The Winner of the 2016 Republican Nomination Will Be . . . A Naturalist, Gee What A Surprise

Although we live in an era of perennial presidential campaigning, the time has come for the parade of Midget Naturalists of the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist “right” to commence to commence its dress rehearsals for 2016.

The purpose of this commentary is to cut the suspense for you as the winner of the 2016 Republican Party presidential nomination will be, golly-gee willickers, Mister Peabody, a naturalist. Gee, what a surprise.

Those who want to get agitated by the daily “Twitter feeds” and the like can do so to their heart’s content. All of the agitation and “tweets” mean nothing. Nothing. Nothing.

A country steeped in the throes of naturalism and religious indifferentism from its very founding has reached the point where any mention of “divisive social issues” is considered to be so “threatening” to so-called “moderate” voters in the “swing” states that the lords of naturalism in the Republican Party who now control both Houses of the Congress of the United States of America chose to withdraw a bill that was designed to throw a few bones to those who participated in the March for Life on Thursday, January 22, 2015, the forty-second anniversary of the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton (see In the Face of the Daily Slaughter of the Preborn.)

Ah, belief in the ability to “change” the country at the ballot box, a belief that I, of course, possessed and propagated for a long time, is as ingrained in the American psyche as the belief that it is possible to “save” what is thought to be the Catholic Church from the “bad revolutionaries” by means of some kind of “action,” including various petition drives. If one thinks about the matter for a moment, one will see that the latter belief, which gives rise to so many false hopes among “conservative” and “traditionally-minded’ Catholics in the conciliar structures, stems directly from the Americanist belief that some kind of “action” is going to save the country from a destiny shaped by its founding principles that were premised upon man’s supposed inherent ability to maintain himself in virtue without belief in, access to, or cooperation with Sanctifying Grace.

There is no need in this commentary to revisit points that I have point in hundreds upon hundreds of articles over the years. As a matter of fact, I have no intention of providing anything resembling the sort of running commentaries on presidential election cycle this time as I have in the past. What is point of spending endless time and effort reminding readers of the simple fact that we are simply witnessing the perfection of the inherent degeneracy of the founding principles just as surely as Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his gay band of undisguised, unreconstructed Modernists and post-Christians represent the perfection of the inherent degeneracy of what began with the “election” of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII on October 28, 1958, the Feast of Saints Simon and Jude?

The Republican Party establishment has long controlled the presidential nominating process. Although they were saddled with a naturalist who was too “conservative” for their taste back in 1980, they made sure that one of their own, George Herbert Walker Bush, and many of his men, including James Baker, who served as Ronald Wilson Reagan’s White House Chief of Staff and Secretary of the United States Department of the Treasury, held key positions to prevent “things” from getting out of their control. Since that time, though, the “establishment” has had its way every time, resulting in just one presidential election since 1988 wherein its president candidate had a majority of the national popular vote, and that election, 2004, saw then President George Walker Bush secure only 50.73% of the popular vote. That’s just one election out of five that have been held since 1988. One. Barely. One.

Undaunted, the “establishment” is at work again to prevent any “accidents” (men such as former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, former United States Senator Rick Santorum, United States Senator Ted Cruz and neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson who really have no legitimate “path” to the nomination) from occurring. Although it has not been labeled as such, the Republican establishment most fears United States Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) even though he said eleven months ago that was time for the “social issues” to be de-emphasized.”

With the withdrawal of Willard Mitt Romney (does this man have a functioning memory of how bad a candidate he was solely on the consideration of realpolitik?) from the nominating process this time, the “establishment” is keen on foisting another Bush upon the country. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, who supports the exercise in statist control of education called “Common Core,” is this election cycle’s “Bob Dole,” the “establishment” candidate who is “sure” to win the general election.

While Jeb Bush, a convert to Catholicism, is more articulate than his brother, former President George Walker Bush, he is no less a statist and he is no less a reflexive supporter of the murderous policies of the State of Israel that was Bush the Lesser. Yes, the Republican “establishment” has figured out that what the country needs is another “Bush-Clinton” election in 2016 twenty-four years after the first one gave us Clinton I. A dynastic rematch will give us Clinton II.

If, though, Bush III comes a cropper in the primary process and New Jersey Governor Christopher Christie, who will compete against Jeb Bush for “moderate” votes in the caucuses and primaries, is unable to gain traction as he has no clear, coherent vision of national and international policy even on a level of pure naturalism, the Republican “establishment” has an “acceptable” candidate in Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. He is “acceptable” in that he chose to ditch “social issues” when running for re-election in 2014 and because he is a reliable supporter of Zionism and the “global war on terror,” a “litmus test” of Republican Party politics that will be the subject of tomorrow’s commentary.

All of this having been noted, it might be good to review yet again the facts of how the naturalists of the false opposite of the “right” sought to distance themselves from Ronald Wilson Reagan’s rhetorical opposition to abortion in order to give a bit of perspective to those who believe that “things” will be “different” “this time.” They won’t. They never are. It’s always the same. Always.

Twenty-Six Years of Shameful Retreat

The shameful retreat on the part of the midget naturalists of the false opposite of the naturalist “right”from "social issues" began shortly after the inauguration of the Skull and Bonesman named George Herbert Walker Bush as the forty-first President of the United States of America on January 20, 1989. Bush the Elder’s handpicked selection as the chairman of the Republican National Committee, Lee Atwater, who had been his attack dog campaign manager in his campaign against the pathetic creature of the false opposite of the naturalist “left,” Commonwealth of Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis, began to back away from the perceived commitment to the “social issues” during the presidency of Ronald Wilson Regan, under whom Bush the Elder served as a bobble-head doll until he became president.

Atwater explained that it was important for those who support “abortion rights” to be included in the Republican Party as part of a “big tent” able to hold together a group of people with a variety of positions on “difficult” issues. Obviously, President Bush the Elder (or “Bush 41″) approved of Atwater’s effort.

Lee Atwater’s “big tent” movement, which he did not, most unfortunately, repudiate before he died from brain cancer at the age of forty on March 29, 1991 (after having become a Catholic at the hands of Father John A. Hardon, S.J., who informed me first-hand of how some Republican goons tried to keep him from visiting Atwater in the hospital room at one point), did make some inroads in Republican Party circles in the early-1990s, especially as pro-abortion Republican candidates Susan Molinari (1990) and Richard Lazio (1992), won election to the United States House of Representatives from the State of New York, becoming among the first Catholics in the post-Ronald Wilson Reagan era of the Republican Party to run as pro-aborts and to get elected. Their success was followed in the year 1993 when the Presbyterian pro-abort named Christine Todd Whitman (Governorship of the State of New Jersey) and two Catholic pro-aborts, Richard Riordan (Mayoralty of the City of Los Angels, California) and Rudolph William Giuliani (Mayoralty of the City of New York, New York) were elected.

Republicans in the State of New York were in vanguard of promoting the “big tent” as a means of getting rid of the “pro-life” issue once and for all. These careerists were so eager to distance themselves from the language of the national Republican Party platform during the Reagan-era that a then little-known state senator from Peekskill, New York, George Elmer Pataki, engineered the removal of the pro-life plank from the party platform at the party’s 1990 state convention. And it was at that convention that then United States Senator Alfonse M. D’Amato told New York University professor Herbert London, an Orthodox Jew who is partly pro-life and partly pro-abortion (making the immoral “life of the mother” “exception), that he, London, could be the Republican nominee for Governor of the State of New York that year if he became “pro-choice.” (This is what Dr. London told me in 1998 when I was challenging Senator D’Amato for the United States senatorial nomination of the Right to Life Party, adding, of course, that the former senator has claimed that he has no recollection of saying any such thing.)  London ran on the Conservative Party line and came within several thousand votes of beating the pro-abort who got the Republican gubernatorial nomination that year, a man named Pierre Rinfret, for second place in the election against the Democratic Party incumbent, the Catholic pro-abort named Mario Matthew Cuomo.

This gave birth to an entire generation of pro-abortion Republicans, many of them Catholics, emerged in the 1990s and thereafter. Rudolph William Giuliani, Mayor of the City of New York from 1993 to 2001. Richard Riordan, Mayor of the City of Los Angeles from 1993 to 2001. Christine Todd Whitman, a Presbyterian, Governor of New Jersey from 1994 to 2001. Thomas Ridge, Governor of Pennsylvania from 1995 to 2001. Enrico Anthony Lazio, a member of the United States House of Representatives from Long Island from 1993 to 2001. Susan Molinari, a member of the United States House of Representatives from 1990 to 1997. Susan Collins, United States Senator from Maine, from 1997 to the present. Olympia Snowe, Greek Orthodox, United States Senator from Maine from 1995 to the present. George Elmer Pataki, Governor of New York from 1995 to 2007. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of California from 2003 to the present. There are, of course, many others.

It was in the immediate aftermath of President George Herbert Walker Bush’s defeat for re-election at the hands of then Arkansas Governor William Jefferson Blythe Clinton on Tuesday, November 3, 1992, that the then Republican National Committee chairman, Richard Bond, himself a product of the Nassau County, New York, political machine of the late Joseph Margiottta and his successor, Joseph Mondello, launched into a broadside against Patrick Joseph Buchanan for his “Culture Wars” address at the Republican National Convention at the Astrodome in Houston, Texas, on August 17, 1992, the Feast of Saint Hyacinth. An editorial in The New York Times praised Bond for his “conversion”:

Richard Bond did not go gently into retirement. His swan song as chairman of the Republican National Committee criticized his party’s rightward drift in general and its opposition to abortion in particular. His words, while true, would have carried a lot more credibility had he not waited until he was going out the door to utter them.

Where was Mr. Bond at the Republican Convention last August, when he might have used his influence to mute the demagoguery that wrong-footed George Bush’s campaign from the start? Mr. Bond now says he tried to deny Patrick Buchanan his disastrous half-hour of prime time. Yet Mr. Bond also spent his time in Houston justifying the proceedings. “We are America,” he told one reporter. “These other people are not America.”

Still, his eleventh-hour conversion is welcome. His attack on “zealotry masquerading as principle” makes sound moral sense. His observation that the party must recognize that “America is getting more diverse, not more alike” makes sound political sense. So, too, does his observation that the social issues cherished by the evangelical right, chiefly abortion, are almost certain to confine the G.O.P. to a shrinking tent.

Mr. Bond thus joins prominent Republican moderates like Gov. William Weld of Massachusetts and Senator Nancy Kassebaum of Kansas. Both oppose exclusionary politics. Both believe that President Bush’s intrusive efforts to regulate a woman’s right to choose stood historical Republican principles — limited government and individual responsibility — on their heads.

The question is whether there are enough Kassebaums and Welds (and, belatedly, Bonds) around to reverse the party’s course. The center-right split in the Republican Party is a durable fact of politics; after the 1988 convention Lee Atwater saw that, absent Ronald Reagan’s special magic, future Republican leaders must broaden their base in terms of race and gender.

Mr. Bush did not do so. One distressing result is that the party machinery is now increasingly vulnerable to the religious and cultural right. Pat Robertson, for one, trots out exit polls showing that white evangelicals were Mr. Bush’s most loyal constituency. He does not advertise the polls showing ruinous defections among women, younger voters and independents.

A chastened Rich Bond has absorbed that message — a message surely worth adopting by principled conservatives not now retired from battle. And George Bush, now in retirement, might be forgiven for asking where Mr. Bond’s wisdom was when he needed it. (Rich Bond — Right, but Late.)

This editorial, of course, gave credence to the absurd charge among some “moderate” Republicans in 1992 and 1993 that Patrick Joseph Buchanan’s Culture Wars” speech at the Republican National Convention at the Astrodome (Harris County Domed Stadium) in Houston, Texas, on August 17, 1992, “cost” President George Herbert Walker Bush the election against Governor Bill Clinton. Never mind the fact that Bush the elder ran a terrible campaign that included a moment where he looked at his watch during the middle of a “town hall” debate with Clinton and his fellow Texan, the eccentric billionaire Henry Ross Perot. Never mind the fact that George Herbert Walker Bush broke his “read my lips: no new taxes” pledge that he made at the Republican National Convention at the Superdome in New Orleans, Louisiana, on Thursday, August 18, 1988 (for the written text of that speech, see 1988 Republican National Convention Acceptance Address). Never mind the fact that George Herbert Walker Bush never stood for anything other than what a good Skull and Bonesman from Yale University stand for, namely, every Judeo-Masonic principle imaginable. No, Pat Buchanan and the issue of abortion had to be blamed for Bush the elder’s defeat in 1992.

The Republican establishment of careerists has long sought to distance itself from “social issues,” and its effort to do so in last year’s presidential campaign quite predictable even though the now-defeated 2008 Republican nominee for the office of President of the United States of America, John Sidney McCain III, never raised the issue himself in his campaign and gave a most incoherent set of answers on the subject during his final debate with now President-elect Barack Hussein Obama at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York, on Wednesday, October 15, 2008 (see Fallacies Galore). And Alaska Governor Sarah Heath Palin’s discussions of the issue were even more incoherent and laced with her proud and unqualified support for the abject moral evil of contraception (see It’s Still Absolute Insanity). The careerists want the “social issues” go to away, and to this end they must invent mythologies to reaffirm them in their conviction that they must not raise issues about which the “people” are not “obsessed.”

Indeed, Dr. William Bennett, former Secretary of the Department of Education in the administration of the late President Ronald Wilson Reagan, was championing in the Fall of 1995 the cause of former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin Powell, a pro-abort, as a possible candidate for the Republican Party’s 1996 presidential nomination”We may have to sacrifice abortion for the triple crown,” Bennett said, meaning that to win the presidency and to control a majority of seats in both Houses of the Congress of the United States of America it might be necessary to downplay the issue of baby-killing under cover of law. “My phone’s not ringing off the hook on this issue,” Bennett went on to say. “Win, baby, win.” That’s all that matters. Who cares about truth? Who cares about Truth Incarnate, Truth Crucified and Resurrection?

This is the sort of “thinking” that gave us Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., a thirty-third degree Mason, as the Republican presidential nominee in 1996. “Realists’ such as Dr. John Wilkie, the founder of the National Right to Life Committee (which is not so “right to life” as it takes no position against contraception and supports, as a matter of principle, the execution of innocent children in their mothers’ wombs in cases where it is alleged that a mother’s life is endangered), Ralph Reed, then the executive director the Christian Coalition, “Father” Frank Pavone, the founder of Priests for Life, and many others supported the incompetent, inarticulate, “split-the-difference-down-the-middle” deal-maker Dole, who told his campaign workers prior to the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday, February 20, 1996, to “win it ugly.” He lost that primary. With the help of Reed’s not-so-subtle anti-Catholicism in the South Carolina primary and with the help of Catholic enablers, Dole went on to defeat Buchanan, running an absolutely inept campaign against then President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton (see Bob Dole, part trois).

The hapless, inarticulate and ever-mercurial thirty-third degree Mason named Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., attempted into insert a “zero tolerance” for bigotry plank into the Republican Party’s national platform in 1996 and to change the platform to express “respect” for a “diversity of beliefs” about baby-killing, an effort that was opposed by Angela “Bay” Buchanan and Dr. Alan Keyes, among others. Dole made sure, however, that the man who had defeated him in the New Hampshire primary on February 20, 1996, and had come very close to defeating him in the Iowa causes on February 12, 1996, Patrick Joseph Buchanan, was not given any speaking role at the Republican National Convention in San Diego, California. Buchanan was allowed to mill around with other Republicans onstage after Dole gave his pathetic acceptance address.

As is well-known, Dole and his running mate, Jack Kemp, another thirty-third degree Mason, ran away from the issue of baby-killing except when speaking to friendly Catholic audiences. Other than that, however, the two Freemasons ignored the issue altogether. Kemp spoke about baby-killing only when asked about it by moderator James Lehrer in the one and only debate between vice presidential candidates, held on October 9, 1996, and called the issue an “emotional” one and that the “debate” over it had to be carried on with “civility and respect,” making it appear that there there can be a “debate” about the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment’s absolute prohibition on the direct taking of any innocent human life at any time for any reason.

Dole  himself made not one single reference to the taking of preborn human life in either his debate with President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton on October 6, 1996, or his second on October 16, 1996. Given his efforts to mute all discussion about the life issue prior to and during the Republican National Convention, which was moderated by the supposedly “pro-life” Governor of the State of Texas, George Walker Bush, and the avowedly pro-abortion Governor of the State of New Jersey, Christine Todd Whitman, to showcase the party’s diversity (“pro-life” Southern male, pro-death Northern female). I wrote the following for the very first issue of the Christ or Chaos printed journal:

It is time to tell Bob Dole that we have zero tolerance for his shameless attempt to appease both sides of the abortion issue, relegating us to little more than observers who must go along for the ride in his quest to win.

It is time to tell Bob Dole that we have zero tolerance for his support of the so-called hard cases exceptions. We have zero tolerance for those who contend, as a matter of principle, that there are conditions justifying the direct, intentional killing of innocent human beings.

It is time to tell Bob Dole that we have zero tolerance for his support of fetal experimentation and Planned Parenthood.

It is time to tell Bob Dole that we have zero tolerance for a political party which is maneuvering to put pro-aborts in key positions as the Vice Presidency. [2014 note: Dole played the same game in 1996 that McCain played six years ago, saying he would be "open" to a "pro-choice" running mate. Dole chose his fellow thirty-third degree Mason, Jack Kemp, a partly pro-life, partly pro-abortion former United States Representative from Buffalo, New York, and Secretary of Labor in the George Herbert Walker Bush administration, who rarely spoke about the issue at all except in front of "safe" Catholic audiences.]

It is time to tell Bob Dole that we have zero tolerance for his brand of political bossism and the silence of those opponents deemed to be politically incorrect [namely, Patrick Joseph Buchanan]. . . .

It is time to tell Bob Dole we have zero tolerance for anyone who believes that the promotion of sinful lifestyles must be tolerated for the sake of “diversity”.

It is time to tell Bob Dole that we have zero tolerance for his attitude that “you can be pro-choice or pro-life and still very be a very good Republican.”

It is time to tell Bob Dole that we have zero tolerance for a Republican Party that recognizes the “pro-choice” position as a morally legitimate position. (“Zero Tolerance for Bob Dole, Christ or Chaos, Volume 1, Number 1, August, 1996. p. 3.)

Also interested in muting all discussion of the life issue in 1996 was the chairman of the Republican National Senatorial Campaign Committee (RNSCC), the junior senator from the State of New York, Alfonse M. D’Amato, who had been elected in 1980 against United States Representative Elizabeth Holtzman and the incumbent United States Senator Jacob K. Javits, who ran on the Liberal Party line after losing a primary to D’Amato in his bed for renomination. D’Amato squeaked by, defeating Holtzman by 80,992 votes, 152,470 of which were cast for him on the Right to Life Party line. Javits received 664,544 votes that would, most likely, have gone to Holtzman. However, it was those votes cast for D’Amato on the Right to Life Party line that made it possible for to him to begin the first of three terms as the junior senator from the Empire State to the pro-abortion Catholic named Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

(Interestingly, Moynihan had defeated United States Senator James Buckley, R-NY, in 1976, who had won his only Senate term in 1970 as the Conservative Party candidate at a time the “liberal” vote was split between the Republican incumbent, Charles Goodell, the late father of current National Football League commissioner Roger Goodell, and United States Representative Richard Ottinger, D-NY. Goodell had been appointed to his seat by Governor Nelson Rockefeller, following the death of United States Senator Robert Francis Kennedy on Wednesday, June 6, 1968, after he had been shot following his victory in the California primary against United States Senator Eugene McCarthy. Buckley won the race in 1970 even though he got only thirty-nine percent of the vote. Goodell actually came in third, garnering twenty-three percent of the vote).

Even though D’Amato owed his Senate career to the votes he got, including the one I cast for him, on the Right to Life Party line in 1980, he was a pure political opportunist who believed, as noted earlier, that it was time for Republican candidates who could take a “pro-choice” position to do so. Indeed, if you will recall, Dr. Herbert London said that D’Amato told him point blank to his face that he, London, could be the Republican Party gubernatorial nominee against Mario Matthew Cuomo is only he switched his position from pro-life to “pro-choice,” an offer was not too good for London to refuse. D’Amato also asked the thenCounty of Nassau District Attorney Denis E. Dillon, who died on August 15, 2010, and with whom I had run for lieutenant governor on the Right to Life Party line in 1986, to reach out to me after I had received enough delegate votes at the Right to Life Party convention in May of 1998 to challenge him for the nomination. Denis asked me the following question: “What’s it going to take for you to get out of the primary?” As I knew at the time, I could have written my own ticket for a job from which I could never get fired. No, there was no deal as D’Amato supported “exceptions,” voted to fund “family planning programs” and had, apart from giving us pro-abort Republicans such as George Elmer Pataki and Rick Lazio, who ran such a pathetic campaign against then First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton for the United States Senate in 2000, voted to confirm the thoroughly pro-abortion Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer to serve as Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. No deal. My friendship with Denis Dillon, for whose immortal soul I pray every day, effectively ended then.

One of the reasons I was adamant in my refusal to withdraw from my primary challenge to Senator D’Amato seventeen years ago now , although I did tell Mr. Dillon that there would be no need for a primary if D’Amato decided to decline the Right to Life Party endorsement without being replaced by anyone else (the party, that is, would have run a blank line in that instance, neither opposing nor supporting D’Amato, support that he clearly did not deserve, especially as the party itself had a firm “no exceptions” policy that its leaders at the time were willing to overlook in certain instances), was the role that D’Amato played as Chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee in 1996 as he tried to muscle senatorial candidates into being silent about the issue of abortion in exchange for NRSCC campaign cash. In other words, D’Amato was hoping that blood money talked more than principle.

Albert J. Salvi, a state legislator in the State of Illinois, a Catholic, had won the Republican primary in 1996 while running a pro-life campaign. The Democratic Party nominee was United States Representative Richard Durbin, a pro-abortion Catholic and now the Minority Leader of the United States Senate. D’Amato believed that the path to victory in Illinois ran through the path of silence about baby-killing. Salvi took the deal for the NRSCC. His wife was very happy to know that I wanted to interview her husband about this as she was still exercised about D’Amato’s strong-arm tactics two years after the 1996 campaign, which her husband lost to the reprobate Durbin. Mr Salvi, though, was unwilling to speak with me. He regretted what he had done and simply did not want to talk about it.

There was, however, a candidate who refused to knuckle under to D’Amato’s use of political blackmail, NRSCC campaign cash in exchange for silence on abortion which was well-documented at the time. That candidate was a woman named Ronna Romney, who was running for the United States Senate seat held then and held today by United States Senator Carl Levin (D-Michigan). Ronna Romney is the former wife of G. Scott Romney, who is the older brother of a fellow born six years later, a chap named Willard Mitt Romney. It’s a little ironic that a Romney-by-marriage refused to accept silence about abortion in exchange for NRSCC cash while her former brother-in-law, Willard Mitt Romney, was in the vanguard of trying to pressure United States Representative Todd Akin (R-Missouri) to drop out of his own Senate race by 5:00 p,.m., Central Daylight Saving Time, on Tuesday, August 21, 2012, at the same time that Untied States Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) decided to keep Akin from receiving any NRSCC campaign cash.

As many of us knew and wrote throughout 1995 and 1996, Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., was handily defeated by then President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton. Dole ran a pathetic campaign.

What did that matter to the bright lights of the organized crime family of the naturalist “right”?

Nothing.

These careerists anointed then Texas Governor George Walker Bush as the next “Bob Dole.”

Well, surprise, surprise, the “pro-life” Governor of Texas, George Walker Bush, took the same basic line in 1999, saying that abortion was a “divisive” and/or a “difficult” issue about which people of “good will” could disagree legitimately. Oh, really? Really? Truly? A difficult or a divisive issue?

It is tiring just thinking about the number of articles that I wrote in 1999 and 2000, most of them published in the old printed journal Christ or Chaos, the predecessor to this website, to state this obvious fact: There is nothing “difficult” about the Fifth Commandment, which forbids the direct, intentional taking of the life of any innocent human being as the first object of a moral action. The Fifth Commandment, “Thou shalt not kill,” is clear and it admits of no exceptions. Innocent human life is always to be held inviolable. Period.

“Divisive”? There is nothing divisive about adhering to the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law as they have been entrusted to the Catholic Church by their Author and her Invisible Head and Mystical Bridegroom, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, for their eternal safekeeping and infallible explication. Such precepts have only become “divisive” as a result of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King wrought by the Protestant Revolt and cemented in place by the various naturalistic and semi-Pelagian and anti-Incarnational “philosophies” and ideologies and revolution of the Judeo-Masonic era known as Modernity, with which the counterfeit church of conciliarism has made its most telling “reconciliation.”

The likes of Bob Dole in 1996 or George W. Bush (Bob Dole, part deux) in 1999 and 2000 would have the average voter believe one’s support for surgical abortion, although possibly regrettable, is certainly not something that disqualifies anyone from the holding of public office, whether elected or appointed. As horrible as abortion is, it is, after all, just “one” out of many issues facing the United States of America today and voters and candidates and office-holders should be “free” in a “free country” that values “freedom of speech” and “freedom of press” and ‘freedom of religion” to believe as they want. Sure, it’s terrible that over a million children are killed in their mothers’ wombs by surgical means each year in the United States of America alone. That’s just the way it is. Surgical abortion is here to stay and those who support it should be reaffirmed in their “right” to believe in it as they desire to do so.

Bob Dole, part trois, United States Senator John Sidney McCain III did his best in 2007-2008 to impersonate Dole, as can be seen in a report on the leftist Politico website that was published on August 14, 2008:

McCain’s comments Wednesday to the Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes that former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge’s pro-abortion rights views wouldn’t necessarily rule him out quickly found their way into the in-boxes of Christian conservatives. For those who have been anxiously awaiting McCain’s pick as a signal of his ideological intentions, there was deep concern that their worst fears about the Arizona senator may be realized.

In the interview, McCain said “the pro-life position is one of the important aspects or fundamentals of the Republican Party.”

“And I also feel that — and I’m not trying to equivocate here — that Americans want us to work together. You know, Tom Ridge is one of the great leaders and he happens to be pro-choice. And I don’t think that that would necessarily rule Tom Ridge out [for vice-president].”

He added: “I think it’s a fundamental tenet of our party to be pro-life, but that does not mean we exclude people from our party that are pro-choice. We just have a — albeit strong — but just it’s a disagreement. And I think Ridge is a great example of that.” (McCain alarms base with abortion comment.)

Just a disagreement?

Well, let me repeat, more or less (computer crashes have eaten hundreds of my articles over the past twenty years), what I have written so many times before:

Would Bob Dole or George W. Bush or John McCain say that anti-Semitism, the hatred of Jews (and Arabs, it should be pointed out), is just a “difficult” or “divisive” issue that is just a “matter of opinion,” as Bush termed abortion in 1999 and 2000, or, in McCain’s words, “just a disagreement”? Would a virulent, anti-Semite who wills physical harm, perhaps even under cover of law, to adherents of the Talmud and Arabs, one who might even express views sympathetic to Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich, be “welcomed” in the Republican Party? Would an open, rabid anti-Semite be considered as a potential Vice Presidential running mate or as an appointee to the White House staff or the Cabinet or to the Federal judiciary?

Would Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., or George Walker Bush or John Sidney McCain III say that racialism, the hatred of any one of the races of people on the face of this earth, is just a “difficult” or “divisive” issue that is just a “matter of opinion,” as Bush termed abortion in 1999 and 2000, or, in McCain’s words, “just a disagreement”? Would a virulent racialist who hated people of a different skin color (white, brown, black, red, yellow, turquoise) who wills physical harm, perhaps even under cover of law, to those with black or white or yellow or red or turquoise skin be “welcomed” in the Republican Party? Would an open, rabid anti-Semite be considered as a potential Vice Presidential running mate or as an appointee to the White House staff or the Cabinet or to the Federal judiciary?

Why, then, is it that one who believes that little babies, who have committed no crimes whatsoever, can be poisoned and/or butchered in their mothers’ wombs under cover of law is deemed qualified to serve in public office, whether elected or appointed? Although the hatred of anyone on the basis of his race or religion is evil, the killing of an innocent human being, no matter the means (abortifacient pills, the various butcheries used by surgical baby-killers, guns, knives, bombs, etc.) used in the killing or the age of the victim (preborn, newborn, infant, toddler, child, adolescent, young adult, middle-aged, elderly), is one of the Four Sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance, and is thus higher in the hierarchy of evils than racial or religious or ethnic hatred.

Sure, this is clear to those of us who are believing Catholics. This is not clear to apostate Catholics and to almost every other category of people, albeit with a few exceptions here and there as the light of natural reason does equip men to see and to accept and even to defend certain basic moral truths even though they do not accept the Catholic Church as the divinely-instituted guardian and infallible explicator of those truths, because of the triumph of the naturalistic ethos of Judeo-Masonry that makes of the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity made Man by the power of God the Holy Ghost in Our Lady’s Virginal and Immaculate Womb a matter of complete indifference to personal and social order. It is, you see, a relatively easy thing to consider abortion, whether chemical or surgical in nature, as merely a matter of “opinion” about which one is free to disagree when one considers the Incarnation of God as Man in the Virginal and Immaculate Womb of the woman who was assumed body and soul into Heaven on this very day, August 15, to be a matter of complete indifference to order within souls and justice within nations and peace among nations.

Does anyone who is a rational, sane human being believe that Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., or George Walker Bush or John Sidney McCain III understood that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ sanctified the womb of every mother by becoming the Prisoner of His own Blessed Mother’s Virginal and Immaculate Womb for nine months before His Nativity in Bethlehem?

Does anyone who is a rational, sane human being believe that Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., or George Walker Bush or John Sidney McCain III understood that every abortion is mystical attack upon Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, Who is in solidarity with every child in every mother’s womb, no matter the condition of the child conceived or the circumstances of the conception?

Does anyone who is a rational, sane human being believe that Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., or George Walker Bush or John Sidney McCain III realized that God wills there to be many children born to parents so that they can give him honor and glory here in this passing, mortal vale of tears as members of the true Church He founded upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope, so as to be ready at all times to die in states of Sanctifying Grace and thus enjoy the glory of His own Beatific Vision for all eternity with His Most Blessed Mother, assumed into Heaven this very day?

Does anyone who is a rational, sane human being believe that Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., or George Walker Bush or John Sidney McCain III understood or accepted the truth that no level of government–be it local, state or nation–can ever pass any piece of positive civil legislation that puts into question the inviolability of innocent human life or of God’s absolute Sovereignty over the sanctity and the fecundity of marriage?

Does anyone who is a rational, sane human being believe that Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., or George Walker Bush or John Sidney McCain III understood or accepted the truth that the civil government has an obligation to help to foster those conditions in civil society wherein its citizens can better sanctify and save their souls as members of the Catholic Church?

Does anyone who is a rational, sane human being believe that Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., or George Walker Bush or John Sidney McCain III understood or accepted the truth that the civil law can never sanction sin, the very thing that caused the God-Man, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, to suffer in His Sacred Humanity during His Passion and Death and caused His Most Blessed Mother’s Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart through and through with Seven Swords of Sorrow, under cover of law and in every aspect of popular culture.

Does anyone who is a rational, sane human being believe that Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., or George Walker Bush or John Sidney McCain III understood or accepted the simple truth that Catholicism and Catholicism alone is the sole foundation of personal and social order?

Does anyone who is a rational, sane human being believe that Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., or George Walker Bush or John Sidney McCain III understood that the United States and other parts of the developed world are undergoing profound economic and demographic and sociological changes as a result of contraception and abortion?

What about Willard Mitt Romney?

Hey, I am still exhausted from writing him in 2011 and 2012.

You want to read about Willard Mitt Romney’s campaign three years ago?

Just go to the The Follies of Naturalism page at the temporary home of this site for the first six months of last year for a listing of articles about him in 2007, 2008, 2011 and 2012.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yet it is that each succeeding generation of midget naturalists believes that a new “plan” can be found to bury the “divisive” “social issues” once and for all. Lost in all of this is the simple fact that the belief that “divisive” issues must be put aside for the sake of one election means that such issues will never become the focus of public policy if a naturalist of the false opposite of the naturalist “right” actually winds up in the White House, which, given the divisions and changing demographics of the United States of America, may prove to be as illusory in 2016 as it was in 1996 and 2008 and 2012 (and Bush the Lesser only won in 2000 because of the 97,451 votes that Green Party presidential candidate took away from then Vice President Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., on November 7, 2000, thus giving Florida’s twenty-five electoral votes to “W” after the long court battle that ensued over “hanging chads”). There was no national “mandate for the supposed “lesser of two evils” in the year 2000.

Once inaugurated, of course, the supposed “lesser of two evils” went on to institutionalize many grave evils in the name of “compassionate conservatism” as he initiated unjust, immoral wars unconstitutionally that helped to bring this nation to the point of fiscal bankruptcy. As I have noted repeatedly, Bush the Lesser made possible the election of Caesar Barackus Obamus Ignoramus on November 4, 2008. (For a review of “W’s” anti-life record as president, please see Pope Pius XII Slams The National Not-So-Right-Life Committee and George Walker Bush and All Other So-Called “Pro-Life Pols.”)

This leads us to the "anti-establishment" candidate this time around, the aformentioned United States Senator Rand Paul, who, despite some differences with his father, former United States Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas), is a libertarian. Although he speaks on occasion on the life issue, his father’s “live and let live” attitude is deeply ingrained in him. Despite being far more intelligent than the likes of Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., John Sidney McCain III and Willard Mitt Romney, Rand Paul really believes much the same thing as his predecessors in naturalism have believed: that the “social issues” are “losing issues” that needlessly divide the Republican Party. What matters is “winning,” and thus it is important to “agree to disagree.”

This is what Rand Paul said in an interview eleven months ago now:

Q. There was a consensus among young people at the recent Conservative Political Action Conference that the GOP needs to get out of social issues. Do you agree?

A. I think it’s partly that. But I also think young people are very concerned with privacy. I think most young people’s lives revolve around their cellphones. They communicate with their parents by cellphone even when they’re in the house. And I think they are horrified by the idea of the government searching their records and being in possession of their records when they’ve not been suspected of a crime.

Q. Right. But it seems what they’re saying is that the Republican Party should stay out of issues like gay marriage.

A. I think that the Republican Party, in order to get bigger, will have to agree to disagree on social issues. The Republican Party is not going to give up on having quite a few people who do believe in traditional marriage. But the Republican Party also has to find a place for young people and others who don’t want to be festooned by those issues.

Q. As a libertarian, you believe in the sovereignty of the individual. But when it comes to the right for gays to marry, you said it should be left up to the states. Isn’t that a contradiction?

A. On issues that are very contentious, that involve social mores—I think that allowing different parts of the country to make their decision based on the local mores and culture is a good idea. But when it comes to taxes and benefits, the [federal] government out to take a neutral position—a way where marriage wouldn’t have an effect, positive or negative, on those things.

Q. You said you endorsed Mitch McConnell in Kentucky’s Republican senatorial primary because “there was nobody else in the race.” Would you have preferred to endorse someone else?

A. No, I’m happy with my endorsement, and I think Mitch McConnell is a good conservative.

Q. Your recent op-ed for Breitbart about the future of the Republican Party got a lot of attention. Specifically, you said, “Splintering the party is not the route to victory.” Was that directed at Ted Cruz?

A. I have sort of a Jeffersonian belief in unity, peace and commerce with all. That means we don’t devour our own. We try to find an area where we can stand for principle. But it also includes people you don’t agree with on every issue. (Five Minutes With Rand Paul.)

If you have read the history provided in this article, you can see for yourself that there is nothing “original” in Senator Rand Paul’s “agree to disagree” mantra. This has been going on for twenty-six years. Even those who do not believe in the Social Reign of Christ the King or who want to believe that that the Republican Congressional “victory” in 2014 is going to produce anything different than it produced in 2010 (when Republicans froze in place in fear of upsetting the 2012 apple cart) cannot deny the truth of the history that this article has provided. Facts are what they are.

Moreover, Rand Paul’s assessment of the attitudes of “young conservatives” proves the essential point that I made in No Getting the Toothpaste Back in the Tube in early-2014: that young Americans have been programmed (by the mainslime media, by public  schools, by most conciliar schools) to accept moral licentiousness as normal and natural. The only thing that divides them between the false opposites of the naturalist “left” and “right” is “the money, the money, and the money.” That is, the partisans of the “left” believe in statism as the means to enjoy material well-being while those of the “right” believe in the the “free market place” that is anything but free.

Like his father before him, Rand Paul does not understand the simple truth that there can never be long term economic prosperity and social order domestically or peace in the world as long as men are at war with Christ the King by means of their unrepentant sins, which they celebrate in the popular culture and seek to institutionalize under the civil law as part of their “human rights.”

Rand Paul would do well to read these words of Silvio Cardinal Antoniano that were quoted by Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929:

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

Very few people, including most of those, perhaps, who bother to actually read these articles, have yet to read or to accept the truth of the following words as written by Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910:

Here we have, founded by Catholics, an inter-denominational association that is to work for the reform of civilization, an undertaking which is above all religious in character; for there is no true civilization without a moral civilization, and no true moral civilization without the true religion: it is a proven truth, a historical fact. The new Sillonists cannot pretend that they are merely working on “the ground of practical realities” where differences of belief do not matter. Their leader is so conscious of the influence which the convictions of the mind have upon the result of the action, that he invites them, whatever religion they may belong to, “to provide on the ground of practical realities, the proof of the excellence of their personal convictions.” And with good reason: indeed, all practical results reflect the nature of one’s religious convictions, just as the limbs of a man down to his finger-tips, owe their very shape to the principle of life that dwells in his body.  (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

Whether a Republican or a Democrat wins in 2016 matters only around the margins. The United States of America is done, cooked.

No, this does not mean that we roll up into a ball and die. However, it does mean that we must stop trying to believe that “progress” will be made if only the right kind of “leader” is found. This is preposterous. As I noted four and one-half years ago now, No Christ the King? No Rosary? No Good Cause.

Obviously, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is giving cover to the statists in the false opposite of the naturalist "left" by praising them for their "concern" for the poor and for the sick and for the "undocumented," which makes it far easier for the naturalists of the false opposite of the naturalist "right" to ignore "divisive" issues as they appeal to the "moderate" voters in the swing state. Once elected, if elected, that is, there is almost zero distinction between what Rabbi Mayer Schiller terms the Welfare Party and the Warfare Party. Whatever differences that exist are pretty similar to the ones that exist between Ratzinger and Bergoglio (see a marvelous new book, whose cover has to be redone as my title was not entered correctly by the person responsible for volunteering time to make my concept a reality, No Space Between Ratzinger and Bergoglio: So Close in Apostasy, So Far From Catholic Truth).

Remember, United States Senator John Sidney McCain III wanted "boots on the ground" in Libya in 2011 at the same time as then Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton did, and he still wants "boots on the ground" in the Syrian civil war. As horrific as Obama is, McCain would have sent American troops all over the world to fight in this or that conflict that has nothing to do with the legitimate national security of the United States of America, including in The Ukraine at this time. (For my send-up of McCain's penchant for using the military needlessly, see Different Chief, Same War Drums.)

Naturalists and statists, whether of a greater or a lesser degree, always get elected in the United States of America.

It is always the same?

Why do so few people have a hard time accepting the fact that political ecumenism is as harmful as theological ecumenism?

Permits it is wise to permit Father Edward Leen to have the final word on this madness:

A shudder of apprehension is traversing the world which still retains its loyalty to Jesus expressing Himself through the authority of His Church. That apprehension has not its sole cause the sight of the horrors that the world has witnessed in recent years in both hemispheres. Many Christians are beginning to feel that perhaps all may not be right with themselves. There is solid reason for this fear. The contemplation of the complete and reasoned abandonment of all hitherto accepted human values that has taken place in Russia and is taking place elsewhere, causes a good deal of anxious soul-searching. It is beginning to be dimly perceived that in social life, as it is lived, even in countries that have not as yet definitely broken with Christianity, there lie all the possibilities of what has become actual in Bolshevism. A considerable body of Christians, untrained in the Christian philosophy of life, are allowing themselves to absorb principles which undermine the constructions of Christian thought. They do not realise how much dangerous it is for Christianity to exist in an atmosphere of Naturalism than to be exposed to positive persecution. In the old days of the Roman Empire those who enrolled themselves under the standard of Christ saw, with logical clearness, that they had perforce to cut themselves adrift from the social life of the world in which they lived–from its tastes, practices and amusements. The line of demarcation between pagan and Christian life was sharp, clearly defined and obvious. Modern Christians have not been so favorably situated. As has been stated already, the framework of the Christian social organisation has as yet survived. This organisation is, to outward appearances, so solid and imposing that it is easy to be blind to the truth that the soul had gradually gone out of it. Under the shelter and utilising the resources of the organisation of life created by Christianity, customs, ways of conduct, habits of thought, have crept in, more completely perhaps, at variance with the spirit of Christianity than even the ways and manners of pagan Rome.

This infiltration of post-Christian paganism has been steady but slow, and at each stage is imperceptible. The Christian of to-day thinks that he is living in what is to all intents and purposes a Christian civilisation. Without misgivings he follows the current of social life around him. His amusements, his pleasures, his pursuits, his games, his books, his papers, his social and political ideas are of much the same kind as are those of the people with whom he mingles, and who may not have a vestige of a Christian principle left in their minds. He differs merely from them in that he holds to certain definite religious truths and clings to certain definite religious practices. But apart from this there is not any striking contrast in the outward conduct of life between Christian and non-Christian in what is called the civilised world. Catholics are amused by, and interested in, the very same things that appeal to those who have abandoned all belief in God. The result is a growing divorce between religion and life in the soul of the individual Christian. Little by little his faith ceases to be a determining effect on the bulk of his ideas, judgments and decisions that have relation to what he regards as his purely “secular” life. His physiognomy as a social being no longer bears trace of any formative effect of the beliefs he professes. And his faith rapidly becomes a thing of tradition and routine and not something which is looked to as a source of a life that is real.

The Bolshevist Revolution has had one good effect. It has awakened the averagely good Christian to the danger runs in allowing himself to drift with the current of social life about him. It has revealed to him the precipice towards which he has was heading by shaping his worldly career after principles the context of which the revolution has mercilessly exposed and revealed to be at variance with real Christianity. The sincerely religious–and there are many such still–are beginning to realise that if they are to live as Christians they must react violently against the milieu in which they live. It is beginning to be felt that one cannot be a true Christian and live as the bulk of men in civilised society are living. It is clearly seen that “life” is not to be found along those ways by which the vast majority of men are hurrying to disillusionment and despair. Up to the time of the recent cataclysm the average unreflecting Christian dwelt in the comfortable illusion that he could fall in with the ways of the world about him here, and, by holding on to the practices of religion, arrange matters satisfactorily for the hereafter. That illusion is dispelled. It is coming home to the discerning Christian that their religion is not a mere provision for the future. There is a growing conviction that it is only through Christianity lived integrally that the evils of the present time can be remedied and disaster in the time to come averted. (Father Edward Leen, The Holy Ghost, published in 1953 by Sheed and Ward, pp. 6-9.)

Father Edward Leen was simply giving expression in 1953 to simple, timeless and immutable truths that true pope after true pope had reiterated time and time again in the last three centuries now. No Catholicism, no social order. It’s that simple. Why should we enable the midget naturalists by believing that they will give us anything other than naturalism. It is incomprehensible that Catholics who claim to be opposed to conciliarism, which is founded in no small measure in a blithe acceptance of the tenets of Modernity, remain as undiscerning now as Catholics were in the 1950s at the time of Father Leen.

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

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

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

As we pray our Rosaries today, let us remember always to fly unto the patronage of the Mother of God and of her Most Chaste Spouse, making it a point of praying the Memorare to Saint Joseph every time we recite the Litany of Saint Joseph:

Remember, O most pure Spouse of the Virgin Mary, St. Joseph my beloved patron, that never has it been heard that anyone invoked thy patronage and sought thine aid without being comforted. Inspired by this confidence, I come to thee and fervently commend myself to thee. Ah, despise not my petition, dear Foster Father of our Redeemer, but accept it graciously. Amen.

The great Dominican, Saint Thomas Aquinas, teaches us to go to Saint Joseph in all of our needs:

Some Saints are privileged to extend to us their patronage with particular efficacy in certain needs, but not in others; but our holy patron St. Joseph has the power to assist us in all cases, in every necessity, in every undertaking.

 

May Saint Joseph, the head of the Holy Family, help us with our families to accept the crosses that come our way, knowing that his help will lighten the load and that he, who is so favored by her foster-Son and by his Most Chaste Spouse, will win for us all of the humility and meekness that we need to bear the burdens of each day with love and gratitude, willing to lose everything in this passing, mortal vale of tears in order gain the possession of the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost for all eternity.

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

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

Saint Blase, pray for us.