"Admirable" Men? Willard Mitt Romney and Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.

That superb carpetbagger, flip-flopper, sanctimonious and ever mercurial hypocrite named United States Willard Mitt Romney (R-Utah, by way of Michigan and Massachusetts) has issued a statement congratulating former Vice President Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., on the mainslime media’s coronation of the decrepit, and epic demagogic Trojan Horse of the false opposite of the naturalist “left” as “president-elect” of the United States of America even though epic vote counting fraud took place in Wisconsin, Nevada, Michigan, and Pennsylvania and that only ninety percent of the votes have been reported in the State of Arizona and that the contest in the State of Georgia, where all kinds of mysterious things occurred in Atlanta-Fulton County, is headed for a recount. This is what the intolerably self-righteous and ever preening failed candidate for the presidency in 2012 said in his congratulatory statement:

“Ann and I extend our congratulations to President-elect Joe Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris. We know both of them as people of good will and admirable character. We pray that God may bless them in the days and years ahead,” Romney, a frequent Trump critic, wrote on Twitter.  (Romney is first Reupblican Senator to Congratulate Biden on Winning the Presidential Race.)

Good will and admirable character, eh, Mitt?

Are you, five years younger than Biden, suffering from the same sort of mental decline as your new “president-elect”?

Here’s a little reminder for you about Joseph Robinette Biden’s “good will” and “admirable character”:

Mitt Romney's campaign blasted President Obama's team for hitting a "new low" after Vice President Biden suggested to voters that the Republican ticket’s economic policies would “put y’all back in chains."

Biden made the remark while campaigning Tuesday in Virginia, during a discussion of Wall Street regulation. 

"They’ve said it. Every Republican’s voted for it. Look at what they value and look at their budget and what they’re proposing. Romney wants to let the — he said in the first 100 days, he’s going to let the big banks once again write their own rules — unchain Wall Street," Biden said. "They’re going to put y’all back in chains. He’s said he’s going to do nothing about stopping the practice of outsourcing."

Romney's campaign said the remarks showed the president is determined to run a negative campaign. 

“After weeks of slanderous and baseless accusations leveled against Gov. Romney, the Obama campaign has reached a new low," Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul said. "The comments made by the vice president of the United States are not acceptable in our political discourse and demonstrate yet again that the Obama campaign will say and do anything to win this election."

Saul then called on the president to say whether he condoned Biden's language.

"President Obama should tell the American people whether he agrees with Joe Biden’s comments," Saul said.

A review of previous comments by Biden suggests the gaffe-prone vice president had made another speaking error. 

Obama campaign officials noted that Republicans — including Romney — have spoken of the need to "unshakle" the private sector from regulations, and that Biden has frequently used that term in arguing it is the middle class that needs to be "unshackled." 

Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter said Biden's remarks on Tuesday "were a derivative of those remarks, describing the devastating impact letting Wall Street write its own rules again would have on middle-class families."

Cutter defended the statement shortly thereafter on MSNBC, blasting the Romney response as "faux outrage."

Asked by host Andrea Mitchell if she would say the vice president went too far, Cutter responded, "No, I'm not."

"The bottom line is we have no problem with those comments," Cutter added.

Saul then released a second statement criticizing the Obama campaign. 

“In case anyone was wondering just how low President Obama could go in his campaign for reelection, we now know he’s willing to say that Governor Romney wants to put people back in chains," Saul said. "Whether its accusing Mitt Romney of being a felon, having been responsible for a woman’s tragic death or now wanting to put people in chains, there’s no question that because of the president’s failed record he’s been reduced to a desperate campaign based on division and demonization.” 

In a statement released after her appearance on MSNBC, Cutter said the Romney campaign's outrage was "hypocritical" given Romney's stump speech that she said questioned the president's patriotism. (Romney Team Blasts Biden for Saying the GOP Would "put y'all back in chains".)

The then vice president of the United States of America made those remarks, by the way, when he was running for reelection with coup mastermind Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro against none other than two creatures of the administrative state named Willard Mitt Romney and Paul Davis Ryan. And the “left” claims that Donald John Trump alone initiated “divisive speech” in campaigns?

Just by the way, you understand, Willard Mitt Romney, who seems to be suffering from political amnesia and considers himself the new John Sidney McCain III, who did indeed vote to convict  President Donald John Trump on one of the two charges brought the United States Senate after the United States House of Representatives impeached the president following the Soviet-style kangaroo hearings that were chaired by the authoritarian named Adam “I see Collusion Everywhere Right On Down the Russian Trail” (which can be sung to the tune of “Here Comes Peter Cottontail as sung by Gene Autry) Schiff.

Speaking of Romney, here is what the always statesmanlike former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) said about the carpetbagging senator from Utah by way of Michigan and Massachusetts:

WASHINGTON — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has what he says is an informed explanation for why Mitt Romney refuses to release additional tax returns. According a Bain investor, Reid charged, Romney didn’t pay any taxes for 10 years.

In a wide-ranging interview with The Huffington Post from his office on Capitol Hill, Reid saved some of his toughest words for the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. Romney couldn’t make it through a Senate confirmation process as a mere Cabinet nominee, the majority leader insisted, owing to the opaqueness of his personal finances.

His poor father must be so embarrassed about his son,” Reid said, in reference to George Romney’s standard-setting decision to turn over 12 years of tax returns when he ran for president in the late 1960s.

Saying he had “no problem with somebody being really, really wealthy,” Reid sat up in his chair a bit before stirring the pot further. A month or so ago, he said, a person who had invested with Bain Capital called his office.

“Harry, he didn’t pay any taxes for 10 years,” Reid recounted the person as saying.

“He didn’t pay taxes for 10 years! Now, do I know that that’s true? Well, I’m not certain,” said Reid. “But obviously he can’t release those tax returns. How would it look?

“You guys have said his wealth is $250 million,” Reid went on. “Not a chance in the world. It’s a lot more than that. I mean, you do pretty well if you don’t pay taxes for 10 years when you’re making millions and millions of dollars.”

The highest ranked Democrat in Congress, Reid is known more as a back room brawler than a public flamethrower. So his willingness to throw this private conversation into the media frenzy over Romney’s taxes underscores the low opinion he has of the Republican candidate. (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/harry-reid-romney-taxes_n_1724027.)

The mean-spirited Mormon from Nevada, Reid, had no regrets about his unfounded statement about his “nice” Mormon’s tax returns, saying in 2015 that they helped to keep Romney out of the White House:

Harry Reid, D-Nev. has no regrets about his 2012 claims that then presidential candidate Mitt Romney paid no taxes for 10 years.

The outgoing Senate Minority Leader even bragged to CNN that the comments, which had been described as McCarthyism, helped keep Romney from winning the election.

"They can call it whatever they want. Romney didn't win did he?" Reid said during a wide-ranging interview.

So, in Reid's world, it is perfectly acceptable to make a defamatory charge against an opponent to damage his campaign.

Reid first made the accusation against the former Massachusetts governor in a 2012 interview with the Huffington Post. At the time, Reid claimed that a Bain Capital investor told him Romney didn't pay taxes for the previous 10 years. This, Reid claimed, was why Romney hadn't released his tax returns.

"He didn't pay taxes for 10 years!" Reid said. "Now, do I know that that's true? Well, I'm not certain, but obviously he can't release those tax returns. How would it look?"

A few days after the HuffPo interview, Reid made the same charge on the Senate floor, this time claiming as fact that Romney paid no taxes.

"As we know, he has refused to release his tax returns. If a person coming before this body wanted to be a Cabinet officer, he couldn't be if he had the same refusal Mitt Romney does about tax returns," Reid said. "So the word is out that he has not paid any taxes for 10 years. Let him prove he has paid taxes, because he has not."

Even though Reid made a slanderous statement that Romney had in fact paid not taxes, without mentioning anything about his Bain source or skepticism, he cannot be sued for that particular statement. Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution states that members of Congress shall "be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place." The only exceptions to this rule are for treason, felonies and "breach of the peace."

After his floor speech, Reid made the claim again, except this time he again cited his "extremely credible source" for the accusation.

So when Reid directly accused Romney of being a tax dodge, he did so from the safety of the Senate floor. Outside the protection of legislative immunity, Romney was only possibly a tax dodge.

Not only does Reid not think he did anything wrong, he's actually proud that his lies might have helped cost Romney the election.

Note: The Washington Post's fact checker gave Reid " 4 Pinocchios" for his claims. PolitiFact gave the claim a " pants on fire" rating. (Slimeball Harry Reid Pround He Lied about Mitt Romney's Taxes .)

In other words, the ends justify the means. As I noted in 2008, A System Based on Lies Produces Liars.

Reid was also busy at work in 2016 disseminating Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro’s web of lies about the Donald John Trump campaign’s alleges ties to Russian operatives:

Brennan placed one of them center stage. On August 25, he gave a briefing that differed from the others; he tailored its content especially to the bare-knuckle politics of its recipient, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. During the 2012 election, Reid had assisted President Obama by falsely claiming that his Republican presidential challenger, Mitt Romney, had paid no taxes for ten years. When later asked if spreading a false rumor wasn’t reminiscent of McCarthyism, Reid responded, “They can call it whatever they want. Romney didn’t win, did he?” With the certain knowledge that Reid, who was in any case retiring after the 2016 election, would do whatever it took to win, Brennan indulged his own partisan political passions. He told Reid, according to the New York Times, “that unnamed advisers to Mr. Trump might be working with the Russians to interfere in the election.”

If Reid’s response is anything to go by, Brennan did much more than that: He briefed the senator on information taken directly from Steele’s dossier; and he complained about the recalcitrance of the director of the FBI. Two days after the briefing, Reid wrote a letter to Comey, which he immediately shared with the press. Claiming there was mounting evidence of “a direct connection between the Russian government and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign,” Reid demanded that the FBI launch an immediate investigation. The American people, he wrote, deserve all the facts “before they vote this November.”

The Trump campaign, Reid continued bluntly, “has employed a number of individuals with significant and disturbing ties to Russia and the Kremlin.” He was particularly concerned with Trump associates who may have served as what he called “complicit intermediaries” between the Russian government and hackers. “The prospect of individuals tied to Trump, Wikileaks, and the Russian government coordinating to influence our election raises concerns of the utmost gravity and merits full examination.” In an unmistakable reference to Steele’s reports on Carter Page, Reid informed Comey that “questions have been raised” about a Trump adviser who allegedly “met with high-ranking sanctioned individuals while in Moscow.”

Serving as Brennan’s dummy, Reid publicized the Marvel Comics rendering of Carter Page, and he demanded that the FBI launch an investigation on the basis of it. Before long, Comey would obey. (The Real Russia Collusion Story.)

Men who care not for the Particular Judgment that Christ the King will render on their immortal souls at the moment they die will be without any kind of self-restraint in their efforts to defeat and figuratively destroy anyone who gets in their way, something that has come fully to the surface in the past few years although I can assure you that what is in public view now was quite at work in the halls of academe even as early as the late-1970s before becoming much worse since then. Men who can lie with impunity are doing the work of the adversary, whose work is being done with ready abandon by Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his fellow Jacobin/Bolsheviks in the counterfeit church of conciliarism and by his close allies in Modernity’s work of totalitarianism.

Hey, Willard, you fake, phony, fraud, believer in a false religion that contends blasphemously that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and the adversary are “spirit brothers,” here is a review of the “admirable” Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.’s sterling ethical record and how he has always used language to “unite” people as he promised in his “stake the claim victory to make it impossible for the Supreme Court of the United States to “steal” from as the minions of his organized crime family of the naturalist “left” stole votes from President Donald John Trump” speech on Saturday evening, November 7, 2020:

exemplified by the way he has always sought to finesse his disregard for the norms of ethical behavior, something he demonstrated as early as his time at Syracuse University Law School in 1965:

Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., fighting to salvage his Presidential campaign, today acknowledged ''a mistake'' in his youth, when he plagiarized a law review article for a paper he wrote in his first year at law school.

Mr. Biden insisted, however, that he had done nothing ''malevolent,'' that he had simply misunderstood the need to cite sources carefully. And he asserted that another controversy, concerning recent reports of his using material from others' speeches without attribution, was ''much ado about nothing.''

Mr. Biden, the 44-year-old Delaware Democrat who heads the Senate Judiciary Committee, addressed these issues at the Capitol in a morning news conference he had called expressly for that purpose. The news conference was held just before he presided over the third day of hearings on the nomination of Judge Robert H. Bork to the Supreme Court.

To buttress his assertions of sincerity and openness, Mr. Biden released a 65-page file, obtained by the Senator from the Syracuse University College of Law, that he said contained all the records of his years there. It disclosed relatively poor grades in college and law school, mixed evaluations from teachers and details of the plagiarism. (Biden Admits Plagiarism in School But Says It Was Not 'Malevolent'; see also Joseph Biden's Plagiarism)

This revelation took place in September of 1987 after John Sasso, then the campaign manager for Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis's campaign to secure the 1988 presidential nomination of the Democratic Party, had aired an "attack video" that placed side-by-side, split-screen footage of speeches given by Neil Kinnock, the Trotskyite leader of the Labour Party in the United Kingdom, and the then Senator Biden on foreign policy that were identical. Kinnock was then the leader of the Labour Party, which was out of power in the United Kingdom from May 4, 1979, to May 2, 1997, at which point the party, then led by Tony Blair, defeated the Conservative (or Tory) Party in the general elections, ousting Margaret Thatcher's successor, John Major, as prime minister. Biden and Kinnock were soulmates on matters of foreign policy.

Why not steal Kinnock's speech?

After all, it was "much ado about nothing."

Well, despite Biden's willingness to let his fellow pro-abortion Catholic, Edward Moore Kennedy (D-Massachusetts), to his bidding for him by demonizing United States Judge of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Judge Robert Bork during the latter's confirmation hearings in 1987 to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, he had to fold up his presidential aspirations for 1988 soon after the plagiarism became known, following the departure of former United States Senator Gary Hart (D-South Dakota), whose "monkey business" forced him out of the race on May 8, 1987 (he reentered seven months later principally to become eligible for Federal matching funds to pay off his campaign debt). The gaffe-prone Biden thought that he could win that presidential nomination he so coveted if he only waited a little while, having to settle for the vice presidency under Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, a first-class demagogue in his own right, after in 2008 campaign fizzled out after receiving four percent of the vote in the Iowa caucuses on January 3, 2008.

The loose-mouthed, foul-mouthed (see When "Boys Will Be Boys" They Grow Up to Be Men Like Joe Biden) was a walking demagogue throughout the course of his eight years as the nation's forty-seventh vice president. It was in 2011 that Biden accused House Republicans associated with the loosely-organized Taxed Enough Already movement (TEA Party) of being "terrorists" for seeking to achieve significant cuts in Federal spending in exchange for the raising of the national debt ceiling. True to his lying self, Biden denied that he used the word terrorism:

Vice President Joe Biden joined House Democrats in lashing tea party Republicans Monday, accusing them of having “acted like terrorists” in the fight over raising the nation’s debt limit, according to several sources in the room.

Biden was agreeing with a line of argument made by Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) at a two-hour, closed-door Democratic Caucus meeting.

“We have negotiated with terrorists,” an angry Doyle said, according to sources in the room. “This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.”

Biden, driven by his Democratic allies’ misgivings about the debt-limit deal, responded: “They have acted like terrorists.”

Biden’s office initially declined to comment about what the vice president said inside the closed-door session, but after POLITICO published the remarks, spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff said: “The word was used by several members of Congress. The vice president does not believe it’s an appropriate term in political discourse.”

Biden later denied he used that term in an interview with CBS.

“I did not use the terrorism word,” Biden told CBS Evening News anchor and managing editor Scott Pelley.

Earlier in the day, Biden told Senate Democrats that Republican leaders have “guns to their heads” in trying to negotiate deals. (Joe Biden likened tea partiers to terrorists.)

Although the "conventional wisdom" continues to be that President Donald John Trump's rhetoric is "divisive," Biden has been and continues  to be one of the most divisive, demagogic men in public life in the past fifty years, and he has ever sought to position himself as a "leader" in support of sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance. Something to admire, Willard, huh?

Oh, you want more?

Sure, here is how United States Senator Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., surrendered to "interest groups" by demonizing Judge Robert Bork in 1987 after privating assuring President Ronald Wilson Reagan that he could support the jurist for the Supreme Court opening created by the retirement of Associate Justice Lewis PowellL

When Vice President Joe Biden took a stab at Robert Bork in Thursday’s [2012] vice presidential debate – referring to him and Justice Antonin Scalia as “far right” and chiding Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney for making Bork an advisor on judicial issues -- it brought back several memories, including this: Biden was for Bork before he was against him. 
President Ronald Reagan’s first nominee to the Supreme Court vacancy created when Justice Lewis Powell resigned in June 1987, then-U.S. Appeals Court Judge Bork seemed a lock for Senate confirmation. The term “Madisonian” – in tribute to the father of the U.S. Constitution, James Madison -- was often used to characterize Bork’s approach to judicial construction.
Commenting on Bork’s stature and intellect in 1986, Biden said, “If Judge Bork were to replace [Justice William Rehnquist] or to replace … Scalia, I would have no problem. I’d have to vote for him, and if the [liberal] groups tear me apart, that’s the medicine I’ll have to take.”
At that time, Bork’s considered views on legal policy, from his scholarly writings and five-year tenure on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, were deeply respected among conservatives and many liberals.
Biden voted for both Bork and Scalia when they were nominated to the appeals court. And, he was part of the 96-0 unanimous confirmation given Scalia when Reagan named him to the Supreme Court in 1986. 
In the November 1986 elections, Democrats retook the U.S. Senate, making Biden chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. 
As conservatives like me in the judicial reform movement encouraged President Reagan to nominate Bork to take Powell’s place, Bork’s enemies already assumed he would be the choice, and were organizing a massive campaign. The Left captured the momentum early in the Bork confirmation process and never really lost it. 
Sen. Biden changed his tune, declared he did not want the “balance” of the High Court altered, and became a leader as Senate Democrats plowed what George Will called “fresh ground in the field of partisanship.”
On the morning of July 2, 1987, the Delaware solon met with a quartet of anti-Bork activists, and promised to do everything in his power to defeat the nominee. However, he told them he would not make his opposition formal until after committee hearings.
One of Biden’s next steps in preparing for the Bork hearings was to assure the formal process did not begin until the fall, buying time for his allies as they organized the most expensive -- $10 million -- negative advertising campaign in the history of American judicial confirmations. 
In consultation with specialists in visual media, Biden also changed the physical arrangement of the committee room, and the positioning of the broadcast media, so that television cameras focused on the nominee from an unfavorable angle. 
When Bork appeared before the committee in September, the result was what his son characterized as “hearings, not listening.” Opposing Senators presented lengthy and argumentative questions, with embedded “sound bites” designed to frame his views in the worst possible light. 
Ignored were Bork’s responses citing case law and precedent, which to the Democratic majority became mere prelude to additional provocative questions -- the equivalent of “Have you stopped beating your wife, yet?”  
The assault on Bork peaked 25 years ago this month. A blizzard of negative ads overwhelmed the modest effort of supporters to reverse the television dynamic. The roughly $1 million Bork’s allies raised and spent was too little, too late.
In the end – on October 23, 1987 – Judge Bork’s nomination was rebuffed 58-42, the worst defeat for a Supreme Court nominee in American history. 
Analysts began to refer to what had happened as “a borking.” The verb “To Bork” entered the language -- describing efforts to defeat a judicial nominee through sustained attacks on his or her character, background and philosophy.
Biden was a key player in the process that led to a collapse in the presumption of seriousness for judicial confirmation hearings, with broad implications for Senate comity. It became difficult for “originalist” nominees like Bork to address serious questions seriously. Careful politically correct answers became the norm. 
Bracketing Bork’s ordeal was that of one of the greatest libertarian legal minds of the twentieth century, University of San Diego Law Professor Bernard Siegan
Siegan was a leading advocate of a “law and economics” philosophy devoted to rationality and prudence in regulatory law. After Reagan nominated Siegan to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Biden orchestrated a delay in confirmation hearings from February 1987 until the summer of 1988. 
I labored unsuccessfully for the confirmations of both Siegan and Bork, even as the polarization in judicial selection and confirmation intensified. Eventually I understood that Bork and Siegan lost not because their enemies misunderstood them, but because the philosophies of each represented fundamental threats to a judicial power consensus antithetical both to liberty and democratic governance.
Those years gave me perspective, and balance, in assessing the Senate, legal culture, political ideology and judicial confirmation. 
Ultimately, I wrote a book about the Bork fight, a day-by-day chronology of nearly four months, that distilled lessons from the confirmation fights of the 1980s.
Among those who read my book, “Ninth Justice,” was a former U.S. agency administrator, Circuit Court Judge Clarence Thomas.
When Judge Thomas was nominated to the High Court and his former employee -- University of Oklahoma Law Professor Anita Hill -- began to spread rumors about their relationship, Senator Biden called Thomas to say "Judge, I know you don't believe me but if the allegations come up I will be your biggest defender." 
In his book “My Grandfather’s Son,” Thomas wrote, "He was right about one thing. I didn't believe him."
Not taking Biden at face value no doubt contributed to Thomas’ successful weathering of his own confirmation process. We’ll see how the 2012 version of Joe Biden plays, in 25 days. (Biden Was for Bork Before He Was Against Him.)

No wonder Willard Mitt Romney considers the media's anointed "president-elect" to be admirable. Biden is a man after Romney's own opportunistic heart, which means that flip-flopping and pandering is never a problem if one can remain sanctimoniously self-righteous about his hypocrisy and double-dealing.

In this regard, therefore, it would be most pleasantly useful  to review Willard Mitt Romney’s own “good will” and “admirable” record concerning the daily slaughter of the innocent preborn by chemical and surgical means:

Here is this “man of character’s” true track record, starting with a transcript of his debate with the egregious pro-abortion, pro-Soviet, pro-sodomite, pro-everything bad Senator Edward Moore Kennedy in 1994:

Q. Mr. Romney, you personally oppose abortion and as a church leader have advised women not to have an abortion. Given that, how could you in good conscience support a law that enables women to have an abortion, and even lets the Government pay for it? If abortion is morally wrong, aren't you responsible for discouraging it?

ROMNEY One of the great things about our nation, Sally [ Sally Jacobs of The Boston Globe ] , is that we're each entitled to have strong personal beliefs, and we encourage other people to do the same. But as a nation we recognize the right of all people to believe as they want, and not to impose our beliefs on other people. I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country; I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate.

I believe that Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years, that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice. And my personal beliefs, like the personal beliefs of other people, should not be brought into a political campaign. Too much has been written about religion in this race. I'm proud of my religious heritage; I am proud of the values that it's taught me. But if you want to know my position on issues, ask me and I'll tell you. I think the low point of this race was when my opponent and their family decided to make religion an issue in this campaign -- brought it out, attacked me for it. I think that's a mistake. I think the time has passed for that. John Kennedy was the one who fought that battle; let that battle live for all of us of all faiths.

KENNEDY I would agree with Mr. Romney that religion has no place in this campaign. And the best way to make sure that it doesn't is not to talk any further about it, and I don't intend to do so.

On the question of the choice issue, I have supported Roe v. Wade. I am pro-choice; my opponent is multiple choice.

I have not only introduced the freedom-of-choice legislation but I have fought -- wrote and saw successfully passed -- the clinic access bill that will permit women to be able to practice their constitutional rights in selection of abortion. And I have also led the fight against judges in the Supreme Court of the United States that refuse to permit a woman's right to choose. (THE 1994 CAMPAIGN; Excerpt From Debate By Kennedy And RomneyThe Real Romney, a video clip of this exchange.)

Take a look also at comments Romney made eight years later when running for Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What was one of those actions?

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to States News Service on October 2, 2006,

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

Romney loves to take credit for it.

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

From Chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006:

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

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

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

ROMNEY: “It’s certainly not something that was in my bill.” (Eric Krol, “Full Text Of Romney Interview,” [Arlington Heights, IL] Daily Herald, 6/17/07)

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

It doesn’t stop with this, though.

One of Romney’s own campaign aides in 2012 said, after winning enough delegate votes to secure the Republican Party presidential nomination, that the former Governor of Massachusetts could have a “Etch-A-Sketch” makeover for the general election:

Is Mitt Romney an Etch-A-Sketch candidate, one whose positions can be erased with a shake, ready for a new and different drawing?

That’s an analogy that’s getting a lot of discussion today in the Washington professional political class following a comment made by senior Romney aide Eric Fehrnstrom on CNN. Asked whether conservatives Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich had pushed Mr. Romney so far to the right that he’ll have trouble with moderates in a general election, Mr. Fehrnstrom said that wouldn’t be a problem.

“Well, I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign. Everything changes. It’s almost like an Etch-A-Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and restart it all over again,” Fehrnstrom said.

That comment – which appears to imply that Romney can forget what he’s said and take new stands in the fall – came bouncing back to whack the Romney camp faster than a SuperBall pitched against a concrete wall. The Santorum campaign sent out an email alerting reporters to Fehrnstrom’s words, claiming they’re proof that Romney is a Massachusetts moderate.

“We all knew Mitt Romney didn’t have any core convictions, but we appreciate his staff going on national television to affirm that point for anyone who had any doubts,” said Santorum national communications director Hogan Gridley in a statement.

Gingrich piled on, adding via Twitter that “Etch-A-Sketch is a great toy but a losing strategy. We need a nominee w/bold conservative solutions.”

Democratic strategists gleefully retweeted these remarks, hoping to sow chaos in the GOP ranks, while the blogosphere resounded with Romney critics opining as to what other toys he has in his closet: My Little Phony, Gumby, a Hot Wheels Dog Carrier, and so forth.

Very funny. But will this incident hurt Romney, or simply launch a flotilla of bad jokes? We’re guessing the latter. It’ll be gone faster than you can erase a ... well, you know. Etch-A-Sketch references stop here. We promise.

Why? First of all, Romney’s had a pretty good week, in case you didn’t notice. He won the Illinois primary in a walk. Jeb Bush endorsed him, in essence saying to others in the GOP, “it’s time to end this now.”

In other words, Romney has pretty much won. All that’s left is for Santorum and Gingrich to realize that they’ve become zombie candidates. Fehrnstrom’s comments won’t help rivals who have already lost. (Etch-A-Sketch: Can Mitt Romney shake off his aide's Mr. Potato Head Comment?)

Seeking to quickly move on after one of his spokesman blotted out what should have been a banner day for his presidential campaign, Mitt Romney promised wary conservatives that he would not change course if he becomes the Republican nominee.

Speaking to reporters after a town hall meeting in Arbutus, Md., Romney clarified an aide's statement that he would view the start of the general election campaign like an Etch-A-Sketch, suggesting that he could adjust positions he took in a primary campaign dominated by conservatives to please a more centrist electorate in November.

Asked whether Romney’s positions in the primary might be too far to the right to win in November, Eric Fehrnstrom said on CNN: “Well, I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign. Everything changes. It’s almost like an Etch-A-Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and restart all over again.”

Though Fehrnstrom was specifically asked about Romney’s political positions possibly changing, Romney portrayed the comments as being about his organization. Should he be the nominee, Romney said, the nature of the campaign certainly would change "organizationally." But "the issues I'm running on will be exactly the same."

"I'm running as a conservative Republican. I was a conservative Republican governor. I'll be running as a conservative Republican nominee," he said. "The policies and positions are exactly the same."

The Romney campaign had hoped to spend the day talking about its double-digit triumph in Illinois on Tuesday and the endorsement of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. At a town hall meeting outside Baltimore, Romney sought to keep his focus on President Obama, mocking his trip out West to talk about energy prices.

But his rivals seized on the comments from Fehrnstrom, forcing Romney to respond.

A Rick Santorum campaign spokesman showed up at the site of Romney's Maryland campaign kickoff event to hand out miniature versions of the Etch-A-Sketch.

Fehrnstrom's analogy, Alice Stewart told reporters, "confirms what a lot of conservatives have been afraid of. He used to be pro-abortion, he used to be pro-gay marriage, he used to be for a Wall Street bailout, climate change. Now he's talking a different language, but the campaign acknowledged that if need be, if he won the primary, he'd go right back to the middle in order to win the general." (Romney clarifies Etch-A-Sketch remarks to reporter.)

This is nothing new actually. Naturalists who are the creatures of focus group polling and the advice given them by their political handlers and marketers always change their positions in order to win as winning is the only thing that matters in American politics. Nothing else. 

Most of those who participate as gladiators in the naturalist farce and circus that is electoral politics count on the simple fact that they can use an "Etch-A-Sketch" strategy to campaign for office because most voters themselves live "Etch-A-Sketch" lives in that they do not remember the events of past campaigns or the policy positions they had taken once in office.

Yet it is that Romney considers himself be “better” than President Trump.

Romney is a craven opportunist. He was one at Bain Capital. He was one when he was running for the United States Senate in 1994 against the late Edward Moore Kennedy, whose own lack of character was never mentioned by Romney. He was one when he ran for the governorship of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in 2002, and he was one when he ran for president in 2008 and 2012. Romney was an opportunist when he invested in Stericycle, unconcerned about its practices of disposing of the remains of babies butchered in America’s killing centers, abortuaries (see Blood Money Talks Loud And Clear). Romney may not have known what Stericycle did. However, he did not care as the company was a good investment for him. Willard Mitt Romney’s character is as much defined by the “bottom line” as that of the man he has criticized so hypocritically, President Donald John Trump. Count on Romney (along with Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, Marco Rubio, Thom Tillis, Lindsey “Welcome Aboard, Biden” Graham, Richard Burr, Addison Mitchell McConnell, John Cornyn and possibly Charles Grassley) as a sure vote in support of amnesty and thus citizenship for illegal immigrants.

Willard Mitt Romney is a man of such “virtuous character” that he felt compelled to throw then United States Representative Tod Akin (R-Missouri) under the bus in 2012 when the latter rightly, albeit clumsily, expressed his opposition to abortion in those rare cases when a woman has conceived a child as a result of a forcible attack upon her:

Rejecting Democratic efforts to convince voters that Republicans would “wage a war on women” with their policies, Mitt Romney offered an unusual defense of his Massachusetts healthcare plan in an interview that aired Sunday, and offered another condemnation of Missouri Congressman Todd Akin.

Akin created an uproar and major political problem for his party when he made the baseless assertion in an interview last Sunday that after a “legitimate rape,” women have a biological mechanism to prevent a pregnancy.

Asked during an interview with Fox News Sunday about the political consequences Akin’s comment has had for his party, Romney said he believed it was “a terrible statement” on Akin’s part, and called it “uninformed,” “outrageous and offensive.”

“I think I’ve distanced myself from the thing he said as far as I possibly can,” he said, arguing that Democrats were using the statement to cast a shadow on his entire party.

Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace asked Romney to respond to the charge from Democrats that their party offers more support and choice in situations of abortion, rape or birth control and women’s health in general.

“With regards to women’s healthcare — look I’m the guy who was able to get healthcare for all the women and men in my state,” Romney said. “They’re just talking about at the federal level. We actually did something and we did it without cutting Medicare and without raising taxes. I’m very proud of what we did and the fact that we helped women, and men and children in our state,” he said pivoting to an attack on Obama’s record on Medicare.

Addressing contraceptives, Romney said he and other Republicans “of course … recognize that people should have a right to use contraceptives. There’s absolutely no validity whatsoever to the Obama effort to try and bring that up.”

Romney has, however, vowed to end federal funding of Planned Parenthood, which, along with other services, provides contraceptives to those who cannot otherwise afford them.

Steering into the issue of abortion, Romney made the case for his opposition to abortion, which he believes should be banned except in the case of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is at risk. (His running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, would outlaw abortion even in cases of rape or incest, though he has said recently that he was “comfortable” with Romney’s position because “it's a good step in the right direction.”)

On abortion, Romney said: “That is something where men and women have alternative views on that, or different views. We look at an issue like that with great seriousness and sobriety and recognize that different people have reached different conclusions,” Romney continued. “But it’s not just men who think one way, women also in many cases are pro-life. There are two lives at stake: the child — the unborn child and the mom — and I care for both of them.”

Earlier in his political career, Romney was a strong advocate of abortion rights. His position switched before his first run for president in 2008. (Romney Defends Self, Party on Assault, Abortion and Women.)

This is what I wrote at the time after Romney’s cowardly attack on Tod Akin:

Permit me to introduce you to your "lesser of two evils" in 2012.

See Willard Mitt Romney condemn Todd Akin.

See Willard Mitt Romney boast about RomneyCare, the prototype of ObamaCare.

See Paul Davis Ryan say that the very "exceptions" that paved the way for the decriminalization of surgical baby killing in several states in the 1960s and thus for the American genocide to take place on a nationwide basis following the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973, are a "step in the right direction." What, Representative Ryan, is this the kind of logic you picked up listening to your "heavy metal" noise?

See Willard Mitt Romney once again state his firm support for the "right" of Americans to use contraceptives, each of which denies the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage and most of which actually kill innocent human beings.

See Willard Mitt Romney parrot Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., George Walker Bush and John Sidney McCain III, saying that "different people have reached different conclusions." Yes, your "pro-life" "champion" of 2012.

Please, please, please. Do not tell me that the movie 2016 should cause us to accept Romney because Obama is so bad and that conditions will be so much more worse in 2016 if he is re-elected on Tuesday, November 6, 2012. You mean to tell me you need a motion picture to inform you that Barack Hussein Obama has a Third World Marxist view on role of the United States of America in the world and the redistribution of wealth here at home as the Federal government arrogates more and more powers unto itself?

Look Willard Mitt Romney's statements above and ask yourselves how "things" will get "better in 2016 with such a man in the White House, a man who believes that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and the devil are "spirit brothers," a man who believes that what matters most in the life of a nation is "the money, the money, the money, the money," a man who is a complete and total slave to the policies of the State of Israel.

Once again, believe what you want. Act as you will. Vote as many times as you want as it is, after all, Obama's "Chicago Way." 

It was actually worse than all this as Romney’s campaign, desperate to find some means to reach “swing” voters in Ohio, Virginia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and New Mexico, actually ran a campaign advertisement touting his “moderate views” about baby-killing:

Mitt Romney’s campaign, in an effort to appeal to women who hold more moderate views on reproductive issues, is releasing a new commercial that highlights his support for contraception and abortion in limited circumstances.

“You know, those ads say Mitt Romney would ban all abortions and contraception seemed a bit extreme, so I looked into it,” says a woman identified as Sarah Minto, who is shown on camera searching on Google for “Romney on abortion.”

Ms. Minto adds: “It turns out Romney doesn’t oppose contraception at all. In fact, he thinks abortion should be an option in cases of rape, incest or to save a mother’s life.”

The ad is Mr. Romney’s most aggressive attempt to rebut attempts by the Obama campaign to paint him as extreme on women’s rights.

Mr. Romney has long struggled with women. All year polls have shown President Obama with a sizeable advantage. But as the race tightens in the final three weeks before the election – and one major poll showing this week that the Republican nominee is significantly narrowing the gender gap – the Romney campaign is moving dramatically to showcase its more moderate positions.

This strategy is not without risk. Many socially conservative Republicans have long been wary of Mr. Romney, who as a candidate for United States Senate said that abortion should be “safe and legal” and touted his pro-gay rights positions.

Reproductive rights have continued to bedevil Mr. Romney over the course of this election. Just last week he raised eyebrows when he denied to the editorial board of The Des Moines Register that he would pursue anti-abortion legislation. “There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda,” he said.

Mr. Romney’s advisers have long said that they believed the election would turn on the economy, and that is where Ms. Minto ends her statement in the ad.

“I’m more concerned about the debt our children will be left with,” she says as she looks into the camera. “I voted for President Obama last time. We just can’t afford 4 more years.” (Romney Ad Touts Moderate Views on Abortion.)

Oh, I have more about the Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., of 2012, Willard Mitt Romney.

Romney’s 2012 campaign featured women who downplayed the “divisive” “social issues”:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you remember these facts?

Why is it that so many people were so agitated seven years ago?

Sure, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro is a statist who had no regard for the laws of God or of man, and he has finally succeeded in his four-year long coup, which he has masterminded at every step of the way, against President Donald John Trump. A “President” Willard Mitt Romney, the “lesser evil” of 2012, you know, would have governed little differently than Obama/Soetoro did. That is a fact that few people wanted to accept in 2012, and it is a fact that so few people want to recognize now eight years later.

Willard Mitt Romney just wanted to get elected. He is no man of virtue at all. He is a craven opportunist who is now champing at the bit to be praised by the mainslime media as he attempts to carve out the role as “the conscience of the Senate.”

Ultimately, good readers, the country has been divided not by Donald John Trump’s style and policies, many of which, especially pertaining to the supposed “rights” of those practicing the sin of Sodom and its related vices, are actually in agreement with those of Willard Mitt Romney’s, nor by the president’s justified decision to stand firm against Red China and to denounce foreign leaders who countries have been feeding at the trough provided them by American taxpayers since World War II.

The United States of America is divided as error divides and only Catholicism unites. This is something that neither Mormon Romney nor the nominal Protestant, Trump, understand or accept. However, it is nevertheless true. Although Catholicism is not a guarantor of social order, it is the necessary precondition for it. Period. Error Engenders Hate and Agitation, Christ the King Engeenders True Charity and Peace. I will simply keep reminding you all that this is all a gigantic trap that was unleashed by the Protestant Revolution and has been institutionalized by the forces of naturalism that have a vested interest in keeping us agitated over events that have as their only remedy the daily conversion of men and their nations to the sweet yoke of Christ the King as they rely so tenderly upon the loving intercession of Our Lady, she is our Immaculate Queen, especially by means of her Most Holy Rosary.

Indeed, the entirety of the political, economic and social system that has arisen in the last five hundred years following Martin Luther’s overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King must produce such corruption over and beyond that which fallen man is capable of at all times. The entire economic structure of Modernity is founded in injustice, something that Dr. George O’Brien noted a century ago:

The thesis we have endeavoured to present in this essay is, that the two great dominating schools of modern economic thought have a common origin. The capitalist school, which, basing its position on the unfettered right of the individual to do what he will with his own, demands the restriction of government interference in economic and social affairs within the narrowest  possible limits, and the socialist school, which, basing its position on the complete subordination of the individual to society, demands the socialization of all the means of production, if not all of wealth, face each other today as the only two solutions of the social question; they are bitterly hostile towards each other, and mutually intolerant and each is at the same weakened and provoked by the other. In one respect, and in one respect only, are they identical--they can both be shown to be the result of the Protestant Reformation.

We have seen the direct connection which exists between these modern schools of economic thought and their common ancestor. Capitalism found its roots in the intensely individualistic spirit of Protestantism, in the spread of anti-authoritative ideas from the realm of religion into the realm of political and social thought, and, above all, in the distinctive Calvinist doctrine of a successful and prosperous career being the outward and visible sign by which the regenerated might be known. Socialism, on the other hand, derived encouragement from the violations of established and prescriptive rights of which the Reformation afforded so many examples, from the growth of heretical sects tainted with Communism, and from the overthrow of the orthodox doctrine on original sin, which opened the way to the idea of the perfectibility of man through institutions. But, apart from these direct influences, there were others, indirect, but equally important. Both these great schools of economic thought are characterized by exaggerations and excesses; the one lays too great stress on the importance of the individual, and other on the importance of the community; they are both departures, in opposite directions, from the correct mean of reconciliation and of individual liberty with social solidarity. These excesses and exaggerations are the result of the free play of private judgment unguided by authority, and could not have occurred if Europe had continued to recognize an infallible central authority in ethical affairs.

The science of economics is the science of men's relations with one another in the domain of acquiring and disposing of wealth, and is, therefore, like political science in another sphere, a branch of the science of ethics. In the Middle Ages, man's ethical conduct, like his religious conduct, was under the supervision and guidance of a single authority, which claimed at the same time the right to define and to enforce its teaching. The machinery for enforcing the observance of medieval ethical teaching was of a singularly effective kind; pressure was brought to bear upon the conscience of the individual through the medium of compulsory periodical consultations with a trained moral adviser, who was empowered to enforce obedience to his advice by the most potent spiritual sanctions. In this way, the whole conduct of man in relation to his neighbours was placed under the immediate guidance of the universally received ethical preceptor, and a common standard of action was ensured throughout the Christian world in the all the affairs of life. All economic transactions in particular were subject to the jealous scrutiny of the individual's spiritual director; and such matters as sales, loans, and so on, were considered reprehensible and punishable if not conducted in accordance with the Christian standards of commutative justice.

The whole of this elaborate system for the preservation of justice in the affairs of everyday life was shattered by the Reformation. The right of private judgment, which had first been asserted in matters of faith, rapidly spread into moral matters, and the attack on the dogmatic infallibility of the Church left Europe without an authority to which it could appeal on moral questions. The new Protestant churches were utterly unable to supply this want. The principle of private judgment on which they rested deprived them of any right to be listened to whenever they attempted to dictate moral precepts to their members, and henceforth the moral behaviour of the individual became a matter to be regulated by the promptings of his own conscience, or by such philosophical systems of ethics as he happened to approve. The secular state endeavoured to ensure that dishonesty amounting to actual theft or fraud should be kept in check, but this was a poor and ineffective substitute for the powerful weapon of the confessional. Authority having once broken down, it was but a single step from Protestantism to rationalism; and the way was opened to the development of all sorts of erroneous systems of morality. (Dr. George O'Brien, An Essay on the Economic Effects of the Reformation.)

Absent Catholicism in public life, of course, public life will be stained with crimes of all kinds,  including the thefts of election with the same kind of legal consequences that will face everyone in the Obama/Soetoro camp who engaged in the weaponizing of Federal law enforcement, diplomatic and intelligence agencies against Donald John Trump and anyone else they could find to target faced: None. Remember, those who act against the laws of God and the just laws of men may “skate”—and “skate” all the time—in this passing, mortal vale of tears. However, they will not be able to “skate” at the moment of their Particular Judgment if they do not repent and also, if necessary, to convert to the Catholic Church before they die and suffer an eternal fate where “skating” of any kind is not possible because of the sulfurous hellfire that will engulf them and their confederates.

Queen of the most holy Rosary, help of Christians, refuge of the human race, victorious in all the battles of God, we prostrate ourselves in supplication before thy throne, in the sure hope of obtaining mercy and of receiving grace and timely aid in our present calamities, not through any merits of our own on which we do not rely, but only through the immense goodness of thy mother’s Heart. In Thee and in thy Immaculate Heart, at this grave hour of human history, do we put our trust; to thee we consecrate ourselves, not only with all of Holy Church, which is the mystical body of thy Son Jesus, and which is suffering in so many of her members, being persecuted, but also with the whole world, torn by discords, agitated with the hatred, the victim of its own iniquities. Be thou moved by the sight of such material and moral degradation, such sorrows, such anguish, so many tormented souls in danger of eternal loss! Do thou, O Mother of mercy, obtain for us from God a Christ-like reconciliation of the nations, as well as those graces which can convert the souls of men in an instant, those graces which prepare the way and make certain the long desired coming of peace on earth. O Queen of peace, pray for us, and grant unto the world in the truth, the justice, and the charity of Christ. Above all, give us peace in our hearts, so that the kingdom of God, may spread it the tranquility of order. Accord thy protection to unbelievers and to all those who lie in the shadow of death; cause the Sun of Truth to rise upon them; may they enabled to join with us in repeating before the Saviour of the world: “Glory to God in the highest, and peace to men of good will.” Give peace to the nations that are separated us from error or discord, and in a special manner to those peoples who profess a singular devotion toward thee; bring them back to Christ’s one fold, under the one true Shepherd. Obtain full freedom for the holy Church of God; defend her from her enemies; check the ever-increasing torrent of immorality; arouse in the faithful a practical love of purity, a practical Christian life, and an apostolic zeal, so that the number of those who serve God may increase in merit and in number. Finally, even as the Church and all mankind were once consecrated to the Heart of thy Son Jesus, because He was for all those who put their hope in Him an inexhaustible source of victory and salvation, so in like manner do we consecrate ourselves forever to thee also and to thy Immaculate Heart, Of Mother us and Queen of the world; may thy love and patronage hasten the day when the kingdom of God shall be victorious and all the nations, at peace with God and with one another, shall call thee blessed and intone with thee, from the rising of the sun to its going down, the everlasting “Magnificat” of glory, of love, of gratitude to the Heart of Jesus in which we alone can find truth, life, and peace. (Pope Pius XII, Rescript from the Secretariat of State, November 17, 1942, document exhibited, November 19, 1942, The Raccolta: A Manual of Indulgences, Prayers and Devotions Enriched with Indulgences, approved by Pope Pius XII, May 30, 1951, and published in English by Benziger Brothers, New York, 1957, pp. 345-347.)

The world is more a victim of its own iniquities, more torn with discords and more agitated by hatreds than it was when seventy-five years ago during the height of World War II when Pope Pius XII wrote his prayer of consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Men and their nations are adrift as they become more and more divided as a result of the proliferation of errors that receive the sanction the civil law and the applause of “opinion makers” and as men, steeped in a variety of what Mortal Sins in the objective order things, run amok in the belief that living as beasts will not hurt themselves and their nations, no less the entire world.

What is happening at this time is nothing other than a well-deserved chastisement for the multifarious ways in which the Most Holy Trinity has been dishonored and blasphemed in a land of such “civil liberty” that every manner sin and indecent behavior is protected by the civil laws and celebrated in all the quarters of social life.

It might do well to recall that prophecy of the Venerable Marie-Julie Jahenny as to what would befall the “great island nation” after there had been a black president:

“After the important island nation has a black president it will be the last president and the country will disintegrate. After many, many years, it will return, but never ever the same.”  (Marie Julie-Jahenny)

We are eyewitnesses to the process of American disintegration, which is all the more reason for us to spend time, if at all possible where you live in this time of apostasy and betrayal, before the Blessed Sacrament and by uniting ourselves more fully to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, Which beats for us with such love in the Adorable Sacrament of the Altar, through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

let us surrender ourselves now and always to the Most Holy Trinity and be ever reliant upon the intercessory power of Our Lady, especially through her Most Holy Rosary, to effect the conversion of men and their nations to the Social Kingship of her Divine Son as the fruit of her Fatima Message and the Triumph of her own Immaculate Heart.

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us!   

Vivat Christus RexViva Cristo Rey!

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 Balthazar, pray for us.

All the Saints, pray for us.

The Four Holy Crowned Martyrs, pray for us.