Ever Lowering the Bar of Truth in Public Discourse

As is the case with many of those in the “resist while recognize” movement who keep using what the late Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton called “tricks of shoddy minimism” to reduce the scope of the obedience they owe to a man they believe to be the Vicar of Our Lord Jesus Christ on earth to ex cathedra statements, many supposedly “pro-life” politicians and their enablers and apologists at the National Not-So-Right-to Life Committee use similar tricks of shoddy minimism by which they seek to “lower the bar” as to what is considered to be “pro-life.”

This passive approach to deal with a genocide of unprecedented proportions (over 58,500,000 preborn children killed by surgical means alone in their mothers’ wombs) has permitted the chemical and surgical execution of the innocent preborn to become firmly ingrained in the law and culture as a basic “human right.”

Indeed, the currently reigning caesar, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, whose administration has been as active in its promotion of abortion as that of the man who seeks readmission to the White House as the “First Gentleman,” William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, celebrate the “right” to kill the innocent preborn in a statement issued yesterday, Friday, January 22, 2016, the Feast of Saints Vincent and Anastasius and the forty-third anniversary of the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton that permitted decriminalized baby-killing up to and including the day of birth, although states were permitted to pass laws to regulate the nature and conditions of the facilities where babies could be executed in the second and third trimesters. Here is caesar’s short statement:

Today, we mark the 43rd anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade, which affirmed a woman’s freedom to make her own choices about her body and her health. The decision supports the broader principle that the government should not intrude on private decisions made between a woman and her doctor. As we commemorate this day, we also redouble our commitment to protecting these constitutional rights, including protecting a woman’s access to safe, affordable health care and her right to reproductive freedom from efforts to undermine or overturn them. In America, every single one of us deserves the rights, freedoms, and opportunities to fulfill our dreams. (Statement by Caesar on the 43rd Anniversary of Roe v. Wade.)

Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro is a sophomoric ideologue, bereft of any understanding of First and Last Things, making him, as has been pointed out on this site numerous times in the past, a perfect figure of Antichrist to complement the sophomoric ideologue who lives at the Casa Santa Marta, who is also bereft of any understanding of First and Last Things. Both Obama/Soetoro and Jorge Mario Bergoglio believe in a false concept of “freedom.” Both believe that “charity” is a function of the civil state, not of the individual, as confiscatory taxation is used to redistribute private property from ordinary citizens into the hands of bureaucrats and the “charitable” foundations that partner with them into putting most of their property into their own pockets.

More to the point, however, is that Bergoglio enables the sophisms of the sophomoric ideologue in the White House as he goes about his bloody business of supporting an unrestricted genocide against the preborn by chemical and surgical means. Remember, this monster of a Modernist said not one word about abortion to Obama/Soetoro on Wednesday, September 23, 2015, the Feast of Pope Saint Linus and the Commemoration of Saint Thecla, while he was at the White House, and he emphasized his opposition to the death penalty, not to abortion, when he addressed a special joint meeting of the Congress of the United States of America on Thursday, September 24, 2015, the Feast of Our Lady of Ransom:

This Rule points us in a clear direction.  Let us treat others with the same passion and compassion with which we want to be treated.  Let us seek for others the same possibilities which we seek for ourselves.  Let us help others to grow, as we would like to be helped ourselves.  In a word, if we want security, let us give security; if we want life, let us give life; if we want opportunities, let us provide opportunities.  The yardstick we use for others will be the yardstick which time will use for us.  The Golden Rule also reminds us of our responsibility to protect and defend human life at every stage of its development.

This conviction has led me, from the beginning of my ministry, to advocate at different levels for the global abolition of the death penalty.  I am convinced that this way is the best, since every life is sacred, every human person is endowed with an inalienable dignity, and society can only benefit from the rehabilitation of those convicted of crimes.  Recently my brother bishops here in the United States renewed their call for the abolition of the death penalty.  Not only do I support them, but I also offer encouragement to all those who are convinced that a just and necessary punishment must never exclude the dimension of hope and the goal of rehabilitation. (Bergoglio's Address to U.S. Congress.)

Although “pro-life” members of the United States Congress stood up to applaud the false “pontiff” after he had stated that the “Golden Rule,” not the Fifth Commandment, mind you, required men to “protect and defend human life at every stage of its development,” the pro-abortion Democrats rose to their feet in wild applause when “Pope Francis” emphasized his opposition to the death penalty, not to the chemical and surgical execution of innocent preborn children. He knew what he was doing. He was serving as an enabler of those who are said to support the “poor” with programs that only enslave them in greater and more institutionalized poverty (while impoverishing and enslaving the middle class at the same time, it should be noted) and want a policy of complete open borders and are opposed to death penalty in se, not simply to its imposition in certain cases.

To add insult to injury, I can find no evidence that “Pope Francis” sent even the perfunctory “tweets” that he sent to the past in 2014 and 2015 to those who participated in this year’s March for Life in Washington, District of Columbia, on Friday, January 22, 2016, the Feast of Saints Vincent and Anastasius. Mind you, this could have happened. However, I find nothing in any news report that it did.

Bergoglio goes out of his way to meet with all manner of moral perverts as well as those who seek his approval, in the name of “mercy,” you understand, and he fawns all over pro-aborts in public life and the corporate world, including the openly homosexual chief executive officer of Apple, Tim Cook, to whom he devoted fifteen minutes of his time, on, you guessed it, Friday, January 22, 2016, as thousands upon thousands of Catholics who braved the elements to oppose the direct, intentional taking of innocent human under cover of the civil law at the March for Life:

Pope Francis is increasingly turning his attention to the stars of Silicon Valley, meeting Apple’s CEO, Tim Cook, just days after shaking hands with Eric Schmidt from Google.

The pontiff spent around 15 minutes in a private conversation with Cook on Friday (Jan. 22). Francis regularly meets with dignitaries at the Vatican, but the arrival of the Apple chief raised eyebrows particularly for its timing.

Just a week earlier the pope had met with Schmidt, currently executive chairman of Alphabet Inc., parent company of Google, where he served as CEO for a decade.

Francis has confessed to being a “dinosaur” when it comes to technology, shunning the Internet and television as well. But the pope is well aware of the importance of technology in mobilizing Catholic youth, one key area of his papacy, and once called the Internet a “gift from God.”

Marking the World Day of Social Communications on Friday, Francis said it was up to individuals to decide whether they choose to harness the Internet for good or bad.

“The digital world is a public square, a meeting-place where we can either encourage or demean one another, engage in a meaningful discussion or unfair attacks,” he said. “The internet can be used wisely to build a society which is healthy and open to sharing.”

In the pope’s meetings with Cook and Schmidt, he may have found common ground aside from technology. The Apple CEO pledged last year to donate his fortune to charity, while the Alphabet chairman has a family foundation dedicated to the sustainable use of energy — an area close to Francis’ heart.

Ahead of Cook’s arrival at the Vatican, Apple on Thursday announced a new app development center in Italy. The tech hub will be located in Naples, southern Italy, which has suffered from organized crime and was visited by Francis in March 2015.

But Cook’s visit to the Vatican could prove controversial among conservative Catholics, as in 2014 he became the first head of a Fortune 500 company to come out as gay. The Catholic Church continues to hold a negative view of same-sex relationships, deeming them “intrinsically disordered,” although Francis is viewed as having a more welcoming stance than his predecessors. (Jorge Says "Hey" to Apple's Tim Cook.)

You better believe that Jorge has a “more welcoming stance” towards those are steeped in perverse acts against nature, going so far as to extend a hearty welcome to Tim Cook of Apple on the very day that thousands upon thousands of Catholics who believe him to be “Pope Francis” disregarded the forecasts of what was called “Snowstorm Jonas” to join the March for Life without, it appears, even a brief word of encouragement from him. About 2,200 of these brave souls, who truly believe that they have an “ally” in Rome in the person of the apostate who lives at the Casa Santa Marta, were stuck on buses on the snowbound Pennsylvania Turnpike from Friday evening, January 22, 2016, to Sunday afternoon, January 24, 2016, Septuagesima Sunday and the Commemoration of Saint Timothy, in an attempt to return to states as far away as Missouri, North Dakota, Minnesota, and Michigan as well as points in western Pennsylvania and Ohio (see Many Busloads of Pro-Life Marchers Stranded on Pennsylvania Turnpike which is dangerous even without snow and the so-called "improvements" made on the windy, curvy excuse of a super highway for which one must pay exorbitant tolls to use).

It is no wonder that the issue is not on the radar screen during this year’s elections, and that even many Catholics have permitted themselves into being hoodwinked that one can call himself “pro-life” while supporting the direct, intentional slaughter of the innocent preborn. So desperate are some Catholics to “turn the tide” to prevent the supposedly “greater evil” of the false opposite of the “left” from gaining office that they are willing to suspend all rationality into thinking that things will be “better” for the preborn if only the supposedly “greater evil” is defeated. This delusion, though, has made it possible for phony “pro-life” politicians, most of whom are simply less “pro-abortion” than those who support unrestricted baby-killing on demand up to and including the day of birth itself, to “lower the bar” of what it is be considered “pro-life” and of what can be accomplished legislatively by the United States Congress.

To wit, the Majority Whip of the United States House of Representatives, United States Representative Stephen Joseph Scalise (R-Louisiana), explained on Friday, January 22, 2016, the Feast of Saints Vincent and Anastasius, that the new “gold standard” of what can be accomplished legislatively by Congress is to defund Planned Barrenhood, something that would have to await the election of a Republican as president on Tuesday, November 8, 2016.

The following report, found on the Cybercast News Service website, will be followed by just a bit of commentary as Representative Scalise’s comments reveal the very sad state of affairs that exists in this country at this time:

House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) said on Friday at an event marking the 43rd anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision to legalize abortion, that there is a majority in Congress who want to stop giving federal funds to Planned Parenthood but the “missing ingredient” is a president who is pro-life.

“Right now there’s not a two-thirds vote in Congress, but we have proven there is a majority in Congress – both House and Senate,” Scalise said when asked by CNSNews.com about the significance of the planned vote in the House to override President Barack Obama’s veto of the reconciliation bill that would have stopped federal funding of the nation’s largest abortion provider for one year.

On Tuesday, House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) announced that the House would vote next Tuesday to override Obama’s veto of the reconciliation bill.

“Next week’s vote comes just days after the annual March for Life,” Ryan said in a press release. “Tens of thousands of participants will fly in from across the country, from all different walks of life, to rally in support of the unborn.

“This year’s march brings a renewed urgency following the gruesome videos released last year, which showed Planned Parenthood and its affiliates casually discussing trafficking in baby body parts,” the press release stated.

“Here in the House, we have established a special panel focused on investigating this practice,” Ryan said. “In the meantime, we don’t believe taxpayers should fund any organization potentially complicit in these disturbing allegations.

That’s why this bill defunds Planned Parenthood and redirects that money to community health centers,” he added. (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/peScalise Says Missing Ingredient to Defund Planned Barrenhood is a Republican president.)

First, one will note that there is absolutely no thought whatsoever to any effort to propose a constitutional amendment to provide full legal protection to the innocent preborn, a goal that was paramount in the minds of many truly pro-life members of Congress in the first ten years after the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973.

Second, even if a Republican defeats former First Lady/United States Senator/United States Secretary of State Hillary Diane “Wipe it clear”/“Let’s rent out the Lincoln Bedroom to Red Chinese arms merchants” Clinton, on Tuesday, November 8, 2016, Representative Scalise’s premise of sending a bill defunding Planned Barrenhood presupposes that Republicans will retain control of the United States Senate for the one hundred fifteenth Congress that will convene on January 3, 2017. If they do not, you see, guess who the Majority Leader of the United States Senate is going to be? Yes, United States Senator Charles H. Schumer (D-New York), one of the most rabidly pro-abortion, pro-perversity demagogues to be found on the globe (former Senator Alfonse D’Amato, who was defeated for a fourth term by Schumer on Tuesday, November 3, 1998, that I would have hammered then United States Representative Schumer hard in debates and on the campaign trail if I had won the Right to Life Party senatorial primary on Tuesday, September 15, 1998, the Feast of the Seven Dolors of the Blessed Virgin Mary in September). Chuckie Schumer, who is as camera shy as another fellow native of the Borough of Queens, Donald J. Trump, is not going to let any supposed “pro-life” piece of legislation come to light, not that the votes for such would exist in a Senate controlled by the Deathocrat Party.

Third, the aforementioned Charles H. Schumer will be able to bottle out whatever legislation he does not want to get to a Republican president’s desk if he is the Minority Leader of the United States Senate, succeeding the nefarious protector of political thugs and baby-killers named United States Senator Harry Reid (D-Nevada). The only way to stop a “Minority Leader Schumer” in this instance is if  Republicans vote to change the rules of the United States Senate to end the filibuster once and all, thus ending the necessity of sixty votes to pass a filibustered piece of legislation. It is very unclear whether the current Senate Majority Leader, Addison Mitchell McConnell (R-Kentucky), has any desire to end the filibuster.

Fourth, Deathocrats and their Republicrat allies in Congress may decide that the chilling indictment of David Daleiden and the whistleblower former Planned Barrenhood employee, Sandra Merritt, that was announced by Harris County, Texas, prosecutor Devon Anderson, a Republican, has “muddied” the waters concerning the “truth” of what Planned Barrenhood has done in harvesting the organs of babies with such cavalier glee. The soulless monsters who head this “not-for-profit” behemoth of child butchery will play the “victim card” from now on, making political action in 2017 a little more difficult even if some kind of naturalist of the false opposite of the “right” sits in White House.

Fifth, most importantly of all, of course, a bill to defund Planned Barrenhood that was actually passed by both house of Congress and signed into law by a President of the United States of America would do nothing to stop baby-killing as it is premised upon the shifting of Federal “family planning services” funds earmarked for Margaret Sanger’s organization to “community health centers.” In other words, the Federal government would still be in the business of funding the chemical assassination of the innocent preborn and be complicit in a continuation of the denial of the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of Holy Matrimony.

This is what I wrote nearly six months ago now when the bill to defund Planned Barrenhood was introduced originally:

The first—and very fatal—strategic flaw of these senators involves the use of the phrase “pro-choice” as this euphemism was coined by the pro-death movement to mask or anesthetize the reality of what each abortion, whether accomplished by chemical or surgical means, is the killing of an innocent being. No one has the moral right to “choose” to do anything that is evil. Human beings have the ability to choose to do evil, but they do not possess a moral “right” to do so. The use of this one phrase, “pro-choice,” concedes important rhetorical ground to the modern Aztecs, who clothe themselves in white medical gowns and surgical masks as they go about their bloody barbaric business. To attempt to placate so-called “moderate” voters by the use of the adversary's rhetoric accomplishes nothing other than to soothe the malformed consciences of those who refuse to see each and every baby-killing, whether by chemical or surgical means. There is nothing “civil” about the direct, intentional killing of any human being at any stage of his existence from the first moment of his conception until the moment of his death. Period.

Second, the “family planning” services that are provided by the nine thousand other “community health centers” are evil. To fund such programs is evil. To highlight support for the funding of such services is evil. It is evil to support, no less fund, act that deny the absolute Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage. Period.

Third, contraception, which Margaret Sanger, after all, sought to popularize a century ago during and after World War I, made the demand for surgical baby-killing inevitable. Divorce and contraception destabilized marriage and paved the way for abortion and the promotion of all manner of perversity under cover of law. This has resulted in the feminization of poverty, the rise of maladjusted children who spend most of their time in schools or day care centers or being shuttled back and forth between this or that step-family, rootlessness, violent crime, depression, suicide, drug and alcohol addiction and a variety of other social ills. This has also resulted in the acceptance of the so-called "lesser of two evils" to such an extent that the dose of the supposedly "lesser evil" becomes higher and higher in each succeeding election cycle, becoming indistinguishable ultimately from the supposedly "greater" evil. The odious Margaret Sanger's role in all of this was noted on this site most recently in Planned Barrenhood: Evil From Its Very Inceptions and Killing the Messengers Yet Again.

Catholics must not permit themselves to be agitated by every legislative effort that appears to “do something good” evil though based upon false premises. That so many Catholics continue to do so, however, is the result of their having been been subjected to one assault after another against their sensus Catholicus ever since the dawn of the Protestant Revolution, perhaps never more so than in the past century by the rapid advancements in the means of modern mass communications.

It was to blunt the advance of propaganda in favor of the "small family" and thus the inversion of the ends of marriage that Pope Pius XI issued Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930, to reaffirm the Catholic Church's prohibition against any direct interference in the conception of a child and to remind everyone in the world that the primary end of marriage remained what it will be until the end of time: the propagation and education of children:

17. Since, however, We have spoken fully elsewhere on the Christian education of youth,[18] let Us sum it all up by quoting once more the words of St. Augustine: "As regards the offspring it is provided that they should be begotten lovingly and educated religiously,"[19] -- and this is also expressed succinctly in the Code of Canon Law -- "The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children."[20]

18. Nor must We omit to remark, in fine, that since the duty entrusted to parents for the good of their children is of such high dignity and of such great importance, every use of the faculty given by God for the procreation of new life is the right and the privilege of the married state alone, by the law of God and of nature, and must be confined absolutely within the sacred limits of that state. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)

This constant lowering of the bar of truth, which has permitted the chemical and surgical execution of children to become such an institutionalized part of civil law and popular culture that fully three generations of young Americans have been born and “educated” in a country where such execution is accepted uncritically by most citizens, began very soon after the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973.  

Assisted by the strategy of the then “Monsignor” James T. McHugh of the then named United States Catholic Conference's Family Life Bureau in the late-1960s and early-1970s, the so-called National Right to Committee, which became a secular, nondenominational offshoot of the then-named National Conference of Catholic Bishops/United States Catholic Conference (now called the “United States Conference of Catholic Bishops”)  was founded with what became the “gold standard” of what it is for a politician to be deemed “pro-life”: opposition to all abortions except in case where it is alleged that a mother’s life is endangered.

That is, the National Right to Life Committee, guided by McHugh, the master advocate of explicit classrom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandemnts  (Origins of Classroom Instruction in Matters of Purity in Catholic Schools and   The McHugh Chronicles), adopted a position from its very inception that took no stand against contraception and actually supported the nonexistent "right" of mothers to kill their innocent preborn children in the event that their own lives are said to be in jeopardy from carrying their babies to birth. What is thus considered to be the "leader" of the "pro-life" movement in the United States of America has suppored the direct, intentional surgical abortion in cases where it is alleged that a mother's life is in jeopardy as a matter of principle, not as a matter of what they would consider to be legislative expediency, from is very beginnings.

No one should give a dime to this fraudulent organization or its various affiliated groups. No one should consider its "voter scorecards" of any use at all because, quite conveniently, the bought and paid for toadies of the Republican establishment do not "score" legislative votes on any piece of legislation or legislative action, including judicial appointments, that would cause one of their "pro-life" champions in the Republican Party to have a lower "score." This has made it possible for all manner of Republicans in the United States Senate to "preserve" their "record" even though they have put out-and-out pro-aborts on the Federal bench (Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonya Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan on the Supreme Court of the United States of America) or to serve in various offices (such as George Walker Bush appointees Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Christine Todd Whitman, Alberto Gonzales, Michael Mukasey, Donald Rumsfeld, Tom Ridge and, among others, Michael Chertoff).

Most so-called "pro-life" Americans, including Catholics, do not think in terms of absolute truth. They do not want to think. They do not follow the details of current events or remember the little that they read, which is why I will append below for yet another time a brief summary of the actual anti-life, anti-family record of the "conservative" statist and war monger named George Walker Bush, whose record will always look bad to Christ the King, Who is Truth Incarnate, no matter how "good" it might look to facile minds who have permitted themselves to fall into the trap of seeing the world through the eyes of the false opposites of the naturalist "left" and the naturalist "right."

The leaders of these various "mainstream" "pro-life" organizations are to be found not all too infrequently, at least indirectly, on the payrolls of the politicians whose anti-life, anti-family records they indemnify at every turn. The grateful pols are more than happy to channel a few pesos over to the political action committees ("PACs") of these allegedly "pro-life" groups, thus creating quite a symbiotic (where two living organisms feed off of each other to their mutual benefit) relationship that cannot be disturbed by such inconvenient little things as truth, no less the fullness of Catholic truth.

There is even an organization called "Priests for Life," whose very existence concedes that there are priests and presbyters within the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism who support the chemical and surgical assassination of children under a variety of fallacious pretexts. Shouldn't it be taken for granted that one who considers himself to be a validly ordained priest of the Catholic Church is opposed to every single direct, intentional taking of an innocent human life?

The slogan "pro-life" is applied even to "bishops" with the "hierarchy" of the conciliar church. Various "bishops" are considered to be "pro-life" if they show up once a month and lead the recitation of Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary in front of an American killing center, an abortuary. Some of these "bishops" praise career politicians who support the direct, intentional taking of innocent human life in the "hard cases," using the absolutely meaningless "pro-life" label as they do so.

Readers of this site will understand that the devil has raised up false opposites on the "left" in politics to make those on the "right" seem "good" by way comparison even though both believe in the same naturalistic, anti-Incarnational errors of Modernity and refuse to accept the truth that Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order.

Similarly, the devil has raised up false opposites of "ultra-progressives" in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, to make alleged "conservatives" or "moderates" seem heroic by way of comparison even though both accept the fundamental revolutionary premises of conciliarism (the new ecclesiology, false ecumenism, religious liberty, separation of Church and State, inter-religious "prayer" services, attacks on the nature of dogmatic truth, a liturgy that is abhorrent in the sight of true God, the Most Most Blessed Trinity).

To applaud a conciliar "bishop" for going to a local abortuary once a month to pray Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary while he offends God in a horrific liturgical rite every day and promotes false doctrines and helps to further undermine the innocence and purity of the young by  means of explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments is laughable. Those who offend God in these ways can help to restore the foundation of a a just social order as it is only Catholicism that can provide such a foundation, something that the conciliar "bishops," steeped in the errors of Judeo-Masonry, completely reject as the concept is entirely foreign to their poisoned minds.

There are very few conciliar "bishops," most of whom believe the the imposition of the death penalty is proscribed by the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment and that to be "pro-life" one must be posed to it, who would be so bold as to say openly, if they even believed it privately, that no one who supported the direct, intentional taking of any innocent human life at any time for any reason as a matter of moral principle could be described as "pro-life" as such a person is simply less pro-abortion that one who supports unrestricted baby-killing on demand.

No mother has any "choice" to be made between her own life and that of her preborn child. Although the improvements in medical technology have made it possible for expectant mothers with serious maladies to be treated in a manner that will permit a baby to be delivered at the point of viability, whereupon more aggressive treatment of a mother's condition can be undertaken, if possible and advised, it is still nevertheless the case that in those rare circumstances, which certainly do occur now and again, where a mother is faced with the possibility of sacrificing her own life so that her preborn baby can be born. A mother formed in the truths of the Catholic Faith knows that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ meant it when He said the following:

[12] This is my commandment, that you love one another, as I have loved you. [13] Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends. (John 15: 12)

A mother who knows the Catholic Faith understands that, as difficult as it can be to those steeped in emotionalism and sentimentality, she can, if she dies in a state of Sanctifying Grace, do more for her child from eternity than she ever could here on the face of this earth. Moreover, those who have died in a state of Sanctifying Grace are more perfectly united to us than they ever were on the face of this earth.

We must think supernaturally at all times. We must think as Catholics at all times no matter the natural pull of human emotions and heartstrings that will certainly affect each of us at various times. We are flesh and blood human beings. We would be heartless creatures if we were not torn in difficult circumstances of facing  an earthly separation from our loved ones by means of what is considered to be an "early" death. We must love God's Holy Will first and foremost, praying to His Most Blessed Mother to send us graces to accept His will so that we can obey it as we observe every precept of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law.

Naturalists, of course, do not understand this, which is why almost all of those in public life who say that they are "pro-life" support the direct, intentional taking of innocent human lives in their mothers' wombs under any conditions at all. Such people cannot see the contradiction represented by claiming to be "pro-life" while supporting the direct killing of babies in some instances.

To wit, then Texas Governor George Walker Bush simply shrugged his shoulders as he smirked during a televised debate in 1999, saying the following with a sense of exasperation after Dr. Alan Keyes asked him how he could be said to be opposed to abortion while supporting it in some circumstances: "I can't explain it. It's just how I feel."

God's law is not a matter of feeling, something that Pope Pius XII pointed out in his November 26, 1951, Address to the Association of Large Families.

Consider these very telling words from the early part of this address, begging your pardon that they are from a Google translation of the original text, which is in the Italian language:

If there is another danger that threatens the family, not since yesterday, but long ago, which, however, at present, is growing visibly, it can become fatal [to societies], that is, the attack and the disruption of the fruit of conjugal morality.

We have, in recent years, taken every opportunity to expose the one or the other essential point of the moral law, and more recently to indicate it as a whole, not only by refuting the errors that corrupt it, but also showing in a positive sense, the office the importance, the value for the happiness of the spouses, children and all family, for stability and the greater social good from their homes up to the State and the Church itself.

At the heart of this doctrine is that marriage is an institution at the service of life. In close connection with this principle, we, according to the constant teaching of the Church, have illustrated a argument that it is not only one of the essential foundations of conjugal morality, but also of social morality in general: namely, that the direct attack innocent human life, as a means to an end - in this case the order to save another life - is illegal.

Innocent human life, whatever his condition, is always inviolate from the first instance of its existence and it can never be attacked voluntarily. This is a fundamental right of human beings. A fundamental value is the Christian conception of life must be respected as valid for the life still hidden in the womb against direct abortion and against all innocent human life thereafter. There can be no direct murders of a child before, during and after childbirth. As established may be the legal distinction between these different stages of development life born or unborn, according to the moral law, all direct attacks on inviolable human life are serious and illegal.

This principle applies to the child's life, like that of mother's. Never, under any circumstances, has the Church has taught that the life of child must be preferred to that of the mother. It would be wrong to set the issue with this alternative: either the child's life or that of mother. No, nor the mother's life, nor that of her child, can be subjected to an act of direct suppression. For the one side and the other the need can be only one: to make every effort to save the life of both, mother and child (see Pious XI Encycl. Casti Connubii, 31 dec. 1930, Acta Ap. Sedis vol. 22, p.. 562-563).

It is one of the most beautiful and noble aspirations of medicine trying ever new ways to ensure both their lives. What if, despite all the advances of science, still remain, and will remain in the future, a doctor says that the mother is going to die unless here child is killed in violation of God's commandment: Thou shalt not kill!  We must strive until the last moment to help save the child and the mother without attacking either as we bow before the laws of nature and the dispositions of Divine Providence.

But - one may object - the mother's life, especially of a mother of a numerous family, is incomparably greater than a value that of an unborn child. The application of the theory of balance of values to the matter which now occupies us has already found acceptance in legal discussions. The answer to this nagging objection is not difficult. The inviolability of the life of an innocent person does not depend by its greater or lesser value. For over ten years, the Church has formally condemned the killing of the estimated life as "worthless', and who knows the antecedents that provoked such a sad condemnation, those who can ponder the dire consequences that would be reached, if you want to measure the inviolability of innocent life at its value, you must well appreciate the reasons that led to this arrangement.

Besides, who can judge with certainty which of the two lives is actually more valuable? Who knows which path will follow that child and at what heights it can achieve and arrive at during his life? We compare Here are two sizes, one of whom nothing is known. We would like to cite an example in this regard, which may already known to some of you, but that does not lose some of its evocative value.

It dates back to 1905. There lived a young woman of noble family and even more noble senses, but slender and delicate health. As a teenager, she had been sick with a small apical pleurisy, which appeared healed; when, however, after contracting a happy marriage, she felt a new life blossoming within her, she felt ill and soon there was a special physical pain that dismayed that the two skilled health professionals, who watched  her with loving care. That old scar of the pleurisy had been awakened and, in the view of the doctors, there was no time to lose to save this gentle lady from death. The concluded that it was necessary to proceed without delay to an abortion.

Even the groom agreed. The seriousness of the case was very painful. But when the obstetrician attending to the mother announced their resolution to proceed with an abortion, the mother, with firm emphasis, "Thank you for your pitiful tips, but I can not truncate the life of my child! I can not, I can not! I feel already throbbing in my breast, it has the right to live, it comes from God must know God and to love and enjoy it." The husband asked, begged, pleaded, and she remained inflexible, and calmly awaited the event.

The child was born regularly, but immediately after the health of the mother went downhill. The outbreak spread to the lungs and the decay became progressive. Two months later she went to extremes, and she saw her little girl growing very well one who had grown very healthy. The mother looked at her robust baby and saw his sweet smile, and then she quietly died.

Several years later there was in a religious institute a very young sister, totally dedicated to the care and education of children abandoned, and with eyes bent on charges with a tender motherly love. She loved the tiny sick children and as if she had given them life. She was the daughter of the sacrifice, which now with her big heart has spread much love among the children of the destitute. The heroism of the intrepid mother was not in vain! (See Andrea Majocchi. " Between burning scissors," 1940, p.. 21 et seq.). But we ask: Is Perhaps the Christian sense, indeed even purely human, vanished in this point of no longer being able to understand the sublime sacrifice of the mother and the visible action of divine Providence, which made quell'olocausto born such a great result? (Pope Pius XII, Address to Association of Large Families, November 26, 1951; I used Google Translate to translate this address from the Italian as it is found at AAS Documents, p. 855; you will have to scroll down to page 855, which takes some time, to find the address.)

Let me repeat: Pope Pius XII slammed the National-Not-Right-to-Life Committee, George Walker Bush, Donald J. Trump, Rafael Edward Cruz, John Ellis Bush, Christopher Christie, Michael Dale Huckabee, Cara Carleton Sneed Fiorina, Marco Antonio Rubio, Richard John Santorum, Randal Howard Paul, Benjamin Solomon Carson, Sr. (a member of the fiercely anti-Catholic Seventh Day Adventist sect who supports "brain death" and has himself done research on fetal stem cells while dismissing the execution of Mrs. Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo by means of the withdrawal of her hydration and nutrition as "much ado about nothing--see Ten Years Later), and other all supposedly "pro-life" pols who support any exceptions to the inviolability of innocent human life at any time, including that for the "life of the mother."

It is upon that false premise of the "life of the mother exception" that the conciliar "bishops" have embraced the inclusion of it in every legislative proposal introduced in Congress without even attempting to pressure supposedly pro-life members of various legislatures, including those in both houses of the Congress of the United States of America, believing that doing so will help to convince "reasonable" people that they and the politicians they support are not "radicals" or "extremists," that such concessions are "necessary" to make in the realm prudence.

This is, of course, the exact same moral casuistry that gave us "natural family planning" and explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments that has corrupted what passes for Catholic moral theology in so many places that high level officials in the Vatican itself can speak of "therapeutic" abortions as being within the moral law (see So Long to the Fifth Commandment and Rotten To The Very Roots).

Some tried very hard to warn the "bishops" as early as the first years after the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 2,, 1973, that the acceptance of "exceptions" would lead to the further institutionalization of baby-killing under the cover of the civil law in the mistaken belief that some killings would be prevented.

One of those who did so was Mrs. Randy Engel, the Director of the U.S. Coalition for Life, who testified in 1974. before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments of the United States Senate Committee for the Judiciary. Mrs. Engel saw things with prophetic clarity: there could never be any compromise with the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment, and for this, of course, she has been hated by the "pro-life establishment" ever since:

I am Randy Engel, National Director of the United States Coalition for Life, an international research center and clearing- house specializing in domestic federal anti-life programs within the Department of Health, Education and Welfare and the Agency for International Development. Thank you for your invitation to appear before the sub-committee today in order that I may express the views of the Coalition, its distinguished national and international board of advisors, some of whom have already testified at earlier Senate hearings on the Human Life Amendment, and that of thousands of grassroots people whom we have had the honor of serving on a day to day basis since the Coalition opened its offices almost two years ago. 

Mr. Chairman, about four months ago, the Coalition filed with your office, the transcript of a speech made by Louise Tyrer , M.D. , Family Planning Division of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, before the Association of Planned Parenthood Physicians' 12th Annual Meeting, Memphis, Tennessee on Tuesday, April 16, 1974, on the status of the various Human Life Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. (Attachment A) According to Dr. Tyrer' s assessment of the Congressional scene there are two basic approaches. One - a "state's rights" approach which would return the power of lawmaking in the area of abortion to the individual States. The second - which would guarantee the full protection of the law to the unborn child from the moment of fertilization. The "State's rights" approach she states, and correctly so, is unacceptable to the majority of Pro-Life people yet very attractive to the legislators because "it sought of takes the ones off their backs from making any decisions."

The remainder of her talk stresses the necessity of stalling the hearings of this sub-committee by having Planned Parenthood physicians flood the sub-committee with requests to testify. This, Dr. Tyrer suggests would be politically expedient and politically NECESSARY for you Mr. Chairman, in order to keep the amendments bottled up in sub-committee until you had gone through the election process in the Fall. Now, Mr. Chairman, I have no desire to embarrass you in any manner. Not because I fell Dr. Tyrer was incorrect in her judgment of the political realities of the Senate and House Committees dealing with the abortion issue or her assessment that stalling these subcommittee hearings by dragging them out month by month would be politically expedient for you and others who might prefer not to have a roll call vote on a Human Life Amendment before election time. But rather, because with few exceptions, almost every Senator and Representative in Congress would like nothing better than to get rid of the abortion issue tomorrow, if not before, or at least dump the matter back into the lap of the State legislatures.

This is not our affair - they say.

The massive slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent unborn children is not a federal matter - they say.

We are not responsible for the Supreme Court decision of January 22, 1972 which is now the law of the land - they say.

Well, I am here Mr. Chairman to tell you and every other Senator and Congressman that like it or not - Abortion IS your affair. That the massive slaughter of unborn children in this country IS a proper matter of federal concern. Moreover that this Congress IS directly responsible for the almost inevitable Supreme Court decision which stripped unborn children of their inalienable right to life. Congress IS responsible because over the last ten years it has permitted an anti-life philosophy and anti-life programs and policies to become matters of NATIONAL POLICY, promoted and supported by tax dollars.

It is the Federal Government - at all levels - Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches - which has posed the greatest threat to unborn children in recent years. The Executive Branch because it has failed to correct the anti-life abuses primarily within the bureaucracies of HEW and AID and has permitted key anti-life leaders such as Dr. Louis Hellman the Office of Population Affairs and Dr. R. T. Ravenholt, Director Population Bureau for Population and Humanitarian Affairs [and the man who coined the phrase "Natural Family Planning"] to remain in office. The Legislative Branch, because it has authorized legislation and appropriated funds year after year to initiate, promote and sustain anti-life programs in virtually every conceivable federal bureaucracy including the Office of Economic Opportunity, Office of Environmental Education, Office of Education, Department of Defense Office of Population Affairs (HEW), National Institutes of Health, Agriculture Department, Food and Drug Administration, Public Health Service Social Security, MedicAID, Aid to Dependent Children, U.S. Information Agency Population Office(AID). Contraceptive Research Branch (NIH) Federal Communication Commission).

As I said the Supreme Court abortion decision was an inevitable one. All the cliches of that decision - terms like "unwanted children", "a woman's right to control her own body.", the population explosion stem from the Sangerite ethic. It represented the culmination of more than half a century of dedication and tireless efforts by the Sangerites and the Malthusians to convince the American public of the righteousness of the CAUSE and to elevate the SANGERITE-MALTHUSIAN philosophy to that of Public Policy .

This final achievement is portrayed quite candidly in this book Breeding Ourselves to Death - the Story of the Hugh Moore Fund by abortion leader Lawrence Lader. In the section on gaining Congressional Support, former N.Y. Senator Kenneth Keating, then newly appointed National Director of the Population Crisis Committee tells about eating in the Senate Dining Room where he could spread the gospel of family planning among old friends, particularly among the Republican leadership. This fight to influence by other population control leaders in Congress goes on today.

But what does all this have to do with this subcommittee hearing on the Human Life Amendment? Simply this:

For more than a year the Hogan-Helms Human Life Amendment and similar bills have been buried in the House, where Representative Don Edwards has refused to hold hearings, and in the Senate - hearings are dragged out month after month to get Senators and Representatives through the November watershed without a floor vote on such as the HLA.

Obviously there is no sense of urgency about the matter, with the exception of a handful of dedicated men, the Congress doesn't appear to be the least concerned that its inaction will result in the death of hundreds of thousands of unborn children. The fact that millions of federal tax dollars are used to promote a myriad of anti-life schemes- from direct abortion payments (Medicaid-ADC; to the research development and promoting of new abortion techniques to the indoctrination of young children of an anti-life ethic appears to raise no particular concern at family planning authorization or appropriation hearings.

Equally obvious is the fact that under these conditions we will have a difficult time getting a Human Life Amendment passed by both Houses of Congress and on its way to the states for ratification. My purpose here today is to point out the current commitment of the Federal Government including this Congress to the anti-life establishment, and briefly how such a commitment was obtained and at what price.

Mr. Chairman, this Congress OWES its vigorous support for a Human Life Amendment which would protect Human Life from conception until natural death to the American people. The Coalition would agree that the Hogan-Helms Amendment or the newer Roncallo Amendment would provide such protection.

Apart from the merit of these amendments themselves, we feel that Congress should recognize the fact that through its indifference, ignorance and its inability to withstand the pressures of the anti-life movement, it must bear its share of guilt for the 1973 Abortion decision, and its share of responsibility in seeing a Human Life Amendment is passed to protect the unborn child.

Your responsibility, Mr. Chairman, in this matter is very plain. As for our part, I believe the Coalition and the Pro-Life Movement in the U. S. will continue to fight at all levels - including the Halls of Congress and yes, even in Senate dining rooms - to educate and to promote an ideal that is as revolutionary in our day as the Sangerite ideal was fifty years ago. That ideal is based on the sanctity and innate goodness of all human life. (Full text of "Abortion : hearings before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments.)

Even though the efforts made by Mrs. Engel and others, including the efforts of the indefatigable late United States Representative Angelo Roncallo (R-Massapequa, New York), were valiant, we can see now with perfect hindsight that which was not understood by very many at the time: that these noble efforts were doomed to failure precisely because the "pro-life establishment," headed by the National Not-So-Right to Life Committee, rallied around the constitutional amendment that had been proposed by United States Senator James Buckley (C-New York; the "c" reflects Buckley's election in a three-way race in 1970 as the candidate of the Conservative Party of the State of New York) that permitted the "life of the mother" exception. Only four American bishops, Timothy Cardinal Manning of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, John Cardinal Krol of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, Humberto Medeiros of the Archdiocese of Boston and John Cardinal Cody of the Archdiocese of Chicago testified against the Buckley Amendment on the grounds that the civil law could never permit the direct taking of a single, solitary innocent human life from the first moment of conception through all subsequent stages until natural death. These cardinals, however, although part of the conciliar church by that time, were opposed by the entire "pro-life" establishment whose machinations were being orchestrated, at least to a very large extent, by the then Monsignor James Timothy McHugh of the Archdiocese of Newark, New Jersey. McHugh did not have a qualm of conscience whatsoever about the "life of the mother exception" as a matter of legislative expediency or as a core moral principle of the National Right to Life Committee his work at the then named Family Life Bureau of the United States Catholic Conference helped to launch.

No, the well-intentioned efforts of Mrs. Engel and her associates were doomed from the start as, unbeknownst to them, a false church had arisen filled with men who had lost the Catholic Faith, men who had surrendered to the prevailing ethos of Judeo-Masonry, a surrender that has devastated the world in which we live and that must be considered nothing other than one of the worst chastisements of our time for neither Popes Pius XI or XII consecrating Russia collegially to Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart with all of the world's bishops. Treasonous priests/presbyters and their leftist apparatchiks and toadies worked against efforts to provide full constitutional protection. And this is what must happen when men who claim to be Catholic make their "reconciliations" with the anti-Incarnational principles of Modernity.

The first alleged success of the pragmatists in the pro-life movement came in 1977 when Representative Henry Hyde (R-Illinois) was able to attach an amendment to the funding of Medicaid that prohibited the use of Medicaid funds to pay for abortions for poor women except in cases where a mother's life was said to be endangered. The legislation containing the Hyde Amendment, which was "liberalized" in 1993 to include the rape and incest exceptions, was signed into law by President Jimmy Carter. Far from being a success, however, the Hyde Amendment conceded the false idea that innocent human beings could be put to death under cover of law and that American taxpayers could licitly pay for their savage murders. The flawed nature of the single exception contained in the original Hyde Amendment was the basis of its eventual, if not inevitable, expansion sixteen years later.

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

The failure of the Hatch Amendment led to the pragmatists to adopt "incrementalism" as their buzzword. As legislative efforts to reverse Roe v. Wade had proved unsuccessful, the only thing that could be done was to limit abortion around the margins. Thus, such initiatives as "parental consent" legislation at the state level became the focus of the National Right to Life Committee and its state affiliate organizations. Again, this was and remains a morally flawed effort. No one has the right to give his consent to his daughter to murder his grandchild inside of her womb. The legal "experts" at the National Right to Life Committee have contended ad nauseam that parental consent laws have been crafted so as to pass the scrutiny of constitutional challenges in Federal and state courts. Well, not only are these laws morally flawed of their nature, they include a judicial bypass provision whereby a minor woman can get a judge's order to kill her child without the "consent" or her parents. Planned Parenthood and related organizations are more than willing to fill out the boilerplate forms necessary to secure the judicial bypass for one of their "clients."'

As I have written over and over again in the past twenty-one years since a bill, twice vetoed by then President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, sought to conditionally partial-birth abortions was introduced in 1995, the effort to focus on one method of killing in the latter stages of pregnancy was another morally flawed effort that did nothing to save lives as it lowered the bar on truth another notch or two by reducing the then "gold standard" of "pro-life" politics to be conditional opposition to the execution of children by partially extracting them from their mother's wombs so that their heads can be cut open with scissors.

Loads upon loads of people were howling at me from 1995 through 2007 when I pointed out time and time again that the legislation to partially ban partial-birth abortion, thrice vetoed by President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton and then signed into law by President George Walker Bush in 2003 before being sustained by the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart, April 18, 2007, was immoral on its face in that it permitted a "life of the mother" exception and that it made it appear as though killing a baby in the later stages of pregnancy was a greater crime morally than doing so in the earlier stages, which is simply not so.

This is what I wrote at the time:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The whole of the "incrementalist" approach to "restoring" legal protection to the innocent preborn is based upon the lie that it is "necessary" to concede in civil law that there are some circumstances in which a baby can be directly targeted for execution. This lie is itself premised upon the false belief that baby-killers will be scrupulous in observing the "exceptions" that the incrementalists get enacted into law. As I noted consistently throughout the course of the last twenty-five years or so:

Do we really think that those who kill for a living are going to be scrupulously honest about observing the exact conditions of the "life of the mother" exception

In other words, those who believe at present that the "gold standard" of being "pro-life" in American politics today is opposition to Federal taxpayer funding of Planned Barrenhood while shifting that funding to "community health centers" that provide the same immoral "services" by dispensing abortifacient contraceptives have permitted themselves to be deceived very badly, yes, as badly as they were deceived during the administration of President George Walker Bush, who, if you recall, permitted Federal taxpayer funds to be used for research on "fetal stem cell lines" that had been "harvested" before 9:00 p.m. on Thursday, August 9, 2001. In so doing, of course, Bush authorized the death of those human beings and at the same time justify the immoral, evil practice of in vitro fertilization while doing nothing to stop the privately funded death and destruction of such embryonic human beings on those "lines" created after the date and time of his announcement:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today, of course, the conciliar "pope" believes that "enough" has been said about abortion and "marriage" between practitioners of sodomite sins. He considers pro-aborts such as Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro and his ilk to be the advocates of the "poor" and "migrants" and those on his existential "peripheries." Obviously, many of the conciliar “bishops” in the past forty-three years never intended to do anything of substance to oppose the chemical and surgical slaughter of the innocent preborn as to do so would have been to place themselves in opposition to politicians, both Catholic and non-Catholic, who were said to be for “the poor,” especially by means of statist programs of income redistribution, and against the death penalty. There is no question whatsoever now that the late Joseph “Cardinal” Bernardin’s “consistent ethic of life” (the so-called “seamless garment”) is the official policy of the counterfeit church of conciliarism under the presidency of the Argentine Apostate, Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

One wonders if the "Zika virus" is one of those plagues sent to punish us for our complacent acceptance of platitudes as the bar of truth is lowered more and more.

Those who are permitting themselves into accepting the defunding of Planned Barrenhood as the new “gold standard” of what it is to be “pro-life” in public life while taxpayer dollars are shifted to “community health centers” that provide the same chemical abortifacients and other “family services” are falling into the same diabolical trap that most “pro-life” Americans fell into during the administrations of Presidents Ronald Wilson Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush, and George Walker Bush.

Some of this site’s newer readers might protest at this point that I do not think a presidency of Hillary Rodham Diane Clinton, who is certain to be the presidential nominee of the Deathocrat Party and who will start the general election with a huge electoral vote advantage in around fifteen to seventeen states (including electoral vote rich states such as New York and California), will be dangerous.

Please, are you serious?

Look, I wrote over two hundred articles, if not more, in The Wanderer between October 22, 1992, and January 20, 2001, on the horrors represented by William Jefferson Blythe Clinton and his wife, Hillary Rodham Diane Clinton.

Indeed, the first article of mine that was published in The Wanderer was about then Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton's having referred to Earvin "Magic" Johnson, Jr., who had been diagnosed with a disease caused by behavior contrary to the binding precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments, as a "hero." My article was entitled, "Magic, You're No Hero." An article of mine was published in Sioux City Journal just before the presidential election on November 4, 1992, entitled, "Character Is A Real Issue."  And my second article in The Wanderer, written on the night of November 4, 1992, was entitled, "What Kind of People Are We?", a prelude of over one hundred, if not more, articles that I wrote about the Clintons during their eight years in office.

One of those Wanderer articles, which was published also in the Arlington Catholic Herald, from whose pages I was banished in early-1994, dealt with the scandal represented by an invitation that a women's group associated with the University of Dayton, which is run by the Marianist Brothers, had extended to the then First Lady of the United States of America, Hillary Rodham Clinton. The article got some "traction," so to speak and was one of the factors, among others, that prompted Clinton's invitation to be withdrawn before she could respond one way or the other. Readers of this site know that I have been unsparing in my criticism of the former First Lady, former United States Senator from the State of New York and the current Secretary of State of the United States of America, Mrs. Clinton. (See, for example, Foggy Bottom's Bloody Tradition, Two Families in Alternate Worlds, Gradually Accepting Naturalism's False Premises, Fools' Gold, When Helen Keller Meets Ray Charles, Going to Confession in All the Wrong Places, Birds of a Naturalist Feather, An Illusion of a Victory, They Never Take Prisoners, Shifting Sands of Popular Sovereignty, A System Based on Lies Produces Liars, One Devil Goes, Another One Enters, Protected by the Forces of Darkness No More?,They Know Not The Way.)

This prologue recounting my long and strong opposition to the merchants of baby-killing from Westchester County, New York, by way of Arkansas and the White House, the Clintons, has been offered so that readers will so that readers will realize that my criticism of the naturalists of the false opposite of the “right” is not to indemnify the naturalists of the false opposite of the “left.” I am merely pointing out that truth, not wishful thinking, must be our guide, and the simple truth is this: Catholicism is the one and only means of human salvation, and it is the only means of providing true order within nations. Efforts to bury Catholicism only empower the agents of Antichrist in both organized crime families of naturalism and all throughout the “popular culture” all the more.

The difference between the false opposites of the naturalist "left" and the naturalist "right" are far less pronounced than professional politicians and fund raisers want us to believe. Indeed, both have this fatal flaw in common with the American founders themselves: that it is possible for men to govern themselves without a reliance upon and submission to the Deposit of Faith that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has entrusted exclusively to the Catholic Church, and that it is possible for men to be virtuous without belief in, access to and cooperation with Sanctifying Grace. From that one fatal flaw flows all--and I mean each and every single one--of the evils associated with naturalism of the anti-Incarnational modern civil state. Once you understand that, ladies and gentlemen, then you understand that the devil wins no matter who--and I mean no matter who--wins an election in the United States of America. Those who proceed from false premises will always wind up worsening things rather than improving them.

The true victims of the past two millennia have been those Catholics who have been martyred, frequently by the brute power of the civil state, for their steadfast witness to the truths of the Catholic Faith and to the Social Reign of Christ the King. Saint Alphonsus de Liguori wrote that over thirteen million Catholics were put to death by the authorities of the Roman Empire between the time of Nero in 67 A.D. and the Edict of Milan in the year 313 A.D. Millions upon millions of others have been put to death in the centuries since. These true victims who offered themselves to the Chief Priest and Victim of Calvary, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, did not feel sorry for themselves. They did not castigate their torturers or their executioners, although some exhorted their torturers and executioners to convert to the true Faith.

This is the time for martyrdom. Yes, for heroic martyrdom, certainly white martyrdom and possibly even actual red martyrdom itself.

Consider this example from the life of Blessed Edmund Campion, S.J.:

What must the prisoners of the sixteenth century have thought when the doors of the Tower closed upon them? Few men--or women--ever came out of the Tower in those days to tell what it was like inside. Most who emerged came out to go to their death at Tyburn. When Father Campion knelt in his cell, praying for strength to be brave and loyal to Christ to the end, he knew enough about the treatment that was most likely in store for him to have every reason in the world to be filled with fear.

He had heard of the The Pit, in which a prisoner might be confined for weeks and months. It was a cave running down for twenty feet and in absolute darkness. He knew of Little Ease, a cell so constructed that a prisoner could not stand upright nor lie down at full length.

Another form of torture was The Scavenger's Daughter. This was a broad hoop of iron which ran between the legs and over the head and forced the prisoner to remain in a crouched-over, cramped position. When this was maintained for days or more, it frequently was impossible for the poor prisoner ever to stand upright again. Before Father Campion's vision rose, too, images of the iron gauntlets that fitted over the wrists and could be tightened with screws, and of the awful rack.

This last instrument of torture was a wooden frame with rollers at each end Ropes ran around the rollers and the ends of the ropes were fastened to the prisoner's wrists and ankles. Then, when the rollers were revolved, arms and legs were stretched, often so far that all the limbs become disjointed.

One of the cruelest of the rack-masters, as they were called, was a man named Topcliffe. He performed his horrible work some years after Father Campion had met his Lord at Tyburn. He once boasted, referring to another Jesuit he was going to torture on the rack, that he would "make him a foot taller than he was before."

Is it any wonder, then, that for Father Campion, and for hundreds of others like him in those terrible days, the Tower of London was not a pleasant or quaint place, but an abode of horrors? Is there any wonder that he, known for his bravery and his gallantry, now knelt in his dismal cell and repeated the prayer that our Lord had uttered to His Father during His agony in the garden" Not My will but Thine be done"?

Christ's hero did not have long to wait before his worst anticipation began to come true. The warden of the Tower was Sir Owen Hopton, who was seeking advancement in the Queen's service. As soon as he heard that the famous Campion, the biggest prize yet to be caught, would be committed to his charge in the Tower, he thought, "I'll show the Queen and Lord Leicester how zealous I can be in the performance of my duty. From the very start I'll be as severe as I can with the traitor, and when Her Majesty hears of it, she will certainly give me a promotion.

At the very moment when Father Campion was praying in his cell, Sir Owen was giving orders to have Little Ease mad ready for him. On the afternoon of July 22, the door of Father Campion's cell groaned open, and a jailer's voice growled. "Come along, seditious Jesuit, we have a little surprise for you."

Father Campion blessed himself, rose and followed down the gloomy corridors. Another door swung open and he saw before him the small room, absolutely bare and almost pitch-dark, even with the door open, which he knew to be Little Ease. Sir Owen stood to one side, elegant and disdainful, watching the weary, disheveled man gaze in fascinated horror at the dreadful room.

"Well, then, Mr. Campion," he said mockingly, "where is all the bravery you protest in your lying Brag? If the sight of our Little Ease affrights you so much, how pale do you think your face will become when you see some of the other means we have here to break the spirit of rebellious citizens like you and your fellow-priests?"

"Fear is not the same as cowardice, Sir Owen," responded Father Campion with a calm dignity, and a trace of his famous smile began to show on his haggard face. "I never said, nor could I, for I am a man, and not an angel, that I would not feel fear at what lies in store for me. But I did say, and with the grace of Our Lord, I will prove it, that I would not be broken in spirit and betray either my Lord Christ or those Catholic friends who have sheltered me and to whom I have brought the Holy Mass and the word of God."

"Humph! Well, we shall soon see. In with the man, and let him think over his deeds and his boasts for a while."

"By what right am I subjected to this torture? cried Father Campion in a commanding voice. "I am an Englishman, I have not been tried, I have not yet been found guilty of any crime. Torture is for criminals--if indeed it is for anyone who is a human being. I demand to see the writ of the Privy Council which gives you the authority so to treat me."

"You can demand until you are blue in the face, my good Papist," snarled Sir Owen. "I am the master of this Tower, and who's to know that I have given you a little taste of discipline? He nodded his head to one of the jailers. The man stepped behind Father Campion, grabbed him by the shoulders and pushed him, not too gently, into Little Ease. The door was slammed shut; the darkness closed in on the figure of Edmund Campion huddled in a cramped, bent-over, standing position.

For three full days and part of a fourth, Father Campion got to know the "little taste of discipline" Little Ease could administer. When his legs and back began to tremble and twitch from the strain of trying to stand, he would slump to a crowded sitting position, and when he could bear that no loner, he would struggle to stand again. Would the hours never pass? How many hours had to pass before he would either be released or lose consciousness? And yet, he prayed not to lose consciousness. He prayed that he might remain in control of his mind and will so that he could consciously offer his suffering in reparation for his own sins and for the conversion of his beloved England. [Father Harold C. Gardiner, S.J., Edmund Campion, Hero of God's Underground, Vision Books: Farrar, Straus and Cudahy, 1957 pp. 138-142.]

This stirring letter written by a Claretian priest Spain during the Spanish Revolution (1936-1939) just before he (and others with him) were martyred demonstrates the difference between hiding the Faith in public life, whether as a matter of supposedly "clever" calculation or as a matter of habitual reluctance to speak the truth clearly no matter the cost,   and being a victim for Christ the King at all times without any exception or equivocation:

We all die praying to God that the blood from our wounds may not be a vengeful blood, but that it run red and full of life in your veins, to stimulate your growth and development all over the world. Good-bye, dear Congregation! Your sons, the martyrs of Barbastro, salute you from prison and offer you our sorrow and anguish as a holocaust to expiate our faults, our weaknesses, and as a testimony of our faithful, generous and eternal love. The martyrs of tomorrow, the 14th, are mindful of the fact that they die on the eve of the Assumption. What a remembrance that will be! We die for the right to wear the cassock and we die on the very anniversary of the day on which we were clothed in it. (Quoted in Warren H. Carroll, The Last Crusade, Christendom Press, 1996, p. 110.)

Dr. Carroll went on to quote a member of the civil guard's testimony to the constancy of the Faith of the Claretian martyrs of Barbastro:

These [blasphemous expletive deleted] fools! No one could shut them up! All the way they sang and praised Christ the King. One of them fell dead when he hit him with the butt of a gun, and this is no lie. But the more we hit them, the more they sang and shouted: "Viva Cristo Rey!("Quoted in Warren H. Carroll, The Last Crusade, Christendom Press, 1996, p. 110.) 

We must strive to be victims for Christ the King and for Mary our Immaculate Queen as we make reparation to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary for our own sins and those of the whole world. No Catholic, including this one, is proud of his sins. Indeed, we abhor them. We do not blame others for our sins. We do not seek to destroy those who may have firsthand knowledge of our sins of thoughts, words, and deeds. We take full and complete responsibility for our sins, recognizing that we are absolutely no better than anyone else. We must give thanks to God that it is by His own gratuitous gift of the Holy Faith and of the graces that He won for us by the shedding of His own Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross that flow into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, the Mediatrix of All Graces, that we have even a little bit of a chance of undoing the damage that our sins have done to our souls--and for the bad example, if not outright scandal--we might have given to the souls of others--by living penitentially, especially as we fulfill Our Lady's Fatima Message in our own lives on a daily basis. Yes, we must strive to be victims for Christ the King and Mary our Immaculate Queen as we pray as many Rosaries as our states-in-life permit.

The petty tyrants of today will fade from view soon enough. God is more powerful than any of the fools who think that their grand ideas and schemes can "save" society and make our own lives "easier" and "more comfortable" (sort of like they want to create a huge "national hospice" for us). A country that has killed over fifty million innocent preborn human beings by surgical abortion alone, no less the truly countless number of souls its wars have taken out of the Catholic Church and placed into Protestant "churches" and Masonic lodges, owes God a tremendous debt that might be repaid only by the extinction of its national existence.

We must, therefore, embrace the Cross as never before, hoping that our lives of prayer and penance and fasting and mortification and almsgiving and total consecration to Jesus through Mary will help, especially by means of Eucharistic piety and our devotion to Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary, to plant just a few seeds for the day when all men will hail the Chief Victim and Priest, the One Who become Man for us to die on the wood of the Cross so that we might know an unending Easter Sunday of glory in Paradise.



Our Lady is waiting to help us.

Why do we tarry to trust in her loving care?

Why do refuse to believe that the path out of this mess runs through her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart?

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and at the hour of our death.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

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

Saint John Chrysostom, pray for us.