Everyone Loses When Our King Reigneth Not Over Men and Their Nations, part two

Unaided by the supernatural helps available only from the Catholic Church, most naturalists are steeped in what are, objectively speaking, in a state of Mortal Sin. Perhaps even more sobering is the fact that there are many people (Talmudists, Buddhists, Hindus, ancestor worshipers, Mohemmedans, Mormons, members of the Salvation Army, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists and even more than a handful of  Protestants who are "baptized" in "the Name of the Lord Jesus" or in the "Holy Spirit, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost)  who live in a state of Original Sin.

This is very important to understand as it explains why many of the people we meet on any given day are in heightened states of agitation and frenzy while others simply go through the motions of their daily lives without joy as befits redeemed creatures who should be grateful for the opportunity to serve the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Blessed Trinity, by the performance of their daily duties and by the patient endurance of trials and sufferings. Unhappiness and violence are the order of the day in a world without Christ the King and His true Church as most people live from moment to moment with no reflection of any kind upon First or Last Things. 

We know, of course, of the utter indifference most people have to the daily slaughter of the innocent preborn. Violent deaths must be imposed upon innocent preborn children merely because their parents used the gifts proper to the married state alone illicitly or because their parents did not "plan" for their conception and thus do no want to have their lives and their careers "inconvenienced" or "burdened" by accepting them as gifts sent to them from God so that they can know, love, and serve Him in this life as members of His true Church and thus to be ready to die in a state of Sanctifying Grace and give Him glory for all eternity in Heaven. It is a relatively short step to killing anybody at any time for any reason or for no reason whatsover.

Consider how many random attacks upon innocent human beings have been committed by crazed individuals or violent gangs in recent years, including a case from 2014 in the City of New York, New York, and one from last week in Baltimore, Maryland:

BEDFORD PARK (WABC) --William King has lived in his Bronx neighborhood for 40 years, and since 1974 he has felt safe - that is until Saturday afternoon when he was brutally beaten in broad daylight. The vicious encounter was caught on home surveillance camera. 

"I got a cut above over my eyelid, and the side of my face is numb - I can't open my mouth that well and I had a lump the size of a baseball on the side of my head," says King. 

The incident happened near the corner of Briggs Avenue and East 197th Street in Bedford Park - not in the wee hours of the morning, but at 2 in the afternoon on a beautiful, bright and busy day. 

One man pounded the 67-year-old, while another acted as a lookout - both were left empty-handed. 

"I believe it was a racial attack - they weren't trying to rob me, I had money on me and my wallet and all. They weren't trying to rob me," adds King. 

King works as a facility maintenance clerk for a law firm, and teaches Sunday School at Our Lady of Refuge. His neighbors say the video is so hard to watch. 

"I'm a believer in God, that he watches over me, but sometimes you have to watch out for the fools, and there are some fools in this neighborhood," says Diana Monroe. 

"That's really sad - that's desperation in my opinion," says Elizabeth Sing. 

King says that he believes the suspects are animals. 

"They're not human - they're not human at all," he says. (Bronx Man Beaten in Braod Dalyight in Broad Daylight in Bedford Park.)

BALTIMORE (WJZ) — The Baltimore Police Department has arrested nine teens and is continuing to investigate after a group of mostly juveniles were caught on video assaulting a man in downtown Baltimore in broad daylight.

A 12-year-old, two 13 year olds, three 14 year olds, two 16 year olds, and 18-year-old Derell Smith were arrested following an investigation by Baltimore PD.

The unsuspecting man was walking down the street when the kids started striking him. They punched and insulted him, some even cheering on the abuse.

It happened at around 5:30 p.m. Tuesday, during the height of rush hour and was recorded by a witness.
For nearly 2 minutes, the kids hurled fists and insults after stealing his phone.

Police say the group is behind several similar attacks.

“Just assaulting for no purpose, for no rhyme, no reason an individual who’s walking. We believe that this group is responsible for those attacks as well,” says Baltimore Police spokesman T.J. Smith.

Just 30 minutes another victim wast attacked on Guilford Avenue.

“Verbally abusing me, surrounding me and grabbing for my lunch bag. What’s in your bag? Called me some slurs. Then they surrounded me and started attacking me physically,” the victim says.

He tells WJZ he’s grateful to a witness that helped him scare off the kids and flag down officers. Now he wants justice.

“People ought to be able to go to work, go home to their families without this crazy nonsense.” he says.

All nine are being charged with robbery and second-degree assault. Only Smith, the alleged ring leader, is being charged as an adult.

The youngest suspect, is 12 years old and is still in elementary school.

The juveniles will be released while Smith remains in custody.

Smith says the juveniles were not being charged as adults because it was an unarmed robbery. Baltimore PD Commissioner Kevin Davis is set to go to the schools attended by these suspects to speak with all the students.

Police say it was an “unprovoked” attack on a man walking down the street. Police do not believe there was a reason for the assault.

“Hopefully this is a wake up call to parents. To know where your children are,” says Smith.

The victim did not suffer any major injuries and was treated at the scene.

The man who posted the video on Facebook Tuesday says the suspects took a man’s phone.  (Arrests After Assault By Group of Teens in Downtown Baltimore Caught on Tape.)

Mind you, this is not even to mention the mindless murders that take place, especially on weekends, in the City of Chicago, Illinois, or in the murder capital of the United States of America, St. Louis, Missouri, or other places. Mention will be made later in this commentary, however, of the executions undertaken by supposed medical "professionals" dressed in white coats who regularly dispatch innocent human beings to death under various pretexts and by variety of means (dehydration and starvation, "brain death," the use of sedatives, up to and including increasingly higher doses of morphine to stop the beating of human hearts) in hospitals and hospices in the United States of America and around the world.

How, good readers, will any country be made "great" again when its laws sanction and what poasses for popular "culture" celebrates the very thing that caused Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to suffer in His Sacred Humanity during His Passion and Death and that wounds His Mystical Body today?

We are in the season of making reparation for our sins, each of which have worsened the state of the world and of the Church Militant more than we would like to think possible. 

Why, therefore, do we think that men who have lived their entire lives steeped in Original Sin and/or Mortal Sins can be trusted to make decisions consonant with the common temporal good of nations?

How many times is it necessary to call to mind these words of Pope Saint Pius X in Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906, concerning the fact that governments must aid man in the realization of his last end, not frustrate its pursuit by means of law inimical to God's laws and thus to men's own happiness here and hereafter?

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."

Unable to Accept Criticism, Unbent In His Support and Promotion of the Sin of Sodom

As has been the case with most of the men who have served in office of the presidency of the United States of America, President Donald John Trump has lived his life steeped in what are, objectively speaking, Mortal Sins even though he is completely unaware of this fact. It is nevertheless the case, however, that men who sin wantonly suffer the consequences of their behavior as their souls, made in the image and likeness of God, are in states of rebellion against the God Who created them, Who redeemed them, and Who means to sanctify them. Such men are thus in a state of rebellion against their own ulitmate good, namely, the salvation of their immortal souls. 

Some of the objective consequences of Mortal Sins that are not confessed to and absolved by a true priest include the darkening of already darkened intellects and the weakening of already weakened wills. This gives rise to anger and rage when things do not go the way that one desires, and this is what happens with President Trump more often than not when he vents his spleen on the "social communications" portal known as "Twitter" and when he explodes with rage at his own staff members. This poor man, who is seventy years of age and has been married three times after a lifetime of fornication and adultery, cannot accept any criticism, including just criticism, with equnamity and he has no capacity to see that he is obliged to pray for those who oppose him. Even Ronald Wilson Reagan, a twice married naturalist who consulted a soothsayer to plan to his life's activities in violation of the First Commandment, let criticism of him roll off his back. Not Donald John Trump.

Thus it is that Trump yelled at his staff on Friday, March 3, 2017, following the decision of Attorney General Jeff Sessions to recuse himself from a Department of Justice probe into his own perfectly proper contacts with the Russian Ambassador to the United States of America as a United States Senator from Alabama during the presidential campaign last year. This Justice Department probe will also investigate alleged Russian efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential elections. Sessions's decision angered Trump, who took out his anger on this senior staff:

President Trump is furious over Attorney General Jeff Sessions's decision to recuse himself from investigations into Russia, according to reports Saturday.

Sessions on Thursday recused himself from any investigations into Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election, bowing to mounting bipartisan pressure after it was revealed he spoke to Moscow's U.S. envoy during the campaign then denied doing so during his confirmation hearings.

Sessions said he made his decision after consulting with officials at the Justice Department, who recommended he should no longer participate in the probe.

Washington Post reporter Robert Costa tweeted Saturday morning that President Trump left the White House "in a fury" on Friday, "fuming about [Jeff] Sessions's recusal and telling aides that Sessions shouldn't have recused himself," also calling the reports of his meeting "bull."

ABC News also reported that Trump went "ballistic," on Friday, also over the Sessions news. (Trump Furious Over Sessions Decision to Recuse Himself .)

Whether or not Attorney General Sessions was correct to recuse himself from a Justice Department probe into Russian activities is one thing, but it is entirely within the purview of the Attorney General of the United States to make such a decision. One of the many justified criticisms of the Ministry of Injustice during the administration of President Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro and Vice President Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., concerned the refusal of both Eric Himpton Holder and Loretta Lynch to appoint any kind of outside counsel to investigate and prosecute the criminal behavior of administration officials who abused and broke the law (e.g. Internal Revenue Service, Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the Hillary Clinton e-mails, etc.). Perhaps Attorney General Sessions wants to set an example that should have been followed by his immediate predecessors.

Trump, though, was upset that the favorable reviews he had received for his State of the Union Address on February 28, 2017, which did not mention the innocent preborn, by the way, had been eclipsed by the carefully orchestrated efforts of United States Senate Minority Leader Charles H. Schumer to play the "Russian interference card" once again so as to make innocent meetings appear to be part of a complex Manchurian Candidate conspiracy. Trump's staff, though, was not to blame for the machinations of  Democrats to blunt the impact of what he considered to be a successful speech, and they were not to blame for Attorney General Sessions's decision to recuse himself from an investigation into alleged Russian interference in last year's elections. Then again, you see, one who cannot accept criticism and who does not see the loving hand of God in all the events of his life will have no recourse other than anger when events do not go as he had planned.

For present purposes, however, I want to focus on the fact of President Trump's anger at Attorney General Jeff Sessions, to whom the president deferred in what was a rather hotly-contested dispute between the attorney general and the Secretary of the United States Department of Education, Betsy DeVos over whether to continue presidential directive issued by Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro to make Federal aid to public school districts conditional upon their willingness to permit mentally disturbed children who consider themselves to be a member of the opposite gender to use the bathroom of their choice. Part of Trump's anger about Sessions's recusal decision may very well have been based, at least in part, upon an expectation that the attorney general would hold not recuse himself after he, Trump, had decided to favor his desire to end the "bathroom directive" that Betsy DeVos wanted to retain. 

Even though Trump let Sessions have his way in this matter, which should never have been the cause for any kind of dispute whatsoever as anyone who thinks himself to be something that he is not is mentally disturbed and not part of a special "civil rights" category covered by the protections of Federal law, Trump let DeVos issue her own statement about the matter after she had agreed to the directive's appeal. DeVos was really speaking for Trump himself when she wrote the following:

We have a responsibility to protect every student in America and ensure that they have the freedom to learn and thrive in a safe and trusted environment. This is not merely a federal mandate, but a moral obligation no individual, school, district or state can abdicate. At my direction, the Department’s Office for Civil Rights remains committed to investigating all claims of discrimination, bullying and harassment against those who are most vulnerable in our schools.

The guidance issued by the previous administration has given rise to several legal questions. As a result, a federal court in August 2016 issued a nationwide injunction barring the Department from enforcing a portion of its application. Since that time, the Department has not enforced that part of the guidance, thus there is no immediate impact to students by rescinding this guidance.

This is an issue best solved at the state and local level. Schools, communities, and families can find – and in many cases have found – solutions that protect all students.

I have dedicated my career to advocating for and fighting on behalf of students, and as Secretary of Education, I consider protecting all students, including LGBTQ students, not only a key priority for the Department, but for every school in America.

We owe all students a commitment to ensure they have access to a learning environment that is free of discrimination, bullying and harassment. (DeVos Says Protecting Students Who Self-Identify on the Basis of Perverted Proclivities Should Be Key Priority for All Schools.)

In other words, Trump permitted Sessions to have his way with the "bathroom directive" because it is his hope that schoo districts will do the "right" thing by voluntarily catering to a a group of students who have been taught to identify themselves as members of a "group" that belives it is normal and natural to be attracted to persons of the same gender and that the commission of perverse sins is a human "right" that all must come to recognize as such sooner or later. The rescinding of the "bathroom directive" was premised upon the belief that time is on the side of the "LGBTQ" communities to such an extent that the tide of sentimentality in their favor will impossible for most school districts to resist. Trump believes that this matter should be "decided" as he believes the issue of surgical baby-kiling should be "decided," namely, at the state and local levels.

Inded, the president's own Press Secretary, Sean Spicer, made this clear in his press briefing on the day that the decision to rescind the Obama policy was announced, Tuesday, February 21, 2017:

Q    Sean, the National Center for Transgender Equality, citing reliable sources, says the Trump administration today will rescind Obama-era guidance requiring schools to allow transgender kids to use the restroom consistent with their gender identity.  Will the Trump administration rescind that guidance?

MR. SPICER:  Right now that’s an issue that the Department of Justice and the Department of Education are addressing.  I would tell you that -- and I think that there will be further guidance coming from DOJ in particular with respect to not just the executive order, but also the case that’s in front of the Supreme Court.  

The President has maintained for a long time that this is a states' rights issue and not one for the federal government.  So while there will be further guidance coming out on this, I think that all you have to do is look at what the President’s view has been for a long time -- that this is not something that the federal government should be involved in; this is a states' rights issue.  (White House Press Briefing, Feburary 21, 2017.)

No, this is not an issue that is a "states' rights" matter as no one has a right to commit the sin of Sodom or to expect special concessions from the civil law acknowledging this pyschological disorder to be the basis of human self-identification. The "states" are not sovereign. The "people" are not sovereign. Christ the King is the Sovereign of all men and all nations. No human being, whether acting individually or collectively in the institutions of civil governance, can "decide" whether he can be exempted from the immutable laws of God. 

A story in The New York Times indicates the extent of Mrs. DeVos's commitment to the cause of perversity and indecency:

In a joint letter, the top civil rights officials from the Justice Department and the Education Department rejected the Obama administration’s position that nondiscrimination laws require schools to allow transgender students to use the bathrooms of their choice.

That directive, they said, was improperly and arbitrarily devised, “without due regard for the primary role of the states and local school districts in establishing educational policy.”

The question of how to address the “bathroom debate,” as it has become known, opened a rift inside the Trump administration, pitting Education Secretary Betsy DeVos against Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Mr. Sessions, who had been expected to move quickly to roll back the civil rights expansions put in place under his Democratic predecessors, wanted to act decisively because of two pending court cases that could have upheld the protections and pushed the government into further litigation. But Ms. DeVos initially resisted signing off and told Mr. Trump that she was uncomfortable because of the potential harm that rescinding the protections could cause transgender students, according to three Republicans with direct knowledge of the internal discussions.ctions and pushed the government into further litigation.

Mr. Sessions, who has opposed expanding gay, lesbian and transgender rights, pushed Ms. DeVos to relent. After getting nowhere, he took his objections to the White House because he could not go forward without her consent. Mr. Trump sided with his attorney general, the Republicans said, and told Ms. DeVos in a meeting in the Oval Office on Tuesday that he wanted her to drop her opposition. And Ms. DeVos, faced with the alternative of resigning or defying the president, agreed to go along.

Ms. DeVos’s unease was evident in a strongly worded statement she released on Wednesday night, in which she said she considered it a “moral obligation” for every school in America to protect all students from discrimination, bullying and harassment.

She said she had directed the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights to investigate all claims of such treatment “against those who are most vulnerable in our schools,” but also argued that bathroom access was not a federal matter.

Gay rights supporters made their displeasure clear. Outside the White House, several hundred people protested the decision, chanting, “No hate, no fear, trans students are welcome here.”

Individual schools will remain free to let transgender students use the bathrooms with which they are most comfortable. And the effect of the administration’s decision will not be immediate because a federal court had already issued a nationwide injunction barring enforcement of the Obama order.

The dispute highlighted the degree to which transgender rights issues, which Mr. Trump expressed sympathy for during the campaign, continue to split Republicans, even as many in the party argue that it is time to move away from social issues and focus more on bread-and-butter pocketbook concerns. (Trump Rescinds Obama Directive to Public Schools on Bathroom Access for Disturbed School Children Who Think Themelves to be a different gender than the one God gave them.)

Betsy DeVos, who is stocking the United States Department of Education with John Ellis (JEB!) Bush associates who believe in the monstrosity known as "Common Core" (and Federal vouchers for "school choice," by the way, is just another means to implement the same set of directives as exists in "Common Core--see Appendix B below for more information), believes that the cause of moral righteouness is on her side. This is because she travels in the same lavender circles that the man, Donald John Trump, who appointed her to head a Cabinet department created at the behest of President James Earl Carter, Jr., on October 21, 1979, that has no constitutional authority to exist:

DeVos’s reluctance to go along is not surprising. She, like Trump, run in a social circle where, regardless of politics, homosexuality in regarded as normal. For instance, one of her closest advisers, Greg McNeilly, is in this “wedding” video.

So it is unsurprising that DeVos could see this whole issue as totally benign. Equally possible is that she is, by now, keenly aware of the animosity generated against her by the left and she feels this simply adds more fuel to the fire. Keep in mind, the left blockaded her from going into a public school in DC. (DeVos and Sessions Clash Over Bathroom Access for Mutilated Deviants.)

DeVos met earlier this month with unbent and unapologetic supporters of the homosexual agenda, a courtesy that she has yet to extend to parents who oppose the relentless advances made by those who have a vested interest in brainwashing children to accept aberrant behavior as normal and acceptable (see DeVos Meets With Pro-Perversity Activities.) Wake up, this is all a diabolical trap.

Moreover, it must be mentioned that the man who believes in statist security measures that violate the privacy of innocent citizens and who believes that what is best for businesses will "make America great again" expressed has expressed his true beliefs about those steeped in perversity on a number of occasions.

All right, you asked for it:

Lesley Stahl: One of the groups that’s expressing fear are the LGBTQ group. You--

Donald Trump: And yet I mentioned them at the Republican National Convention. And--

Lesley Stahl: You did.

Donald Trump: Everybody said, “That was so great.” I have been, you know, I’ve been-a supporter.

Lesley Stahl: Well, I guess the issue for them is marriage equality. Do you support marriage equality?

Donald Trump: It-- it’s irrelevant because it was already settled. It’s law. It was settled in the Supreme Court. I mean it’s done.

Lesley Stahl: So even if you appoint a judge that--

Donald Trump: It’s done. It-- you have-- these cases have gone to the Supreme Court. They’ve been settled. And, I’m fine with that. (60 Minutes Interview With Donald Trump and Family.)

Please note that Donald John Trump is very sanguine about so-called “marriage equality,” calling himself a “supporter” of the “LGTBQ” agenda. A supporter, something that he indicated very clearly in his acceptance address at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio, on Thursday, July 21, 2016:

“49 wonderful Americans were savagely murdered by an Islamic terrorist. This time, the terrorist targeted LGBTQ community – no good and we're going to stop it.

As your President, I will do everything in my power to protect our LGBTQ citizens from the violence and oppression of a hateful foreign ideology – beleive me.” 

And as a Republican, it is so nice to hear you cheering for what I just said. Thank you. (Donald John Trump Acceptance Address, Republican National Convention, Cleveland, Ohio July 21, 2016.)

Donald John Trump considers that one can base his identity by his willful decision commit and to persist in the commission of sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance, a a belief that he shares with many of the conciliar revolutionaries, including Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who is otherwise at odds with the new president on almost every other issue. 

Remember also this important post at Call Me Jorge just before the election four months ago now:


This is just one facet of the insecure narcissist, Donald Trump.  There is much more to the man which is better left to writing about if he is elected — his connections to Likud, the Jewish Russian mafia, the New York mob, key 9/11 players, etc...

If Trump is elected, will he get his wall?  It’s doubtful but who knows.  One thing which will happen is the alchemical transformation of the right into a pro-zionist, pro-pedophile, and pro-homosexual party as is currently being done in Europe.  Another trend which will continue is the growth to epic proportions of the panopticon which laughably callsitself the most free country in the world.  (Call Me Jorge

Not important?

Says who?

Not Saint Paul the Apostle:

For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy. Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them. (Romans 1: 18-32.)

Saint Paul amplified this in his First Epistle to the Corinthians:

[9] Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers[10] Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God. (1 Cor. 6: 9)

Saint Jude spoke of the fate of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha in withering terms:

[6] And the angels who kept not their principality, but forsook their own habitation, he hath reserved under darkness in everlasting chains, unto the judgment of the great day. [7] As Sodom and Gomorrha, and the neighbouring cities, in like manner, having given themselves to fornication, and going after other flesh, were made an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire. [8] In like manner these men also defile the flesh, and despise dominion, and blaspheme majesty[9] When Michael the archangel, disputing with the devil, contended about the body of Moses, he durst not bring against him the judgment of railing speech, but said: The Lord command thee. [10] But these men blaspheme whatever things they know not: and what things soever they naturally know, like dumb beasts, in these they are corrupted.  (Jude 1 6-10.)

Those who think that the rescinding of the "bathroom directive" is some kind of victory, therefore, should consider that it was President Donald John Trump, urged on by his Kabbalist daughter, Ivanka Trump Kusher, and her husband, presidential counselor Jared Kushner, who personally decided to retain Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro's executive order protecting the "rights" of sodmites in the workplace:

President Donald J. Trump Will Continue to Enforce Executive Order Protecting the Rights of the LGBTQ Community in the Workplace

President Donald J. Trump is determined to protect the rights of all Americans, including the LGBTQ community. President Trump continues to be respectful and supportive of LGBTQ rights, just as he was throughout the election. The President is proud to have been the first ever GOP nominee to mention the LGBTQ community in his nomination acceptance speech, pledging then to protect the community from violence and oppression. The executive order signed in 2014, which protects employees from anti-LGBTQ workplace discrimination while working for federal contractors, will remain intact at the direction of President Donald J. Trump. (Trump Will Contine Executive Order Protecting Those Steeped in Perversion and Deviancy.)

Donald John Trump may be "proud" to have been the first-ever Republican nominee to mention those steeped in perversity in his nominatin acceptance address. Christ the King is offended by such "pride."

Once again, dear readers, it is not to idemnify the dreadful group of people in the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist "left" to poiint out the hard truths that the man who occupies the White House can accomplish nothing of any lasting value while promoting sinful behavior and providing legal "protections" to those who are engaged in it.

Perhaps even more shamefully, the Catholic apostate, Vice President Michael Richard Pence, who joined some kind of Protestant sect in 1977 when he attended Hanover College, a Presbyterian institution of miseducation, from 1977 to 1981, rose to defend his boss's decision to keep the Obama/Soetoro executive order protecting sodomites in place:

March 8, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — Vice President Mike Pence is getting some friendly criticism from a conservative friend and top pro-family leader in his home state of Indiana for praising President Trump’s extension of a pro-LGBTQ Obama executive order.

But it is not the first time that Pence has faced scrutiny in Indiana. Pence’s acquiescence to the neutered Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 2015 devastated pro-family and conservative GOP activists nationwide and is thought to have been a factor in his choosing not to run for president in 2016.

Trump's extension of Obama's order mandates that federal contractors follow pro-homosexual and pro-transgender employment policies or lose doing business with the federal government. It was signed by Obama in 2014 and reaffirmed in early February by President Trump.

Trump was widely criticized by social conservatives for not putting an end to the Obama federal contractors mandate, which also has the distinction of being the first federal act to cover ”transgendered federal workers.” Homosexual and “transgender” activist groups praised Trump for the action.

In contrast, pro-family advocates were ecstatic when Trump reversed Obama’s federal “guidance” to schools nationwide urging them to allow “transgender” students to use opposite-sex restrooms and locker rooms, and play on opposite-sex sports teams.

Is opposing homosexual activism “prejudice?"

On Feb. 5, Pence appeared on ABC’s Sunday talk show “This Week” with anchor George Stephanopoulos, who asked him: “President Trump decided this week to let stand President Obama's executive order on LGBT rights. And it prompted this question from a prominent social conservative, Bob Vander Plaats. He said, ‘Our base is wondering why Obama's executive order is allowed to stand.’ What's the answer?”

Pence responded:

“I think throughout the campaign, President Trump made it clear that discrimination would have no place in our administration. I mean, he was the very first Republican nominee to mention the LGBTQ community at our Republican National Convention and was applauded for it. And I was there applauding with him.

“I think the generosity of his spirit, recognizing that in the patriot’s heart, there’s no room for prejudice is part of who this president is.”

Micah Clark, executive director of the American Family Association of Indiana, has known Vice President Pence for two decades, worked with him to advance pro-family legislation and considers him a friend. But Clark was disappointed in Pence’s cheerleading rhetoric about Trump’s pro-LGBT federal order.

"Does real freedom have a place in the Trump administration? The vice president surely must know in his heart that the main issue for conservatives with this executive order was to stop the true discrimination that is occurring against people of faith who believe in the same traditional values that Mike Pence ran on for Congress and for governor,” Clark told LifeSiteNews.

He took particular issue with the vice president’s use of “prejudice” applied to the LGBTQ mandate. Homosexual and transgender activists routinely conflate disagreement with their agenda and aberrant lifestyles with “hate” and “bigotry.”

Clark said the only “prejudice” evangelicals and social conservatives have “is a very rational bias toward a child having both a mom and a dad, which is a preference that is found in their faith teachings and supported by a mountain of social science research.

“The other prejudice they have is that they believe that people of faith should still have the rights of conscience that led the Pilgrims to come to America,” he said. “Those aren’t beliefs to be cast aside or put down now as an appeasement to the media, the pop culture or the radical LGBTQ movement.”

Clark said he has heard complaints from Indiana conservatives about Pence’s remarks. He hopes that in the future both Vice President Pence and President Trump would “remember that the people who elected them wanted religious freedom protected — not disparaged nor negated through activist, pro-LGBTQ laws.”

Pence’s previous capitulation

Ironically, Pence’s path toward the vice presidential nomination came in part due to an action he took in 2015 that was widely regarded on the Right as selling out conservative, pro-family values. Leading up to and after he signed an Indiana bill into law protecting religious freedom, pro-homosexual activists and executives with several major corporate leaders, including the NCAA, decried the legislation. They said it gave businesses a “license to discriminate” against homosexuals and threatened to boycott the Hoosier State over it.  

As liberal and media pressure mounted, Pence and Republican legislative leaders quickly pushed through a measure to water down the law, which Pence signed April 2, 2015. The revised law “included new language to clarify that businesses and service providers cannot use the legislation as a justification to discriminate based on a client’s sexual orientation” The Washington Post reported.

Brian Camenker and Amy Contrada of the pro-family group Mass Resistance noted that under the new bill, “business owners could not legally fight charges of ‘discrimination’ based on sexual orientation or gender identity — even on religious grounds.” They said the new bill signed quickly by Pence “is basically a ‘gay rights’ bill.” 

According to Clark, one tragic result for conservatives after the original law was changed was that a slew of Indiana cities enacted nondiscrimination laws based on “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” nondiscrimination laws. These are the very same type of laws that have led to many lawsuits against Christians who oppose homosexual “marriage” on faith grounds.

The decision ended up having political implications a year later.

Last summer, as Trump beat back 14 of 16 Republican challengers in the primary and faced only Sen. Ted Cruz and Ohio Gov. John Kasich to effectively seal the GOP nomination. Indiana was a must win for Cruz to stay alive in the race and Pence endorsed him. But many political observers noted the governor’s effusive praise for Trump as well. On May 3, Trump thumped Cruz in Indiana 53 percent to 37 percent, knocking Cruz out of the race.

Ten weeks later, the presumptive GOP nominee for president chose Pence as his running mate. (Pro-Life Family Leader Questions Pence's Praise for Extension of Obama Executive Order Protecting Sodomites in the Workplace.)

Here is a reminder of then Governor Pence's complete capitulation to the homosexual collective two years ago in Indiana:

Last week, Holy Week, saw the Indiana State Legislature’s efforts to use the heresy of “religious liberty” as the foundation to provide merchants such as the O’Connors with a legal defense if sued for refusing to serve practitioners of perversity on religious grounds come under national fire. As Judge Napolitano noted, the original "restoration of religious freedom" law would not have withstood constitutional muster at the Supreme Court of the United States of America. The ensuing maelstrom was such that Indiana Governor Michael Richard “Mike” Pence, whose mother’s family were Catholics, backed off from the “religious freedom restoration” bill that he had signed on Thursday, March 26, 2015, and used Maundy Thursday, April 2, 2015, to sign a “fix” to the law that makes it illegal for service providers to deny service to customers on the basis of “sexual orientation”:

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence urged residents to "move forward together" Thursday after signing off on revisions to a new religious objections law that had sparked criticism that it would allow discrimination against gays.

Lawmakers and business leaders worked together to craft an amendment that prohibits service providers from using the law as a legal defense for refusing to provide services, goods, facilities or accommodations. It also bars discrimination based on race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or U.S. military service.

The measure exempts churches and affiliated schools, along with nonprofit religious organizations.

Many groups that had criticized the version of the law signed by Pence hailed the new language. But others said it was worse than the original and could lead to bigger problems.

"There will be some who think this legislation goes too far and some who think it does not go far enough," Pence acknowledged in a statement after signing the amended legislation. "I believe resolving this controversy and making clear that every person feels welcome and respected in our state is best for Indiana."


Two of Indiana's largest business groups praised the changes.

Indiana Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Kevin Brinegar said Indiana "has suffered tremendously" during the past week's uproar and that the new language is "what businesses and individuals from around the state, country and world needed to hear."

Indy Chamber President and CEO Michael Huber called the changes "a major step in the right direction in efforts to protect the rights of all Hoosiers."

And NCAA President Mark Emmert said the association was "very pleased" with the changes. The Indianapolis-based NCAA was among the first to express concern about the law when it was passed last week. The Final Four is being held in Indianapolis this weekend, and Emmert said the NCAA would consider moving future events out of state if the law wasn't revised.

The women's Final Four is scheduled to be held in Indianapolis next year.


Opponents of the changes said they didn't go far enough and could do more harm than good.

Democratic lawmakers called for a repeal of the law Thursday, urging lawmakers to start from scratch.

"I want to hear somebody say, 'We made a grave mistake, and we caused the state tremendous embarrassment that will take months, if not years, to repair,'" House Minority Leader Scott Pelath said. "I want to hear one of the proponents 'fess up, because the healing cannot begin until that happens."

Consumer reporting agency Angie's List, which announced it was putting a planned $40 million expansion on hold over the law, also called for a repeal.

"Employers in most of the state of Indiana can fire a person simply for being lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or questioning. That's just not right and that's the real issue here. Our employees deserve to live, work and travel with open accommodations in any part of the state," said CEO Bill Oesterle.

Micah Clark of the American Family Association of Indiana said the Legislature's actions didn't clarify the law as Pence had requested but instead changed it in "a way that could now erode religious freedom across Indiana."

"If this revised law does not adequately protect religious liberty for all, it is not really a religious freedom act," Clark said.

Mark Rienzi, senior counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty in Washington, D.C., said the new language "carves up religious rights" and that the state would be better off if it adopted the language in the 1993 federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Many groups said the changes are a good first step but urged lawmakers to do more, including adding protections for sexual orientation and gender identity to the state's civil-rights law.

The American Civil Liberties Union said the changes have lessened the harm of the law but that "significant problems" still need to be addressed, including whether the law can be used to deny rights to others, including in education and access to health care.

The group's state affiliate noted that the amendment marks the first time that Indiana law has included positive references to sexual orientation and gender identity. But it said statewide civil-rights protections are still needed.

Two gay rights groups, Freedom Indiana and Lambda Legal, also called for broader protections.

Freedom Indiana campaign manager Katie Blair said the changes "represent an important step forward" and reduce the threat to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender residents.

But she said that without statewide anti-discrimination laws for the LGBT community, "discrimination is still legal" in most of Indiana. (Pence signs religious freedom bill fix.)

One wonders if Governor Pence has his finger bowl handy on Maundy Thursday as he signed the "fix" into law.

In other words, the current Vice President of the United States of America, Michael Richard Pence, threw in the towel two years ago as a result of the financial pressure, much of it engendered by the same insidious organization that supports illegal immigration, the United States Chamber of Commerce, and lobbying by lavender Nazis such as Apple Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook, who is an aggressive, in-your-face advocate of the perversity that he practices, and the usually array of “human rights” organizations. Absent the true Faith, good readers, sentimentality must triumph as sins of all manner, including those against nature, are celebrated culturally and protected under cover of the civil law. The fact that such a monstrous thing as “gay marriage” has swept its way into law and into widespread public approval is the result of the very heresy of “religious liberty” that the conciliar “popes,” including Jorge Mario Bergoglio, have told us repeatedly is the “key” to “peace” even though Pope Pius VI called it a “monstrous right”:

The necessary effect of the constitution decreed by the Assembly is to annihilate the Catholic Religion and, with her, the obedience owed to Kings. With this purpose it establishes as a right of man in society this absolute liberty that not only insures the right to be indifferent to religious opinions, but also grants full license to freely think, speak, write and even print whatever one wishes on religious matters – even the most disordered imaginings. It is a monstrous right, which the Assembly claims, however, results from equality and the natural liberties of all men.

But what could be more unwise than to establish among men this equality and this uncontrolled liberty, which stifles all reason, the most precious gift nature gave to man, the one that distinguishes him from animals?

After creating man in a place filled with delectable things, didn’t God threaten him with death should he eat the fruit of the tree of good and evil?And with this first prohibition didn’t He establish limits to his liberty? When, after man disobeyed the command and thereby incurred guilt, didn’t God impose new obligations on him through Moses? And even though he left to man’s free will the choice between good and evil, didn’t God provide him with precepts and commandments that could save him “if he would observe them”? …

Where then, is this liberty of thinking and acting that the Assembly grants to man in society as an indisputable natural right? Is this invented right not contrary to the right of the Supreme Creator to whom we owe our existence and all that we have? Can we ignore the fact that man was not created for himself alone, but to be helpful to his neighbor? …

“Man should use his reason first of all to recognize his Sovereign Maker, honoring Him and admiring Him, and submitting his entire person to Him. For, from his childhood, he should be submissive to those who are superior to him in age; he should be governed and instructed by their lessons, order his life according to their laws of reason, society and religion. This inflated equality and liberty, therefore, are for him, from the moment he is born, no more than imaginary dreams and senseless words.” (Pope Pius VI, Brief Quod aliquantum, March 10, 1791; Religious Liberty, a “Monstrous Right).

What Pope Pius VI declared to be a monstrous right and an invented right has been hailed by the conciliar “popes,” including Ratzinger and Bergoglio, as a “sacred” right. Something that is monstrous and invented in 1791 does not become sacred in 1965 with the issuance of Dignitatis Humanae, December 7, 1965, and thus a cornerstone as a foundation for world peace. The Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, had to have hidden this supposed “truth” for over one thousand nine hundred thirty-two years prior to its proclamation at the “Second” Vatican Council, and this is not even to mention how the agenda of the homosexual collective has been advanced by the counterfeit church of conciliarism since that time, although never as blatantly at it has been in the past four years since the "election" of Jorge Mario Bergoglio to the conciliar chair of apostasy and betrayal. 

Truth be told, though, the supposed "good guys" in the organized crime family of the naturalist "right" surrenderd to the lavender lobby long before the emergence of Donald John Trump, a former liberal Democrat, as their standard-bearer in 2016. Appendix B, although drawn from a Protestant source, demonstrates the many, many ways in which the administration of President George Walker Bush and Vice President Richard Bruce Cheney, whose daughter, Liz Cheney, is a lesbian, pushed the homosexual agenda repeatedly from its very outset, including appointing an open sodomite, Michael Guest, as the United States Ambassadors to Romania in 2001. There was little outrage about this from "pro-life" Catholics who supported the war-mongering statist Bush the Lesser's appointment of Michael Guest,, but many of the very same people were howling at the moon when Obama/Soetoro appointed seven such individuals, including James "Wally" Brewster as the United States Ambassador to the Dominican Republic on December 9, 2013, after he, who was "married" to man, was confirmed unanimously by the United States Senate.

It should come as no surprise whatsoever that President Donald Trump is poised to appoint appoint a practicing sodomite to be the United States Ambassador to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in Brussels, Belgium:

March 10, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — President Trump has chosen open homosexual and “gay Christian” advocate Rick Grenell to be the U.S. Ambassador to NATO, according to several news reports.

The appointment, not yet confirmed by the White House, would make Grenell the highest-ranking open homosexual serving in the Trump administration.

NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) is the alliance of Western states formed in the Cold War to contain and defend against Soviet Communism. The U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO is commonly called the U.S. Ambassador to NATO. Grenell would replace Douglas Lute, who held the position from 2013 until Trump's inauguration.

Grenell, 50, is a Republican foreign policy expert, former spokesman for three U.S. Ambassadors to the United Nations from 2001 to 2008, and a FOX News contributor. In the last eight years, he could often be heard on the network strongly criticizing Obama’s foreign and defense policy as weak and incompetent.

But there is another side to Grenell: “gay” advocate. As LifeSiteNews reported after he was floated for Ambassador to the UN (a job that eventually went to South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley), Grenell advocates for homosexual “marriage” as a “conservative” issue. He criticizes “loud religious right activists” who oppose homosexuality and touts Trump’s uniquely pro-LGBT credentials as a Republican. He was an early Trump supporter.

On LGBT issues, Trump has disappointed social conservatives by a series of actions that include reinstating an Obama executive order forcing federal contractors to have pro-LGBTQ policies; proclaiming that the homosexual “marriage” issue is “settled” in the courts; and appointing top advisers like Betsy DeVos and Anthony Scaramucci who are pro-homosexual.

But Trump’s recent reversal of Obama’s intrusive “transgender” school mandate thrilled conservatives of every stripe.

“Gay Christian”?

Grenell, who lives in Los Angeles, reportedly has a long-term homosexual partner, Matt Lashey. Grenell is pro-life and has worked over the years to help pro-life advocates at the UN, according to one veteran pro-life advocate involved in international issues.

But when it comes to homosexuality, Grenell calls for greater “tolerance” in the Republican Party despite the party’s clear and longstanding platform language opposing “rights” and “marriage” based on aberrant sex.

In a Feb. 3 podcast with FOX News reporter Shannon Bream, he said, “I am gay, I am a Christian and I am still a man of faith.”

In the interview, Grenell demonstrates precisely the sort of pro-homosexual advocacy that inspires opposition among Christians who accept the age-old biblical proscription against homosexual behavior.  

“I know I was born this way,” he emphatically told Bream. (Social conservatives have long dismissed the “born gay” claim, and in recent years socially liberal researchers and even homosexual activists have joined them in saying the theory is simplistic.)

Grenell told Bream that he grew up in a strongly Christian home and went to an Assemblies of God college. He cited his liberating experience attending Harvard graduate school and talking with the late homosexual pastor Peter Gomes. As the professor of Christian Morals at Harvard Divinity School, Gomes condemned alleged Christian “homophobia” used his prestigious perch to rebut the religious case against homosexuality.(Trump Is Poised to Pick Open Sodomite and Perverse "Marriage" Advocate Rick Grenell for Ambassor to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.)

Presient Trump is making it very clear that he is indeed a "supporter" of the cause of those steeped in a sin that cries out to Heaven for vengeance, and this matters quite a lot, especially as God will never bless any country that openly promotes all manner of sins, including those that destroy the stability of families and attacks the innocence and purity of children. Such a country can never be "great" in the eyes of the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Blessed Trinity.

As Always, Hiding Behind the Black Robes

As is ever the case, the hapless Republicans, whose only goal in life is to win elections and thus retain their positions and the perquisites that come with the power, are more than willing to hide behind the black robes of the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America when it comes to "settling" supposedly "controversial" matters as the surgical execution of the innocent preborn, the constitutionality of ObamaCare, and the whole panoply of issues connected with the aggression promotion of the homosexual agenda. Most Republican legislators are perfectly at peace with the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, June 26, 2015, and they are hoping against hope that they can say with self-assurance that issues of "bathroom access" and outright pederasty have been "settled" and are thus beyond any additional debate or controversy.

Those who think that Neil Gorsuch, President Trump's nominee to replace the late advocate of using the blasphemous Talmud as a legitimate means of Constitutional interpretation in some cases, Antonin Scalia, as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, will "come to the rescue" to restore some semblance of sanity conerning the legal advances made by the homosexual collective ought to "sober up," shall we say, as such a hope may prove to be quite furtive:

Other examples of Gorsuch’s sociability with social liberals goes well beyond the norms of respectful professionalism. A former law clerk for Gorsuch named Joshua Goodbaum tells the New York Times and the Huffington Post that Gorsuch was downright enthusiastic about his decision to “marry” another homosexual male in 2014. Goodbaum told the Times that Gorsuch was “thrilled for us,” so much so that he was “actually kind of syrupy about it,” and assured Goodbaum, “You’re going to see how wonderful this is for your relationship.’’’

The Times quotes another former classmate, Phil Berg, who said that he told Gorsuch as early as the early 1990s that he had a “boyfriend,” and the news was so well-received by Gorsuch that it led to a “special bond” between them. Berg has since “married” his boyfriend, Ronald Riqueros, and according to Berg, “Since Ronald and I married we have had a standing invitation to stay with Neil and Louise in Denver.  And just last week, Neil told me that if they should move to D.C., ‘Our guest room will be waiting.’” (What Can Defenders of Life Exepect from Neil Gorsuch.)

That's nice. A nominee to serve on the nation's highest court has promised to make a guest room available for two sodomites so as to give them a suitable place to practice their vice whenever they are in the nation's capital. Neil Gorsuch as never heard of the nine ways by which one can be an accessory to the sins of others:

  • 1. By counsel.
  • 2. By command.
  • 3. By consent.
  • 7. By connivance.
  • 8. By partaking.
  • 4. By provocation.
  • 5. By praise or flattery of the evil done.
  • 6. By silence.
  • 9. By defense of the ill done. 

Those trying to assess Judge Gorsuch's record by claiming that he may turn out to be another David Souter do not have to live in suspense. The evidence is clear that Neil Gorsuch is shaped by the sentimentality of an age that has descended to depravity as a result of the Protestant Revolution's overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King and the subsequent rise of Judeo-Masonry as the driving force of civil society: 

Gorsuch’s liberal Episcopal affiliations and his ambiguous views on some social issues have resonance with those who find him uncomfortably similar to David Souter, a vaguely conservative Republican and Episcopalian whose views on social issues were largely unknown when he was appointed to the Supreme Court by George H. W. Bush in 1990. Souter went on to side with the Supreme Court’s liberal wing in crucial decisions upholding Roe v. Wade and striking down Texas’s anti-sodomy law. He resigned in 2009 before reaching the age of 70 and only a few months after the swearing-in of Barack Obama, which allowed the president to appoint leftist Democrat Sonia Sotomayor in his place. At least one conservative activist, Andy Schlafly, an opponent of Gorsuch’s Supreme Court nomination, has compared Gorsuch to Souter.  (What Can Defenders of Life Exepect from Neil Gorsuch.)

Contrary to what was contended in the article cited just above, everything that was needed to be known about the horrors of David Souter were made public during his confirmation process in 1990. Here is Howard Phillips’s actual testimony against David Souter before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on September 19, 1990, the Feast of Saint Januarius:

In considering David Souter’s suitability to cast what, in many cases, will be the deciding opinion on the Supreme Court of the United States, it is necessary to go beyond Mr. Souter’s intellectual capacity and his stated opinions, and to assess his character and moral courage in their relationship to the responsibilities of a Supreme Court Justice.

DAVID SOUTER His pro-abortion record was there for those who wanted to know the truth. One moment of truth for Mr. Souter came in February, 1973 when, as a member of the board of trustees of Concord Hospital, he participated in a unanimous decision that abortions be performed at the hospital.

Advocacy of, or even acquiescence in, such a decision is morally distinguishable from the judicial conclusion, profoundly incorrect in my view, that women have a constitutional right to destroy their unborn children.

It is also distinguishable from and far more troubling than the political argument by politicians who maintain that they are “personally opposed” to abortion, even as they advocate its decriminalization.

It is one thing to intellectually rationalize the case for permitting legal abortions, while still opposing the exercise of such legal authority. It is quite another - something far more invidious, morally - to actually join in a real world decision to cause abortions to be performed, routinely, at a particular hospital.

Those abortions whose performance was authorized by David Souter were not mandated by law or court opinion. In fact, laws have remained to this day on the books in New Hampshire which provide criminal penalties for any “attempt to procure miscarriage” or “intent to destroy quick child.” Indeed, section 585:14 of the New Hampshire Criminal Code establishes the charge of second degree murder for the death of a pregnant woman in consequence of an attempted abortion. Nor were those abortions which Mr. Souter authorized performed merely to save the life of the mother, nor were they limited to cases of rape or incest.

If the unborn child is human, and if innocent human life is to be defended and safeguarded, why did Mr. Souter acquiesce in those abortions? Why did he not speak out against them? Why did he, through twelve years on the Concord Hospital board, in a position of responsibility, help cause those abortions to be performed, and invest his personal reputation in clearly implied approval of those abortions?

The overarching moral issue in the political life of the United States in the last third of the 20th Century is, in my opinion, the question of abortion. Is the unborn child a human person, entitled to the protections pledged to each of us by the Founders of our Nation?

The issue is much more than one of legal or judicial philosophy. There are men and women in the legal profession, in elected office, and on the bench who acknowledge abortion to be morally repugnant, but who assert that, in present circumstances, it cannot be constitutionally prohibited.

Whatever Mr. Souter’s legal and judicial philosophy may be - and, on the record, it seems to be one which rejects the higher law theories implicit in the Declaration of Independence - it is a chilling fact which the Senate must consider that Judge Souter has personally participated in decisions resulting in the performance of abortions, where such abortions were in no way mandated or required by law or court decision.

By his own account, Mr. Souter served as a member of the board of trustees for the Concord Hospital from 1971 until 1985. Following service as board secretary, he was president of the board from 1978 to 1984.

In 1973, shortly after the Supreme Court’s January 22 Roe v. Wade decision, the Concord Hospital trustees voted to initiate a policy of performing abortions at Concord Hospital.

Similarly, Dartmouth Hitchcock Hospital, which is associated with the Dartmouth Medical School, of which Judge Souter has been an overseer, has performed abortion up to the end of the second trimester.

During the period of Mr. Souter’s tenure as a decision-maker of these two institutions, many hundreds of abortions were performed under his authority, with no indication that he ever objected to or protested the performance of these abortions. Even though the Roe v. Wade decision did, in fact, authorize abortions through the ninth month of pregnancy, nothing in the Supreme Court’s decision required or obliged any hospital to conduct abortions, whether in the ninth month, the sixth month, or even in the first month of pregnancy.

If Judge Souter is confirmed as a Justice of the Supreme Court, he will, in all likelihood, be given the opportunity to address not only the issue of Roe v. Wade, but broader issues involving the sanctity of innocent human life.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in the 1986 Thornburgh case, “there is a fundamental and well-recognized difference between a fetus and a human being. Indeed, if there is not such a difference, the permissibility of terminating the life of a fetus could scarcely be left to the will of the State legislatures.”

Justice Stevens was wrong in a very deadly way. If an unborn child is not human, I would ask Justice Stevens, what is he, what is she? But as least Mr. Stevens was logical in defending his support for the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court said that, “If the personhood of the unborn child is established, the pro-abortion case collapses, for the fetus’s right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the Fourteenth Amendment.”

As Notre Dame law professor Charles Rice has pointed out, “This is so, because the common law does not permit a person to kill an innocent non-aggressor, even to save his own life.”

Does David Souter believe that the unborn child - the fetus in the mother’s womb - is a human person, deserving of all the protections which are guaranteed to human beings after the moment of birth?

Seemingly, Mr. Souter’s answer is an unequivocal “no.” by agreeing that abortions be performed at institutions under his authority, Mr. Souter established clearly that he did not recognize the personhood of the unborn child. For surely, if he did acknowledge the unborn child to be a human person, Mr. Souter would not have agreed to authorize the extinguishment of so many precious lives at medical facilities for which he bore responsibility.

One must conclude that either Mr. Souter accepts the view that the life of the unborn child is of less value than the convenience and profit of those who collaborate in the killing of that child, or that, despite his recognition of the fact that each unborn child is human, a handiwork of God’s creation, he lacked the moral courage or discernment to help prevent the destruction of so many innocent human lives when he had the authority, indeed, the responsibility, to do so.

Either way, in such circumstances, unless there are mitigating factors or extenuating considerations which have not yet been brought to public attention, it is difficult to regard Mr. Souter as one suitable for participation in judicial decisions at the highest level of our Nation.

If, during his years of responsibility at Concord Hospital and Dartmouth Hitchcock Hospital, Mr. Souter believed each fetus to be a human person, and failed to act against the performance of abortion, he was morally delinquent.

If, on the other hand, he justified himself by denying the human qualities of the unborn child, then he placed himself in the ambit of those who have argued against the very philosophy which his sponsor, President George Bush, purported to embrace during his 1988 presidential campaign.

On the basis of the information now available, Mr. Souter, in my opinion, should not be confirmed. (Testimony of: HOWARD PHILLIPS Chairman, The Conservative Caucus Foundation.)  

Did this factual presentation matter to any of the "pro-life" senators, including two future Republican presidential nominees, Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., and John Sidney McCain III?

Not one little bit.

To this day, these craven careerists have hid behind the abject lie that they were "misled" by then President George Herbert Walker Bush's White House Chief of Staff, John Sununu, the former Governor of the State of New Hampshire, about David Souter. This is a lie. An abject lie. Howard Phillips presented incontrovertible evidence about David Souter's support for abortion. This did not matter one little bit to Bob Dole or to John McCain. Not one little bit. The facts were presented. They did not care. Not one little bit.   

What about John Glover Roberts, the Chief Justice appointed by President George Walker Bush in 2005 who has saved ObamaCare on two different occasions?

Well, I can help you out in his case as well.

Let me put this into context. People say you can't tell how a Supreme Court nominee will turn out once on the bench. I respectfully disagree. In most cases, it'' very clear. I opposed the nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor because it was very clear that she had a pro-abortion record in the Arizona state senate and as a judge in Arizona. She was also allied with Planned Parenthood. I opposed David Souter because I read his senior thesis at Harvard in which he said he was a legal positivist and one of his heroes was Oliver Wendell Holmes and that he rejected all higher law theories, such as those spelled out in our Declaration of Independence. In addition, he was a trustee of two hospitals: Dartmouth Hitchcock and Concord Memorial. He successfully changed the policy of those two hospitals from 'zero abortion' to 'convenience abortion.' I testified against Ruth Bader Ginsburg because her record was clear. She saw the Supreme Court as a Supreme Legislature. She was on the far Left of virtually every issue. Yet, only three members of the U.S. Senate voted in opposition to her confirmation. Only eight voted in opposition to Breyer. With respect to Judge Roberts, I'm in the midst of an extensive and intensive study of his record. Several things become clear, although I'm not ready to reach a final conclusion. It is clear that while he claims to have no overarching judicial philosophy he does have a point of view on most of the big issues. But that point of view is overshadowed by his pragmatism and his desire to stay within what is perceived as the mainstream. (Flynn Files - Howard Phillips Interview Part I.) 

Wasn’t that an accurate observation of John Glover Roberts about eleven and one-half years ago now?

Sure was.

You think that things will be different with Neil Gosuch?

To quote Briscoe Darling, "More power to ya."

Mind you, this is not to say anything in this particular commentary on how what is being billed as ObamaCare Lite does nothing to protect innocent human life from the moment of conception through all susbesequent stages until the natural death willed by God. That analysis will provided in a few days in part three of this series.

Men Must Have Recourse to Sanctifying Grace to See Clearly and Choose Wisely As Befits Redeemed Creatures 

Pope Leo XIII had the sad duty to note, however, that most of the men of civic importance in the world one hundred eleven years ago, like most of the men of civic importance today, believe that they and their ideas can save the world, a version, of course of semi-Pelagianism (the heresy that contends human beings more or less stir up graces in themselves to be virtuous and to save themselves, a form of human "self-redemption" that is of the very blasphemous essence of the "American way"). How many hollow men (and one woman) of the two major political parties babble inanities as they promise us a "better" world and a more "secure" future if only we believe in their message of secular self-redemption and support their presidential campaigns during elections and their policies thereafter if elected?

Not one of them is an advocate for Christ the King and for Mary our Immaculate Queen. Each of them, therefore, utters inanities about how this or that form of naturalism or religious indifferentism or non-denominationalism is going to "improve" a world that can be improved only to the extent that individual souls cooperate with Sanctifying Grace and thus seek to root out sin in their own lives and to root it out, as far as is humanly possible, in the life of nation.

Gone from the very consciousness of these men is the simple truth that they are called to follow the example of the great monarchs of Christenom in their own private and public lives. Such men fall into the description of modern "men of importance" written by Pope Leo XIII in Mirae Caritatis:

But alas! we see with sorrow that such men too often proudly flatter themselves that they have conferred upon this world as it were a fresh lease of life and prosperity, inasmuch as by their own energetic action they are urging it on to the race for wealth, to a struggle for the possession of commodities which minister to the love of comfort and display. And yet, whithersoever we turn, we see that human society, if it be estranged from God, instead of enjoying that peace in its possessions for which it had sought, is shaken and tossed like one who is in the agony and heat of fever; for while it anxiously strives for prosperity, and trusts to it alone, it is pursuing an object that ever escapes it, clinging to one that ever eludes the grasp. For as men and states alike necessarily have their being from God, so they can do nothing good except in God through Jesus Christ, through whom every best and choicest gift has ever proceeded and proceeds. But the source and chief of all these gifts is the venerable Eucharist, which not only nourishes and sustains that life the desire whereof demands our most strenuous efforts, but also enhances beyond measure that dignity of man of which in these days we hear so much. For what can be more honourable or a more worthy object of desire than to be made, as far as possible, sharers and partakers in the divine nature? Now this is precisely what Christ does for us in the Eucharist, wherein, after having raised man by the operation of His grace to a supernatural state, he yet more closely associates and unites him with Himself. For there is this difference between the food of the body and that of the soul, that whereas the former is changed into our substance, the latter changes us into its own; so that St. Augustine makes Christ Himself say: "You shall not change Me into yourself as you do the food of your body, but you shall be changed into Me" (confessions 1. vii., c. x.).

Moreover, in this most admirable Sacrament, which is the chief means whereby men are engrafted on the divine nature, men also find the most efficacious help towards progress in every kind of virtue. And first of all in faith. In all ages faith has been attacked; for although it elevates the human mind by bestowing on it the knowledge of the highest truths, yet because, while it makes known the existence of divine mysteries, it yet leaves in obscurity the mode of their being, it is therefore thought to degrade the intellect. But whereas in past times particular articles of faith have been made by turns the object of attack; the seat of war has since been enlarged and extended, until it has come to this, that men deny altogether that there is anything above and beyond nature. Now nothing can be better adapted to promote a renewal of the strength and fervour of faith in the human mind than the mystery of the Eucharist, the "mystery of faith," as it has been most appropriately called. For in this one mystery the entire supernatural order, with all its wealth and variety of wonders, is in a manner summed up and contained: "He hath made a remembrance of His wonderful works, a merciful and gracious Lord; He hath given food to them that fear Him" (Psalm cx, 4-5). For whereas God has subordinated the whole supernatural order to the Incarnation of His Word, in virtue whereof salvation has been restored to the human race, according to those words of the Apostle; "He hath purposed...to re-establish all things in Christ, that are in heaven and on earth, in Him" (Eph. i., 9-10), the Eucharist, according to the testimony of the holy Fathers, should be regarded as in a manner a continuation and extension of the Incarnation. For in and by it the substance of the incarnate Word is united with individual men, and the supreme Sacrifice offered on Calvary is in a wondrous manner renewed, as was signified beforehand by Malachy in the words: "In every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to My name a pure oblation" (Mal. i., 11). And this miracle, itself the very greatest of its kind, is accompanied by innumerable other miracles; for here all the laws of nature are suspended; the whole substance of the bread and wine are changed into the Body and the Blood; the species of bread and wine are sustained by the divine power without the support of any underlying substance; the Body of Christ is present in many places at the same time, that is to say, wherever the Sacrament is consecrated. And in order that human reason may the more willingly pay its homage to this great mystery, there have not been wanting, as an aid to faith, certain prodigies wrought in His honour, both in ancient times and in our own, of which in more than one place there exist public and notable records and memorials. It is plain that by this Sacrament faith is fed, in it the mind finds its nourishment, the objections of rationalists are brought to naught, and abundant light is thrown on the supernatural order. (Pope Leo XIII, Mirae Caritatis, May 28, 1902.) 

Pope Leo XIII went on to explain that the results of an abandonment of the worthy reception of the Blessed Sacrament and of time spent before It in fervent prayer are tragic for societies, which can be set aright only by the Catholic Faith. There is never any short-cut to the betterment of men and/or the world in which they live at any given point in time. It is the Faith and only the Faith that can help souls to know, to love and to serve God as He has revealed Himself to us exclusively through His Catholic Church, which alone is the repository and infallible explicator all that He has revealed in the Deposit of Faith. To Pope Leo in Mirae Caritatis:

But that decay of faith in divine things of which We have spoken is the effect not only of pride, but also of moral corruption. For if it is true that a strict morality improves the quickness of man's intellectual powers, and if on the other hand, as the maxims of pagan philosophy and the admonitions of divine wisdom combine to teach us, the keenness of the mind is blunted by bodily pleasures, how much more, in the region of revealed truths, do these same pleasures obscure the light of faith, or even, by the just judgment of God, entirely extinguish it. For these pleasures at the present day an insatiable appetite rages, infecting all classes as with an infectious disease, even from tender years. Yet even for so terrible an evil there is a remedy close at hand in the divine Eucharist. For in the first place it puts a check on lust by increasing charity, according to the words of St. Augustine, who says, speaking of charity, "As it grows, lust diminishes; when it reaches perfection, lust is no more" (De diversis quaestionibus, Ixxxiii., q. 36). Moreover the most chaste flesh of Jesus keeps down the rebellion of our flesh, as St. Cyril of Alexandria taught, "For Christ abiding in us lulls to sleep the law of the flesh which rages in our members" (Lib. iv., c. ii., in Joan., vi., 57). Then too the special and most pleasant fruit of the Eucharist is that which is signified in the words of the prophet: "What is the good thing of Him," that is, of Christ, "and what is His beautiful thing, but the corn of the elect and the wine that engendereth virgins" (Zach. ix., 17), producing, in other words, that flower and fruitage of a strong and constant purpose of virginity which, even in an age enervated by luxury, is daily multiplied and spread abroad in the Catholic Church, with those advantages to religion and to human society, wherever it is found, which are plain to see. (Pope Leo XIII, Mirae Caritas, May 28, 1902.)

Yes, the keenness of the mind is blunted by the sort of bodily pleasures that Donald John Trump and almost everyone else in the farce of naturalism that continues to unfold before us, including his fiercest opponents in the Democratic Party, have partaken throughout the course of their adult lives. Such men can never come to act in a truly wise manner as they respond to the provocations of the moment and are without any thought about horror of, no less possessing any remorse for, their own personal sins. Men who live in such a way will always be lost in a sea of confusion that will never lift from their minds until they embrace the true Faith and make a good, intergral Confession of their sins to a true priest. It is after such a conversion that one can come to grow spiritually as an adorer of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in His Real Presence before the Blessed Sacrament. Those who spend such time with Christ the King receive infused graces into their souls.

Pope Leo XII noted the ineffable ability 

To this it must be added that by this same Sacrament our hope of everlasting blessedness, based on our trust in the divine assistance, is wonderfully strengthened. For the edge of that longing for happiness which is so deeply rooted in the hearts of all men from their birth is whetted even more and more by the experience of the deceitfulness of earthly goods, by the unjust violence of wicked men, and by all those other afflictions to which mind and body are subject. Now the venerable Sacrament of the Eucharist is both the source and the pledge of blessedness and of glory, and this, not for the soul alone, but for the body also. For it enriches the soul with an abundance of heavenly blessings, and fills it with a sweet joy which far surpasses man's hope and expectations; it sustains him in adversity, strengthens him in the spiritual combat, preserves him for life everlasting, and as a special provision for the journey accompanies him thither. And in the frail and perishable body that divine Host, which is the immortal Body of Christ, implants a principle of resurrection, a seed of immortality, which one day must germinate. That to this source man's soul and body will be indebted for both these boons has been the constant teaching of the Church, which has dutifully reaffirmed the affirmation of Christ: "He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day" (St. John vi., 55).

In connection with this matter it is of importance to consider that in the Eucharist, seeing that it was instituted by Christ as "a perpetual memorial of His Passion" (Opusc. Ivii. Offic. de festo Corporis Christi), is proclaimed to the Christian the necessity of a salutary selfchastisement. For Jesus said to those first priests of His: "Do this in memory of Me" (Luke xxii, 18); that is to say, do this for the commemoration of My pains, My sorrows, My grievous afflictions, My death upon the Cross. Wherefore this Sacrament is at the same time a Sacrifice, seasonable throughout the entire period of our penance; and it is likewise a standing exhortation to all manner of toil, and a solemn and severe rebuke to those carnal pleasures which some are not ashamed so highly to praise and extol: "As often as ye shall eat this bread, and drink this chalice, ye shall announce the death of the Lord, until He come" (1 Cor. xi., 26).

Furthermore, if anyone will diligently examine into the causes of the evils of our day, he will find that they arise from this, that as charity towards God has grown cold, the mutual charity of men among themselves has likewise cooled. Men have forgotten that they are children of God and brethren in Jesus Christ; they care for nothing except their own individual interests; the interests and the rights of others they not only make light of, but often attack and invade. Hence frequent disturbances and strifes between class and class: arrogance, oppression, fraud on the part of the more powerful: misery, envy, and turbulence among the poor. These are evils for which it is in vain to seek a remedy in legislation, in threats of penalties to be incurred, or in any other device of merely human prudence. Our chief care and endeavour ought to be, according to the admonitions which We have more than once given at considerable length, to secure the union of classes in a mutual interchange of dutiful services, a union which, having its origin in God, shall issue in deeds that reflect the true spirit of Jesus Christ and a genuine charity. This charity Christ brought into the world, with it He would have all hearts on fire. For it alone is capable of affording to soul and body alike, even in this life, a foretaste of blessedness; since it restrains man's inordinate self-love, and puts a check on avarice, which "is the root of all evil" (1 Tim. vi., 10). And whereas it is right to uphold all the claims of justice as between the various classes of society, nevertheless it is only with the efficacious aid of charity, which tempers justice, that the "equality" which St. Paul commended (2 Cor. viii., 14), and which is so salutary for human society, can be established and maintained. This then is what Christ intended when he instituted this Venerable Sacrament, namely, by awakening charity towards God to promote mutual charity among men. For the latter, as is plain, is by its very nature rooted in the former, and springs from it by a kind of spontaneous growth. Nor is it possible that there should be any lack of charity among men, or rather it must needs be enkindled and flourish, if men would but ponder well the charity which Christ has shown in this Sacrament. For in it He has not only given a splendid manifestation of His power and wisdom, but "has in a manner poured out the riches of His divine love towards men" (Conc. Trid., Sess. XIII., De Euch. c. ii.). Having before our eyes this noble example set us by Christ, Who bestows on us all that He has assuredly we ought to love and help one another to the utmost, being daily more closely united by the strong bond of brotherhood. Add to this that the outward and visible elements of this Sacrament supply a singularly appropriate stimulus to union. On this topic St. Cyprian writes: "In a word the Lord's sacrifice symbolises the oneness of heart, guaranteed by a persevering and inviolable charity, which should prevail among Christians. For when our Lord calls His Body bread, a substance which is kneaded together out of many grains, He indicates that we His people, whom He sustains, are bound together in close union; and when He speaks of His Blood as wine, in which the juice pressed from many clusters of grapes is mingled in one fluid, He likewise indicates that we His flock are by the commingling of a multitude of persons made one" (Ep. 96 ad Magnum n. 5 (al.6)). In like manner the angelic Doctor, adopting the sentiments of St. Augustine (Tract. xxxvi., in Joan nn. 13, 17), writes: "Our Lord has bequeathed to us His Body and Blood under the form of substances in which a multitude of things have been reduced to unity, for one of them, namely bread, consisting as it does of many grains is yet one, and the other, that is to say wine, has its unity of being from the confluent juice of many grapes; and therefore St. Augustine elsewhere says: 'O Sacrament of mercy, O sign of unity, O bond of charity!' " (Summ. Theol. P. III., q. Ixxix., a. 1. . All of which is confirmed by the declaration of the Council of Trent that Christ left the Eucharist in His Church "as a symbol of that unity and charity whereby He would have all Christians mutually joined and united. . . a symbol of that one body of which He is Himself the head, and to which He would have us, as members attached by the closest bonds of faith, hope, and charity" (Conc. Trid., Sess. XIII., De Euchar., c. ii.). The same idea had been expressed by St. Paul when he wrote: "For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all we who partake of the one bread" (I Cor. x., 17). Very beautiful and joyful too is the spectacle of Christian brotherhood and social equality which is afforded when men of all conditions, gentle and simple, rich and poor, learned and unlearned, gather round the holy altar, all sharing alike in this heavenly banquet. And if in the records of the Church it is deservedly reckoned to the special credit of its first ages that "the multitude of the believers had but one heart and one soul" (Acts iv., 32), there can be no shadow of doubt that this immense blessing was due to their frequent meetings at the Divine table; for we find it recorded of them: "They were persevering in the doctrine of the Apostles and in the communion of the breaking of bread" (Acts ii., 42).

Besides all this, the grace of mutual charity among the living, which derives from the Sacrament of the Eucharist so great an increase of strength, is further extended by virtue of the Sacrifice to all those who are numbered in the Communion of Saints. For the Communion of Saints, as everyone knows, is nothing but the mutual communication of help, expiation, prayers, blessings, among all the faithful, who, whether they have already attained to the heavenly country, or are detained in the purgatorial fire, or are yet exiles here on earth, all enjoy the common franchise of that city whereof Christ is the head, and the constitution is charity. For faith teaches us, that although the venerable Sacrifice may be lawfully offered to God alone, yet it may be celebrated in honour of the saints reigning in heaven with God Who has crowned them, in order that we may gain for ourselves their patronage. And it may also be offered-in accordance with an apostolic tradition-for the purpose of expiating the sins of those of the brethren who, having died in the Lord, have not yet fully paid the penalty of their transgressions.

That genuine charity, therefore, which knows how to do and to suffer all things for the salvation and the benefit of all, leaps forth with all the heat and energy of a flame from that most holy Eucharist in which Christ Himself is present and lives, in which He indulges to the utmost. His love towards us, and under the impulse of that divine love ceaselessly renews His Sacrifice. And thus it is not difficult to see whence the arduous labours of apostolic men, and whence those innumerable designs of every kind for the welfare of the human race which have been set on foot among Catholics, derive their origin, their strength, their permanence, their success. (Pope Leo XIII, Mirae Caritatis, May 28, 1902.) 

When was the last time you heard someone in public life citing the example of Saint Henry the Emperor or Saint Edward the Confessor or Saint Stephen of Hungary or Saint Wenceslaus of Bohemia or Saint Louis IX, King of France, or Saint Casimir of Poland or Saint Elizabeth of Hungary as the example of civil leadership that would shape their own exercise of civil power? No, candidates for public office cite the "plaster saints" of Modernity who reject the Social Reign of Christ the King as their models for civil governance, believing in the "sovereignty of the people" and/or in some sort of nebulous, generic "common ground" about God that is of the essence of the naturalism of Judeo-Masonry, as Pope Leo XIII explained in Humanum Genus, April 20, 1884:

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. (Pope Leo XIII, Humanum Genus, April 20, 1888.)


Violence and conflict in the pursuit of a "boundless license of vice" have indeed made it more possible for those in civil power to enage in all manner of acts of daring, yes, even to the point of celebrating Mortal Sin and those who commit it. Such must ever be the case when Our King, Christ the King, reigneth not over men and their nations.


We need Our Lady's help in these perilous times when the full fury of hell has been let loose upon the world, a time when the merchants of spiritual death in the counterfeit church of conciliarism reaffirm men in their sins, thus further emboldening those in civil life to do so. Our Lady is our sure refuge in these times, which is why, especially during this season of Lent, we must intensify our devotion to her Most Holy Rosary as the consecrated slaves of her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart.


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.

Vivat Christus RexViva Cristo Rey!

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

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 Balthazar, pray for us.



NEWS BRIEF:  "The Bush Administration's Republican Homosexual Agenda:  The First 100 Days",  by Robert Knight, Peter LaBarbara, and Kenneth Ervin II, Culture and Family, May 31, 2001, http://www.cultureandfamily.org/library/2001-05/31_bush-100.shtml

"During the presidential campaign, George W. Bush courted Christians and other pro-family Americans by promising to restore family values and morality to the White House.  The assurances worked; Bush received a large majority of the votes of self-identified evangelical Christians and a healthy percentage of the votes of pro-family Catholics and pro-family Protestants in mainline denominations.  Many pro-family Americans looked to the new President to reverse the pro-homosexual agenda of his predecessor, Bill Clinton—America’s first-ever pro-homosexual president. Millions of citizens viewed Clinton's  promotion of homosexuality.  as a symbol of the nation’s moral decline. However, in his first 100 days in the White House, Mr. Bush has not only failed to take any steps to overturn these policies but actually is supporting a 'gay Republican' agenda."

American Christians and other Pro-Family voters were absolutely sick and tired of Clinton's ungodliness, his personal immorality, and his promotion of homosexuality.  We had endured eight long years of absolute moral filth pouring out of the White House, making every fiber of our collective being screaming for a change.  We wanted a new president who would restore moral integrity and honor to the Oval Office.  We wanted a president who would not offend our sensibilities by pandering to the homosexual activists.

George W. Bush encouraged us greatly.  He said he was Born Again he said he shared our value systems; and he promised to restore Christian integrity to the Office of the Presidency. 

And, American voters responded by electing George W. Bush to the White House.  We were ecstatic for we felt we finally had one of our own in the Oval Office!  [Droleskey note: Not me, thank you very much. I opposed this statist in 2000, principally in the pages of the print journal, Christ or Chaos, whose work has contined on this site since February 20, 2004.] We brushed aside signs of doubt, such as that debate between Bush and Gore, in which Gore pressed Bush to define any differences in domestic policy.  Bush admitted there was virtually no difference between his domestic policy and what Gore would enact!  We brushed aside such subtle worries, for we were convinced Bush was a genuine Christian, and we voted for him by the many millions.

One area we were absolutely convinced that Bush would make a major impact was homosexuality.  Clinton was so pro-homosexual in his policies we could barely stand it.  In his first week in office, Clinton issued a controversial order ensuring that the military could no longer easily expel homosexuals.  From that moment to the end of his Administration, Clinton actively promoted the homosexual lifestyle.

Therefore, it comes as a great shock to realize that George W. Bush did NOT reverse Clinton's pro-homosexual policies, but has, instead, followed what these journalists describe his policies as a "gay Republican' agenda".  For years, pro-gay Republicans have argued that the GOP needed to open its doors to gays and lesbians, so as to not allow the Democrats to seize nearly 100% of their votes.  But, no one ever dreamed that a self-professed Christian president would be the one to open the Republican door to homosexual policies.

But, you ask, give me specifics , so here are specifics:

"In his first 100 days as President, Mr. Bush:

  • appointed a homosexual activist to head the White House office on AIDS;
  • failed to overturn a single Clinton executive order dealing with homosexuality;
  • continued the Clinton policy of issuing U.S. Department of Defense regulations to combat “anti-gay harassment” in a military that is required by law to keep homosexuals out of the armed forces;
  • presided over the appointment of a liberal homosexual activist and “gays”-in-the-military crusader to oversee the choice of civilian personnel at the Pentagon;
  • supported the application of a homosexual activist group as a consulting group to the United Nations "

"What follows is an outline of the Bush administration’s general record on homosexual issues, beginning with remarks by vice presidential candidate Dick Cheney and continuing through the President’s first 100 days."


"Perhaps pro-family advocates who suffered through eight years of promotion of homosexuality under Clinton were naïve to put their hopes in President Bush. After all, it was Bush who in April 2000—in a highly publicized campaign appearance—met with Republican homosexual activists in Texas and declared that he was a “better person” for having done so [Alison Mitchell, “Bush talks to gays and calls it beneficial,” New York Times, April 14, 2000, p. A26]."

Let me get this straight:  during the presidential campaign, Bush actually met with homosexual advocates and then called the results "beneficial"?  I closely follow the daily news, but totally missed this story; did you miss it as well?  Or, were we wanting a Christian president so much we just ignored contrary stories?  The next quote from this featured article tells us that some concrete agreements had been reached between Bush and these homosexual advocates. 

"A year later, it is apparent that Bush’s meeting with the 'group of 12' set in place a policy of working closely with homosexual activist Republicans and appointing them to key positions in his administration.  From the outset of his campaign, Bush sought to mute opposition to the homosexual activist agenda to help him burnish a 'moderate' image. When pro-family groups, upset at Bush’s meeting with homosexuals, sought a similar meeting (to include former homosexuals), the candidate’s staff refused, citing political considerations."

We have repeatedly urged you to not be fooled by the "Madison Avenue" campaign image that was very carefully created for any presidential campaign.  While all candidates' professional campaigns set forth false images to the electorate to win elections, we felt the Bush campaign had equaled the image capabilities of the Clinton campaign team.  We knew Bush's Illuminist roots are so very deep, and we could see he was not repentant of his past participation in Skull & Bones, so we worried that, perhaps, Bush might be a most dangerous president.  Now, it seems as though our skepticism was well founded. 

Let us go back now to our feature article.

"As the GOP convention approached, the Bush team sought to create an image of 'moderation', which translated into hiding the party’s conservative pro-family leaders and any opposition to homosexuality. Bush picked Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson to represent him in the Republican platform hearings ... Thompson met with homosexual Republican activists and then with pro-family leaders who demanded equal time. Though he assured the latter group that the Bush campaign cared deeply about their concerns, according to news reports he subsequently tried to strip the platform of several provisions (carried over from 1996) critical of homosexuality. Conservatives were able to reinstate the planks ..." [Robert Knight, Ibid.]

"Bush further alienated conservative Christians by honoring a promise made to the homosexual 'group of 12 to have an open homosexual speak at the GOP convention in Philadelphia. Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Arizona) gave a primetime address, as Christians from the Texas Republican delegation bowed their heads in prayer in a silent protest. The speech by Kolbe (though not on “gay” issues) rankled many pro-family advocates. They noted that the Bush team did not allow any primetime speeches by pro-life leaders such as Alan Keyes ..." [Ibid.]

It is unbelievable that Bush officials were so blatantly pro-homosexual during the early parts of the campaign and during the Republican nominating convention.   Why didn't the Republicans who "bowed their heads in prayer" in silent protest when Jim Kolbe -- "an open homosexual" -- was speaking, not openly break with Bush on this issue?  Had they openly and boldly protested, they might have forced such an open debate that Christian voters might have awakened from their slumber in time to force a new change, possibly even a change in candidates!


"On the campaign trail, it was Dick Cheney—whose daughter Mary is an open lesbian—who pushed the envelope on homosexuality. At a news conference in Vermont, where voters were rebelling against an unpopular law giving marital benefits to homosexual 'civil unions', Cheney passed up an opportunity to criticize the law.   Later, in the vice presidential debate with Sen. Joseph Lieberman, he was asked, 'Should a male who loves a male and a female who loves a female have all … the constitutional rights enjoyed by every American citizen?' Instead of defending marriage and pointing out that homosexuals already have the same rights as other citizens, Cheney sounded libertarian themes and said different states would come to different conclusions in regulating homosexual 'marriage'.” [Ibid.]

"Cheney said, 'I don’t think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area … we ought to do everything we can to tolerate and accommodate whatever kind of relationships people want to enter into'. Cheney’s answer troubled family advocates, but drew little opposition from Republicans, who were desperate to end Democratic control of the White House and feared exposing Cheney’s softness on the homosexual issue." [Ibid.]

This latter attitude is the kind that could ultimately cause God's Judgment to fall upon America.  When Republicans who were willing to NOT EXPOSE Cheny's position on homosexuality simply because they desperately wanted to end Democratic control of the White House, they betrayed us all.  They may have just enabled a "Wolf in Sheep's Clothing" to be elected President of the United States!

Now, back to our feature article:

"The Bush campaign did not repudiate either statement by Cheney, thus signaling that opposition to the homosexual political agenda would not be a priority in his administration. In a subsequent presidential debate, Bush affirmed that marriage is between a man and a woman, and he criticized 'special rights' for homosexuals. But on more than one occasion he has said through a spokesman that Vermont-type homosexual 'civil union' legislation is a 'state issue'. The president thus threw away a great opportunity as a moral leader to encourage the states to protect marriage."  [Emphasis added; Ibid.]

Not only did Bush throw away a great opportunity to play the part of a Christian moral leader that would affirm the Biblical standard of marriage only between a man and a woman, he exercised "political-speak" that spoke volumes to the homosexual activist while hiding his true position from the naive Christian voter.  By stating that the homosexual issue was a matter for the states, Bush was sending a strong signal that he would not use the power of the "bully pulpit" of the White House to roll back the terribly pro-gay policies of the Clinton Administration!  Homosexual activists got the message; Christian voters did not!  Once again, our naivete doomed us!

Back to Robert Knight's column:

"As the campaign proceeded, pro-family opponents of organized homosexuality grew increasingly apprehensive at Vice President Cheney’s sympathy for the 'gay' activist cause. Homosexual activists used the Mary Cheney connection to lobby Republicans to abandon their opposition to their agenda.  Mary Cheney’s lesbianism was hardly a secret. Working for Coors Brewing Company as a liaison to homosexual groups, she funneled corporate contributions to several homosexual activist organizations, including $110,000 to the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD)—a strident homosexual group that later led a mean-spirited crusade against Dr. Laura Schlessinger. GLAAD celebrates positive portrayals of homosexuality in Hollywood and the media, most recently heaping praise on the TV show Dawson’s Creek for featuring a five-second kiss between two young male characters." [Ibid.]

"During the 2000 presidential campaign, Mary Cheney was her father’s senior policy advisor and described by him as his 'aide-de-camp'.    She attended the GOP convention and the presidential inauguration openly with her lesbian partner.  Second Lady Lynne Cheney—after initially reacting angrily to a question posed by ABC newswoman, Cokie Roberts, about her daughter’s sexuality—has begun to use rhetoric favored by homosexual activists... " [Ibid.]


"... the Bush administration will go to great lengths to avoid appearing 'anti-gay'. At a press briefing on March 19, reporter Les Kinsolving asked White House spokesman Ari Fleischer if the President would endorse a Republican-led, lopsided vote in the Vermont Legislature banning homosexual 'marriages'. The ensuing exchange show[ed] how disinclined the President is to use his bully pulpit to defend marriage ..." [Ibid.]

Once again, a Bush official utilized the "code word speak-ease" to cloak his true position.  Rather than boldly stating that he was opposed to homosexual unions, the Bush spokesman fell back to the "states-rights" language that so easily cloaks the true Bush position.

Robert Knight continues:

"On at least two occasions, Fleischer and the Bush administration have implicitly endorsed Clinton’s Executive Order giving special protection for homosexual federal employees. These orders, like his other pro-'gay' edicts, were roundly criticized by pro-family groups when Clinton first announced them. But while Bush has moved to reverse or halt implementation of Clinton orders on a variety of other public policy matters, he has not done so on any dealing with homosexual activism [after this article was written, Bush officials quietly announced that he was reversing not one Clinton Executive Order]."  [Ibid.]

"President Bush and his defense secretary also reportedly have affirmed that they will implement an 'Anti-Harassment Action Plan' for homosexual soldiers. A Department of Defense working group announced the plan in July 2000. After a homosexual activist group, the Servicemen’s Legal Defense Network ... issued a report in March alleging pervasive harassment of 'gay' soldiers, a military spokesman said that Secretary Donald Rumsfeld would issue regulations to bar harassment of homosexuals.   This must be seen in light of the fact that Congress passed a law explicitly upholding the ban on homosexuality in the military. Although under Clinton the Pentagon issued regulations that conflict with the law, homosexuals are still barred by law from entering the armed forces." [Ibid.]

Thus, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld was going to issue regulations to bar harassment of homosexual soldiers when the law forbids gays from even entering the service!  We would expect this kind of hypocrisy from Clinton, but why is George W. acting this way?


"Despite vocal public outcry from pro-family advocates in both the United States and Canada, President Bush stood solidly behind his nomination of Massachusetts Gov. A. Paul Cellucci as U.S. Ambassador to Canada. Pro-family organizations, first in Massachusetts then across the nation, opposed Cellucci due to his record as one of the most pro-homosexual governors in the United States. Cellucci, who was also opposed by pro-life groups upset at his pro-abortion stances, presided over the advancement of radical homosexual policies in Massachusetts public schools that subjected middle- and high school students to one-sided pro-homosexual seminars. Homosexual groups in Massachusetts had succeeded in winning state monies for their agenda under the previous Republican governor, William Weld, but Cellucci increased this taxpayer funding to $1.5 million annually. The governor’s pro-'gay' youth agenda exploded into a national scandal in March 2000, when a parent secretly taped a 'Queer Sex' workshop at a conference sponsored by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). The workshop, which was endorsed by the Massachusetts Department of Education and taught by three state employees, was advertised for 'youth only' and exposed children as young as 12 to graphic verbal coaching on how to perform potentially life-threatening homosexual sex acts." [Ibid.]

 I have listened to tapes of this "Queer Sex" abomination masquerading as teaching.  Using obscene language normally found only in adult only bookstores, these "teachers" are systematically teaching homosexual acts to children, acts that are known to open a participant up to the threat of AIDS and all the other diseases associated with homosexual activity.

Robert Knight continues:

"Despite a widening lobby effort against Cellucci by a coalition of pro-family groups, no U.S. senator except Jesse Helms (R-North Carolina) opposed him, and Bush made no move to reconsider the nomination ... After a conservative protester disrupted the initial Senate Foreign Affairs Committee hearing for Cellucci, his nomination was rushed through to avoid further protests by pro-family groups." [Ibid.]

I remember this entire process very well, and was totally surprised that "Conservative", "Christian" George W. Bush would nominate the most Liberal, most ungodly, and most pro-homosexual activist governor in the nation to the post of ambassador.  The only good that could possibly come out of this terrible situation was that we voters in Massachusetts lost a really bad governor!


"President Bush appointed Wisconsin homosexual activist Scott Evertz to head up the White House Office on AIDS Policy. Many conservatives had hoped this agency would be disbanded—noting there are no special White House agencies for other diseases like Alzheimer’s and cancer. The choice of Evertz, who was supported by HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson, seemed inappropriate because homosexual practices are the leading cause of AIDS in America. Moreover, Evertz had been quoted in the press as favoring such policies as drug-needle giveaways, condom distribution in schools, and homosexual 'marriage'¾ which not only constitute bad AIDS policy but contradict President Bush’s public stands. Fleischer defended Evertz, a leader of the Wisconsin branch of Log Cabin Republicans saying: 'The president picks the best people for their jobs, regardless of what their backgrounds may or may not be, and that is why he has chosen Scott. The president respects him. He will be welcome at this White House'.” [Ibid. NOTE:  Log Cabin Republicans is an influential Gay-Lesbian organization; you can see their agenda at http://www.lcr.org/ ]

"He will be welcome at this White House", President Bush's Press Secretary boldly stated!  This statement was a huge signal to the homosexual activists that the Bush White House is so sympathetic to their position that the President had just appointed a radical homosexual activist and had given him instant and constant access!

Even though Mr. Fleischer did not say what credentials made Scott Evertz so valuable to this position, Robert Knight observed:  "Evertz has no background in HIV research or other medical expertise surrounding the deadly virus."  So, this revelation does beg the question again, does it not?  What credentials does Mr. Evertz possess that make him the best candidate to fill the position of Homosexual Czar?


"President Clinton had earned homosexual plaudits when he issued his executive order barring consideration of “sexual orientation” in the issuance of top-level security clearances. While many hoped President Bush would restore a higher level of security by reversing the Clinton order, it was not to be. Bush recently reinforced the Clinton order through his own U.S. State Department declaring that openhomosexuality is not a security risk. A State Department memo declared, 'Sexual orientation, in and of itself, may not be used as a disqualifying factor in determining a person’s eligibility for a security clearance'.  This flies in the face of well-established security risk assessment standards." [Ibid. Emphasis was in the original]

No kidding!  I can tell you from my days in U.S. Army Intelligence that homosexuality was considered to be such a security risk that practice of this lifestyle would automatically exclude a person from holding the kind of security clearance that would give its holder access to really sensitive state information.  We were taught that the reason for this position was that Communist agents would secretly lure the homosexual into sexually compromising situations, and then tape the incident for blackmailing purposes! Thus, we were horrified when we heard President Clinton ruling that homosexuality was not a security risk.  Former FBI White House officer, Gary Aldrich, understood this policy quite well.  Clinton's action in this area was one of the reasons Aldrich wrote his best-seller, "Unlimited Access"; the very book title showed Aldrich's understanding that Clinton had literally thrown the security doors wide open with his many policies, not the least of which was this insane policy allowing homosexuals to have high security clearances. History records that the Clinton Administration suffered the most grievous losses of intelligence of any administration in post-World War II history.

Therefore, we Christian and Conservative Republicans were most anxious to get one of our own into the White House, so he could at least plug this gaping hole in our security net, to prevent the loss of any future secrets.  However, now we find out that Bush not only did not reverse the Clinton policy, but instituted his own approval of homosexuals holding the highest of security clearances!

Robert Knight continues with his unbelievable news story, turning his attention to the United Nations:

"The Bush administration also supported a homosexual activist organization’s request for official United Nations consultative status. Rick Williams, an advisor to the U.S. Mission to the U.N., spoke in favor of the International Lesbian and Gay Association’s (ILGA) application for 'non-governmental organization' (NGO) status with the international body’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). In an interview, Williams said he 'did not receive any guidance to the contrary' on his recommendation. The application was put on hold by several Muslim countries concerned about ILGA’s homosexual advocacy.  ILGA, an umbrella group, gained notoriety in 1993 when it was revealed that the pedophile organization NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) was one of its members. ILGA also shared some of NAMBLA’s goals: among its proclamations (since rescinded) was its anti-parent support for “the right of young people to sexual and social self-determination.” ILGA eventually expelled NAMBLA, but its U.N. consultative status was ended after the U.S. Senate passed an amendment that would have stripped $119 million in U.S. contributions to the world body unless American officials could certify that no U.N.-affiliated groups promote pedophilia."

President Bush supported this group to gain NGO status with the United Nations?  What nonsense is this?  The Bible clearly states God's eternal opposition to homosexuality, so no true Christian would ever support a gay group's application for NGO U.N. status!  Further, this group, ILGA, so supports sex with youngsters that, even after it distanced itself from the predatory Man/Love group, it still withdrew from the United Nations before it renounced its promotion of pedophilia!

This is extremely bad spiritual fruit, bringing Jesus' warning into sharp focus:  "Ye shall know them by their fruits ... Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."

This fruit of pro-homosexual polices emanating from the Bush Administration is exceedingly "evil fruit"; therefore, by the Lord's own words, the fruit that is producing them must be considered an evil tree, a "corrupt tree".  Good trees cannot produce good fruit, while only corrupt trees produce corrupt fruit.  Therefore, is the Bush Administration "tree" to be considered a "corrupt tree"?

Robert Knight continues his expose' of the kind of homosexual activist group the Bush Administration is supporting:

"ILGA has a history of treating opposition to homosexual activity as a 'human rights' violation. The organization crusades against anti-sodomy laws in various countries, including the United States, and supports laws lowering the age of sexual consent for homosexuals. It supports the legalization of homosexual unions and fights military homosexual bans in countries like the United States and Turkey. ILGA also lobbies the U.N. and other world bodies to celebrate homosexuality, e.g., calling for the creation of an 'International Year of Lesbian and Gay People'.”

The next time you read or hear of a homosexual group fighting to make sodomy legal, or to allow teenage boys to be solicited, remember President Bush is cooperating with, and supporting the very groups that are actively trying to bring these ungodly, abominable practices to this country.


"Bill Clinton’s attempt in the early days of his first term to open up the military to avowed homosexuals was a defining moment in his presidency and a source of intense public criticism that contributed to the GOP takeover of Congress in 1994. After a standoff with Congress, Clinton retreated and issued his “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy barring open homosexuals in the armed forces. The administration’s loose guidelines are at odds with a stronger law banning homosexuality in the military, and actually have made it easier for 'closeted' homosexuals to stay in the military. But since George W. Bush had endorsed 'Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell' during the campaign, it was widely expected that the Clinton-congressional compromise would continue. But Bush’s Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, appointed a veteran homosexual activist, Stephen Herbits, to 'screen job applicants' at the Pentagon. Herbits was hired as a “special consultant to the Secretary” of a department that officially bans homosexual soldiers.  Human Events Online reports: “In a 1993 book review for the New York Times on the topic of homosexuals in the military, Herbits wrote: ‘No single issue more poignantly snaps our armed forces into the 21st century than the question of whether homosexuals should be permitted to serve openly in their ranks. Our military cannot afford to stray long from the society it defends; the pressures for it to catch up are mounting within and without."

In other words, even though Congressional law still prohibits homosexuals from joining the military policy, George W. Bush's Secretary of Defense set up a liaison position to "screen job applicants" at the Pentagon?  Everyone would immediately get the message that the president was openly supportive of gays in the military.  Actions do speak louder than words!


"Former Missouri Sen. John Ashcroft, a staunch conservative and committed Christian, was nominated for Attorney General. But during his confirmation hearings, Ashcroft apparently bowed to administration pressure by downplaying his long-held opposition to homosexuality. He accepted the concept of “sexual orientation” as a civil rights category and discussed it in terms championed by homosexual activists."  [Robert Knight, Ibid.] 

I have real trouble with this revelation, i.e., that Ashcroft has abandoned his "fervent" Christian values.  But, if he did abandon his Christian values that led him to "long-held opposition to homosexuality", notice why he did so.  He abandoned his long-held opposition to homosexuality because of "administration pressure"; since Ashcroft is a full-fledged member of the President's Cabinet, the only "administration" person that could force him to abandon a position on anything is President George W. Bush.  So, this article is stating that the president forced Aschcroft to abandon his "long-held opposition to homosexuality".  But, if George W. were truly Born Again, how can he be forcing Ashcroft to abandon his opposition to the gay lobby? 

Once again, we find that actions do not match rhetoric, nor does actual performance in office match the expectations that preceded the taking of the office.

If Attorney General Ashcroft was forced by the president to backtrack on his stand against homosexuality, we should expect that he would do so grudgingly.  We would expect he would support the gay agenda so tentatively that the activists would complain mightily about his minimum effort.  Right? 

Now, let us go back to Robert Knight, for a big surprise:

"Like Bush, Ashcroft has earned the tentative praise of homosexual activists. Log Cabin Republicans,  a homosexual activist group, declared in a February 22 news release: 'In his confirmation testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, [Sen. John] Ashcroft stated repeatedly that sexual orientation will not be a consideration in Justice Department employment or appointments, that he would enforce all laws and regulations protecting gay and lesbian federal workers from employment discrimination, that the gay and lesbian DOJ [Department of Justice] Pride employee organization would continue to meet and organize in the department under his leadership, and that federal civil rights laws will be vigorously enforced. Following his confirmation, Ashcroft chose the Log Cabin Republicans for his first official public meeting as the nation’s chief law enforcer—a move that lent legitimacy to a group organized around sexual misconduct that is still illegal in almost 20 states and is considered sinful by all major Christian denominations."

To make a point as to his planned vigorous support of the homosexual agenda, Ashcroft  "chose the Log Cabin Republicans for his first official public meeting as the nation’s chief law enforcer—a move that lent legitimacy to a group organized around sexual misconduct that is still illegal in almost 20 states and is considered sinful by all major Christian denominations."

How can this be?  How can George W. Bush force John Ashcroft to plan his first official meeting as Attorney General to be with the fervently gay Log Cabin Republicans ?  Every gay-lesbian activist in the entire country -- and probably the entire world -- would look at this symbolism and rightly conclude that they continue to have a friend in the White House and a friend heading the Justice Department!

Let us take a moment away from the revelations of Robert Knight to consider another, and more recent, new story, this one from the Family Research Council, no less!

NEWS BRIEF:  "Gay Ambassador Troubles Embassy Staff", Family Research Council, [FRC] January 10, 2002.

"Little attention was drawn to Michael Guest's homosexual relationship with  his 'partner' during his confirmation process as President Bush's  ambassador to Romania.  However, those working under Guest in Bucharest now  find it difficult to avoid his flaunting of the relationship, according to  an American embassy worker who recently spoke with FRC. Although Guest had been active in a gay and lesbian group within the State  Department, he was not publicly identified as being homosexual until his  swearing-in on September 18, when Secretary of State Colin Powell  acknowledged Guest's 'partner', Alex Nevarez, during the  ceremony.  Nevarez, a former teacher, relocated to Romania with Guest and   now lives with him there in the residence provided to the ambassador by the  U.S.  government."

This story is unbelievable!  If President Bush wanted to nominate a homosexual as Ambassador to Romania, he did not have to openly flaunt this fact during the swearing-in ceremony.  Secretary of State Powell did not have to invite the sexual partner to the ceremony; he certainly did not have to go out of his way to call attention to the fact that Michael Guest was a practicing homosexual, nor did he have to introduce his 'partner'!  To do so is to send a strong signal to anyone opposed to homosexuality that they could just go "take a long walk off a short pier"!  Powell was telling the Christian Right in no uncertain terms that their sensibilities and their values were of no interest to him, or to the Bush Administration!

Now, let us go back to this FRC article:

"According to our source, several families in the embassy community have  expressed concern about the ambassador's living arrangement, and at least one will no longer bring their children to embassy social events because  they do not want them exposed to the example set by Guest and his  'partner'. For example, Guest and Nevarez escorted one another as a couple  at the embassy's annual Marine Corps Ball, a highly formal event.  'It's  causing me to have to compromise the values I raise my family by', the  source said."

"The appointment of Guest to serve in Romania showed a particular cultural  insensitivity, given that the country is a stronghold of the conservative Eastern Orthodox Church.  Our source indicated that the Orthodox Church is  represented at virtually all government ceremonies in Romania.  One  Romanian professor, in a letter to a Bucharest daily newspaper, said that  'Romanins .  .  .  cannot comprehend homosexual acts in any other way but  as a deviation from the natural order and the world created by the Lord',  and he noted that the Guest appointment 'generates bewilderment, indignation, and disgust among the Romanians'.

This Family Research Council article continues: 

"Ambassador Guest's treatment of same-sex 'partners' (including his own) as  the equivalent of married spouses is a mere half step away from government  endorsement of 'same-sex marriage'. Not only does this violate the spirit of the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act (which defines marriage as  being between one man and one woman), but it is also a distraction from the important work of our embassy in Romania."

At least some lower level Bush staffers understand, which is a lot more than a lot of Christians today.  Now, let us return to our original article with Robert Knight for one last revelation.


"Another Bush confidant with significant pro-homosexual credentials is GOP strategist Mary Matalin, who is senior advisor to both President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Matalin has adopted an increasingly strident position in favor of the Republican Party embracing homosexuality. Although she concedes that conservative Christians are good-hearted people, Matalin has demonized them by referring to religious critics of homosexual activism as 'gay bashers' and 'the Leviticus crowd'.  Matalin also is reportedly a leading force behind another pro-homosexual GOP group, the Republican Unity Coalition (RUC), which purports to be an alliance between homosexual and non-homosexual political leaders who want to end the GOP’s defense of traditional sexual morality. The day before Bush’s inauguration, Matalin was listed as a member of the Host Committee of a RUC breakfast, according to a press release by the group. One of RUC’s stated goals is to lobby for 'a more moderate approach to gay and lesbian issues' in the GOP."  [Ibid.]

How could President Bush allow a close confidant to be a homosexual, and how could he allow her to demonize and pillory the very Conservative Christians with whom Bush claims to be associated?  My mind is simply boggling now, as we see evidences piling up exceedingly high that Bush is not only allowing the homosexual agenda to continue as it did under Clinton, but that he seems to be actively supportive of such agenda. 

Droleskey afterword: Mary Matalin is pro-abortion and pro-homoesexual. She is not, though, a homosexual. She is married to the smarmy, vile defender of all things Clinton, James Carville. Both are Catholics. Both retain their "good standing" within the counterfeit church of conciliarism. Why not?  (Duped Protestants React in Horror to Buth the Lesser's Pro-Homoesexual Agenda.)

Appendix B

The Dangers of Federal Vouchers for Homeschooling Familes

As derived from an e-mail alert sent by Homeschool Legal Defense Association, February 10, 2017


It has been said that there is no such thing as a free lunch. As homeschooling families know too well, government money will eventually lead to government control.
That's why HSLDA is opposing a bill introduced by our friends in Congress, Rep. Steve King (IA) and Rep. Andy Harris (MD). Though well-intentioned, H.R. 610 is ultimately ill-advised. It calls for sending all federal education dollars to the states in the forms of federal grants so that the states can then give the money as vouchers to public, private, and homeschool students.
(Note: While Rep. Trent Franks (AZ) is also listed as a cosponsor of H.R. 610, we talked with him and his staff last night and they agree with our concerns about homeschooling families being included in H.R. 610. As a result, there is no need to contact his office, and we are deeply grateful to him for his commitment to protecting homeschool freedom from "help" by the federal government. Here is the statement Franks gave to us: "I understand the concerns of the homeschool community. My support for the bill only extends to vouchers for public school and private school students. If this bill moves forward, I would request that any language that would impose vouchers upon homeschools is taken out.")
If the bill only applied to public schools and traditional brick-and-mortar private schools, HSLDA would take no official position on it. There is no question that many millions of children are stuck in public schools that fail to meet their needs, and school choice would be an incredible benefit to them.
But HSLDA has repeatedly told our friends on Capitol Hill that our members and many other homeschooling families know that government dollars will eventually result in government regulation. Although we are grateful for our friends on Capitol Hill, and although we know that representatives King and Harris are well-intentioned, they need to hear loud and clear from the homeschool community. Even though thevouchers created by H.R. 610 would be voluntary, we believe that this would be a slippery slope toward more federal involvement and control in homeschooling.
If you do not want federal government "help," if you just want to be left alone, this is the time to speak up.
Dangers of H.R. 610 (click here to read a PDF version of the bill with page numbers cited below).
1. Elimination of language protecting homeschool freedom in U.S. Code: Page 2, paragraph (a) repeals in its entirety the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, which was most recently reauthorized as the Every Student Succeeds Act. While HSLDA applauds this repeal language, as we believe that the federal government has no constitutional authority to make education decisions which should be left to state and local authorities, this full repeal would also eliminateHSLDA's language fully protecting homeschool freedom from all federal control.
2. Creation of a "federal right to homeschool:" Page 3, Sec. 104 requires states to make certain assurances in order to receive their portion of federal education dollars. One of the requirements (paragraph (2)(A) on page 3) is that states "make it lawful for parents of an eligible child to elect ... to home-school their child." While this sounds good, HSLDA has fought  successfully  for decades to make sure that there is no "federal right to homeschool" because what could be created by a favorable Congress could be regulated by a future, hostile Congress. It is far better (and far more constitutionally sound) for education decisions  and homeschool freedom  to be protected at the state level. We ask our friends at the federal level to simply leave homeschooling families alone. The Constitution protects the right of parents to direct the education and upbringing of their children, as the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in its seminal cases of MeyerPierce, and Yoder. Federal legislation to "protect" homeschooling is unnecessary.
3. States would need to track homeschooling students:Numerous provisions in H.R. 610 require states to count the number of eligible students in their state. Page 4 says "The State shall distribute funds . . . based on the number of eligible children in the public schools . . . and . . . the number of eligible children . . . whose parents elect to send their child to a private school or to home-school their child." Page 5 requires "on an annual basis" that school districts count the number of eligible students who attend public schools, and "whose parents elect—to send their child to a private school or to home-school their child." There is only one way that states and school districts can do this: by requiring homeschooling families to register with them, and be tracked by the school district. This will be especially problematic in states that do not require homeschooling families to file a notice of intent with the local school district. H.R. 610 will require homeschooling families in all 50 states to register with the local school district. This would be just the first cost of "free government money."
4. The government would now get to decide how much parents should spend on homeschooling: Paragraph (B) on page 6 requires that the federal education vouchers to parents who choose a homeschool "shall not exceed the cost of home-schooling the child." Who will now decide how much it costs to homeschool a child? The government. Page 8 further requires that the federal education vouchers "be distributed in a manner so as to ensure that such payments will be used for appropriate educational expenses." This is not defined, meaning that government officials and public schools will decide what qualifies as an appropriate educational expense. HSLDA has heard over the course of 33 years from numerous parents who have elected to teach their children at home through a government-funded virtual or correspondence school. In their experience, they found their curriculum options shrunk as each choice had to pass a government litmus test.
Call Congress Now

At this point, it is only necessary to contact these sponsors of this bill, Representatives King and Harris.

If one of these is your U.S. representative, please call or email him, and politely ask him to take homeschooling families out of the bill, including homeschooling families who are defined by their state's education law as private school students.
Please remember that these congressmen are friends of homeschooling, and that this bill is well-intentioned, but ultimately dangerous. We encourage you to identify yourself as a homeschooling parent.
Your message can be as simple as:
"As a homeschooling parent, I oppose H.R. 610. I do not want to receive federal vouchers. Government money will ultimately lead to government control and regulation, which will stifle the success of homeschooling. I am grateful for your past support of homeschool freedom, and urge that you protect the future of homeschooling by rewriting H.R. 610 to ensure that homeschools, and homeschools defined by state laws as private schools, do not receive federal money."
You can reach these congressmen by calling the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121. If one of these members of Congress represents you, you can find his direct phone numbers and email addresseshere.
If you live outside of these districts, we encourage you to take to social media to politely but firmly remind these congressmen that homeschooling families do not want federal vouchers. You can also send each congressman a letter via the United States Postal Service.
HSLDA opposes H.R. 610 for reasons of prudence and principle.
Once homeschools become publicly funded by the federal government, more scrutiny and more control are likely to follow. After all, homeschooling families will be spending government money, and the Congress has a keen interest in guarding the public fisc.
On principle, homeschooling has succeeded as a movement in part by being different. Unlike typical constituencies asking for our piece of the public-money pie, we have simply asked the federal government to leave us alone. This has fostered one of the most dynamic social movements of our lifetime.
The spirit of self-government at the heart of private homeschooling has led to a vibrant social network of small groups and statewide groups who depend on each other—not on the government. The homeschool movement has been a better idea because we built it ourselves.
Routinely taking federal tax dollars will enervate the movement, lead to more squabbles between families and the state, and will result in more scrutiny, oversight, and control.
Thank you for standing with us for liberty as together, we fight to keep homeschooling free.