Antichrist's Interchangeable Spare Parts, Part 1

[34] Justice exalteth a nation: but sin maketh nations miserable. (Proverbs 14: 34.)

The United States of America has long sanctioned sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance under cover of the civil law and in every nook and cranny of what passes for popular culture.

Yet it is that even many fully traditional Catholics in the catacombs continue to believe that this or that election is going to retard the advance of the grave evils that are the product of the natural degeneration of the welter of naturalistic, anti-Incarnational, religiously indifferent, semi-Pelagian errors of the founders, some of whom had a founding hatred for Christ the King.

As I noted over fourteen months ago now, the results of the midterm Congressional elections held on Tuesday, November 4, 2014, although a stunning rebuke of the policies and the criminality of the administration of President Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, who remains as unbent and as unapologetic in his beliefs as he was after the results of the midterm Congressional elections that were held on Tuesday, November 2, 2010, that were nowhere near as devastating to him or to his political party as were results of the 2014 midterm elections did not mean that the era of limited government was upon us or that much time wuld be  spent investigating Obama/Soetoro’s lawless disregard of various provisions of the Constitution of the United States of America and any and all laws, including the terms of his own “Affordable Care Act”/ObamaCare.

Those who were so excited about the results of the elections held on November 2, 2014, seemed to have forgotten that one of the reasons that Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, who is, after all, the end product of Americanism, remains defiantly reckless in his lawless disregard of the laws of God and the just laws of men is that he believes in the righteousness of his cause to complete the transformation of the United States of America into an exact replica of Eurosocialism, that is, of cradle-to-grave government entitlement programs and of a form of statism that is nothing other than a “soft” totalitarianism made possible by government monitoring of our written and oral communications, of our purchases and of our travels. Obama/Soetoro was completely unapologetic in his defense of his agenda, replete with every shibboleth and manufacted myth stated with confidence as acutal facts imaginable, in his State of the Union address to a joint meeting of the Congress of the United States of America on Tuesday, January 12, 2016.

Unlike his counterparts who constitute the leadership of the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist “right,” the Republican Party, Barack Hussein Obama makes no compromises on his basic beliefs, which include his commitment to the absolute “right” of a woman to kill her innocent preborn baby at any time for any reason without any reservation, qualification or conditions whatsoever and, of course, his attempt to engineer a change in human behavior in the name of “climate control.”

This “soft” totalitarianism is such that the United States Department of Justice and an assortment of leftist advocacy groups have sought to criminalize speech that is considered to be “offensive,” once again showing the incapability of a written constitution that admits of no higher authority above its own text to defend itself in the face of determined statists, legal positivists and moral relativists to deconstruct that text much in the same manner as Protestants and Modernists in the counterfeit church of conciliarism do to the plain words of Holy Writ.

To be sure, the criminalization of dissident speech in the United States of America has long and historic roots.

It was within a decade of the inauguration of the first President of the United States of America, George Washington, that a Congress controlled by Federalist Party members during the administration of Washington's successor, the Catholic-hating John Adams, who was, of course, the first Vice President of the United States of America, that the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed on July 14, 1798, made it a crime to publish "false, scandalous, and malicious" writing against the government of the United States of America and its officials.

The sixteenth President of the United States of America, Abraham Lincoln, did not exactly "cotton" to political opposition during the War Between the States from 1861 to 1865, as he intimidated judges, shut down newspapers, suspended the writ of habeas corpus without an Act of Congress, held opponents in prison without trial and put civilians on trial in military courts at a time when civilian courts were open. And this is just a partial listing of what led John Wilkes Booth to cry out, "Sic temper tyrannis!" as he jumped onto the stage of the Ford Theater in Washington, District of Columbia, on Good Friday, April 14, 1865, from the balcony where he had just shot Lincoln in the head, a wound that would take Lincoln's life early the next morning, Holy Saturday, April 15, 1865.

Suppression of opposition to American involvement in World War I under the administration of President Thomas Woodrow Wilson was so extensive that Senator Hiram Johnson of California, who had run as former President Theodore Roosevelt's Vice Presidential running-mate on the Progressive (Bull Moose) Party ticket in 1912 when Wilson was running for his first term as President against Roosevelt and then President William Howard Taft, who had defeated Roosevelt, to say on the floor of the United States Senate: "It is now a crime for anyone to say anything or print anything against the government of the United States. The punishment for doing so is to go to jail" (quoted in Dr Paul Johnson's Modern Times). (See also my Fascists for Freedom.)

Just as an aside, President Thomas Woodrow Wilson wanted to use the unconstitutional Federal Reserve System, created in an act passed by the Congress of the United States of America and signed into law by Wilson on December 23, 1913, as the means to centralize the banking and monetary systems under the authority of the government of the United States of America in order to restrict the legitimate freedom of Americans to control their own private property and to make private industry dependent upon the "direction" provided it by governmental regulators and overseers. It was for this reason as well that Wilson saw to it that Congress enacted legislation, following the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, to create our current system of confiscatory taxation on our incomes. And it was Wilson, of course, who believed that the Masonic revolutionaries in Mexico, aping the "example" established by the French Revolutionaries, could "build" or "engineer" the "better" society in Our Lady's country by the killing of thousands upon thousands of Catholics:

Wilson replied [in 1915, to a Father Clement Kelley, who was a representative of James Cardinal Gibbons, the Archbishop of Baltimore, for whom Wilson had such contempt that he addressed him as Mister Gibbons]: 'I have no doubt but that the terrible things you mention have happened during the Mexican revolution. But terrible things happened also during the French revolution, perhaps more terrible things than have happened in Mexico. Nevertheless, out of that French revolution came the liberal ideas that have dominated in so many countries, including our own. I hope that out of the bloodletting in Mexico some such good yet may come.'

"Having thus instructed his caller in the benefits which must perforce accrue to mankind out of the systematic robbery, murder, torture and rape of people holding a proscribed religious conviction, the professor of politics [Wilson] suggested that Father Kelley visit Secretary of State Williams Jennings Bryan, who expressed his deepest sympathy. Obviously, the Wilson administration was committed to supporting the revolutionaries (Robert Leckie American and Catholic, Doubleday, 1970, pp. 274.)

Franklin Delano Roosevelt used the Internal Revenue Service to audit his "enemies." He contravened the law in numerous ways as he used the legislative powers illicitly given his regulatory agencies by Congress during the Great Depression and during World War II to set the stage for Barack Hussein Obama's rule by decree and presidential fiat.

Mind you, this is only a partial listing of abuses that have been committed in this alleged land of "laws and not men," a land where over fifty-three million innocent babies have been butchered by surgical means (hundreds of millions more by chemical means) since, most of those having taken place in the thirty-nine years after the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973. That staggering figure does not include those babies who were killed by surgical means in their mothers' wombs between 1967 and 1973 when various states, including Colorado, California, Hawaii, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Alaska, and Washington (and Washington, District of Columbia) decriminalized surgical baby-killing in some or all cases at various stages of a baby's development in his mother's womb.

A "civilized" nation of "laws." I don't think so.

The lawless imposition of policies even in violation of constitutions and civil code or statutory law and the suppression of opposition to the policies of statists of one stripe or another is nothing new, you see. It has been around for a long, long time. There is even a certain "logic" to the efforts on the part of naturalists to suppress opposition as those committed to their own acquisition and retention of personal power as an ultimate end/or who are committed ideologues of one system of "secular salvation" or another ape, pervert, invert and distort the Catholic Church's teaching that the civil state is is "acting against the laws and dictates of nature whenever it permits the license of opinion and of action to lead minds astray from truth and souls away from the practice of virtue" (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.) Statists believe that anyone who opposes their schemes and their firmly-held ideological beliefs is leading "minds away from truth" and must be denounced and threatened with fines and imprisonment (see an article by John Whitehead, The American Secret Police.)

Indeed, the United States Department of Justice under the racialist tyrant named Eric Holder has sought to racialize cases such as Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown while at the same time refusing to judicially defend the laws of the United States of America and by covering up the crimes associated with the department’s “Fast and Furious” gun running scheme and the Internal Revenue Service’s unquestioned deliberate targeting of conservative advocacy groups which were applying for tax-exempt status.

Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro believes in his agenda, and he knows full well that his hapless opponents, many in number though they are in Congress at this time, are not going to stop him because they fear being too “confrontational” in the belief that “moderate” voters in the swing states will be alienated by firmness, thus punishing them electorally in 2016. The reigning caesar is, of course, very much a kindred spirit of the Modernist statist named Jorge Mario Bergoglio (see Tyrants Who Speak About “Freedom”).

Although there are individual members of the Republican Party in the Congress of the United States of America and in state legislatures who care about limited government and who want to stop the criminality of the current administration, the real power in the false opposite of the naturalist “right,” the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, Paul Davis Ryan (R-Wisconsin), cut a deal with our reigning caesar, President Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, to pass an Omnibus Budget bill that included full funding for the baby butchers of Planned Barrenhood and complete funding for caesar's unjust and illegal executive orders amending the terms of ObamaCare and his "refugee resttlement program" that violates Congressional immigration law. (See Still Enabling Statism.)

Indeed, Obama/Soetoro heralded Paul Davis Ryan's acquiescence to his statist agenda as follows near the beginning of his Make-Believe State of the Union address:

And I understand that because it’s an election season, expectations for what we will achieve this year are low. But, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the constructive approach that you and the other leaders took at the end of last year to pass a budget and make tax cuts permanent for working families. So I hope we can work together this year on some bipartisan priorities like criminal justice reform -- (applause) -- and helping people who are battling prescription drug abuse and heroin abuse. (Applause.) So, who knows, we might surprise the cynics again. (State of the Union Address As Delivered.) 

Please, do not be deceived by the recent bill to defund Planned Barrenhood that the Minority Leader of the United States Senate, Senator Harry Reid (D-Nevada) did not filibuster because he knew that a presidential veto awaited it. House Speaker Ryan and his cohorts in the Republican establishment made a deal with Obama/Soetoro to fund Planned Barrenhood in the Omibus Budget bill, which caesar would not have vetoed, with the understanding that meaingless "show" votes would be taken to let Republicans prove to their "base" of supporters that "something" is being done. The hour is very late for people to be deceived so easily, although I guess that there are many who still think that such meaningless gestures are important even though something of actual substance could have been accomplished if caesar's feet hd been held to the fire last month.

Then again, professional, career Republicans have long enabled the growth of the monster civil state of Modernity. This support has included—but by no means has been limited to passage of  the so-called “Patriot Act,” and of the needless, unjust and unconstitutional wars that are fought in the name of “American national security” but wind up enriching the military-industrial complex and limiting legitimate liberties and empowering the thought police at home. Moreover, careerist Republicans have enabled the uncontrolled of Federal spending and obscene increases in the national debt that have occurred as a result, something that the recent Omibus budget bill has more than amply enabled.

It is good to recall once again the words of Gilbert Keith Chesterton that were written over ninety years ago now, four years before his conversion to Catholicism: 

The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected. Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition. Thus we have two great types—the advanced person who rushes us into ruin, and the retrospective person who admires the ruins. He admires them especially by moonlight, not to say moonshine. Each new blunder of the progressive or prig becomes instantly a legend of immemorial antiquity for the snob. This is called the balance, or mutual check, in our Constitution. (Gilbert Keith Chesterton, London Illustrated Review, April 24, 1924.)

Obviously, that is as applicable to the state of apostasy in the counterfeit church of conciliarism that most people believe is the Catholic Church as it is to the state of partisan politics and public policy decision-making in the United States of America.

That is, there are “conservatives” and pseudo-traditional Catholics who are attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism who believe that the doctrinal, liturgical, pastoral and moral revolutions unleashed by the “Second Vatican Council and the “magisterium” of the conciliar “popes” can be brought under “control.”

The truth of the matter, of course, is that false premises always lead to bad results, whose full consequences manifest themselves over the course of time. To make any kind of concessions in the name of a “results-oriented” pragmatism without addressing the fallacy of fundamental premises to consign oneself to a prison of thinking and praxis from which there is, humanly speaking, no escape. It is truly astounding to see “conservatives” in the ecclesiastical realm and in the realm of politics and policy-making keep making the same mistakes repeatedly as they continue to believe that they will obtain different results than they had in the past. Obviously, this is insanity.

Rabbi Mayer Schiller put it this way in a commentary that he had circulated privately a few months ago but has made its way to cyberspace:

Yes, it is true that the pseudo opposition party, symbolized by the large creature, aptly labeled Dumbo, claims to like Warfarism better than Welfarism, but we all know that these claims are cunning lies inevitably abandoned when possessing power (see 1968-1978, 1980-1988 etc. ad nauseum). And, despite increasingly weakened bleatings about restoring the morality of Christianity and Judaism,  these flag waving phonies are less concerned about Roe vs. Wade or the now lunatic sexual "policies" of the Manic Revolutionaries, aka the Democrats, than I am about the results of Australian Rules Football.And yes, it is true that the Manic Revolutionary Party, having assumed power in 1932 has never, in effect, relinquished it. This pseudo, anti-Warfarism Party does bellow a bit about not liking endless, Imperial Warfarism, before plunging into yet another Messianic Crusade to "spread democracy" in Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, Somalia and against whatever Islamic country we are bombing at present. They, too, do so love the wars. Remember, it was the donkey party that gave us manufactured incidents on the Rio Grande in order to invade Mexico in 1845. Yes, it's true that blowing up the Maine, and shouting "bully" was elephant fun, but who can forget the insatiably itch of Woodie who, clearly delusional even before his stroke, had over a hundred thousand Americans led to their slaughter in order to "fight the war to end all wars" and "promote democracy" in tandem with the Czar.

And, yes, the Manic Revolutionary Party pontificates on matters of ecology, while never seriously attempting to change our national life style which will eventually leave a planet unfit for all except a future remnant of hardy survivors.

Fortunately, almost two thirds of Americans are sentient enough to disregard elections in non-presidential years, while a still encouraging 45% abstain from presidential voting. This would seem to indicate that, despite endless exhortations by technocrats, "educators" and our ruling class, many of us still know a con when we see it.

Leaving aside the strange anomaly of 1964, there are precious few Americans  alive who may yet harbor a childhood memory of elections which presented any alternative to the policies uniformly endorsed by Tweddledee and Twiddledum, who in the nursery rhyme formulation, "agreed to have battle."

For it is not since the 1920's that either of the "major" parties has offered a candidate that dissents from the dogmas of our essentially one party state. The axioms which may never be called into question under our soft totalitarianism are several. In no special order they are 1) assent to never ending expansion of Welfarism, 2) assent to never ending expansion of Warfarism 3) increasingly intense cultural suppression of traditional religion and morality 4) universal war against the European basis and identity of the nation, 5) fiscal policies yielding increasing economic enfeeblement and inevitable collapse 6) environmental suicide geared to plunging the nation and mankind into chaos. (Chronicles: A Voice from Internal Exile on the Evil Party, the Stupid Party, and the Futility of Elections.)

Complementing Rabbi Schiller’s fine analysis of the farce that is politics in our world of naturalism is one written by Judge Andrew Napolitano a day the November 4, 2014, dog and pony show that was heralded by many "conservatives" as some kind of great “victory” for the United States of America when it was nothing of the sort:

There are two great freedoms being assaulted under the radar that will soon come to the fore: the freedom to live and the freedom to speak. Both parties use abortion as a litmus test. You want the Democratic nomination for any federal or state office; you need to support a woman’s right to abortion. You want the Republican nomination for any federal or state office; you better claim that you are pro-life.

I say “claim” because that’s all Republicans need to do to satisfy each other. If Republicans truly were pro-life, they’d have passed a one-paragraph statute when they ran the Congress and George W. Bush was in the White House that legally defined a fetus in the womb as a natural person. Of course, morally and biologically, a fetus is a natural person. The fetus has human parents and possesses a fully actualizable human genome — all the genetic materials needed to grow and flourish and possess self-directed humanity. But no such legislation ever came.

Since the Supreme Court denied personhood to every fetus in 1973, much as it had done to African-Americans in 1857, more than 44,000,000 babies have met the abortionists’ vacuum and scalpel. Will a newly revived Republican Congress address personhood to the abortionist in chief in the White House? Don’t hold your breath.   (The GOP Fraud.)

Although the actual number of preborn babies killed by means of surgical execution (suction abortion, saline solution abortion, dilation and evacuation, hysterotomy and dilation and extraction method, also known as crushed skull abortion) is closer to 58, 625,000 (see Number of Abortions in US & Worldwide) than the figure cited by Judge Napolitano in 2014 the point that His Honor was making is a valid one, and it is one that has been made on this site (and in countless articles in The Wanderer from 1992 to 2002, the printed pages of Christ or Chaos from 1996 to 2003, The Remnant from 2002 to 2006 and in Catholic Family News before this site went live on February 20, 2004, to say nothing of talks given when running for lieutenant governor of the State of New York in 1986 and in campaigns for Supervisor of the Town of Oyster Bay in 1997 and for the United States senatorial nomination of the Right to Life Party in 1998).

Those who think that “things will be different” if a Republican statist is elected in 2016 either have short memories or, worse yet, actually believe the abject mythology that former President George Walker Bush was “pro-life” (please see the appendix for yet another review of Bush the Lesser’s anti-life record; for a review of Willard Mitt Romney's anti-life record Without Any Rational Foundation, which contained just a few snippets of Willard Mitt Romney's anti-life record).

Chuck Baldwin, the unreconstructed Calvinist who was the presidential candidate of the Constitution Party in 2008, put it this way in a column published on March 11, 2005: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Catholics with a knowledge of true history, of course, understand that career politicians of both major organized crime families of naturalism in the United States of America cultivated alliances, albeit at different times and for different reasons, with Catholics to convince them that “something was being done” to make the world better.

To wit, most Catholics in the United States of America in the latter part of the Nineteenth Century saw partisan politics as the means of upward social, political and economic mobility. Leaders of the Democratic Party saw in these immigrants and their children the means to win elections, thus welcoming them with open arms and making it relatively easy for them to advance the ranks of ward politics. There was a price to be paid for this, of course: one could not be confessionally Catholic in his public discourse. One had to speak in generic, inter-denominational or non-denominational terms, thus advancing the agenda of Judeo-Masonry as the Incarnation and Redemptive Act of the God-Man, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, was held to be of no account whatsoever in public life.

The "identification" of Catholics with the Democratic Party was such that a story was told in the 1930s of a woman in Boston, Massachusetts, who was praying a Novena to Saint Monica for the return of her son to the Faith. A friend asked her what had happened to her son. The woman praying the Novena said in great distress, "He's become a Republican!" Yes, being a Democrat and being a Catholic were considered to be inseparable by the lion's share of Catholics in the Nineteenth and early-Twentieth Centuries.

This alliance of Catholics with the Democratic Party was such that they overlooked the blatant anti-Catholicism of the likes of Thomas Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt time and time again. After all, it was the "party" that mattered. Oh, it was too bad that Wilson supported the slaughter of Catholics in Mexico. Catholics just voted for the Democratic Party, which permitted Franklin Roosevelt, who, unlike his statist predecessor, Woodrow Wilson, in whose administration he worked as Assistant Secretary of the Navy, cultivated friendships with Catholic prelates in order to coopt them into supporting his own statist plans, to unleash a veritable campaign team of Catholic bishops and priests to denounce any "conservative" Catholic who dared to criticize his policies. As noted in We're Not in Kansas Any More in January of 2009,  Roosevelt unleashed the "Right Reverend New Dealer," Monsignor John A. Ryan, to denounce the courageous Father Charles Coughlin for him during his re-election campaign in 1936. And Francis Cardinal Spellman was known as "FDR's errand boy in a miter."

It was, however, after World War II that fissures began to break in the solid Catholic support for the Democratic Party. The threat posed by the spread of the Soviet Union into Eastern Europe and the fall of China to the forces of Mao Zedong in 1949 led some Catholics to turn more and more to the Republican Party, convincing themselves that they could purge that stronghold of anti-Catholic Masons and nativists and transform it into a bastion of "conservatism" to turn back the New Deal and to win the Cold War.

The fissures in Catholic support became more pronounced in the years after the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973, especially during the years of the administration of President Ronald Wilson Reagan. Having convinced themselves that electoral politics was the means to "transform" the country, well-meaning Catholics of the "conservative" bent engaged in what could be termed a Manichean struggle with Catholics of the "leftist" bent, each side armed with "bishops" who supported their own particular brand of Americanism, each convinced that the "other" side was composed of "bad guys" as they represented the '"true" interpretation of the Constitution and the "rights" of Catholics in a pluralistic society.

The Modernist named Jorge Mario Bergoglio, currently masquerading as “Pope Francis,” has made it exponentially easier for statists and pro-aborts to be elected in all so-called “democratic republics” around the world with the full-throated support of Catholics in the name of not being “obsessed” about single issues. Bergoglio has provided very effective cover for the appartchiks in places such as the misnamed United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to provide covert, if not overt, comfort and assistance to pro-abortion, pro-perversity members of what Rabbi Schiller, cited above, called the Evil Party in order to provide statist subsidies to the “poor,” who have become the captive clientele of a welter of interlocking groups that have a vested interest in making everyone equally poor by means of confiscatory taxation policies and statist schemes of income redistribution.

To wit, consider how the following excerpt from Obama/Soetoro's 2016 State of the Union address with an excerpt taken from Jorge Mario Bergoglio's address to a special joint session of Congress on Thursday, September 24, 2015, the Feast of Our Lady of Ransom:

Look, if anybody still wants to dispute the science around climate change, have at it. You will be pretty lonely, because you’ll be debating our military, most of America’s business leaders, the majority of the American people, almost the entire scientific community, and 200 nations around the world who agree it’s a problem and intend to solve it. (Applause.) But even if -- even if the planet wasn’t at stake, even if 2014 wasn’t the warmest year on record -- until 2015 turned out to be even hotter -- why would we want to pass up the chance for American businesses to produce and sell the energy of the future? (State of the Union Address As Delivered.)

It goes without saying that part of this great effort is the creation and distribution of wealth.  The right use of natural resources, the proper application of technology and the harnessing of the spirit of enterprise are essential elements of an economy which seeks to be modern, inclusive and sustainable.  “Business is a noble vocation, directed to producing wealth and improving the world.  It can be a fruitful source of prosperity for the area in which it operates, especially if it sees the creation of jobs as an essential part of its service to the common good” (Laudato Si’, 129).  This common good also includes the earth, a central theme of the encyclical which I recently wrote in order to “enter into dialogue with all people about our common home” (ibid., 3).  “We need a conversation which includes everyone, since the environmental challenge we are undergoing, and its human roots, concern and affect us all” (ibid., 14).

In Laudato Si’, I call for a courageous and responsible effort to “redirect our steps” (ibid., 61), and to avert the most serious effects of the environmental deterioration caused by human activity.  I am convinced that we can make a difference, I'm sure and I have no doubt that the United States – and this Congress – have an important role to play.  Now is the time for courageous actions and strategies, aimed at implementing a “culture of care” (ibid., 231) and “an integrated approach to combating poverty, restoring dignity to the excluded, and at the same time protecting nature” (ibid., 139).  “We have the freedom needed to limit and direct technology” (ibid., 112); “to devise intelligent ways of… developing and limiting our power” (ibid., 78); and to put technology “at the service of another type of progress, one which is healthier, more human, more social, more integral” (ibid., 112).  In this regard, I am confident that America’s outstanding academic and research institutions can make a vital contribution in the years ahead. (Bergoglio's Address to U.S. Congress.)

Obama/Sotero's transformation political agenda is the same as the Argentine Apostate, Jorge Mario Bergoglio's.

Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro has been absolutely lawless in his efforts to shred the Constition of the United States of America, which has shown itself to be utterly defenseless against itself, into little bitty pieces strewn across the the Capitol Mall and then thrown into the faces of "conservative" members of Congress as so much confetti as he know that they care too much about election results to risk anything that could cost them votes by holding him to account for his reckless disregard of the immutable laws of God and the just laws of men.

Similarly, Jorge Mario Bergoglio has been completely reckless in his own efforts to shred the few remaining vestiges of recognizable Catholicism in his false religious sect into equally tiny bits of confetti that he loves to throw into the faces of his mythical straw men (Pelagians, Pharisees, closed-on-themselves, doctrinally rigid) who might stand in the way of his overt celebration of sin, including sins of perversity, and of ecclesiastical changes that had been resisted, at least to a certain extent, up until now by his two previous successors, each of whom followed a Giorndist/Menshevik path of advancing the conciliar revolution.

Bergoglio has done everyone the favor of stipping all pretense to the fraud that is conciliarism. His ally and political clone, Obama/Soetoro does not even bother to mention the word "constitution," although he did give a nod to "the branches of government" as though to indicate he is anything other than what he is, a leftist totalitarian who believes that all opposition is illegitimate and thus far game for demonization. Efforts to "save" conciliarism from itself are as futile as efforts to "save" a Constitutional system that makes no room for the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Blessed Trinity, and for His true Church, the Catholic Church, as the sole means to guide men and their nations in all that pertains to the good of souls.

Obama/Soetoro and Bergoglio are simply two of Antichrist's spare parts, the sort of men who will be disposed of when the Antichrist appears on the scene to deceive, if possible, even the elect.

Yes, despite all of the hundreds of millions of dollars spent during the dog and pony shows called elections, Democrats and Republicans in the United States of America agree on the basic naturalistic, anti-Incarnational, religiously indifferentist and semi-Pelagian principles of the American founding, disagreeing on the specifics as to the conduct of public policy in light of those principles.  Thus it is that "liberal" and "conservative" Catholics accept those same false principles as they diverge on the specifics of public policy according to the political "camp" which they believe represents the best means of achieving various goals. Both "liberal" and "conservative" Catholics are as one in rejecting the simple truths of the Catholic Faith as binding upon their consciences and that they apply to the concrete circumstances to be found in the United States of America, believing that their naturalistic or non-denominational ideas and plans and strategies can "win the day" for their respective causes.

Such beliefs are delusional.

Our true popes have taught why this is so:

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.)

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.)

A system of morality based exclusively on human reason robs man of his highest dignity and lowers him from the supernatural to the merely natural life. Not but that man is able by the right use of reason to know and to obey certain principles of the natural law. But though he should know them all and keep them inviolate through life-and even this is impossible without the aid of the grace of our Redeemer-still it is vain for anyone without faith to promise himself eternal salvation. "If anyone abide not in Me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up and cast him into the fire, and he burneth" john xv., 6). "He that believeth not shall be condemned" (Mark xvi., 16). We have but too much evidence of the value and result of a morality divorced from divine faith. How is it that, in spite of all the zeal for the welfare of the masses, nations are in such straits and even distress, and that the evil is daily on the increase? We are told that society is quite able to help itself; that it can flourish without the assistance of Christianity, and attain its end by its own unaided efforts. Public administrators prefer a purely secular system of government. All traces of the religion of our forefathers are daily disappearing from political life and administration. What blindness! Once the idea of the authority of God as the Judge of right and wrong is forgotten, law must necessarily lose its primary authority and justice must perish: and these are the two most powerful and most necessary bonds of society. Similarly, once the hope and expectation of eternal happiness is taken away, temporal goods will be greedily sought after. Every man will strive to secure the largest share for himself. Hence arise envy, jealousy, hatred. The consequences are conspiracy, anarchy, nihilism. There is neither peace abroad nor security at home. Public life is stained with crime.

So great is this struggle of the passions and so serious the dangers involved, that we must either anticipate ultimate ruin or seek for an efficient remedy. It is of course both right and necessary to punish malefactors, to educate the masses, and by legislation to prevent crime in every possible way: but all this is by no means sufficient. The salvation of the nations must be looked for higher. A power greater than human must be called in to teach men's hearts, awaken in them the sense of duty, and make them better. This is the power which once before saved the world from destruction when groaning under much more terrible evils. Once remove all impediments and allow the Christian spirit to revive and grow strong in a nation, and that nation will be healed. The strife between the classes and the masses will die away; mutual rights will be respected. If Christ be listened to, both rich and poor will do their duty. The former will realise that they must observe justice and charity, the latter self-restraint and moderation, if both are to be saved. Domestic life will be firmly established ( by the salutary fear of God as the Lawgiver. In the same way the precepts of the natural law, which dictates respect for lawful authority and obedience to the laws, will exercise their influence over the people. Seditions and conspiracies will cease. Wherever Christianity rules over all without let or hindrance there the order established by Divine Providence is preserved, and both security and prosperity are the happy result. The common welfare, then, urgently demands a return to Him from whom we should never have gone astray; to Him who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and this on the part not only of individuals but of society as a whole. We must restore Christ to this His own rightful possession. All elements of the national life must be made to drink in the Life which proceedeth from Him- legislation, political institutions, education, marriage and family life, capital and labour. Everyone must see that the very growth of civilisation which is so ardently desired depends greatly upon this, since it is fed and grows not so much by material wealth and prosperity, as by the spiritual qualities of morality and virtue. (Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900.)

. . . . 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. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1950.)

The words of our true popes are either true or they are not. If they are true, which they are, of course, then they are merely expressions of what is in fact true and thus binding upon all men in all places at all times without exception.

Yes, true, we live in the midst of a world where these truths are rejected by most Catholics, principally because they (and their parents and grandparents and great grandparents) were never taught anything about them by the true bishops of the past or by their worthy successors in the Americanist heresy, the faux bishops of the United States of America.

Some might argue that we have do “what we can” to retard evils, making whatever compromises in the practical order of things that appear to be justified by the circumstances, including voting for odious candidates who will not only not retard evils but will make sure that they become more and more institutionalized and as they themselves become willing enablers and accomplices in the growth of the “soft” totalitarianism of the modern police state.

There is nothing that I can write that will dissuade people form believing what they want to believe. 

As one who has followed politics since the presidential election of 1956 when I was five years of age and who has made its study my life’s work as a college professor, writer and speaker, I know all too well that the trajectory of degeneration that has occurred in the past six decades despite all of the most well-intentioned efforts to “stop” this or that boogeyman or to oppose or to support this or that Congressional legislation. Futility awaits those who put their hopes in the ability of naturalists to combat the evils that are caused by naturalism.

Pope Pius XI, writing in his first encyclical letter Ubi Arcano Dei Consiliio, December 23, 1922, explained the nature of most political parties with great exactitude, an analysis whose truth has been demonstrated repeatedly in the last ninety-two years:

To these evils we must add the contests between political parties, many of which struggles do not originate in a real difference of opinion concerning the public good or in a laudable and disinterested search for what would best promote the common welfare, but in the desire for power and for the protection of some private interest which inevitably result in injury to the citizens as a whole. (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.)

Fools continue to ignore the teaching of our true popes, and fools there are aplenty in the midst of the madness that is the civil world of Modernity and the ecclesiastical world of Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

As Silvio Cardinal Antoniano noted in the Sixteenth Century:

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, as quoted by Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.)

God the Holy Ghost saw fit to instruct us in Sacred Scripture, including in the passage from the Book of Proverbs that was quoted at the beginning of this commentary:

[34] Justice exalteth a nation: but sin maketh nations miserable. (Proverbs 14: 34.)

Christ the King will not be mocked. He will suffer the sins of men so that they and their nations might be brought to repentance. He is not, however, indifferent that which Him to suffer in His Sacred Humanity during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross, sin, and that wounds the Church Militant on earth and impedes the pursuit of the true common temporal good of men and their nations.

As Pope Pius XI noted in Casti Connubii, December 31, 1929:

Those who hold the reins of government should not forget that it is the duty of public authority by appropriate laws and sanctions to defend the lives of the innocent, and this all the more so since those whose lives are endangered and assailed cannot defend themselves. Among whom we must mention in the first place infants hidden in the mother's womb. And if the public magistrates not only do not defend them, but by their laws and ordinances betray them to death at the hands of doctors or of others, let them remember that God is the Judge and Avenger of innocent blood which cried from earth to Heaven. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 30, 1930.)

Total trust in the Mother of God and her Fatima Message as we pray as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits to console the good God and to make reparation for our own sins, each of which has worsened both the state of the world-at-large and the state of the Church Militant here on earth in this time of apostasy and betrayal.

This time of chastisement will pass. The Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary will be made manifest.

True, we may not be alive to witness this triumph. We can, however, plant the seeds for it by our patient endurance of the crosses of the moment as we make whatever sacrifice necessary and endure whatever calumny, humiliation and hardship that is required in order to make no concessions to falsehoods, whether of Modernity or Modernism, of any kind at any time for any reason.

Let us lift high the Cross of Christ the King, He Who is the King of men and their nations even though most men do not realize this and even though most nations seek to suppress all mention of His Holy Name and mock any possibility that He is their King, the King Who will come in glory to judge the living and dead.

Vivat Christus Rex!

Viva Cristo Rey!

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

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

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

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

Saint Hilary of Poitiers, pray for us.

Saint Felix of Nola, pray for us.

Appendix A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BUSH: I said I would make sure that women would be safe who used the drug.  (2000 Debate Transcript) [Droleskey comment: Uh, Mister Former President, the President of the United States of America can make appointments to the Food and Drug Administration who could indeed overturn such a decision by means of an administrative fiat. Moreover, the human pesticide, RU-486, is lethal to babies, Mister Former President.]

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

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

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

Dear Ms. Maloney:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Provide consumers and healthcare professionals with labeling and education about the appropriate use of prescription and OTC Plan B, including an informational toll-free number for questions about Plan B;

Ensure that distribution of Plan B will only be through licensed drug wholesalers, retail operations with pharmacy services, and clinics with licensed healthcare practitioners, and not through convenience stores or other retail outlets where it could be made available to younger women without a prescription;

Packaging designed to hold both OTC and prescription Plan B. Plan B will be stocked by pharmacies behind the counter because it cannot be dispensed without a prescription or proof of age; and

Monitor the effectiveness of the age restriction and the safe distribution of OTC Plan B to consumers 18 and above and prescription Plan B to women under 18.

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

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

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

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

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

Indeed, I have met Catholics, both in the clergy and laity alike, who, upon being informed of this fact, shrug their shoulders and say, "Gore or Kerry would have done worse. Obama is doing worse now " And this is supposed to exculpate one from not hav ingdenounced Bush at the time did these terrible things? Reprehensible. Absolutely reprehensible.

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

Also, as I have pointed out repeatedly since this issue came to forefront of public debate over twenty years ago, there are two methods--the hysterotomy and dilation and evacuation--by which babies may be killed in the later stages of pregnancy. These methods can still be used to kill babies in the later stages of pregnancy with complete legal impunity. Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy specifically referred to these two methods when upholding the constitutionality of the partial-birth abortion ban in Gonzales v. Carhart, April 18, 2007:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix B

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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