Although I am unable to view anything live on my computer given the paltry monthly allotment of twenty gigabytes with which I have to do my work, I did watch about three-fifths of the sixth debate between the “varsity” candidates are who running for the 2016 presidential nomination of the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist “right.” While it was certainly entertaining theater at times, it was nothing more than a good theatrical show as each of the seven candidates onstage misrepresented their own records and those of whichever of their opponents happened to pose a threat to their chance to become the principal challenger to the once (and perhaps current) pro-abortion, Clinton-praising businessman named Donald J. Trump.
To be sure, Trump has tapped into a motherlode of anger that many Americans have concerning what appears to them to be the precipitous collapse of American culture in the past four years. Trump is absolutely bereft of any knowledge about First and Last Things and who would be hard-pressed to give any substantive details about the Constitution of the United States of America other than the provision in Article II that requires a president to be a natural-born citizen of the United States of America. His visceral approach to issues has included the use of crass, vulgar comments that have included double-entendres.
While it is one thing to eschew the prevailing fascism of political correctness, it is quite another to descend to vulgar and crude references that have included curse words that used to be unfit for publication and would never pass from the lips of a gentleman at any time. In this regard, however, Trump is but a reflection of the vulgarity and crudeness that have become commonplace all throughout the United States of America. No place is safe from hearing people speak to others or speaking out loud to themselves as they utter the most vile forms of profanity that was once to be heard in locker rooms or on the docks as longshoremen went about their work. Even the late President Richard Milhous Nixon, who used profanity quite profusely in the White House, restrained himself from using vile language publicly. This is no longer the case, and it is the product of something that none of the naturalists running for the Republican presidential nomination understand, namely, the demise of even the Judeo-Masonic, naturalistic concept of just plain decency as a byproduct of the demise of the standard set by Catholic standards of decorum and of public conduct befitting Catholic gentlemen and refined Catholic ladies.
The sacramental barrenness of the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s liturgical rites, which are replete with celebrations of the profane, the banal, the indecent, the ugly, the bizarre and the grotesque, have razed the bastions of Catholic resistance to cultural trends that are odds with the good of souls and are opposed to the right ordering of men in their temporal affairs. Conciliarism’s celebration of the profane and its endorsement of outright blasphemies and sacrileges have contributed to the rise of crassness, immodesty, indecency and vulgarity among Catholics, thus removing visible signs of resistance to cultural mores that once served as a means to sting the consciences of those who gave free rein to any and all unrestrained impulses in their public speech and behavior.
Donald J. Trump is, therefore, just a reflection of the sad times in which we live, but this does not indemnify him for making it more acceptable to give vent to anger and frustration by the verbal means that he chooses to use. Trump is just another baby-boomer, albeit one born in the first year of the baby-boom generation, 1946, who has grown up learning that self-restraint in verbal utterances is not a virtue to employ, whether in public or private discourse.
Mind you, this is not to overlook the fact that, despite of all his crassness and vulgarity, Donald Trump was correct to oppose the unjust, immoral and unconstitutional invasion of Iraq on March 20, 2003, that was planned by the Talmudic neoconservative war hawks and implemented by their goy stooges such as George Walker Bush, Richard Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Trump is further correct to denounce Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro’s lawlessness, which has included the non-enforcement of immigration laws, and he is also right to propose a total ban on the admittance of Mohammedans to this country, something that I noted in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, attacks no matter whose bidding they may have been doing or questions about how those Twin Towers in the Borough of Manhattan in the City of New York, New York, pancaked down on top of themselves. Mohammedanism is not a “religion of peace.”
All of this having been noted, though, Trump does use demagoguery on occasion to deal with the issue of immigration, and he has not thus far discussed the fact that corrupt regimes in Central America, aided and abetted by the chronically corrupt Mexican government, have created the conditions that have forced many of their own citizens to flee to the United States of America. No one has dared to address the root causes of the current flow of Central Americans and Mexicans into the United States of America.
Then again, root causes are anathema in a land whose electoral politics and public-policy decision-making are shaped by the pragmatism of the man who is single-handedly responsible for shaping the course of American miseducation and political discourse, John Dewey. Pragmatism contends that social problems can be resolved on a piecemeal basis without understanding, no less seeking to address, root causes.
Thus it is that each of the men onstage in Charleston, South Carolina on Thursday, January 14, 2016, the Feast of Saint Hilary of Poitiers and the Commemoration of Saint Felix of Nola, are clueless about the simple fact the very real problems they seek to resolve are caused by Original Sin and the Actual Sins of men. To restore order in any country, including in the United States of America, is not as simple as saying, as Donald Trump did on Thursday evening, “We will win on everything we do" (see Republican Candidates Debate in North Charleston, South Carolina.) No country can be made "great" while its laws and its prevailing culture promotes each of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance.
What constitutes “winning” in Donald Trump's eyes?
The only way to ameliorate, that is, to lessen the presence and intensity of, social problems is for individual men to be converted on a daily basis by means of the Sanctifying and Actual Graces won for them by the shedding of every single drop of the Most Precious Blood of the Divine Redeemer, Christ the King, and that came down into our souls through the loving hands of His Most Blessed Mother, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces. To believe that one is going to “will at everything” is to show himself to be a true Pelagian, that is, a person who contends that humans can more or less stir up the graces or “inner strength” necessary to achieve whatever it is they want to achieve. This is an old deception of the devil that leads to the delusion of secular salvation in the mind of politicians and most people in the general public.
The adherents of the false opposite of the naturalist “left” believe that secular salvation is to be had by means of statism and confiscatory redistribution of wealth.
The adherents of the false opposite of the naturalist “right” believe that secular salvation is to be had by means of military strength and material well-being accomplished by supposedly free enterprise and private markets (which are controlled by the lords of Judeo-Masonry, of course).
Neither the naturalists to the “left” or to the “right” believe that they have any obligation to pursue the common temporal good in light of man’s Last End, the possession of the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost for all eternity in Heaven. The common temporal good of man must be undertaken in accord with the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law as explicated by the infallible authority of the Catholic Church in all that pertains to the good of souls.
The civil state has an obligation to foster those conditions in which its citizens can better sanctify and thus save their immortal souls as members of the Catholic Church. While Holy Mother Church and the civil state do have autonomous spheres of operation, the former must subordinate itself to the latter in all that pertains to the good of souls.
Furthermore, Holy Mother Church has the Divinely-appointed right duty to impose sanctions upon those in positions of civil governance who proposed to do things--or who done them as a matter of fact--contrary to the good of souls after she has discharged her Indirect Power of the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ by means of teaching, preaching and exhortation.
As early as 494 A.D., Pope Gelasius made the proper distinctions between the ecclesiastical and civil realms, indicating that those who hold ecclesiastical office should not hold civil office. Pope Gelasius did not teach, however, that a State must not favor the Catholic Faith, a little fact overlooked by apologists of the embrace of the separation of Church and State, which include, of course, Americanists of all denominations and the lords of the counterfeit church of conciliarism. Indeed, Pope Gelasius wrote Emperor Anastasius in the year 494 A.D. to remind him of the superiority of the spiritual over the temporal, keeping in mind that even in the exercise of purely temporal power the Last End of man must be kept in mind:
There are two powers, august Emperor, by which this world is chiefly ruled, namely, the sacred authority of the priests and the royal power. Of these that of the priests is the more weighty, since they have to render an account for even the kings of men in the divine judgment. You are also aware, dear son, that while you are permitted honorably to rule over human kind, yet in things divine you bow your head humbly before the leaders of the clergy and await from their hands the means of your salvation. In the reception and proper disposition of the heavenly mysteries you recognize that you should be subordinate rather than superior to the religious order, and that in these matters you depend on their judgment rather than wish to force them to follow your will.
If the ministers of religion, recognizing the supremacy granted you from heaven in matters affecting the public order, obey your laws, lest otherwise they might obstruct the course of secular affairs by irrelevant considerations, with what readiness should you not yield them obedience to whom is assigned the dispensing of the sacred mysteries of religion. Accordingly, just as there is no slight danger m the case of the priests if they refrain from speaking when the service of the divinity requires, so there is no little risk for those who disdain - which God forbid -when they should obey. And if it is fitting that the hearts of the faithful should submit to all priests in general who properly administer divine affairs, how much the more is obedience due to the bishop of that see which the Most High ordained to be above all others, and which is consequently dutifully honored by the devotion of the whole Church. (Letter to Emperor Anastasius)
Pope Saint Pius X explained the civil state's obligation to pursue the common temporal good in light of man's Last End in Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906, the forty-eighth anniversary of the first apparition of Our Lady to Saint Bernadette Soubirous in the Grotto of Massabielle near Lourdes, France:
That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man's eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man's supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it. The same thesis also upsets the order providentially established by God in the world, which demands a harmonious agreement between the two societies. Both of them, the civil and the religious society, although each exercises in its own sphere its authority over them. It follows necessarily that there are many things belonging to them in common in which both societies must have relations with one another. Remove the agreement between Church and State, and the result will be that from these common matters will spring the seeds of disputes which will become acute on both sides; it will become more difficult to see where the truth lies, and great confusion is certain to arise. Finally, this thesis inflicts great injury on society itself, for it cannot either prosper or last long when due place is not left for religion, which is the supreme rule and the sovereign mistress in all questions touching the rights and the duties of men. Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State. (Pope Saint Pius X, Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906.)
By the way, one of the correlative proofs of how the conciliar "popes" have defected from the Catholic Faith is that they have done what our true Roman Pontiffs have never ceased to do, to "refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State. To refresh your memories on this point, please see Mocking Pope Saint Pius X and Our Lady of Fatima.
Men who do not understand or accept this simple statement will live their entire lives steeped in a pursuit of earthly pleasures and wealth and success that will never make them happy. They will scheme and plot to get ahead of other men in this world without a moment's thought as to the Particular Judgment that will be rendered upon their soul by Christ the King at the moment of their deaths. They will speak in utterly profane and even blasphemous terms as they disparage each other as it suits their purposes to do so. The only thing that matters to the high priests of naturalism is their own self-importance, their own campaign war chests, their own ability to influence policy and key appointments so as to maintain their places in positions of power.
Obviously, fallen human nature inclined the courtiers who served Catholic kings and emperors during the Middle Ages to joust with each other for positions of influence and power. Some kings and emperors made war upon Holy Mother Church. True. There were, however, always those exemplars of the Social Reign of Christ the King who, despite their own faults and failings, sought to pursue justice in the temporal realm in light of the Deposit of Faith that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ had entrusted to His Catholic Church for Its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication. And even some of the mediocre and even rotten apples who served in some capacity or another in civil government during the Middle Ages understood their mortality, possessing at least a remote sense that it might be somewhat important to make a good confession of their sins before they died.
Pope Pius XII wrote in his first encyclical letter, Summi Pontificatus, October 10, 1939, about the tempering of the imperfections of men during the Middle Ages by their possessing at least some sense of the Catholic faith:
It is true that even when Europe had a cohesion of brotherhood through identical ideals gathered from Christian preaching, she was not free from divisions, convulsions and wars which laid her waste; but perhaps they never felt the intense pessimism of today as to the possibility of settling them, for they had then an effective moral sense of the just and of the unjust, of the lawful and of the unlawful, which, by restraining outbreaks of passion, left the way open to an honorable settlement. In Our days, on the contrary, dissensions come not only from the surge of rebellious passion, but also from a deep spiritual crisis which has overthrown the sound principles of private and public morality. (Pope Pius XII, Summi Pontificatus, October 10, 1939.)
Such a sense is entirely lacking in a world of naturalism whose grip on men has been furthered in the past five decades by concilairism's own "reconciliation" with its false principles, to say nothing of conciliarism's de facto embrace of the heresy of "universal salvation," leading so many to believe in the lie of Martin Luther, namely, that there is little that one can do to lose his salvation as long as he has made some kind of "profession of faith" in his heart and with his lips. A world where men either do not believe in eternal life or that "everyone goes to Heaven" is a world where amorality and practical atheism will reign supreme as the lowest common denominators of personal behavior and of social policy. It is also a world where most men, whether of the "left" or of the "right," believe that social order, however defined, can be maintained by the "good will" of men, a Judeo-Masonic concept that was smashed to smithereens by Pope Leo XIII in Humanum Genus, April 20, 1884:
For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of "naturalism," as they call it, dare to teach that "the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones." And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that "that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require." From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity," viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;" and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling."
And, since where religion has been removed from civil society, and the doctrine and authority of divine revelation repudiated, the genuine notion itself of justice and human right is darkened and lost, and the place of true justice and legitimate right is supplied by material force, thence it appears why it is that some, utterly neglecting and disregarding the surest principles of sound reason, dare to proclaim that "the people's will, manifested by what is called public opinion or in some other way, constitutes a supreme law, free from all divine and human control; and that in the political order accomplished facts, from the very circumstance that they are accomplished, have the force of right." But who, does not see and clearly perceive that human society, when set loose from the bonds of religion and true justice, can have, in truth, no other end than the purpose of obtaining and amassing wealth, and that (society under such circumstances) follows no other law in its actions, except the unchastened desire of ministering to its own pleasure and interests? (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864.)
But the naturalists go much further; for, having, in the highest things, entered upon a wholly erroneous course, they are carried headlong to extremes, either by reason of the weakness of human nature, or because God inflicts upon them the just punishment of their pride. Hence it happens that they no longer consider as certain and permanent those things which are fully understood by the natural light of reason, such as certainly are -- the existence of God, the immaterial nature of the human soul, and its immortality. The sect of the Freemasons, by a similar course of error, is exposed to these same dangers; for, although in a general way they may profess the existence of God, they themselves are witnesses that they do not all maintain this truth with the full assent of the mind or with a firm conviction. Neither do they conceal that this question about God is the greatest source and cause of discords among them; in fact, it is certain that a considerable contention about this same subject has existed among them very lately. But, indeed, the sect allows great liberty to its votaries, so that to each side is given the right to defend its own opinion, either that there is a God, or that there is none; and those who obstinately contend that there is no God are as easily initiated as those who contend that God exists, though, like the pantheists, they have false notions concerning Him: all which is nothing else than taking away the reality, while retaining some absurd representation of the divine nature.
When this greatest fundamental truth has been overturned or weakened, it follows that those truths, also, which are known by the teaching of nature must begin to fall -- namely, that all things were made by the free will of God the Creator; that the world is governed by Providence; that souls do not die; that to this life of men upon the earth there will succeed another and an everlasting life.
When these truths are done away with, which are as the principles of nature and important for knowledge and for practical use, it is easy to see what will become of both public and private morality. We say nothing of those more heavenly virtues, which no one can exercise or even acquire without a special gift and grace of God; of which necessarily no trace can be found in those who reject as unknown the redemption of mankind, the grace of God, the sacraments, and the happiness to be obtained in heaven. We speak now of the duties which have their origin in natural probity. That God is the Creator of the world and its provident Ruler; that the eternal law commands the natural order to be maintained, and forbids that it be disturbed; that the last end of men is a destiny far above human things and beyond this sojourning upon the earth: these are the sources and these the principles of all justice and morality.
If these be taken away, as the naturalists and Freemasons desire, there will immediately be no knowledge as to what constitutes justice and injustice, or upon what principle morality is founded. And, in truth, the teaching of morality which alone finds favor with the sect of Freemasons, and in which they contend that youth should be instructed, is that which they call "civil," and "independent," and "free," namely, that which does not contain any religious belief. But, how insufficient such teaching is, how wanting in soundness, and how easily moved by every impulse of passion, is sufficiently proved by its sad fruits, which have already begun to appear. For, wherever, by removing Christian education, this teaching has begun more completely to rule, there goodness and integrity of morals have begun quickly to perish, monstrous and shameful opinions have grown up, and the audacity of evil deeds has risen to a high degree. All this is commonly complained of and deplored; and not a few of those who by no means wish to do so are compelled by abundant evidence to give not infrequently the same testimony.
Moreover, human nature was stained by original sin, and is therefore more disposed to vice than to virtue. For a virtuous life it is absolutely necessary to restrain the disorderly movements of the soul, and to make the passions obedient to reason. In this conflict human things must very often be despised, and the greatest labors and hardships must be undergone, in order that reason may always hold its sway. But the naturalists and Freemasons, having no faith in those things which we have learned by the revelation of God, deny that our first parents sinned, and consequently think that free will is not at all weakened and inclined to evil. On the contrary, exaggerating rather the power and the excellence of nature, and placing therein alone the principle and rule of justice, they cannot even imagine that there is any need at all of a constant struggle and a perfect steadfastness to overcome the violence and rule of our passions.
Wherefore we see that men are publicly tempted by the many allurements of pleasure; that there are journals and pamphlets with neither moderation nor shame; that stage-plays are remarkable for license; that designs for works of art are shamelessly sought in the laws of a so-called verism; that the contrivances of a soft and delicate life are most carefully devised; and that all the blandishments of pleasure are diligently sought out by which virtue may be lulled to sleep. Wickedly, also, but at the same time quite consistently, do those act who do away with the expectation of the joys of heaven, and bring down all happiness to the level of mortality, and, as it were, sink it in the earth. Of what We have said the following fact, astonishing not so much in itself as in its open expression, may serve as a confirmation. For, since generally no one is accustomed to obey crafty and clever men so submissively as those whose soul is weakened and broken down by the domination of the passions, there have been in the sect of the Freemasons some who have plainly determined and proposed that, artfully and of set purpose, the multitude should be satiated with a boundless license of vice, as, when this had been done, it would easily come under their power and authority for any acts of daring.
What refers to domestic life in the teaching of the naturalists is almost all contained in the following declarations: that marriage belongs to the genus of commercial contracts, which can rightly be revoked by the will of those who made them, and that the civil rulers of the State have power over the matrimonial bond; that in the education of youth nothing is to be taught in the matter of religion as of certain and fixed opinion; and each one must be left at liberty to follow, when he comes of age, whatever he may prefer. To these things the Freemasons fully assent; and not only assent, but have long endeavored to make them into a law and institution. For in many countries, and those nominally Catholic, it is enacted that no marriages shall be considered lawful except those contracted by the civil rite; in other places the law permits divorce; and in others every effort is used to make it lawful as soon as may be. Thus, the time is quickly coming when marriages will be turned into another kind of contract -- that is into changeable and uncertain unions which fancy may join together, and which the same when changed may disunite. (Pope Leo XIII, Humanum Genus, April 20, 1884.)
This is a perfect description of the Judeo-Masonic world in which we live. No amount of the insane babbling of naturalists is ever going to “fix” that which is premised upon one falsehood after another. There is no getting the Humpty Dumpty Protestant and Judeo-Masonic of naturalism back together again as it is of, for and by the devil himself. The battle of the “false opposites” of the “left” and the “right” only result in one thing: more naturalism, which means more statism and more pressure to accept evil or face the might of caesar’s wrath, which is being fed by Jorge Mario Bergoglio's constant exhortations in behalf of "drastic" measures to "save the planet."
None of the men onstage on Thursday evening, January 14, 2016, have ever heard of such truths. This includes the three Catholics who were present, New Jersey Governor Christopher Christie, who simply flat-out lied about not having endorsed the pro-abortion, pro-perversity legal positivist Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States of America (see Chris Christie says 'I didn't support Sonia Sotomayor'), United States Senator Marco Rubio (R-Florida), former Flordia Governor John Ellis "Common Core" Bush. It is also true of Ohio Governor John Kasich, who is a baptized Catholic who apostatized in recent years to practice the Anglican variant of the One World Ecumenical religion.
Kasich, who has said that he will cease his campaign if he gets "smoked" in the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday, February 9, 2016, the Feast of Saint Cyril of Alexandria, echoed so many other naturalists of the "right" who have made their peace with "gay marriage," something that he made clear in the immediately after the decision of Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, June 26, 2015, the Feast of Saints John and Paul:
The court has ruled, and I said we'll accept it," Kasich said last week in Cleveland during the GOP's first presidential debate, in response to a question about how he would explain his position on same-sex marriage to one of his daughters if she were gay.
"And guess what, I just went to a wedding of a friend of mine who happens to be gay," Kasich continued, drawing applause from a home-court audience at The Q. (Gov. John Kasich scores political points.)
Kasich should really return to the conciliar structures as he would find himself amongst great friends there, starting with the false "pontiff," Jorge Mario Bergoglio himself, who is as contemptuous of the truths concerning the right ordering of the civil state as are Catholics such as practicing Catholics in the conciliar structures as Bush, Rubio and Christie are ignorant of them.
This is not as unimportant as it might appear. Governor John Kasich has moved up to second place in one New Hampshire primary poll, possibly an "outlier," and is being talked about as a possible running-mate for Donald Trump if the latter becomes the nominee of the organized crime family of the naturalist "right," which would give Kasich the opportunity to play the role that Geoge Herbert Walker Bush did in the administration of President Ronald Wilson Reagan, namely, to serve as an "establishment" check on any "rogue" efforts to curb the statist party or to stop the Warfare Party's endless "global war on terror."
A world ignorant of the truths of the Catholic Faith must be steeped in an endless array of errors, which results in grown men babbling on and on and on and on about to "solve" problems without understanding that men must quit their sins, confess them to true priests, and then make reparation for them as members of the Catholic Church.
Yet it is each of the men who are seeking the Republican party presidential nomination have made their peace with various moral evils. Some of them have gone so far as to boast about their defiance of the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law.
To wit, United States Senator Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz (R-Texas), who is a stereotypical Baptist anti-Catholic bigot, has gone so far as to boast of limited his family size to two children:
Iowans at a town hall waded into awkward territory on Monday evening as Ted Cruz tackled a question on contraceptives.
During a question and answer session at the final stop of a three-day Iowa campaign swing, an attendee asked Cruz about "making contraception available to women who want to control their own bodies."
The Texas senator began by attacking what he called the Democratic Party's "(concocted) war on women" and accused Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton of falsely attacking the GOP as "the condom police."
"Hillary Clinton embraces abortion on demand in all circumstances up until the moment of birth. Partial-birth abortion with taxpayer funding, with no notification for parents in any circumstances -- 91% of Americans say that's nuts," he said. "So what do they do, they try to shift it. The war on women wasn't that, it was contraceptives. Now listen, I have been a conservative my entire life. I have never met anybody, any conservative who wants to ban contraceptives."
Cruz said the charge that conservatives are anti-contraceptives is a "made-up, nonsense example."
"As I noted, Heidi and I, we have two little girls. I'm very glad we don't have 17," he told the hundreds of people in the audience. "And it's a great example when the war on women came up, Republicans would curl up in a ball, they'd say, 'Don't hurt me.' Jiminy Cricket!"
"Last I checked we don't have a rubber shortage in America. When I was in college we had a machine in the bathroom, you put .50 cents in and voila!" Cruz continued, receiving some uncomfortable laughter from the audience. "So yes, anyone who wants contraceptives can access them, but it's an utterly made-up nonsense issue."
Cruz said Clinton is running as the "condom police" to distract from other policies and "scare" voters.
"Imagine for a second you're Hillary Clinton," he said. "You're trying to think, 'How do I run?' Well you can't run on the economy because we have the lowest percentage of Americans working any year since 1977. You can't run on Obamacare because millions of people have lost their jobs, lost their health care, lost their doctors, seen their premiums skyrocket. You certainly can't run on foreign policy because every country you touched as secretary of state is a disaster."
"So what do you do? You go, 'Ah, ha! Condom police. I'm gonna make up a completely made up threat and try to scare a bunch of folks into thinking someone's going to steal their birth control,'" Cruz said. "What nonsense." (Ted Cruz: GOP isn't 'condom police.)
Still think that Rafael Edward Cruz is worth supporting?
Cruz is a true son of the spirit of Magaret Sanger. The language he used in that town hall meeting was truly remarkable from one who considers himself to have "family values." The man has as little decency and modesty of speech as Donald Trump himself.
Rafael Edward Cruz is a product of Protestant individualism, a man who closes his heart to accepting with generosity and a srene acceptance of the will of God however many or few children He wants them to have. Married couples are obligated to live by God's laws, which forbid the frustration of the transmission of new life. Cruz's attitude is one of selfishness. He is no more a defender of the family than those in the organized crime family of the naturalist "left" who support contraception as a human right even though it is a denial of the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of that which is properly exercised only in the married state.
This poor man does not understand that contraception is a grave moral evil that is proscribed by the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law, and he believes that he can be an instrument of justice in the civil realm despite making light of that which is principally responsible for the spread of rampant martial infidelity, widespread divorce and abanonment of families, the feminization of poverty, the rise and instiutionalization of the welfare state, and to the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the cases of Griswold v. Connecticut, June 7, 1965, Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, June 22, 1973, and, among so many others, Obergefell v. Hodges, June 26, 2015.
It msut be remembered that the systematic attack on all of the vestiges of Christendom in Europe began with Martin Luther’s and Henry VIII’s embrace of divorce and “remarriage” in the Sixteenth Century and spread over the course of time to the denial of the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage. It was the very false church created by King Henry Tudor in 1534 that endorsed contraception at its Lambeth Conference in 1930L
The Life and Witness of the Christian Community - Marriage and Sex
Where there is clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, the method must be decided on Christian principles. The primary and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may be necessary) in a life of discipline and self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience. (Resolution 15 - The Life and Witness of the Christian Community - Marriage.)
This decision opened the floodgates of Protestant acceptance of contraception, which, of course, had been promoted for the previous fifteen years by the nymphomaniac revolutionary anti-Theist named Margaret Sanger. An organization known as the Federal Council of Churches in America (which merged in 1950 with other such organizations to form the “National Council of Churches”) endorsed contraception in 1931, prompting the following editorial to appear, amazingly enough, in The Washington Post:
The Federal Council of Churches in America some time ago appointed a committee on "marriage and the home," which has now submitted a report favoring a "careful and restrained" use of contraceptive devices to regulate the size of families. The committee seems to have a serious struggle with itself in adhering to Christian doctrine while at the same time indulging in amateurish excursions in the field of economics, legislation, medicine, and sociology. The resulting report is a mixture of religious obscurantism and modernistic materialism which departs from the ancient standards of religion and yet fails to blaze a path toward something better.
The mischief that would result from an attempt to place the stamp of church approval upon any scheme for "regulating the size of families" is evidently quite beyond the comprehension of this pseudo-scientific committee. It is impossible to reconcile the doctrine of the divine institution of marriage with any modernistic plan for the mechanical regulation of human birth. The church must either reject the plain teachings of the Bible or reject schemes for the “scientific” production of human souls. Carried to its logical conclusion, the committee’s report if carried into effect would lead to the death-knell of marriage as a holy institution, by establishing degrading practices which would encourage indiscriminate immorality. The suggestion that the use of legalized contraceptives would be “careful and restrained” is preposterous. If the churches are to become organizations for political and 'scientific' propaganda they should be honest and reject the Bible, scoff at Christ as an obsolete and unscientific teacher, and strike out boldly as champions of politics and science as substitutes for the old-time religion. ("Forgetting Religion," Editorial, The Washington Post, March 22, 1932.)
Leaving aside the institutional amnesia of The Washington Post’s current editorial writers, the point of all of this is to demontstrate that Rafael Edward Cruz is nothing other than a snarky, self-confident, anti-Catholic Protestant ignoramous whose efforts to promote "limited government" and "liberty" are made impossible to pursue as they are fonded on a welter of prideful lies that are repugnant to God's Holy Truths and thus to the good of the temporal and eternal good of souls.
Moreover, Cruz is "doubling down," as the phrase goes these days, trying to portray himself as a defender of "family values" to distinguish himself from the man who once belittled "Iowa values" in favor of "New York values," Donald J. Trump:
"It is amusing seeing the media elite in New York and D.C. run around with their hair on fire at wondering what on earth are New York values,” Cruz told host Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday.” “In the rest of the country people understand exactly what that is.”
Cruz argued that liberal “New York values” were formulated by Donald Trump himself, noting a 1999 “Meet the Press” interview with Tim Russert in which Trump said he was “very pro-choice” and cited his “New York background.” The Texas senator tweeted the video Saturday:
He explained that his views were that he was very pro-choice, he supported partial birth abortion, he was open to gay marriage, and his explanation for that, he said ‘I’m a New Yorker, I’m from Manhattan. Those are the views of New York. Those are what New York values are,'” Cruz said of Trump. “They’re not Iowa values, but that’s New York values. So that was Donald’s own explanation of what New York values are. It’s how he articulated it.”
“It strikes me as curious now that he has displayed such outrage that anyone would even acknowledge that there is a particular political view — and I would point out it’s a view echoed by far left liberal Democratic politicians like Andrew Cuomo, like Bill de Blasio, like Hillary Clinton — and Donald Trump has supported those candidates and supported their positions on a lot of issues,” Cruz said. (Cruz: 'The Rest Of The County Understands' What New York.)
Cruz’s line of attack against Trump is interesting as the thrice-married Trump, who flaunted his adulterous relationship with actress and model Marla Maples while married to his first and true spouse, Ivana Trump, has not attempted to hide his supposedly former views as the entire thrust of his campaign revolves around “fixing” America and making it “great” again, which itself is a delusion a country where the innocent preborn are slaughtered by chemical and surgical means every day.
Moreover, Cruz’s line of attack about “New York values,” about which he is not wrong, of course, loses all credibility when one considers that he sought out two open homosexual businessmen to hold a “fireside chat” that featured moneymen (the official line is that it was not a fund-raising event) in the City of New York nine months ago now:
Senator Ted Cruz has positioned himself as a strong opponent of same-sex marriage, urging pastors nationwide to preach in support of marriage as an institution between a man and a woman, which he said was “ordained by God.”
But on Monday night, at a reception for him at the Manhattan apartment of two prominent gay hoteliers, the Texas senator and Republican presidential hopeful struck quite a different tone.
During the gathering, according to two people present, Mr. Cruz said he would not love his daughters any differently if one of them was gay. He did not mention his opposition to same-sex marriage, saying only that marriage is an issue that should be left to the states.
The dinner and “fireside chat” for about a dozen people with Mr. Cruz and his wife, Heidi, was at the Central Park South penthouse of Mati Weiderpass and Ian Reisner, longtime business partners who were once a couple and who have been pioneers in the gay hospitality industry.
“Ted Cruz said, ‘If one of my daughters was gay, I would love them just as much,’” recalled Mr. Reisner, a same-sex marriage proponent who described himself as simply an attendee at Mr. Weiderpass’s event.
Mr. Reisner and Kalman Sporn, who advises Mr. Cruz’s Middle East team and served as the moderator for the evening, said the senator told the group that marriage should be left up to the states. The evening focused primarily on foreign policy, including a discussion of gay rights in Israel versus the rest of the Middle East, and opposition to President Obama.
An aide to Mr. Cruz, reached on Thursday, reiterated that the senator is opposed to same-sex marriage.
Mr. Cruz has honed his reputation as a grass-roots firebrand, and was strongly supportive of the Indiana religious exceptions law that was recently blasted as discriminatory by gay rights activists. When the law was attacked by major businesses like Walmart, he criticized the “Fortune 500’s radical gay marriage agenda.”
In Iowa a few weeks ago, Mr. Cruz said, ““The Fortune 500 is running shamelessly to endorse the radical gay marriage agenda over religious liberty to say, ‘We will persecute a Christian pastor, a Catholic priest, a Jewish rabbi. Any person of faith is subject to persecution if they dare disagree, if their religious faith parts way from their political commitment to gay marriage.’ ”
So the juxtaposition of Mr. Cruz being the guest of honor at a home owned by two of the most visible gay businessmen in New York City was striking. Mr. Cruz was on a fund-raising tour of New York City, although the dinner was not a fund-raiser.
Mr. Cruz also told the group that Peter Thiel, an openly gay investor, is a close friend of his, Mr. Sporn said. Mr. Thiel has been a generous contributor to Mr. Cruz’s campaigns.
Mr. Reisner said he and Mr. Weiderpass jointly own the duplex apartment where the event was held. He said that a third host, Sam Domb — another partner in their business who used to work with Rudolph W. Giuliani, a Republican and a former mayor of New York — was also a property owner there.
The three men are strong supporters of Israel, as is Mr. Cruz. Mr. Reisner, who said members of his family perished in the Holocaust, said Mr. Cruz’s foreign policy views were part of the appeal for people like Mr. Domb.
“Ted Cruz was on point on every issue that has to do with national security,” he said.
Mr. Weiderpass posted pictures of Mr. Cruz at his home on Facebook late Wednesday, including one of the senator and his wife posing with wait staff members from the dinner.
The apartment owned by Mr. Reisner and Mr. Weiderpass made headlines last October when a 23-year-old Brooklyn man died there of an apparent drug overdose.
Mr. Reisner said the event for Mr. Cruz was set up with Mr. Domb, Mr. Sporn and Mr. Cruz’s adviser Nick Muzin.
Mr. Reisner recently bought a commercial strip along the Fire Island Pines, which has been a mecca for gay vacationers for decades. He is also the face of Out NYC, a hotel near Times Square that caters primarily to a gay audience, including offering itself as a wedding destination. He and Mr. Weiderpass are partners at Parkview Developers.
Mr. Reisner, asked about the possible dissonance between his gay activism and being at an event for Mr. Cruz, said he did not agree with the senator on social issues. Same-sex marriage, he said, “is done — it’s just going to happen.”
In a statement later, Catherine Frazier, a spokeswoman for Mr. Cruz, said the senator had "stated directly and unambiguously what everyone in the room already knew, that he opposes same-sex marriage and supports traditional marriage.”
Mr. Reisner and Mr. Weiderpass have been generous donors to gay political causes and charities, including the Empire State Pride Agenda and the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Community Center.
Mr. Cruz has been stepping up his efforts to connect with conservatives as the United States Supreme Court takes up the question of same-sex marriage. In a letter this month to thousands of pastors across the country, Mr. Cruz asked them to lead prayer services on April 28, when the justices hear arguments on same-sex marriage.
Mr. Cruz wrote to the ministers: “Will we discard an institution, ordained by God, which has brought so much stability and happiness to the human family? Or will we stand in its support?” (Ted Cruz Is Guest of Two Gay Businessmen.)
Ah, the common bond between Rafael Edward Cruz, who is supposedly opposed to “gay marriage” but has no problem playing the political game with high-rollers in the “gay hospitality” industry, is support for the Zionist State of Israel.
Strip away all of the rhetoric about limited government and you have a politician who is devoted to protecting the interests of Israel. Indeed, this is one thing that united the candidates at the “varsity” debate, and it was a great unifier among the three candidates who participated in the “undercard” debate, namely, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, former United States Senator Richard John Santorum, and businesswoman Carly Fiorina.
With respect to Rafael Edward Cruz, however, the plot thickens a bit more when one considers the fact that his wife, Heidi, is a Zionist in her own right, having been raised as Seventh Day Adventist, and has worked as an “energy investment banker” for Goldman-Sachs and J.P. Morgan Chase, both of which fund all manner of evils around the world, and has served in the past on a task force on “North American Unity” of the nefarious, population-controlling Council of Foreign Relations, which her said in 2012 while running for the United States Senate was a “nest of vipers.” Mrs. Cruz also served under the pro-abortion, pro-contraception Condoleeza Rice, an architect of the unjust, immoral and unconstitutional invasion and occupation of Iraq that began on March 20, 2003, when the latter was President George Walker Bush’s National Security Adviser.
There goes Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz’s “Mister Smith Goes to Washington” act. He is a very shrewd, calculating politician who has crafted an image as a despised “outsider” that he has cultivated in preparation for his presidential campaign this year. Yet it is that Rafael Edward Cruz is no more of an “outsider” than is Donald Trump, who is a long-time “establishment” figure who has donated lots of money to candidates of the two major organized crime families of naturalism, sums of money that he has implied were tantamount to insuring his own business interests, a sort of political "protection" payoff that is commonly paid to labor unions and their underground allies in the City of New York, New York. Cruz cut his political eye-teeth as a consummate, ambitious Washington insider, first as a law clerk to the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and then as an insider within the rarified atmosphere of George Walker Bush's 2000 presidential campaign and in positions at the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission. Cruz is no "outsider" (see Ted Cruz's Path From D.C. Insider to Outsider.)
The supposedly “unique” contest for the 2016 Republican Party presidential nomination is simply a case of various sets of “false opposites” within the organized crime family of the false opposite that is the naturalist “right.” This is straight from the adversary, who raises up naturalists such as Donald J. Trump, who knows nothing about the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law, and Rafael Edward Cruz to battle each other for the mantle of the “anti-establishment” candidate in order to wrest control away from the Republican Party “establishment,” whose possible standard-bearers (United States Senator Marco Rubio, R-Florida; the aforementioned John Kasich; New Jersey Governor Christopher Christie; former Florida Governor John Ellis Bush) are statists of varying degrees.
Lost in the fog of the Republican Party’s “false opposites” is the fact whoever winds up being the nominee must be prepared to govern if he is able to defeat former First Lady/United States Senator/United States Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton in the general election on November 8, 2016.
A president must fill close to two thousand positions within the Executive Office of the President and another three to five thousand positons at the Cabinet and sub-Cabinet levels. Eight hundred of those have to undergo a thorough vetting and Federal Bureau of Investigation background checks before their nominations can be sent to the particular committee of the United States Senate for confirmation.
Those who are serious candidates for the presidency have to be about compiling lists of possible nominees for each position so that his transition team can run the necessary vetting well in advance of the election results. Several administrations, including that of President George Walker Bush, took long periods of time to complete this process after the presidential inauguration day, something that leaves the control of the welter of subdivisions within each Cabinet department in the hands of senior career civil service officers.
Conversely, President Ronald Wilson Reagan’s team was prepared to “hit the ground running” as its members spent about eighteen months compiling lists of possible nominees for various political appointments within the executive branch. (The thoroughness of the Reagan effort was detailed by his director of the Office of Presidential Personnel at a Center for the Study of Presidency seminar on Friday evening, March 28, 1981, in Washington, District of Columbia, just three days before John Hinckley, Jr., shot and seriously wounded President Reagan. I was there with two of my students from Nassau Community College.)
Let me attempt to provide you with a bit of detailed information about the sheer numbers of people who are appointed to various positions by a president as found on a website run by scholars who are experts about the staffing of the government by political appointees:
In 1937 the Brownlow Committee famously declared: “the President needs help.”
Although FDR’s Committee was referring to the need for White House staff, the President now has plenty of help throughout the executive branch. Since Roosevelt’s Presidency, the Executive Office of the President has gained about 2,000 people, and the number of political appointees has increased to more than 7,000. Setting aside White House staffers and about 3,000 part time Presidential appointments, each new President fills about 3,000 positions with his or her partisans.
To lead departments and agencies, contemporary Presidents make appointments to about 800 full time PAS positions, which require Senate confirmation (not including US attorneys, US marshals, or ambassadors, which are also PAS). In addition, each new administration can appoint partisans amounting to 10% of the Senior Executive Service (about 800 of 8,000). And about 1,400 political “Schedule C” appointees at lower levels are spread throughout the whole executive branch. These approximately 3000 political appointees have policy making or policy related duties for helping Presidents direct executive branch policies. (These numbers are approximate; for details, see Bradley Patterson, To Serve the President .)
The purposes of Presidential appointments in the executive branch are laudable. Presidents are democratically elected and expected to carry out their campaign promises by directing the executive branch. Thus leadership by presidential appointees in executive positions is necessary and legitimate. Presidential appointees assure responsiveness to Presidential policy priorities throughout the executive branch. In addition to democratic legitimacy, political appointees bring new energy and new ideas to the government from the private sector, universities, and state and local governments.
But there is also a downside to the system of political appointments: the recruitment task is daunting, the pace of appointments is glacially slow, layers of political appointees dilute presidential leadership, and careers of career executives are prematurely shut off.
The pressures on a newly elected President to make political appointments are significant. According to President Taft, “every time I make an appointment I create nine enemies and one ingrate.” Thousands of campaign workers want to follow the new president to Washington to work in government jobs. Members of Congress urge the president to appoint their favorite staffer or constituent to executive branch positions. Even friends and families of the president are special pleaders. President Carter complained in his memoir: “I would be inundated with recommendations from every conceivable source . . . even family and friends, would all rush forward with proposals and fight to the last minute for their candidates.” (Keeping Faith, p. 61) The thirst for government jobs results in a flood of applications; in 2008 and 2009, more than 300,000 applications flooded into the Obama personnel operation, most of them on line. Many job seekers were unqualified, but it takes time to separate the wheat from the chaff.
As a result of the increasing number of appointees and delays in the Senate, the pace of appointments has consistently slowed over the past half century. Whereas it took John Kennedy an average of 2.4 months to bring his appointee on board, it took George W. Bush an average of 8.7 months. No recent President has made more than 25 PAS executive appointments before the first of April. In his first 100 days in office President Obama had filled only 17% of his top PAS positions. After their first years in office, President Reagan had appointed 86% of the top appointees, but President Obama only 64%.
The volume of Presidential appointees, combined with the vacancies resulting from delays in appointments, lead to problems of Presidential control and management of the government. The average time in office of political appointees is 2.5 years, with 25% staying fewer than 18 months. Vacancies in the top level PAS positions create vacuums in leadership that cannot be easily filled by unappointed career executives, who rightly do not presume to undertake new policy directions or represent a new administration. Vacancies created by rapid turnover result in loss of momentum and the need to bring new appointees up to speed against steep learning curves. Increasing numbers of layers between the President and the operating levels of agencies dilute Presidential direction.
Perhaps more importantly, the large numbers of positions that are filled with political appointees result in lower levels of competence in the leadership of executive branch agencies. Finding competent appointees at the top levels of government is not difficult because of the prestige of the appointments. But several levels down the executive schedule, finding people in comparable levels of management and convincing them to leave their positions to move to Washington is more difficult. (Presidential Appointments and Managing the Executive.)
From whence do many of these political appointees come?
From the phalanx of political party activists at the state and local levels, that’s where.
Sure, others come from business and academe.
For the most part, however, it is the “establishment” people who staff the machinery of government. There are exceptions, of course. However, don’t be drawn into the “establishment” versus “anti-establishment” battle as it is just another case of false opposites in an established system of Protestant and Judeo-Masonic naturalism.
Yes, what unites each of these men is that they are naturalists and Pelagians who have, despite whatever “pro-life” rhetoric may pass from their lips now and again, made their peace with the chemical and surgical killing of the innocent preborn as regrettable facts of life that are unrelated to the restoration of a just social order and to the provision of the national’s legitimate national security interests.
Alas, it is not possible to pursue the common temporal good while men sin wantonly and demand that the civil law protect their supposed “right” to “choose” to live as they wish.
Donald J. Trump has done this throughout his life (see a December, 2015, article in Lifesite News that attempts to make sense of his beliefs about the slaughter of the preborn, Does Trump really disagree with Roe v. Wade., which is appended below), which is part of his appeal to former Alaska Governor Sarah Heath Palin, who bosted of "going rogue" eight years ago when she was the hapless war monger John Sidney McCain III's vice presidential running mate (for a review of articles about Palin, yet another apostate Catholic turned Protestant Zionist who now writes "devotional" books!, see Gradually Accepting Naturalism's False Premises, Absolute Insanity, Facts Are Troublesome Things, It's Still Absolute Insanity and Fratricide in the Lodge).
As noted before, Rafael Edward Cruz and his well-connected banker wife, Heidi Nelson Cruz, have chosen to defy the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage, boasting of only having two children, not seventeen, which is the exact number that the Sentman family have welcomed to give honor and glory to God as members of His One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, something that the share with the supposedly practicing Catholic Christopher Christie, who said the following in all of his blustery ignorance about First and Last Things:
Republican candidate Chris Christie on Tuesday spoke candidly about his use of birth control and how he reconciles that with his Catholic faith.
"I'm a Catholic, but I've used birth control. And not just the rhythm method," the New Jersey governor told a crowd at a town hall at Blake's Restaurant & Creamery in Manchester, New Hampshire.
"My church has a teaching against birth control. Does that make me an awful Catholic, because I believed and practiced that function during part of my life?" he asked. "I don't think so, but I'm only going to find out when it's my time to be judged." (Christie: Does using birth control make me a bad Catholic. Droleskey note to Christie: You have committed Mortal Sins in the objective order of things. Yes, you are a bad Catholic. to have committed these sins and then to boast about them publicly for political gain so as to appear as a "regular guy" who makes his own decisions about morality in spite of what he knows to be the teaching of Holy Mother Church.)
Pardon me for that brief digression about the Governor of New Jersey.
Thus it is that Senator Rafael Edward Cruz, although he talks the good talk about being “pro-life,” refuses to talk about the issue much on the campaign trail, and is uncomfortable talking about the issue for fear of offending “moderate” voters.
This is what happened in Decorah, Iowa, on Friday, January 8, 2015:
Highlight: Mr. Cruz was asked if he could support abortions in cases of rape, setting off a few murmurs in the room. “Plant,” another man said quietly. Mr. Cruz thanked the questioner but gave no ground: “Every life is a precious gift,” he said, adding that the issue was likely to come up “once, twice, maybe three times in the general election debates.”
When the man repeatedly interrupted, Mr. Cruz moved on: “Sir, we’re not going to debate, sir. Sir, sir — free speech — sir. Thank you, sir. Next question.” The crowd applauded. (http://Rafael Edward Cruz Iowa Bus Tour: Abortion Comes Up, Briefly.)
Rafael Edward Cruz would not answer a simple question from a voter about whether he supports exceptions to the surgical assassination of the innocent preborn. What was I saying about his being a clever, calculated politician? Is the measure of the importance of the killing of the innocent preborn determined by the number of times it is brought up in presidential debates?
Here is a refresher course as to what it is to be "pro-life":
1) No one who supports one abortion under cover of law is pro-life.
2) It is unjust and misleading to call a politician who supports even one abortion under cover of law as being "pro-life."
3) No one who supports contraception and/or funding for same is pro-life or can be called "pro-life."
4) No one who supports classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments (under any of its various guises) and/or funding for same can be called "pro-life."
5) No one who supports "civil unions" while opposing "marriages" of those engaged in perverse acts in violation of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments is pro-family or can be called "pro-family." (See also .)
Dr. Charles E. Rice, who died on January 25, 2015, at the age of eighty-two and was one of the foremost experts on the Natural Law in his distinguished career as a professor of law at the University of Notre Dame School of Law, wrote the following in the August 27, 1998, issue of The Wanderer as he attempted to explain the philosophical and practical flaws of the incremental approach to politics and legislation at a time that I was opposing then United States Senator Alfonse M. D'Amato's bid for re-nomination by the Right to Life Party of the State of New York, thereby criticizing the use of the phrase "pro-life" when applied to those who are simply less pro-abortion than those who support unrestricted child murder:
Sen. D'Amato will face a pro-abortion Democratic opponent in the fall. While a voter could morally vote for a pro-abortion candidate who is less objectionable on abortion than his opponent, he should not. The tactic of voting for the less objectionable of two pro-abortion candidates is a tactic of incremental surrender. The incremental strategy of accepting the legalization of abortion in some cases concedes that some innocent human life is negotiable after all. The pro-death movement is a guaranteed winner against an opposition that qualifies its own position by conceding that there are some innocent human beings whom it will allow to be directly and intentionally killed. That approach in practice has mortgaged the pro-life effort to the interests and judgment of what Paul Johnson called "the great human scourge of the 20th century, the professional politician." (Modern Times, 1985, p. 510.)
When a politician says he favors legalized abortion in life of the mother, rape and incest, or other cases, he affirms the nonpersonhood of the unborn child by proposing that he be subjected to execution at the discretion of another. The politician's pro-life rhetoric will be drowned out by the loud and clear message of his position, that he concedes that the law can validly tolerate the intentional killing of innocent human beings. Apart from exceptions, of course, Sen. D'Amato is objectionable as well for some of his other stands on abortion and for his positions on other issues, including especially the homosexual issue.
Pro-lifers could increase their political impact if they were single-issue voters, treating abortion as an absolutely disqualifying issue. Any candidate who believes that the law should treat any innocent human beings as nonpersons by tolerating their execution is unworthy to hold any public office, whether President, trustee of a mosquito abatement district, or senator. (Dr. Charles E. Rice, "Pro-Life Reflections on Sen. D'Amato, The Wanderer, August 27, 1998.)
One who is truly “pro-life” would care less about votes and more about truth than do these naturalists seeking to oppose Hillary Rodham Clinton, who, like Obama and her husband, are unapologetically committed to the support and protection of grave moral evils. Those who equivocate against such bold efforts to defend evil wind up losing.
Don’t believe me?
Just ask Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., George Herbert Walker Bush (1992), John Sidney McCain III, and Willard Mitt Romney.
Once again for those who have short memories, George Walker Bush also equivocated in 2000, but the reason he won the White House was because Green Party presidential nominee Ralph Nader won 97,421 votes cast by committed leftists in the State of Florida, permitting Bush to win the Sunshine State's twenty-five electoral votes even though he outpolled Gore in Florida by a meager margin of 517 votes, thereby giving Bush the Lesser Florida’s allotment of twenty-five electoral votes. That is, “Bush 43” would have lost in 2000 if less than six hundred of the Naderites had voted for then Vice President Albert Arnold "Ozone Layer Hole" Gore, Jr., or stayed home.
Equivocation does not work.
Here is a bit of truth for those of you caught up in the current madness of naturalism: the slaughter of the innocent preborn is not high on the list of issues about which most Americans are concerned.
Indeed, there was a very telling graphic that was shown briefly during the Fox Business News debate last Thursday evening, January 14, 2016, indicating the issues that were most important to primary/caucus voters. National security, of course, was highlighted in bold letters. The word “abortion,” however, was in the tiniest print possible. It was quite a strain on my partially cataract-occluded eyes to see the words in the graphic as they were displayed on my cellular phone. A Fox News poll released on January 8, 2016, shows that only four percent of Republican voters think that “social issues” are the most important ones facing the nation. Four percent. (See Fox News Poll: National Security is Top Issue for GOP Voter.)
This should really come as no surprise whatsoever as the conciliar “bishops” in the United States of America have long inveighed against “single issue voting.” Most of them were taking the Bergoglian line decades before the Argentine Apostate donned a white cassock to begin his charade as “Pope Francis” on Wednesday, March 13, 2013, and it should patently obvious by this point that Jorge Mario Bergoglio has bridled any “Pelagian” “bishops” in his ranks in the United States of America so that they will not oppose those “enlightened” men who want to stop “global warming” and who desire a policy of open borders. Bergoglio made it eminently clear when he was in the United States of America four months ago that he was completely uninterested in making any but the most perfunctory references to the innocent preborn. His visit was a complete endorsement of the policies of Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro and Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.
Thus it is that even believing Catholics are looking for some naturalistic way out of a mess that has as its remote causes the Protestant Revolution against the Social Reign of Christ the King in the Sixteenth Century and the subsequent rise of the panoply of Judeo-Masonic naturalistic “philosophies” and ideologies that are used as reference points by their “true believers” to “save” a particular nation, if not the world itself. (Heavy sigh.) You cannot fight naturalism with naturalism. You can only fight naturalism with Catholicism, and the only purpose for a Catholic to run for president these days is to articulate Catholic truth unapologetically without fear of the consequences, praying all the while to Our Lady for some seeds to be planted in the souls of at least a few people that might result in their conversion to the true Faith.
As it is, however, even believing Catholics who make no concessions to conciliarism permit themselves to become agitated by all manner of international crises, whether real or manufactured to goad the Warfare Party into its policy of endless “war on terror” at a time when the most terrorized human beings on the face of the earth are the innocent preborn and the innocent brain-damaged, the innocent elderly, the innocent chronically or terminally ill who are being dispatched in the name of “mercy” and of “giving the gift of life” as they are vivisected alive for their bodily members (a subject to be discussed again in the next article on this site that will be ready for publication soon). The real terrorists, my friends, are men and women in white coats who kill the innocent preborn, and if anyone reading these words thinks that it is possible to roll back the tide of statism that has engulfed this nation ever since the days of Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Lyndon Baines Johnson, then I ask that a careful consideration be given once again to the following words of Silvio Cardinal Antoniano as they were cited by Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929:
The more closely the temporal power of a nation aligns itself with the spiritual, and the more it fosters and promotes the latter, by so much the more it contributes to the conservation of the commonwealth. For it is the aim of the ecclesiastical authority by the use of spiritual means, to form good Christians in accordance with its own particular end and object; and in doing this it helps at the same time to form good citizens, and prepares them to meet their obligations as members of a civil society. This follows of necessity because in the City of God, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, a good citizen and an upright man are absolutely one and the same thing. How grave therefore is the error of those who separate things so closely united, and who think that they can produce good citizens by ways and methods other than those which make for the formation of good Christians. For, let human prudence say what it likes and reason as it pleases, it is impossible to produce true temporal peace and tranquillity by things repugnant or opposed to the peace and happiness of eternity. (Silvio Cardinal Antoniano, as quoted by Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.)
All of the debates mean nothing as not one of the candidates, including even the three who participated in the so-called “undercard” debate (noting the possible, qualified exception of former Governor Mike Huckabee, a Baptist who understands the gravity of the killing of the preborn while turning a blind-eye to the murderous policies of the State of Israel, which he supports entirely), understands or accepts the fact that it is impossible to produce peace and prosperity in the temporal realm while promoting things are repugnant to the peace and happiness of eternity. Not even United States Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), who is probably the most anti-statist and anti-interventionist, of all of the current crop of naturalists running for the 2016 Republican Party presisdential nomination, would admit that there is a connection between the state of souls and the state of nations as his libertarianism, which has been somewhat muted in his thus far horribly run campaign, gives free rein to men to do as they please (see Rand Paul Channels Lee Atwater, Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney et al..)
Then again, none of this is new, not one little bit of it is new.
Except in times of major wars, American presidential elections have always revolved around the money, the money, and the money. Although national security is a leading issue this year, the money issues are not far behind in voter importance.
Orestes Brownson explained in The Brownson Quarterly one hundred seventy years ago this very month, that is, in January of 1846, however, that national greatness is not defined by the economic issues of the day:
What, then, is true national greatness? We answer, that nation is greatest in which man may most easily and effectually fulfil the true and proper end of man. The nation, under the point of view we here consider the subject, is in the people. Its greatness must, then, be in the greatness of the people. The people are a collection or aggregation of individuals, and their greatness taken collectively is simply their greatness taken individually. Consequently the greatness of a nation is the greatness of the individuals that compose it. The question of national greatness resolves itself, therefore, into the question of individual greatness. The greatness of the individual consists in his fulfilling the great ends of his existence, the ends for which Almighty God made him and placed him here. No man is truly great who neglects life's great ends, nor can one be said in truth to approach greatness any further than he fulfils them.
In order, then, to determine in what true national greatness consists, we must determine in what consists true individual greatness; and in order to determine in what true individual greatness consists, we must determine what is the true end of man; that is, what is the end to which Almighty God has appointed man, and which he is while here to labor to secure. What, then, is the end of man? For what has our Maker placed us here? To what has he bidden us aspire? Were we placed here merely to be born and to die,-to live for a moment, continue our species, toil, suffer, drop into the grave to rot, and be no more for ever? If this be our end, true greatness will consist in living for this life only, and in being great in that which pertains to this life. The greatest man will be he who succeeds best in amassing the goods of this world, in securing its honors and luxuries, or simply in multiplying for himself the means of sensual enjoyment. In a word, the greatest man will be he who most abounds in wealth and luxury.
We mean not to say, that, in point of fact, wealth and luxury, worldly honors and sensual gratifications, are the chief goods of even this life; but simply that they would be, if this were our only life, if our destiny were a destiny to be accomplished in this world. It is because this world is not our home, because we are merely travellers through it, and our destination is a world beyond it, that the life of justice and sanctity yields us even here our truest and most substantial pleasure. But confine man to this life, let it be true that he has no destiny beyond it, and nothing could, relatively to him, be called great or good, not included under the heads of wealth and luxury. Nothing could be counted or conceived of as of the least value to him that does not directly or indirectly minister to his sensual enjoyment. No infidel moralist has ever been able, without going out of his own system, or want of system, to conceive of any thing higher, nobler, more valuable, than sensual pleasure.
But this life is not our only life, and our destiny is not accomplished here. The grave is not our final doom; this world is not our home; we were not created for this world alone; and there is for us a life beyond this life. But even this, if we stop with it, does not answer our question. We may conceive of a future life as the simple continuation of our present natural life, and such the future life is conceived to be by not a few among us, who nevertheless flatter themselves that they are firm believers in the life and immortality brought to light through the Gospel. Every being may be said to have a natural destiny or end, which its nature is fitted and intended to gain. The Creator, in creating a being with a given nature, has given that being a pledge of the means and conditions of fulfilling it, of attaining to its natural end. Man has evidently been created with a nature that does not and cannot find its complete fulfilment in this life. He has a natural capacity for more than is actually attainable here. In this capacity he has the promise or pledge of his Maker that he shall live again.
The promises of God cannot fail. Man therefore must and will live again. But this is only the pledge, so to speak, of a natural immortality, and reveals to us only a natural destiny. It is only a continuation of our natural life in another world. The end we are to labor for, and the means we are to adopt to gain it, must be precisely what they would be in case our life were to terminate at the grave. Our future life being still a natural life, what is wisest and best for that portion we are now living would be wisest and best for that portion we are hereafter to live. Hence, what is wisest and best for time would be wisest and best for eternity.
Hence it is that we find so many who, though professing belief in a future life, judge all things as if this life were our only life. They look to the future life only as the continuation of the present, and expect from it only the completion of their natural destiny. They agree in all their moral judgments, in all their estimates of the worth of things or of actions, with those who believe in no future life at all. They profess to hope for a future life, but live only for time; because their future life is to be only a continuation of time. Hence they say, as we ourselves were for years accustomed to say, He who lives wisely for time lives wisely for eternity; create a heaven here, and you will have done your best to secure your title to a heaven hereafter.
Hence it is that the morality of many who profess to be Christians is the same which is adopted and defended by infidels. This is so obviously the case, that we not unfrequently find men who call themselves Christians commending downright unbelievers in Christianity as good moral men, and who see no reason why the morality of the infidel should not be the same in kind as the morality of the Christian. Hence it is supposed that morality may be taught in our schools, without teaching any peculiar or distinctive doctrine of Christianity. Morality, we are told, is independent of religion, and not a few regard it as sufficient without religion. So common has this mode of thinking and speaking become amongst us, that we heard the other day a tolerably intelligent Catholic, who would by no means admit himself to be deficient in the understanding or practice of his Catholic duties, say, that, if a man were only a good moral man, he did not care what was his distinctive religious belief. Many who go further, and contend that religion is necessary to morality, contend for its necessity only as a sort of police establishment. It is necessary, be cause the natural sanctions of the moral law are not quite sufficient to secure obedience, and religion must be called in by its hopes and fears to strengthen them.
Now all this is perfectly consistent and right, if it be true that man has only a natural destiny. We ought, in such a case, to judge all things which concern us precisely as if this were our only life. Religion could be of no value further than it strengthened the police, kept people from picking one another's pockets or cutting one another's throats. But man's destiny is not natural, but supernatural. Almighty God created him with a specific nature, but not for an end in the order of that nature, or to be attained by its simple fulfilment. He created him to his own image and likeness, but appointed him to a supernatural destiny,-to an end above what is attainable by the fulfilment of his nature,- to an end not promised in his nature, and which is not be stowed as the reward of fulfilling it. This end is to know and love God; but in a sense far higher than we can know and love him by our natural powers, and as he is now beheld through a glass, darkly, or seen dimly through the medium of his works, as we see the cause in the effect. It is to see him face to face, and to know and love him with a knowledge and love the same in kind, though not in degree, with which God knows and loves himself ;-this is the end for which man was intended, and which it is made his duty and his high privilege to seek. But this end surpasses the utmost capacity of our nature, and requires not only a supernatural revelation of God, but the supernatural elevation of our nature itself. It consists in our being made partakers of the divine nature in an ineffable sense, and in a sense above that in which we partake of it in being created after the image and likeness of God. Hence, St. Peter says, "By whom [Jesus Christ] he hath given us very great and precious promises, that by these you may be made partakers of his divine nature." So also St. John :-" We are now the sons of God, and it hath not yet appeared what we shall be. We know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; because we shall see him as he is."
This fact in these times is overlooked. Men have wished to rationalize the Gospel, to find a philosophic basis for the mysteries of faith. In attempting this, they have labored to bring the whole of divine revelation, within the domain of reason, and have been led to exclude, as no part of it whatever they found themselves unable to bring within that domain. Reason is necessarily restricted to the order of nature, and can in no instance, of itself, go out of that order. Hence, revelation has come very widely to be regarded as only a republication of the natural law, as at best 'only a running commentary on it, designed simply to explain the natural order, and not to reveal any thing above it.
Men who claim to be Christians, and even ministers of the Gospel, everywhere abound, who have no faith in the supernatural order, scarcely a conception of it. We spent nearly two hours the other day trying to enable a Protestant minister, and him by no means a weak or ignorant one, even to conceive of the supernatural; but in vain. So perverted had his mind become by the false theologies of modern times, that he could attach no meaning to the assertion, "There is a supernatural order." He could use the word supernatural, but it had no meaning for his mind not within the order of nature. Thousands are in the same sad condition. To them nature is all, and all is nature. Indeed, the word nature itself has no definite meaning for them. If a man by a word raise the dead, it is natural; if Moses smite the rock and living waters gush forth, it is natural,-all by a natural power, a natural law. Travelling in the same direction, they lose themselves in a wilderness of absurdities.
Natural laws cease to be laws imposed on nature, laws she must obey, and from which she cannot withdraw herself, and become forces, agents, creators. It is not strange, then that they lose sight of the supernatural destiny of man, and look only for a natura1 destiny, to be obtained not as a reward for obedience to grace, but as the natural consequence of the cultivation or development of our natural powers. Read the writings of the celebrated Dr. Channing, or of the school which he founded or to which he was attached, and you shall never find a single recognition of the supernatural order, properly so called,-any allusion to a supernatural destiny. The highest end you will find presented is that to which we may attain by the unfolding of our higher nature, of our natural sentiments of love and reverence. The school goes so far as to contend that our nature is susceptible of an unbounded good, and that our natural sentiments of love and reverence are capable of an infinite expansion. Yet these are rational Christians, and they boast of their reason! They talk of the absurdities of Catholic theology, and see no absurdity in supposing that a finite nature may be infinitely expanded, or that a nature can be something more than it is without any thing super-natural.
But this by the way. The true end for which man is to live is the supernatural end to which we are appointed, the beatitude which God hath promised to all that love and serve him here. His true end is not the fulfilment of nature, but what the sacred Scriptures term "eternal life"; and "This is life eternal, that they may know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." We cannot know God, without loving him. Hence we say, the end of man is to know and love God. But to know him intuitively, as he knows himself; for we are to see him as he is, -not as he appears through the medium of his works, but as he is in himself. We cannot thus know him naturally, for thus to know him exceeds the power of the highest possible created intelligence. We must be like him, before we can see him as he is,-be made, in a supernatural sense, partakers of his divine nature. To know him intuitively as he is in himself, is, however, the glorious destiny to which we are appointed, and to which we may attain, if we will. A more glorious destiny we cannot desire. In it we possess God himself, who is the sovereign good. Even here we find our highest good in knowing the truth and loving goodness, dim as is our view of the one, and feeble as is our hold of the other. What must it be, then, when we come to behold, by the light of glory, our God face to face, with no cloud intervening to obscure his infinite beauty, no distance between us and his ineffable love? Well may it be said, "Eye hath not seen, ear hath not heard, nor hath it entered into the heart of man to conceive what our God hath prepared for them that love him." He will reward them with no inferior, no created good; but will give them himself, will himself be their portion for ever.
But this supernatural destiny, since it is supernatural, is not naturally attainable. We may cultivate all our natural powers, we may fill up the highest and broadest capacities of our nature, realize the highest ideal, and yet be infinitely, -we use the word in its strict sense,-infinitely below it. It is not attained to by "self-culture," by the development and exercise of our highest natural powers, including even the boasted sentiments of love and reverence. It is nothing that is due, or ever can be due, to our nature. It is a gift, and can be obtained only as bestowed. But it will be bestowed only on the obedient, and is bestowed as the reward of obedience. Our destiny is eternal life, and the condition of obtaining it is obedience. Obedience is not, as some of the sects teach, the end for which we were made. We were made not that we might obey God, but that we might possess God, and we obey him as the condition of possessing him. (National Greatness)
Orestes Brownson was singularly devoted to Our Lady, explaining in an essay the social effects of devotion her (Moral nd Social Influence of Devotion to Mary) as he knew that the Mother of God had showered great graces upon him to convert to Catholicism. Brownson seemed to have absorbed the entirety of the Church's Social Teaching at the moment of his conversion to the Faith in 1844. Brownson's understanding that the true measure of national greatness is the measure by which a citizenry advances in sanctity and is thus better to able to pursue the common temporal good in light of man's Last End, the possession of the glory of the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost for all eternity, was, of course but a precise summary of the Church's teaching, expressed very succinctly by Pope Saint Pius X in Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906, as quoted earlier in this commentary.
We must be champions of Christ the King and Our Lady, she who is our Immaculate Queen, champions of the Catholic Church in this time of apostasy and betrayal, champions of the truth that Catholicism is the and only foundation of personal and social order. Those who disagree do so at the peril to the nation they say they love but for which they have a false sense of nationalistic pride that impedes her conversion to the true Faith, which is what Our Lord Himself mandates for each nation on the face of this earth.
We must not be distracted by the side shows of naturalism or conciliarism. We must serve as champions of Christ the King through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, especially by praying as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits, refusing to march along in the parade of the ignorant midget naturalists.
Remember, this is a time of profound chastisement.
As should be abundantly clear by now, the false opposite of the naturalist “right” is not going to restore even a rudimentary adherence to the rule of law under the terms of the Constitution of the United States of America, no less to the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law. And putative “pope” in the Casa Santa Marta actually celebrates the rot of popular culture as he promotes a “theology of encounter” with his fellow minions of the devil, each of whom is an interchangeable spart part used by Antichrist to deceive the masses in preparation for his coming, thus ushering in the final battle.
We do not, however, despair.
We are Catholics.
We trust in the motherly care of Our Lady, Who promised us in the Cova da Iria near Fatima, Portugal, that her Fatima Message will triumph in the end, which is why we must truly persevere in our prayers for the restoration of a true pope on the Throne of Saint Peter so that he can fulfill Our Lady's own request, made to Sister Lucia dos Santos in 1925, for the collegial consecration of Russia to her Immaculate Heart.
Oh, is there someone out there who does not believe that we are suffering from the errors of Russia in this time of apostasy and betrayal, this time when the Throne of Saint Peter is in chains?
We just need to keep close to her, especially through her Most Holy Rosary as the consecrated slaves of her Divine Son through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, as we seek to make reparation for our sins and those of the whole world.
Viva Cristo Rey!
Viva La Virgen de Guadalupe!
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!
Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.
Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.
Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.
Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us
Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.
Saints Fabian and Sebastian, pray for us.
Donald Trump's Varying Views on Baby-Killing
December 23, 2015 (LiveActionNews) -- In 1999, Donald Trump identified as “very pro-choice” and stated that he would not ban even partial-birth abortions. He now identifies as pro-life. However, when pressed to clarify his views, Trump articulated a position indistinguishable from current abortion law as established by Roe v. Wade.
The following exchange occurred on January 24, 2015, in an interview with Mark Halperin at the Iowa Freedom Summit. (The full video is available here.)
Halperin: Abortion even early in a pregnancy is murder to you?
Trump: No. What I’m saying is this: with caveats – life of the mother, incest, rape – that’s where I stand. So I’m pro-life, but with the caveats. …
Halperin: Say a woman is pregnant and is not in any of those exception categories, and she chooses to have an abortion.
Trump: It depends when. It depends when.
Based on these statements, Trump appears to believe that abortion should be legal for any reason up to a certain unspecified point in the pregnancy. (Unfortunately, Halperin did not press Trump for more detail.) After this unspecified point, Trump believes abortion should only be legal in some circumstances.
his is precisely the current state of abortion law in the United States. Roe v. Wade declares abortion legal for any reason up to the ambiguous point of fetal “viability.” After this point, states can prohibit abortion unless the broadly defined health of the mother is at stake. Perhaps Trump would want to draw the line sometime before viability, but he appears to have no fundamental disagreement with the current state of abortion law in our nation.
In fact, Trump’s stance on abortion is possibly even more permissive than Roe v. Wade. The only exception Roe v. Wade specifies after viability is the mother’s health and life. Trump, however, supports two additional exceptions: incest and rape. Nothing in his statement suggests that these exceptions are valid only before viability.
Despite his stance on abortion, Trump remains the current front-runner in the GOP presidential primary race. The latest poll from Fox News reports that Trump is supported by 39% of Republican primary voters. Furthermore, even among evangelical Christians, who are typically opposed to abortion, Trump leads. According to the poll, in the past month, Trump has jumped from 25% to 39% among white evangelicals. (Does Trump really disagree with Roe v. Wade?)