got to have the exceptions.’ I am as pro life as anyone, and I want to save as many babies as possible. This is not about moral legitimacy but political reality. I’ve seen dozens of good polls on the abortion question in the last few months, many of them done in Ohio. Give people a choice between abortion restrictions very early in pregnancy with exceptions, or the pro choice position, and the pro life view has a fighting chance. Give people a heartbeat bill with no exceptions and it loses 65-35. (The reason we didn’t lose 65-35 last night is that some people who hate ‘no exceptions’ restrictions will still refuse to vote for things like Issue 1). Donald Trump picks JD Vance as his vice presidential running mate.)

Interjection Number One:

So what?

Moral truth never yields to the alleged exigencies of political expediency under any circumstances for any reason. We are baptized and confirmed to profess the truths of the Holy Faith at all times no matter what we might suffer temporally for so doing. There is never any circumstance in our lives in which we can subordinate truth of any kind, including moral truth, to the supposed demands of “political reality,” something that our true popes have taught us repeatedly:

Hence, lest concord be broken by rash charges, let this be understood by all, that the integrity of Catholic faith cannot be reconciled with opinions verging on naturalism or rationalism, the essence of which is utterly to do away with Christian institutions and to install in society the supremacy of man to the exclusion of God. Further, it is unlawful to follow one line of conduct in private life and another in public, respecting privately the authority of the Church, but publicly rejecting it; for this would amount to joining together good and evil, and to putting man in conflict with himself; whereas he ought always to be consistent, and never in the least point nor in any condition of life to swerve from Christian virtue. (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)

But, if the laws of the State are manifestly at variance with the divine law, containing enactments hurtful to the Church, or conveying injunctions adverse to the duties imposed by religion, or if they violate in the person of the supreme Pontiff the authority of Jesus Christ, then, truly, to resist becomes a positive duty, to obey, a crime; a crime, moreover, combined with misdemeanor against the State itself, inasmuch as every offense leveled against religion is also a sin against the State. Here anew it becomes evident how unjust is the reproach of sedition; for the obedience due to rulers and legislators is not refused, but there is a deviation from their will in those precepts only which they have no power to enjoin. Commands that are issued adversely to the honor due to God, and hence are beyond the scope of justice, must be looked upon as anything rather than laws. You are fully aware, venerable brothers, that this is the very contention of the Apostle St. Paul, who, in writing to Titus, after reminding Christians that they are "to be subject to princes and powers, and to obey at a word," at once adds: "And to be ready to every good work."Thereby he openly declares that, if laws of men contain injunctions contrary to the eternal law of God, it is right not to obey them. In like manner, the Prince of the Apostles gave this courageous and sublime answer to those who would have deprived him of the liberty of preaching the Gospel: "If it be just in the sight of God to hear you rather than God, judge ye, for we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard." (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890.)

But in this same matter, touching Christian faith, there are other duties whose exact and religious observance, necessary at all times in the interests of eternal salvation, become more especially so in these our days. Amid such reckless and widespread folly of opinion, it is, as We have said, the office of the Church to undertake the defense of truth and uproot errors from the mind, and this charge has to be at all times sacredly observed by her, seeing that the honor of God and the salvation of men are confided to her keeping. But, when necessity compels, not those only who are invested with power of rule are bound to safeguard the integrity of faith, but, as St. Thomas maintains: "Each one is under obligation to show forth his faith, either to instruct and encourage others of the faithful, or to repel the attacks of unbelievers.'' To recoil before an enemy, or to keep silence when from all sides such clamors are raised against truth, is the part of a man either devoid of character or who entertains doubt as to the truth of what he professes to believe. In both cases such mode of behaving is base and is insulting to God, and both are incompatible with the salvation of mankind. This kind of conduct is profitable only to the enemies of the faith, for nothing emboldens the wicked so greatly as the lack of courage on the part of the good. Moreover, want of vigor on the part of Christians is so much the more blameworthy, as not seldom little would be needed on their part to bring to naught false charges and refute erroneous opinions, and by always exerting themselves more strenuously they might reckon upon being successful. After all, no one can be prevented from putting forth that strength of soul which is the characteristic of true Christians, and very frequently by such display of courage our enemies lose heart and their designs are thwarted. Christians are, moreover, born for combat, whereof the greater the vehemence, the more assured, God aiding, the triumph: "Have confidence; I have overcome the world." Nor is there any ground for alleging that Jesus Christ, the Guardian and Champion of the Church, needs not in any manner the help of men. Power certainly is not wanting to Him, but in His loving kindness He would assign to us a share in obtaining and applying the fruits of salvation procured through His grace.

The chief elements of this duty consist in professing openly and unflinchingly the Catholic doctrine, and in propagating it to the utmost of our power. For, as is often said, with the greatest truth, there is nothing so hurtful to Christian wisdom as that it should not be known, since it possesses, when loyally received, inherent power to drive away error. (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890.)

Accordingly, We first of all declare that all Catholics have a sacred and inviolable duty, both in private and public life, to obey and firmly adhere to and fearlessly profess the principles of Christian truth enunciated by the teaching office of the Catholic Church. In particular We mean those principles which Our Predecessor has most wisely laid down in the encyclical letter "Rerum Novarum." We know that the Bishops of Prussia followed these most faithfully in their deliberations at the Fulda Congress of 1900. You yourselves have summarized the fundamental ideas of these principles in your communications regarding this question.

These are fundamental principles: No matter what the Christian does, even in the realm of temporal goods, he cannot ignore the supernatural good. Rather, according to the dictates of Christian philosophy, he must order all things to the ultimate end, namely, the Highest Good. All his actions, insofar as they are morally either good or bad (that is to say, whether they agree or disagree with the natural and divine law), are subject to the judgment and judicial office of the Church. All who glory in the name of Christian, either individually or collectively, if they wish to remain true to their vocation, may not foster enmities and dissensions between the classes of civil society. On the contrary, they must promote mutual concord and charity. The social question and its associated controversies, such as the nature and duration of labor, the wages to be paid, and workingmen's strikes, are not simply economic in character. Therefore they cannot be numbered among those which can be settled apart from ecclesiastical authority. "The precise opposite is the truth. It is first of all moral and religious, and for that reason its solution is to be expected mainly from the moral law and the pronouncements of religion." (Pope Saint Pius X, Singulari Quadam, Sepetember 24, 1912.)

The modern world, shaped as it is by the anti-Incarnational lies of Judeo-Masonry and its hatred for the Social Reign of Christ the King and of the true Social Teaching of the Catholic Church, she who is our mater and magister (mother and teacher), is awash with amorality in almost every aspect of public life and what passes for “popular culture” in these wicked times that celebrate every form of licentiousness, including wanton misuse of the gift that God has given to man to bring forth new souls to give Him honor and glory in this life and to spend all eternity with Him in Heaven after dying as faithful sons and daughters of Holy Mother Church and the subsequent killing off of children by self-centered parents who live without regard to their Particular Judgment and of outright perversity of the sort that destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Speaking of sodomy, James David Vance has learned how to make a false peace with the unjust decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, June 25, 2015:

Vance also seems to have distanced himself from the Church’s fully pro-life position by recently saying that he supports access to abortion pills, aligning himself more closely with Trump on the critical issue.

“On the question of the abortion pill, what’s so many of us have said … the Supreme Court made a decision saying that the American people should have access to that medication, Donald Trump has supported that opinion, I support that opinion,” Vance said, discussing the recent FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine decision.

Vance appeared to not understand the Supreme Court decision – the court did not rule that the “American people should have access to that medication.” Rather, the court ruled that the plaintiffs in the case, pro-life medical professionals, did not have standing to sue to stop the Biden administration’s loosening of regulations.

Vance is also aligned closely to Trump’s foreign policy views, including criticizing endless foreign wars and intervention in Ukraine.

The Catholic convert told Crisis in 2021 he supports a complete ban on pornography. “I think the combination of porn, abortion have basically created a lonely, isolated generation that isn’t getting married, they’re not having families, and they’re actually not even totally sure how to interact with each other,” LifeSiteNews previously reported.

However, Vance is also closely tied to Peter Thiel, a libertarian Republican donor who is “married” to a man.

Vance entered the Senate in January 2023, so he did not have a chance to vote on the misnamed “Respect for Marriage Act,” which codified Obergefell and requires all 50 states to recognize same-sex “marriages.” He said he would have voted against the law but does not want to try to reverse the Supreme Court decision.

“I’ve come out against this bill, and I don’t think it’s actually about gay marriage or same-sex marriage or same-sex equality,” Vance said. “Look, gay marriage is the law of the land of this country and I’m not trying to do anything to change that.” (Donald Trump picks JD Vance as his vice presidential running mate.)

This is all fallacious reasoning as it does not matter how many support evil at the ballot box and/or practice in their own personal lives. God remains now what He is, has been, and will ever be, a Majority of One.

Here is reminder to James David Vance concerning the evil of sodomy, which can never be made legitimate in the eyes of God no matter how many court decisions rendered, legislation passed and enacted, or popular referenda held:

[13] If any one lie with a man as with a woman, both have committed an abomination, let them be put to death: their blood be upon them. [14] If any man after marrying the daughter, marry her mother, he hath done a heinous crime: he shall be burnt alive with them: neither shall so great an abomination remain in the midst of you. [15] He that shall copulate with any beast or cattle, dying let him die, the beast also ye shall kill. (Leviticus 20: 13-15.)

For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy. Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them. (Romans 1: 18-32.)

[9] Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, [10] Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God. (1 Cor. 6: 9)

[1] Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James: to them that are beloved in God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called. [2] Mercy unto you, and peace, and charity be fulfilled. [3] Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints. [4] For certain men are secretly entered in, (who were written of long ago unto this judgment,) ungodly men, turning the grace of our Lord God into riotousness, and denying the only sovereign Ruler, and our Lord Jesus Christ. [5] I will therefore admonish you, though ye once knew all things, that Jesus, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, did afterwards destroy them that believed not:

[6] And the angels who kept not their principality, but forsook their own habitation, he hath reserved under darkness in everlasting chains, unto the judgment of the great day. [7] As Sodom and Gomorrha, and the neighbouring cities, in like manner, having given themselves to fornication, and going after other flesh, were made an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire. [8] In like manner these men also defile the flesh, and despise dominion, and blaspheme majesty. [9] When Michael the archangel, disputing with the devil, contended about the body of Moses, he durst not bring against him the judgment of railing speech, but said: The Lord command thee. [10] But these men blaspheme whatever things they know not: and what things soever they naturally know, like dumb beasts, in these they are corrupted.

[11] Woe unto them, for they have gone in the way of Cain: and after the error of Balaam they have for reward poured out themselves, and have perished in the contradiction of Core. [12] These are spots in their banquets, feasting together without fear, feeding themselves, clouds without water, which are carried about by winds, trees of the autumn, unfruitful, twice dead, plucked up by the roots, [13] Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own confusion; wandering stars, to whom the storm of darkness is reserved for ever. [14] Now of these Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying: Behold, the Lord cometh with thousands of his saints, [15] To execute judgment upon all, and to reprove all the ungodly for all the works of their ungodliness, whereby they have done ungodly, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against God. 

[16] These are murmurers, full of complaints, walking according to their own desires, and their mouth speaketh proud things, admiring persons for gain' s sake. [17] But you, my dearly beloved, be mindful of the words which have been spoken before by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, [18] Who told you, that in the last time there should come mockers, walking according to their own desires in ungodlinesses. [19] These are they, who separate themselves, sensual men, having not the Spirit. [20] But you, my beloved, building yourselves upon your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, 

[21] Keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, unto life everlasting. [22] And some indeed reprove, being judged:[23] But others save, pulling them out of the fire. And on others have mercy, in fear, hating also the spotted garment which is carnal. [24] Now to him who is able to preserve you without sin, and to present you spotless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, in the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,[25] To the only God our Saviour through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory and magnificence, empire and power, before all ages, and now, and for all ages of ages. Amen. (Jude 1-25.)

There are no “loopholes” in these passages.

This all reminds me of the March 22, 1931, editorial in The Washington Post that I have quoted many times on this site:

The Federal Council of Churches in America some time ago appointed a committee on "marriage and the home," which has now submitted a report favoring a "careful and restrained" use of contraceptive devices to regulate the size of families. The committee seems to have a serious struggle with itself in adhering to Christian doctrine while at the same time indulging in amateurish excursions in the field of economics, legislation, medicine, and sociology. The resulting report is a mixture of religious obscurantism and modernistic materialism which departs from the ancient standards of religion and yet fails to blaze a path toward something better.

The mischief that would result from an an attempt to place the stamp of church approval upon any scheme for "regulating the size of families" is evidently quite beyond the comprehension of this pseudo-scientific committee. It is impossible to reconcile the doctrine of the divine institution of marriage with any modernistic plan for the mechanical regulation of human birth. The church must either reject the plain teachings of the Bible or reject schemes for the “scientific” production of human souls. Carried to its logical conclusion, the committee’s report if carried into effect would lead to the death-knell of marriage as a holy institution, by establishing degrading practices which would encourage indiscriminate immorality. The suggestion that the use of legalized contraceptives would be “careful and restrained” is preposterous. If the churches are to become organizations for political and 'scientific' propaganda they should be honest and reject the Bible, scoff at Christ as an obsolete and unscientific teacher, and strike out boldly as champions of politics and science as substitutes for the old-time religion. ("Forgetting Religion," Editorial, The Washington Post, March 22, 1931.)

Martin Luther’s and Henry VIII’s war on the inviolability of Holy Matrimony by means of divorce paved the way for the triumph of contraception and the contraceptive mentality at the Lambeth Conference in 1930, which itself paved the way for the chemical and surgical assassination of the innocent preborn as well as for the gradual acceptance and “normalization” of every degrading, degenerate practices associated with unnatural vice. Also, of course, contraception and the contraceptive mentality produced calls for the unnatural conception of children by means of in vitro fertilization and surrogate parenthood, evils that have now been enshrined into the 2024 Republican platform:

We proudly stand for families and Life.  We believe that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees that no person can be denied Life or Liberty without Due Process, and that the States are, therefore, free to pass Laws protecting those Rights.  After 51 years, because of us, that power has been given to the States and to a vote of the People.  We will oppose Late Term Abortion, while supporting mothers and policies that advance Prenatal Care, access to Birth Control, and IVF (fertility treatments). (full text of the platform.)

First, this platform retreat means that that the Republican Party is now content to rest on the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Thomas E. Dobbs, Mississippi State Health Officer v. Jackson Women’s Organization, June 24, 2022, that gave the “people” an authority that belongs to no human being, whether acting individually or collectively with others in the institutions of civil governance, namely, to “decide” that which they have no power to decide concerning under what conditions the direct, intentional killing of innocent human beings may be permitted. The 2024 Republican Party platform plank takes no position whether states should or should not permit such killing, only that they have the “power” to do so.

Second, the emotional red herring posed by “late term abortion,” which is certainly a most heinously barbarous practice, has always been used as political “wedge” issue by phony pro-life career politicians that obviated them from having to unconditionally oppose all baby-killing without exception from conception until birth. There is no moral difference between killing an innocent human being with a vacuum machine twenty-nine times more powerful than the home vacuum cleaner and his being killing by crushed skull abortion, which involves partially delivering the baby so that a murderer can pierce his tiny scalp and crush it. The killing of an innocent human being is always the same crime morally, admitting that the civil law can make distinctions according to the circumstances in which the killing takes place.

Here is what I wrote seventeen years, three months ago when the Supreme Court of the United States of America issued its decision on April 18, 2007, to uphold the 2003 version of a law passed by the Congress of the United States of America that had been vetoed twice by then President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton in the 1990s:

A careful reading of the Text of the Court's Opinion, written by Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, reveals that the statements made above are absolutely accurate. Indeed, the Court's opinion includes a very accurate description of each of the methods of baby-killing, each of which remains fully "legal" in this country after the decision in Gonzales v. Carhart. Here is a summary of the sobering facts that I have enumerated any number of times over the past twelve years [that is, since 1995]:

1. The direct, intentional killing of an innocent human being is equally morally heinous no matter the age at which the human being is killed. That is, the killing of six week old child in his mother's womb is the same crime morally as the direct, intentional killing of a ninety year old man.

2. The particular method by which a human being is killed does not make the act of killing any more immoral than the use of another method, admitting that it is permissible in the administration of civil justice for legislators and jurists to take into consideration such methods when legislating and meting out punishments for those adjudged guilty after due process of law of having committed acts that of their nature are in opposition to the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment.

3. Thus it is that the use of the baby-killing method invented by a Dr. Martin Haskell, known "medically" as "intact dilation and extraction," to provide a means of killing a baby that was less "invasive" and thus allegedly less is no more morally heinous than the killing of an innocent preborn baby by means a suction vacuum machine that is twenty-nine times more powerful than the home vacuum cleaner.

4. The use of "intact dilation and extraction" is no more morally heinous than the killing of an innocent preborn baby by means of the use of various injections, including that of potassium chloride, into the baby so as to kill it in the womb before it is passed out stillborn or taken out by means of a Caesarian section.

5. The use of "intact dilation and extraction" is no more morally heinous the the killing of an innocent preborn baby by means of the use of what is known as the "hysterotomy," a procedure by which a preborn baby is killed by the use of a procedure similar to a Caesarian section, except that the child's neck is twisted in the womb before it is removed. (The hysterotomy was made famous in the case of Dr. Kenneth Edelin.)

6. The use of "intact dilation and extraction" is no more morally heinous than the "dilation and evacuation" method of killing a baby by means of carving up a baby in the uterus and then extracting his remains with forceps.

7. Those, including some conciliar bishops, have said that partial birth abortion is infanticide have missed the point entirely: each and every abortion kills a living baby deader than dead. Each abortion, whether chemically induced or surgically performed, is infanticide. (See Every Abortion Kills a Baby Dead).

8.The Partial Birth Abortion bill that is now the law of the land contains an immoral" life of the mother" exception, meaning that this procedure of killing a baby will still be used. And it will be used not only in cases where it is alleged that a mother's life is "endangered." Do we really think that those who kill for a living are going to be scrupulously honest about observing the exact conditions of the "life of the mother" exception?

9. Baby-killers will simply resort to the dilation and evacuation means of killing children if they cannot justify the use of partial birth abortion, meaning, as I have been contended since 1995, that zero babies will be saved by the law and by yesterday’s decision in Gonzales v. Carhart. Indeed, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy went to great lengths to remind those who challenged the law that the other procedures, which he described in great detail, would remain perfectly legal. Justice Kennedy also explained that baby-killers who "accidentally" turned a dilation and evacuation killing of a child into an intact dilation and extraction (partial birth abortion) killing of a child would face no legal liability:

This reasoning, however, does not take account of the Act's intent requirements, which preclude liability from attaching to an accidental intact D&E. If a doctor's intent at the outset is to perform a D&E in which the fetus would not be delivered to either of the Act's anatomical landmarks, but the fetus nonetheless is delivered past one of those points, the requisite and prohibited scienter is not present. 18 U. S. C. §1531(b)(1)(A) (2000 ed., Supp. IV). When a doctor in that situation completes an abortion by performing an intact D&E, the doctor does not violate the Act. It is true that intent to cause a result may sometimes be inferred if a person "knows that that result is practically certain to follow from his conduct." 1 LaFave §5.2(a), at 341. Yet abortion doctors intending at the outset to perform a standard D&E procedure will not know that a prohibited abortion "is practically certain to follow from" their conduct. Ibid. A fetus is only delivered largely intact in a small fraction of the overall number of D&E abortions. Planned Parenthood, 320 F. Supp. 2d, at 965. 

10. In other words, ladies and gentlemen, baby-killers will still be able to kill babies in the later stages of pregnancy by the use of the saline solution abortion and the hysterotomy and the dilation and evacuation (and even an actual hysterectomy performed for reasons of killing a preborn child and to honor a woman's elective wishes to render herself sterile from that point forward). The belief that a "victory" was won yesterday is an illusion of the worst sort.

Some "true believers" in the American constitutional processes will contend that there is "just one victory" in a long battle to restore full legal protection to the preborn. How can this be any kind of victory when the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Gonzales v. Carhart reaffirms the "right" of women to "choose" to kill their children, albeit with some regulations here and there (parental notification or consent with a "judicial bypass, a twenty-four or forty-eight hour waiting period, information on what an abortion is and surgical complications arising therefrom, the places and conditions under which babies may be killed in the second and third trimester), under cover of law is beyond me. Justice Kennedy went to great lengths to explain exactly how available baby-killing has become in this country, which is one of the reasons he joined Chief Justice John Roberts and fellow Associate Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito in upholding the constitutionality of the partial birth abortion ban legislation. According to Kennedy, you see, access to abortion will not be impeded by the partial birth abortion ban, which, as he sees it, is a way for the American public to express its outrage over a particular type of child-killing and to place some limits on the use of that form of child-killing:

It was reasonable for Congress to think that partial-birth abortion, more than standard D&E, undermines the public's perception of the doctor's appropriate role during delivery, and perverts the birth process. (Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, Gonzales v. Carhart.) 

Undermines the public's perception of the doctor's appropriate role during delivery, and perverts the birth process?

Sentimentality and emotionalism have replaced the rule of law according to the binding precepts of the Divine positive law and the natural law, which binds all men in all nations in all circumstances at all times without any exception whatsoever. To justify a morally flawed bill that does not even fully outlaw the child-killing procedure described as "undermining the public's perception of the doctor's appropriate role during delivery" is itself perverse and absurd. The only logical conclusion one can draw from this is that forms of child-killing that are publicly acceptable, largely because it is out of view and done on tiny human beings who cannot speak for themselves,will remain perfectly legal as they do not undermine "the public's perception of the doctor's appropriate role" before delivery of a child. Such is the monstrous way in which jurists reason in a world where men and their nations are not subordinate to the Catholic Church in her exercise of the Social Reign of Christ King in all that pertains to the good of souls.

Do not be deceived by those who are creating and sustaining the illusion that a "victory" has been won. Do not be deceived by those who recite the old canard that we cannot "let the perfect be the enemy of the good." The partial birth abortion ban has never been anything "good." It has always been and it remains on this very day a cheap political trick by which phony pro-life politicians, most of whom support baby-killing in the "hard" cases and fund the chemical assassination of children by means of domestic and international "family planning" programs, have burnished their credentials while they do nothing to reverse the Food and Drug Administration's September, 2000, decision to market the human pesticide, RU-486, the French abortion pill, while they do nothing to reverse the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE), while they campaign most actively for fully pro-abortion candidates who belong to their own political party. (From: An Illusion of a Victory.)

The 2024 Republican Party platform is, on this point, simply trying to score a few political points with those younger “pro-life” voters who have (a) no understanding of the battles that had been fought to include and to keep a “pro-life” plank in the Republican Party platform; and (b) who believe that late-term baby-killing is somehow more deplorable than a killing that takes earlier in a baby’s life. (See the appendix below for a review of the metamorphosis of the Republican Party
“pro-life” platform from 1980 to 2020.)

Then again, it must be remembered that very few people ever pay much attention to political party platforms, including the presidential and vice-presidential nominees themselves.

To wit, the late United States Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen, R-Illinois, who was the Minority Leader of the United States Senate from January 3, 1959, to the time of his death on September 7, 1969, and an irascible thirty-third degree Freemason with a gravel voice who was a fine orator in behalf of naturalism, took to the podium of the Republican National Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in 1952 and pointed his finger at New York Governor Thomas E. Dewey, who had been the Republican Party's nominee for President of the United States of America in 1944 an1948, and said, "You led us down the long road to defeat (long pause while he shook his finger)—twice!  (Those who are interested might can Dirksen’s excoriation of Dewey in the nominating speech he, Dirksen, delivered on behalf of seating the pro-Senator Robert Taft delegation from the State of Georgia as opposed to the pro-Dwight David Eisenhower delegation at www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrR-34t7P0U. Dirksen’s references to the his service as a Republican had all the overtones of belong to a true secular church.)

Dirksen, a true Freemason who was prone to changing his mind on issues very frequently as he had no genuine, lasting principles to guide him, was the Chairman of the Republican National Convention Platform Committee in 1968. He took to the podium in Miami Beach, Florida, during the 1968 Republican National Convention and held up the massive bound document containing the pages of the platform, saying to the assembled delegates: "Here is your platform," thereupon throwing the huge book down to the convention floor from the podium. "All in favor, say 'Aye'!" And that was the end of the Republican platform for 1968.

Political party platforms are interesting naturalistic exercises in putting together a statement of positions on various issues of concern to the rank-and-file party members as well as to "independent" voters in some instances. They rarely serve as the foundation of public policy, as the late Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen demonstrated mockingly in 1968 when he threw the Republican Party Platform book onto the convention floor in Miami Beach, Florida. What matters are the positions taken by a party's presidential nominee, not the party's platform, most of which is designed to keep the "Indians on the reservation" when a particular nominee takes views that diverge from those expressed in the platform.

All this having been noted, however, the most egregious parts of the 2024 Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, concerned the invocation of false gods and the fact that a pro-abortion feminist who is involved in satanism was permitted to give a speech during this spectacle of pluralism and abject religious indifferentism:

The Republican National Convention (RNC) received backlash from conservatives for “giving a primetime speaking slot” to “pro-abortion feminist” Amber Rose on Monday.

In her speech at the RNC, the OnlyFans model and ex-girlfriend of Kanye West endorsed former President Donald Trump and accused the media of lying about him.

“I believed the left-wing propaganda that Donald Trump was a racist,” she told the audience, before claiming that her own “research” then led her to realize that “Donald Trump and his supporters don’t care if you’re Black, White, gay, or straight, it’s all love.”

While many Republicans expressed support for Rose and praised her speech, a number of conservatives condemned the RNC for platforming a woman who has expressed support for abortion, among other liberal causes.

“The RNC gives a primetime speaking slot to a pro-abortion feminist and self-proclaimed slut with a face tattoo whose only claim to fame is having sex with rappers,” protested Daily Wire host Matt Walsh. “Truly an embarrassment. Not a single voter will be mobilized by this person.”

“The RNC is quietly crushing those who don’t want the GOP to drift left while elevating people like Amber Rose, a speaker who in *March* praised *Satanism* as a ‘very rational, logical religion’ that helps ‘a lot of women to get abortions,” tweeted Chronicles Magazine columnist Pedro Gonzalez. “This will go beyond social issues.”

Catholic traditionalist commentator Dr. Taylor Marshall reacted, “Amber Rose out there on stage making me NOT want to vote for Trump. This is embarrassing,” while the anti-Trump conservative Lincoln Project observed, “Mike Johnson is nodding along as OnlyFans model and ‘Slutwalk’ creator Amber Rose speaks onstage.”

Rose did receive support from a number of Republicans, including Benny Johnson, who praised the OnlyFans model’s “powerful speech,” and New Mexico State Rep. John Block, who argued that criticism of Rose was “pushing people away from our party.”

Rose’s performance was also praised by CNN contributor Scott Jennings, who described the model as “super talented,” and CNN host Van Jones, who suggested that Rose could have a future in politics. (Conservatives Slam RNC Giving Speaking Slot to Amber Rose.)

Well, there are many reasons not to vote for Donald John Trump, who does seem to be affected by the assassination attempt on his life on Saturday, July 13, 2024, the Feast of Saint Pius I and the one hundred seventh anniversary of Our Lady’s third apparition in the Cova da Iria near Fatima, Portugal. No matter Trump’s publicly crediting God with saving his life, though, the cause of fundamental justice founded in a due submission to the Divine and Natural Laws in all that pertains to the good of souls is not served by having someone such as Amber Rose, about whom I had never heard prior to this time.

Ah, but the good of souls is also not served by promoting the human pesticide, the abortion pill and its variants, contraception, baby-killing in the “hard case,” in vitro fertilization, and much, although not all, of the sodomite agenda, including getting James David Vance to make nice-nice with the Log Cabin Republicans.

More than anything else, however, the indignation of the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Blessed Trinity, is aroused whenever false goods are called true as their nonexistent protection is invoked publicly, something that happened on Monday, July 15, 2024, the Feast of Saint Henry the Emperor, at the 2024 Republican National Convention:

Last night’s opening session of the GOP National Convention, which earlier in the day had officially nominated Donald J. Trump as the party’s 2024 presidential candidate, closed out with a prayer to a god other than Jesus Christ, the genderless god of the Sikh religion that believes in rebirth and karma.

High-profile Republican attorney Harmeet Dhillon took to the podium, covered her head, and chanted the “ardas” prayer to “Waheguru, our one true God” seeking blessing upon and protection for the candidacy of former President Trump.

Christian commentators were troubled by what they interpreted to be an affront to Catholics and Evangelical Christians who comprise the vast majority of the Republican Party, dangerously implying that all religions are equal.

The prayer was also seen by some as a way of distancing the GOP from national conservatism, a growing movement that views Christianity as the best way to preserve the United States and the western world from the rising power and influence of globalist woke neo-Marxist power.

“Imagine getting on a massive cult of personality emotional high watching Trump survive assassination, convince yourself that he has some kind of mandate from heaven, and then see the RNC open with a prayer to a demon,” said Ben Zeisloft, editor of the Republic Sentinel.

“America must turn to the Triune God. Not to Allah. Not to Vishnu. Not to ‘Waheguru,’” Zeisloft declared in a subsequent post on X, adding, “Jesus Christ alone is Lord, King, and Judge of all the earth. We must repent and trust in him or else expect his righteous judgments.”

Matt Gaspers, managing editor of Catholic Family News, hit the nail on the head:

I’m glad Abp. Listecki was invited to pray “through Jesus Christ our Lord” at GOP convention, but Harmeet Dhillon was also allowed to invoke the name of a false god, thus giving the impression that all religions are equal.

Christ is King, not “Waheguru”!

“Harmeet Dhillon has done great work. She should be invited on stage to speak about that and to support President Trump,” outspoken conservative commentator Father Calvin Robinson said.

“But to invite her to pray to a pagan god, leading those prayers with ‘Dear Waheguru, our one true God’ is entirely inappropriate,” Robinson continued. “What is worse is all the RINOs bowing their heads in prayer.”

“Christ is King,” he proclaimed.

“Whoa: 2024 is that year that associating Republicans with evangelicalism officially ends,” suggested Anthony Bradley, research fellow at the Acton Institute.

“Harmeet Dhillon thanks the Chardikala spirit to close out the RNC convention,” Bradley continued. “She prayed, ‘Dear Waheguru, our one true God.’ Vance’s wife is a practicing Hindu, etc. This is the new RNC.”

“ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE!!” another X user said in all caps.

“I have nothing but respect for Harmeet Dhillon,” he said, “but fire whoever invited her to pray to a foreign god, there is only one true God we pray to and his name is not whatever she said. His name is YAHWEH and his only begotten Son is Jesus Christ.”

Dhillon: ‘Waheguru, our one true God’

“These last 48 hours have been some of the most intense, yet most prayerful of our lives. The heinous attack on President Trump and his supporters made all of us pause and seek answers in comfort. I come from a family of Sikh immigrants, and I’m honored to share with you, my fellow Republicans and guests tonight, a prayer from my faith and tradition practiced by over 25 million worldwide,” Dhillon said before praying.

“We recite the Ardas prayer before any new endeavor, giving thanks to God and ask him for his protection and help uphold the values of humility, truth, courage, service and justice for all,” she explained.

After the Ardas prayer, she further prayed, “Dear Waheguru, our one true God, we thank you for creating America as a unique haven on this Earth, where all people are free to worship according to their faith. We seek your blessings and guidance for our beloved country. Please bless our people with wisdom as they vote for the upcoming election and please bless with humility, honesty, skill and integrity all those who conduct the election.”

In May, Trump offered unequivocal, glowing praise for Dhillon:

Harmeet Dhillon is one of the best Lawyers in the Country, and she and her Law Firm have done a terrific job for me in so many cases. She has been a Fierce Advocate for the MAGA Movement, and a Warrior for Election Integrity and Constitutional Rights at every level. Harmeet is a Great Asset to the Republican Party in California, and has my Complete and Total Endorsement for Re-Election as RNC Committeewoman for California! (GOP closed out Day 1 of its national convention with a prayer to pagan god 'Waheguru'.)

I do not care how fierce of an advocate that Harmeet Dhillon has been for the “make America great again” movement as I belong to the make America Catholic again movement that is simply the desire to replant the seeds that the Spanish and French missionaries to this land planted in the Fifteenth, Sixteenth, Seventeenth, and Eighteenth Centuries and that missionaries such as Saint Turibius, Saint Francis Solano, Saint Peter Calver, the North American Martyrs, Father Pierre Jean de Smet, Father Francis Xavier Weninger, S.J., and Saint Frances Xavier Cabrini tried to bring to fruition in the Nineteenth and, in the case of  Mother Cabrini, the early Twentieth Centuries, thank you very much.

Harmeet Dhillon invoked her call to the demon named Waheguru on what was the Vigil of Our Lady of Mount Carmelite in the Carmelite Rite, calling to mind that it was on Mount Carmel that Elias the Prophet, the founder of the Carmelites, whose feast was celebrate in the Carmelite Rite on Saturday, July 20, 2024, which is the Feast of Saint Jerome Emiliani universally in the Roman Rite, did war with and defeat Ba’al and his demons:

“‘Nevertheless send now, and gather unto me all Israel, unto Mount Carmel, and the prophets of Baal four hundred and fifty, and the prophets of the groves four hundred, who eat at Jezebel’s table.’

“Achab sent to all the children of Israel, and gathered together the prophets unto Mount Carmel.

“And Elias coming to all the people, said: ‘How long do you halt between two sides? If the Lord be God, follow Him: but if Baal, follow him.’ And the people did not answer him a word.

“And Elias said again to the people: ‘I only remain a prophet of the Lord: but the prophets of Baal are four hundred and fifty men. Let two bullocks be given us, and let them choose one bullock and cut it in pieces and lay it upon wood, but put no fire under: and I will dress the other bullock, and lay it on wood, and put no fire under it. Call ye the names of your gods, and I will call on the name of my Lord; and the God that shall answer by fire, let him be God.’ And all of the people answering said: ‘A very good proposal.’

“Then Elias said to the prophets of Baal: ‘Choose you one bullock and dress it first, because you are many; and call on the names of your gods, but put no fire under.’

“And they took the bullock which he gave them, and dressed it; and they called on the name of Baal from morning even till noon, saying: ‘O Baal, hear us.’ But there was no voice, nor any that answered: and they leaped over the altar that they had made.

“And when it was now noon, Elias jested at them, saying: ‘Cry with a louder voice: for he is a God, and perhaps he is talking, or he is in an inn, or on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep, and must be awaked.’

“So they cried with a loud voice, and cut themselves after their manner with knives and lancets, till they were covered with blood. And after midday was past, and while they were prophesying, the time was come of offering sacrifice, and there was no voice heard, nor did any one answer, nor regard them as they prayed: Elias said to the people: ‘Come ye unto me.’ And the people coming near unto him, he repaired the altar of the Lord, that was broken down:

“And he took twelve stones according to the number of the tribes of the sons of Jacob, to whom the word of the Lord came, saying: ‘Israel shall be thy name.’ And he built with the stones an altar to the name of the Lord: and he made a trench for water, of the breadth of two furrows round about the altar. And he laid the wood in order, and cut the bullock in pieces, and laid it upon the wood.

“And he said: “Fill four buckets with water, and pour it upon the burnt offering, and upon the wood.’ And again he said: ‘Do the same the second time.’ And when they had done it the second time, he said: ‘Do the same also the third time.’ And they did so the third time. And the water run about the altar, and the trench was filled with water.

“And when it was now time to offer the holocaust, Elias the prophet came near and said: ‘O Lord God of Abraham and Isaac, and Israel, show this day that thou art the God of Israel, and I thy servant, and that according to they commandment I have done all these things. Hear me, O Lord, hear me: that this people may learn, that thou art the Lord God, and that thou hast turned their heart again.’

“Then the fire of the Lord fell, and consumed the holocaust, and the wood, and the stones, and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench. And when all the people saw this, they fell on their faces, and they said: ‘The Lord he is God, the Lord he is God.’ And Elias said to them: ‘Take the prophets of Baal, and let not one of them escape.’ And when they had taken them, Elias brought them down to the torrent Cison, and killed them there” (3 Kings 18:19-40)

Baal was invoked at the Republican National Convention. I want nothing to do with Baal.

While it is certainly the case that the conciliar authorities have been bowing down at the altar of Baal for decades upon decades, Catholics can no sooner be quiet about blasphemies uttered by those in public life than they can be about those that are continuing to be uttered a supposed “pope” and his henchmen.

Moreover, Catholic saints and martyrs reveled in the destruction of false idols as they took seriously the dictates of the First Commandment and the words that King David wrote in Psalm 95, verse 1:

I am the LORD thy God: thou shalt not have strange Gods before me.

For all the gods of the Gentiles are devils: but the Lord made the heavens. (Psalm 95: 5)

None of us who takes our Catholic Faith seriously can consider false idols to be worthy of worship in order to please pagans who have rejected the simple fact the Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity became Incarnate in the Virginal and Immaculate Womb of Our Lady by the power of God the Holy Ghost.

Ah, but here is the rub: the conciliar sect’s embrace of religious indifferentism and its constant obeisance to false gods, their symbols and their places of false worship has everything to do with the false notion of “religious freedom” that sprung to life during the American and French Revolutions, albeit in different forms that nevertheless accomplished the same ends over time: the mainstreaming of paganism and atheism as replacements for the true Faith.

be given "worship space" is, as mentioned just before, the logical result of the "religious liberty" enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America and that was extolled in the "Second" Vatican Council's Dignitatis Humanae, December 7, 1965, and has been made the linchpin of the "magisterium" of the conciliar "pontiffs," especially as we have seen in the cases of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. There is no rational foundation for the civil state to enact and enforce legislation to prevent the direct display of devil worship when the true God of Revelation and His true Church are not accorded official status by that civil state. One man's false religion is another man's "true religion" in our post-Catholic world of pluralism.

Pope Pius IX, writing in Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864, made it very clear that there can be no means to retard falsehoods in civil society once the civil state makes no distinctions between the one and only true religion, Catholicism, and false religions:

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. (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864.)

Pope Leo XIII noted in Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885, that atheism becomes the lowest common cultural denominator when the civil state refuses to recognize the true religion and to pursue the common temporal good in light of man's Last End, the possession of the glory of the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost for all eternity:

Now, natural reason itself proves convincingly that such concepts of the government of a State are wholly at variance with the truth. Nature itself bears witness that all power, of every kind, has its origin from God, who is its chief and most august source.

The sovereignty of the people, however, and this without any reference to God, is held to reside in the multitude; which is doubtless a doctrine exceedingly well calculated to flatter and to inflame many passions, but which lacks all reasonable proof, and all power of insuring public safety and preserving order. Indeed, from the prevalence of this teaching, things have come to such a pass that may hold as an axiom of civil jurisprudence that seditions may be rightfully fostered. For the opinion prevails that princes are nothing more than delegates chosen to carry out the will of the people; whence it necessarily follows that all things are as changeable as the will of the people, so that risk of public disturbance is ever hanging over our heads.

To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name. Men who really believe in the existence of God must, in order to be consistent with themselves and to avoid absurd conclusions, understand that differing modes of divine worship involving dissimilarity and conflict even on most important points cannot all be equally probable, equally good, and equally acceptable to God. (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)

The true worship of God is the first obligation of men. It is also the first obligation of civil states. Pope after pope made this clear for the better part of nineteen centuries prior to the dawning of the age of conciliarism with the "election" of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII on October 28, 1958. Even the pagans of antiquity who believed in a variety of false "gods" had elaborate public liturgies to give official state expression of the cultus that bound its people together. The rise of the naturalistic, religiously indifferentist, anti-Incarnational civil state of Modernity that treats all religions and irreligion itself as equal before the law has been a relatively recent phenomenon in the history of the world, starting with the religious indifferentism of the American founding and the anti-Theism f the French Revolution and the French First Republic, and we are eyewitnesses to the degeneration that has been wrought as a result.

We were given quite specific warnings about the degeneration that has taken place as false ideas lead logically and inevitably to bad consequences. Protestantism is false. All forms of naturalism are false. The only thing that can result from Protestantism, which is founded in a revolution against the Divine Plan that God Himself instituted to effect man's return to Him through the Catholic Church, and from naturalism, which convinces man that religious beliefs are irrelevant in the pursuit of the common temporal good and the conduct of daily life, is social degeneration, which must accelerate as time progresses with a corrective remedy provided by the conversion of men and their nation to the true Faith. A snowball increases its velocity as it gathers mass as it spirals downward a hill or a mountain in an avalanche. The same is true with the unfettered evils against God and His Holy Faith that have been let loose in the world as a result of the Protestant Revolution and Judeo-Masonry's promotion of the religiously indifferentist civil state.

The process of degeneration has accelerated in recent decades as a direct result of the counterfeit church of conciliarism and its bogus liturgies and sacramental rites that are devoid of Sanctifying Grace and have thus turned many Catholics into the modern equivalent of barbarians, believing in the same kind of pagan superstitions as did the savages who scalped and tortured the North American Martyrs. However, this process of degeneration has taken place as many well-meaning Catholics have been asleep at the switch, refusing to recognize that the Americanist version of "religious liberty" is precisely what paved the way for the conciliarist version of this heresy, something that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has noted on a number of occasions, including in his famous December 22, 2005, Christmas address to the members of the conciliar curia in the Vatican:

In the meantime, however, the modern age had also experienced developments. People came to realize that the American Revolution was offering a model of a modern State that differed from the theoretical model with radical tendencies that had emerged during the second phase of the French Revolution. (Christmas greetings to the Members of the Roman Curia and Prelature, December 22, 2005.) 

Although the "model of a modern State" that emerged from the American Revolution did indeed differ from the "theoretical model with radical tendencies that had emerged during the second phase of the French Revolution," that difference was only a matter of degree, not of kind. The anti-Theism of the French Revolution even in its first phase from 1789 to 1792 was direct, open and violent, although not as bloodthirsty as the second phase's Reign of Terror under Maximilian Robespierre and The Directory. The American Revolution's anti-Theism was more subtle in that it paved the way for our current circumstances by bestowing irreligion with protected "constitutional right," thus making it impossible to stop the open worship of the devil (as opposed to the more subtle forms of devil worship found in other false religions) even within the armed forces of the United States of America.

Pope Leo XIII warned in Longiqua Oceani, January 6, 1895, that the American model of Church-State relations was, contrary to what is being contended currently by Ratzinger/Benedict, not the one to be followed in the rest of the world:

For the Church amongst you, unopposed by the Constitution and government of your nation, fettered by no hostile legislation, protected against violence by the common laws and the impartiality of the tribunals, is free to live and act without hindrance. Yet, though all this is true, it would be very erroneous to draw the conclusion that in America is to be sought the type of the most desirable status of the Church, or that it would be universally lawful or expedient for State and Church to be, as in America, dissevered and divorced. The fact that Catholicity with you is in good condition, nay, is even enjoying a prosperous growth, is by all means to be attributed to the fecundity with which God has endowed His Church, in virtue of which unless men or circumstances interfere, she spontaneously expands and propagates herself; but she would bring forth more abundant fruits if, in addition to liberty, she enjoyed the favor of the laws and the patronage of the public authority. (Pope Leo XIII, Longiqua Oceani, January 6, 1895.)

Although I have written many hundreds of times before on this website that we are not solving any social problem, each of which is the product of both Original Sin and the Actual Sins of us all, politically, legally, constitutionally, ecumenically, or naturalistically, it is nevertheless true that Catholics in public life have an obligation to defend the true Faith and to defend the binding precepts of the Divine and Natural Laws no matter what may befall them electorally.

What good is it to “win” by keeping silent about the truth or, worse yet, making “compromise” with it as there does come a point when a muted and compromised “lesser evil” is actually more dangerous the vocal and committed “greater evil?”

Our obligations are to the greater honor and glory of Christ the King, His true Church, and the good of souls, none of which is accomplished by means of keeping a “prudent silence” about moral evil and accepting the invocation of devils as being consonant with the public good.

Stick a fork in me.

I am done.

No more.

I am through.

Believe what you want.

Act as you will.

That which is not of God can come to no good, and I can assure you that invocations of devils and the support of contraception, baby-killing in the “hard cases,” in vitro fertilization, surrogate motherhood, and the celebration of sodomite “marriages” and relationships are not of God, at least not the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Blessed Trinity.

Remember, America plays no role in the final battle:

Finally we came to the important subject of the second July secret, of which so many different and conflicting versions have been published. Lucia made it plain that Our Lady did not ask for the consecration of the world to her Immaculate Heart. What she demanded specifically was the consecration of Russia. She did not comment, of course, on the fact that Pope Pius XII had consecrated the world, not Russia, to the Immaculate Heart in 1942. But she said more than once, and with deliberate emphasis:

“What Our Lady wants is that the Pope and all the bishops in the world shall consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart on one special day. If this is done, she will convert Russia and there will be peace. If it is not done, the errors of Russia will spread through every country in the world.”

“Does this mean, in your opinion, that every country, without exception, will be overcome by Communism?”

Yes.

It was plain that she felt that Our Lady’s wishes had not yet been carried out. People must say the Rosary, perform sacrifices, make the five first Saturday Communions, pray for the Holy Father. 

“Did Our Lady ever say anything to you about the United States of America?”

She gave me a rather studied glance, and then smiled in faint amusement, as if to suggest that perhaps the United States was not so important in the general scheme of things as I imagined.  (William Thomas Walsh, Our Lady of Fatima, published by Doubleday, New York, New York, 1954, pp. 228-229.)

No, the United States of America is not as important as most Americans, including most American Catholics, have imagined, but it has been, of course, overcome by Communism, albeit of a “soft” nature that envelops both the false opposites of the naturalist “left” and “right.” There goes the Judeo-Masonic myth of "American exceptionalism" down the sink hole. ‘

We can help to plant the seeds for the conversion of men and their nations to the Faith and hence to an acceptance of a due submission to teaching of Christ the King in all that pertains to the good of souls, upon which the entirety of social order is premised, by assisting, if possible, with great reverence and recollection at Holy Mass, spending time, if possible, before Our Lord’s Real Presence, and, of course, by renewing our Total Consecration to as our state-in-life permit.

All the sufferings, humiliations, and sorrows of this present life can be meritorious for us and for others if we offer them freely to Our Lord as His consecrated slaves through the same Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

We must not look for results. We must only try to beg Our Lady to cooperate with the graces her Divine Son won for us on the wood of the Holy Cross that are sent to us through her loving hands as the Mediatrix of All Graces.

What should matter us more than anything else is the salvation of our immortal souls as we, unlike the politicians of the false opposites of the naturalist left and right, run for the Divine favor every day our lives, which can end at any time, and as we see His Divine help and Our Lady’s loving, maternal protection and intercession now and at the hour of our death.

Our Lady told us that her Immaculate Heart would triumph in the end. We must ever confident that this is so, and thus be content to do our daily duties with peace of mind and with hearts that are consecrated to her Divine Son’s Most Sacred Heart through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart.

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!  

Our Lady, Mother of God, 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.

Saint Praxedes, pray for us.

Appendix

Commentary on the Metamorphosis of the Republican Party Platforms’ “Pro-Life” Planks

The first time that the Republican Party inserted a “pro-life” plank was in 1980, and it was one that included the by now standard canard that baby-killing was a “difficult” issue about which people of “good will” could disagree:

There can be no doubt that the question of abortion, despite the complex nature of its various issues, is ultimately concerned with equality of rights under the law. While we recognize differing views on this question among Americans in general—and in our own Party—we affirm our support of a constitutional amendment to restore protection of the right to life for unborn children. We also support the Congressional efforts to restrict the use of taxpayers' dollars for abortion.

We protest the Supreme Court's intrusion into the family structure through its denial of the parent's obligation and right to guide their minor children. (Republican Party Platform of 1980 | The American Presidency Project.)

Brief Comment:

There is nothing “complex” about “Thou shalt not kill.”

There is nothing “complex” about killing a preborn baby.

Even though Ronald Wilson Reagan was a naturalist whose administration could have done far more to promote the inviolability of innocent life in the womb, he at least spoke unapologetically about the issue of baby-killing regularly and came to reject all exceptions by the end of his presidency, and it was during his debate with independent presidential candidate United States Representative John B. Anderson (Republican, Rockford, Illinois) in Baltimore, Maryland, on September 21, 1980, that the then former Governor of California said the following:

With regard to the freedom of the individual for choice with regard to abortion, there is one individual who is not being considered at all, and that is the one who is being aborted. And I have noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born. (Ronald Reagan and John Anderson Presidential Debate.)

This having been noted, however, the 1980 Republican Party platform did contain support for a constitutional amendment to “restore the protection of the right to life for unborn children.”

The principal legislative effort during the administration of President Ronald Reagan centered on efforts to pass a constitutional amendment that was introduced by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). The Hatch Amendment would have reversed Roe v. Wade by establishing the principle that the right to permit or restrict abortion was held solely by the state legislatures, not by Federal or state courts. This fatally flawed piece of legislation conceded that a human institution, a state legislature, had the authority to permit something that was proscribed by the binding precepts of the Divine positive law and the natural law. If it had been approved by a two-thirds majority in Congress and ratified by three-fourths of the nation's state legislatures, the Hatch Amendment would have enshrined abortion as matter of legal right whose exact parameters were subject to the deliberation of state legislators. This morally repugnant legislative initiative was "hatched" by the then Monsignor James T. McHugh of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and endorsed very strongly by the full body of American bishops, save for Bishop Joseph Sullivan of Baton Rouge, and the National Right to Life Committee, which lobbied very hard for its passage in Congress.]

The squeamish approach of establishment Republicans to the Texas abortion law is reminiscent of a similar approach taken by establishment Republicans to President Reagan’s strong anti-abortion position in the run-up to the 1984 election against Democrat Walter Mondale. Steven Hayward, the preeminent chronicler of the age of Reagan, recalled that when Reagan proposed to write an article about abortion for the Human Life Review in 1983, many of his political advisers “were nervous about publishing such an article so close to his reelection campaign.” Reagan replied to them: “I might not be reelected. We’re going with it now.”

Reagan’s article, “Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation,” appeared in the February issue of the Human Life Review and made headlines throughout the country. Then in January 1984 — even closer to the election — the article was reprinted in book form under the same title. The book included Reagan’s original article and similar anti-abortion pieces by Dr. C. Everett Koop and Malcolm Muggeridge.

Reagan began the article by condemning the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade as an unconstitutional act of “raw judicial power” (quoting Justice Byron White’s dissent). “We cannot diminish the value of one human life — the unborn — without diminishing the value of all human life,” Reagan wrote. He compared Roe v. Wade to the infamous Dred Scott decision, which similarly devalued human life. “When we talk about abortion,” Reagan continued, “we are talking about two lives — the life of the mother and the life of the unborn child.” Human life, Reagan said, begins at conception, but the real question posed by abortion is “What is the value of human life?” The tiny life in the womb, Reagan emphasized, has “a God-given right to be protected by the law.” (Remembering Reagan’s ‘Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation’.)

Such rhetorical courage is not to be found among the likes of Donald John Trump and James David Vance, who have now paid their obeisance to political expediency, which Reagan, to his credit, was willing to ignore.

Thus, the 1984 Republican Party platform reflected then President Reagan’s rhetoric absent, however, a call for a constitutional amendment to restore legal protection to the preborn:

Prominent among American ideals is the sanctity of the family. Decisions on family size should be made freely by each family. We support efforts to enhance the freedom of such family decisions. We will endeavor to assure that those who are responsible for our programs are more sensitive to the cultural needs of the countries to which we give assistance.

As part of our commitment to the family and our opposition to abortion, we will eliminate all U.S. funding for organizations which in any way support abortion or research on abortion methods. (Republican Party Platform of 1984.)

One can see that the “goal post” had shifted away support away from a constitutional amend to opposition to taxpayer funding for abortions.

Some might cite the so-called “Mexico City Policy” as one of the Reagan administration’s pro-life “triumphs,” but it was nothing of the sort, not then and not in its subsequent iterations:

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)

Moreover, even though then President Trump’s iteration of the Mexico City Policy extended to all Federal agencies and not just to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to forbid them from using American taxpayer dollars to promote surgical abortion as a means of “family planning,” “family planning” is itself odious to God, injurious to individuals, destructive to families and fatal to the welfare of nations. Most of our social problems are the direct result of the destruction of the stability of the family, the proliferation of unwed mothers and of children sent off to pre-school and after-school “care” programs, meaning that grow up never having experienced the meaning of a stable family and thus of the true love and sense of security to be found therein. Indeed, many of Federal entitlement programs exist to provide taxpayer assistance to children who live in poverty as a result of the consequences of contraception and the unstable situations in which they live.

Here is the text of President Trump’s presidential memorandum restoring the Mexico City Policy, which extends the ban of American taxpayer dollars being provided to “family planning” agencies in foreign countries that use surgical abortion as a means of “family planning”:

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE
                                    THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
                                    THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE UNITED STATES AGENCY
                                    FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

SUBJECT:                    The Mexico City Policy

I hereby revoke the Presidential Memorandum of January 23, 2009, for the Secretary of State and the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development (Mexico City Policy and Assistance for Voluntary Population Planning), and reinstate the Presidential Memorandum of January 22, 2001, for the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development (Restoration of the Mexico City Policy).

I direct the Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to the extent allowable by law, to implement a plan to extend the requirements of the reinstated Memorandum to global health assistance furnished by all departments or agencies.

I further direct the Secretary of State to take all necessary actions, to the extent permitted by law, to ensure that U.S. taxpayer dollars do not fund organizations or programs that support or participate in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.

This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

The Secretary of State is authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

DONALD J. TRUMP  (Presidential Memorandum on The Mexico City Policy.)

The George Walker Bush version of the "Mexico City" policy, as the "gag" order is 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 that Trump restored in 2017 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 "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.

President Reagan was well-meaning, his policies, given their inclusion of “exceptions,” did not save any lives, but his political influence was such as to assure the 1988 Republican Party reinstated its call for a constitutional amendment:

That the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We therefore reaffirm our support for a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. We oppose the use of public revenues for abortion and will eliminate funding for organizations which advocate or support abortion. We commend the efforts of those individuals and religious and private organizations that are providing positive alternatives to abortion by meeting the physical, emotional, and financial needs of pregnant women and offering adoption services where needed. (Republican Party Platform of 1988.)

Despite President George Herbert Walker Bush’s relative inaction on the protection of the innocent preborn, the 1992 Republican Party platform was more or less a mirror of the one in 1988:

We believe the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We therefore reaffirm our support for a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We commend those who provide alternatives to abortion by meeting the needs of mothers and offering adoption services. We reaffirm our support for appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life. (Republican Party Platform of 1992.)

It was four years later that former Senate Majority Leader, Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., a thirty-third degree Freemason, tried to water down the pro-life plank to include a provision for “tolerance” of those who support the chemical and surgical assassination of preborn babies. Delegates who were pledged to vote for Patrick Joseph Buchanan at the 1996 Republican National Convention in San Diego, California, though, used their pitchforks to maintain most of the language in the previous two platforms:

The unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.

Our goal is to ensure that women with problem pregnancies have the kind of support, material and otherwise, they need for themselves and for their babies, not to be punitive towards those for whose difficult situation we have only compassion. We oppose abortion, but our pro-life agenda does not include punitive action against women who have an abortion. We salute those who provide alternatives to abortion and offer adoption services. Republicans in Congress took the lead in expanding assistance both for the costs of adoption and for the continuing care of adoptive children with special needs. Bill Clinton vetoed our adoption tax credit the first time around - and opposed our efforts to remove racial barriers to adoption - before joining in this long overdue measure of support for adoptive families.

Worse than that, he vetoed the ban on partial-birth abortions, a procedure denounced by a committee of the American Medical Association and rightly branded as four-fifths infanticide. We applaud Bob Dole's commitment to revoke the Clinton executive orders concerning abortion and to sign into law an end to partial-birth abortions. (Republican Party Platform of 1996.)

Ah, one can see that the issue of crushed-skull abortions, which was mentioned in the main body of this commentary, made its first appearance in a Republican Party platform, and it was first and foremost in the 2000 Republican Party platform:

The Supreme Court's recent decision, prohibiting states from banning partial-birth abortions — a procedure denounced by a committee of the American Medical Association and rightly branded as four-fifths infanticide — shocks the conscience of the nation. As a country, we must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.

The Supreme Court's recent decision, prohibiting states from banning partial-birth abortions — a procedure denounced by a committee of the American Medical Association and rightly branded as four-fifths infanticide — shocks the conscience of the nation. As a country, we must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.

Our goal is to ensure that women with problem pregnancies have the kind of support, material and otherwise, they need for themselves and for their babies, not to be punitive towards those for whose difficult situation we have only compassion. We oppose abortion, but our pro-life agenda does not include punitive action against women who have an abortion. We salute those who provide alternatives to abortion and offer adoption services, and we commend congressional Republicans for expanding assistance to adopting families and for removing racial barriers to adoption. The impact of those measures and of our Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 has been spectacular. Adoptions out of foster care have jumped forty percent and the incidence of child abuse and neglect has actually declined. We second Governor Bush's call to make permanent the adoption tax credit and expand it to $7,500. (2000 Republican Party Platform.)

The 2004 Republican Party platform contained similar language as the one in 2000, although it gave undeserved praise to the supposed “pro-life” record of President George Walker Bush, whose anti-life record has been recounted on this website so many times before:

As a country, we must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.

Our goal is to ensure that women with problem pregnancies have the kind of support, material and otherwise, they need for themselves and for their babies, not to be punitive towards those for whose difficult situation we have only compassion. We oppose abortion, but our pro-life agenda does not include punitive action against women who have an abortion. We salute those who provide alternatives to abortion and offer adoption services, and we commend Congressional Republicans for expanding assistance to adopting families and for removing racial barriers to adoption. We join the President in supporting crisis pregnancy programs and parental notification laws. And we applaud President Bush for allowing states to extend health care coverage to unborn children.

We praise the President for his bold leadership in defense of life. We praise him for signing the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. This important legislation ensures that every infant born alive – including an infant who survives an abortion procedure – is considered a person under federal law.

We praise Republicans in Congress for passing, with strong bipartisan support, a ban on the inhumane procedure known as partial birth abortion. And we applaud President Bush for signing legislation outlawing partial birth abortion and for vigorously defending it in the courts.

In signing the partial birth abortion ban, President Bush reminded us that "the most basic duty of government is to defend the life of the innocent. Every person, however frail or vulnerable, has a place and a purpose in this world." We affirm the inherent dignity and worth of all people. We oppose the non-consensual withholding of care or treatment because of disability, age, or infirmity, just as we oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide, which especially endanger the poor and those on the margins of society. We support President Bush's decision to restore the Drug Enforcement Administration's policy that controlled substances shall not be used for assisted suicide. We applaud Congressional Republicans for their leadership against those abuses and their pioneering legislation to focus research and treatment resources on the alleviation of pain and the care of terminally ill patients. (2004 Republican Party Platform.)

Pro-life Americans permitted themselves to be deceived during the administration of President George Walker Bush, who, if you recall, permitted Federal taxpayer funds to be used for research on "fetal stem cell lines" that had been "harvested" before 9:00 p.m. on Thursday, August 9, 2001. 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.)

Much as happened with traditionally-minded Catholics within the structures of counterfeit church of concialirsim during the Ratzinger years as they projected their own hopes for a “restoration” upon a man who had long championed anathematized propositions and dared to violate openly and flagrantly the binding precepts of the First and Second Commandments, most “pro-life” Americans projected their hopes for “progress” to stop abortion upon a shallow political figure, George Walker Bush, who more or less told us on October 28, 2003, that he was “done” with the issue of baby-killing with the passage of the conditional, partial ban on crushed skull abortions:

Q Sir, in your last campaign, you said that the American public was not ready for a complete ban on abortion. You're about to sign legislation that will ban a certain abortion procedure known as partial birth. Do you believe that the climate has changed since the last campaign and all abortions should be banned? And do you believe your brother made the correct decision in Florida when he intervened in the case of a woman who had been ordered by the courts to be taken off life support?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I believe my brother made the right decision. Yes, I'll sign the ban on partial birth abortion. And, no, I don't think the culture has changed to the extent that the American people or the Congress would totally ban abortions.  (Bush the Lesser Press Conference, October 28, 2003.)

The country will never be “ready” to totally ban abortion if its leaders are unwilling to take the political risks necessary to persuade citizens that human law must be subordinated to the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law in all that pertains to the good of souls and to the protection of innocent beings from direct, intentional attacks upon them. Then again, why should they take such risks when the conciliar "popes" of the past refused to excommunicate pro-abortion Democrats, thus empowering supposedly "pro-life" Republicans to offer nothing but meaningless crumbs that while the chemical and surgical execution of the innocent preborn becomes more and more institutionalized?

Four years later, that is in 2008, United States Senator John Sidney McCain III (R-Arizona) tried to soften the pro-life plank in the platform as he was never comfortable with being “pro-life” and was considering asking his pro-abortion friend, then United States Senator Joseph Liberman, a Democrat, to be his running-mate against United States Senators Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro D-Illinois) and Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. (D- Delaware). McCain was unsuccessful in his effort:

Faithful to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence, we assert the inherent dignity and sanctity of all human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamenttal individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity and dignity of innocent human life.

We have made progress. The Supreme Court has upheld prohibitions against the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion. States are now permitted to extend health-care coverage to children before birth. And the Born Alive Infants Protection Act has become law; this law ensures that infants who are born alive during an abortion receive all treatment and care that is provided to all newborn infants and are not neglected and left to die. We must protect girls from exploitation and statutory rape through a parental notification requirement. We all have a moral obligation to assist, not to penalize, women struggling with the challenges of an unplanned pregnancy. At its core, abortion is a fundamental assault on the sanctity of innocent human life. Women deserve better than abortion. Every effort should be made to work with women considering abortion to enable and empower them to choose life. We salute those who provide them alternatives, including pregnancy care centers, and we take pride in the tremendous increase in adoptions that has followed Republican legislative initiatives.

Respect for life requires efforts to include persons with disabilities in education, employment, the justice system, and civic participation. In keeping with that commitment, we oppose the nonconsensual withholding of care or treatment from people with disabilities, as well as the elderly and infirm, just as we oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide, which endanger especially those on the margins of society. Because government should set a positive standard in hiring and contracting for the services of persons with disabilities, we need to update the statutory authority for the AbilityOne program, the main avenue by which those productive members of our society can offer high quality services at the best possible value.

Preserving Traditional Marriage

Because our children's future is best preserved within the traditional understanding of marriage, we call for a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it. In the absence of a national amendment, we support the right of the people of the various states to affirm traditional marriage through state initiatives.

Republicans recognize the importance of having in the home a father and a mother who are married. The two-parent family still provides the best environment of stability, discipline, responsibility, and character. Children in homes without fathers are more likely to commit a crime, drop out of school, become violent, become teen parents, use illegal drugs, become mired in poverty, or have emotional or behavioral problems. We support the courageous efforts of single-parent families to provide a stable home for their children. Children are our nation's most precious resource. We also salute and support the efforts of foster and adoptive families.

Republicans have been at the forefront of protecting traditional marriage laws, both in the states and in Congress. A Republican Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act, affirming the right of states not to recognize same-sex "marriages" licensed in other states. Unbelievably, the Democratic Party has now pledged to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which would subject every state to the redefinition of marriage by a judge without ever allowing the people to vote on the matter. We also urge Congress to use its Article III, Section 2 power to prevent activist federal judges from imposing upon the rest of the nation the judicial activism in Massachusetts and California. We also encourage states to review their marriage and divorce laws in order to strengthen marriage.

As the family is our basic unit of society, we oppose initiatives to erode parental rights. (2008 Republican Party Platform.)

McCain assiduously avoided discussing abortion in his pathetic losing campaign against Obama/Soetoro.

Multiple choice Willard Mitt Romney, who had campaigned for his pro-abortion mother, Lenore Romney, when she ran unsuccessfully against United States Senator Philip Hart (D-Michigan), and himself ran unsuccessfully as a pro-abortion Republican against United States Senator Edward Moore Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) in 1994 before being elected as a pro-abortion Republican to the governorship of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in 2002 and then flip-flopped in 2007 to become “pro-life” when challenging John Sidney McCain III for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, let the pro-life plank stand in the 2012 Republican Party platform even though he, like McCain in 2008 and Robert Joseph Dole in 1996, ran away from it as fast as possible:

Faithful to the "self-evident" truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or fund organizations which perform or advocate it and will not fund or subsidize health care which includes abortion coverage. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life. We oppose the nonconsensual withholding or withdrawal of care or treatment, including food and water, from people with disabilities, including newborns, as well as the elderly and infirm, just as we oppose active and passive euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Republican leadership has led the effort to prohibit the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion and permitted States to extend health care coverage to children before birth. We urge Congress to strengthen the Born Alive Infant Protection Act by enacting appropriate civil and criminal penalties on healthcare providers who fail to provide treatment and care to an infant who survives an abortion, including early induction delivery where the death of the infant is intended. We call for legislation to ban sex-selective abortions—gender discrimination in its most lethal form—and to protect from abortion unborn children who are capable of feeling pain; and we applaud U.S. House Republicans for leading the effort to protect the lives of pain-capable unborn children in the District of Columbia. We call for a ban on the use of body parts from aborted fetuses for research. We support and applaud adult stem cell research to develop lifesaving therapies, and we oppose the killing of embryos for their stem cells. We oppose federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

We also salute the many States that have passed laws for informed consent, mandatory waiting periods prior to an abortion, and health-protective clinic regulation. We seek to protect young girls from exploitation through a parental consent requirement; and we affirm our moral obligation to assist, rather than penalize, women challenged by an unplanned pregnancy. We salute those who provide them with counseling and adoption alternatives and empower them to choose life, and we take comfort in the tremendous increase in adoptions that has followed Republican legislative initiatives. (2012 Republican Party Platform.)

The same language appeared in 2016 when Donald John Trump was nominated by the Republican Party for the first time:

The Constitution's guarantee that no one can "be deprived of life, liberty or property" deliberately echoes the Declaration of Independence's proclamation that "all" are "endowed by their Creator" with the inalienable right to life. Accordingly, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to children before birth.

We oppose the use of public funds to perform or promote abortion or to fund organizations, like Planned Parenthood, so long as they provide or refer for elective abortions or sell fetal body parts rather than provide healthcare. We urge all states and Congress to make it a crime to acquire, transfer, or sell fetal tissues from elective abortions for research, and we call on Congress to enact a ban on any sale of fetal body parts. In the meantime, we call on Congress to ban the practice of misleading women on so-called fetal harvesting consent forms, a fact revealed by a 2015 investigation. We will not fund or subsidize healthcare that includes abortion coverage.

We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life. We oppose the non-consensual withholding or withdrawal of care or treatment, including food and water, from individuals with disabilities, newborns, the elderly, or the infirm, just as we oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide.

We affirm our moral obligation to assist, rather than penalize, women who face an unplanned pregnancy. In order to encourage women who face an unplanned pregnancy to choose life, we support legislation that requires financial responsibility for the child be equally borne by both the mother and father upon conception until the child reaches adulthood. Failure to require a father to be equally responsible for a child places an inequitable burden on the mother, creating a financial and social hardship on both mother and child. We celebrate the millions of Americans who open their hearts, homes, and churches to mothers in need and women fleeing abuse. We thank and encourage providers of counseling, medical services, and adoption assistance for empowering women experiencing an unintended pregnancy to choose life. We support funding for ultrasounds and adoption assistance. We salute the many states that now protect women and girls through laws requiring informed consent, parental consent, waiting periods, and clinic regulation. We condemn the Supreme Court's activist decision in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt striking down commonsense Texas laws providing for basic health and safety standards in abortion clinics.

We applaud the U.S. House of Representatives for leading the effort to add enforcement to the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act by passing the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which imposes appropriate civil and criminal penalties on healthcare providers who fail to provide treatment and care to an infant who survives an abortion, including early induction delivery whether the death of the infant is intended. We strongly oppose infanticide. Over a dozen states have passed Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Acts prohibiting abortion after twenty weeks, the point at which current medical research shows that unborn babies can feel excruciating pain during abortions, and we call on Congress to enact the federal version. Not only is it good legislation, but it enjoys the support of a majority of the American people. We support state and federal efforts against the cruelest forms of abortion, especially dismemberment abortion procedures, in which unborn babies are literally torn apart limb from limb.

We call on Congress to ban sex-selection abortions and abortions based on disabilities — discrimination in its most lethal form. We oppose embryonic stem cell research. We oppose federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. We support adult stem cell research and urge the restoration of the national placental stem cell bank created by President George H.W. Bush but abolished by his Democrat successor, President Bill Clinton. We oppose federal funding for harvesting embryos and call for a ban on human cloning.

The Democratic Party is extreme on abortion. Democrats' almost limitless support for abortion, and their strident opposition to even the most basic restrictions on abortion, put them dramatically out of step with the American people. Because of their opposition to simple abortion clinic safety procedures, support for taxpayer-funded abortion, and rejection of pregnancy resource centers that provide abortion alternatives, the old Clinton mantra of "safe, legal, and rare" has been reduced to just "legal." We are proud to be the party that protects human life and offers real solutions for women. (2016 Republican Party Platform.)

Given the plandemic in 2020, however, the Republican Party did not adopt a new platform, thus making its 2024 platform a significant rhetorical departure from those that preceded it from 1980 through 2016.

Have I mentioned that it is all a gigantic farce?

Viva Cristo Rey!