Flip-Flopping, Carpetbagging Willard Mitt Romney's Self-Serving Hypocrisy

The return of the carpetbagging opportunist named Willard Mitt Romney to national prominence as a self-anointed “conscience” of the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist “right,” thus claiming for himself the role that the late John Sidney McCain III, whose own campaign for the presidency of the United States of America in 2008 was as incompetent and aimless as Romney’s himself four years later, had filled after the inauguration of President Donald John Trump on January 20, 2017. Romney’s recent op-ed in The Washington Post was nothing other than a prime example of his arrogant, smug and very hypocritical self-righteousness.

Romney took President Trump for being unworthy of the presidency because he lacked the necessary character to hold it:

To a great degree, a presidency shapes the public character of the nation. A president should unite us and inspire us to follow “our better angels.” A president should demonstrate the essential qualities of honesty and integrity, and elevate the national discourse with comity and mutual respect. As a nation, we have been blessed with presidents who have called on the greatness of the American spirit. With the nation so divided, resentful and angry, presidential leadership in qualities of character is indispensable. And it is in this province where the incumbent’s shortfall has been most glaring. (Romney's Self-Righteous Op-Ed Column Berating President Trump's Character.)

Willard Mitt Romney is a pompous, self-serving fool and hypocrite.

Longtime readers of this website know that I am not a reflexive cheerleader for President Donald John Trump. I give credit where credit is due, but I have also noted the fact that the president has surrounded himself those who deny the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ throughout his life and that his supporter for Zionism and the Zionist State of Israel does the work of the adversary in preparing the way for Antichrist (see , and .)

I have also gone to great lengths to demonstrate that one of the reasons that the president’s first two years have been marked by a continued effort on the part of the administrative or deep state to undermine the enforcement of his policies and to oust him from office is because he was unprepared to fill Cabinet and sub-Cabinet positions once he took office. This permitted holdovers from the administration of President Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro in the national security apparatus (United States Department of Justice and its Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency) to continue with their efforts, begun under the watchful eye of Caesar Barackus Obamus Ignoramus in 2016, to smear the duly-elected President of the United States of America. Although Trump has real enemies, his unpreparedness to govern and his naïve belief in his ability to schmooze the likes of Romney’s equal in smug self-righteousness, James Brien Comey, into becoming “team players” emboldened the coup plotters and led to the appointment of Robert Mueller, whose one and only goal has been and continues to be too oust him from office. (See Evidence Coming Out of Flynn Case Makes Mueller Look Worse and WorseIs America’s Military Loyal to Its Commander-in ChiefJustice Department CoupIssa: Comey Was 'Out-of-Control, Corrupt FBI Director on a Mission' to Entrap President-elect Trump, Department of Justice Destroyed Missing Stzok-Page Text Messages Before Insepector General Reviewed Them, Cohen’s Pleas Concoted by Propsecutors to Snare TrumpWhy is Michael Cohen Prosecuted When Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder and Lois Lerner Were Not?Comey Admists Dossier Not Verified Before or After FISA Warrant, Comey is a a Disgrace to the FBI: Won't Answer Key Questions on Clinton E-mail Scandal, Why Has Mueller Ignored Obama Administration Crimes?, False Statements Charges Aboud in Mueller Probe Were Discouraged in Clinton CaseWhy Trump is Likely to be Indiced by Manhattan US Attorney.)

This having been noted, however, Willard Mitt Romney’s criticism of the president is based in his own aversion to conflict and disagreement. Romney is viscerally opposed to Trump’s style of confronting the known enemies of the common good within the United States of America and to the leaders of so-called foreign “allies” who want to obliterated national boundaries and to establish a globalist New World Order that has long been the goal of Judeo-Masonry. Romney, a firm member of the War Party, cannot stand the fact that President Trump has, after permitting himself to be trumped by the generals for nearly two years, finally gotten around to saying, in effect, “enough is enough” when it comes to placing American military personnel in harm’s way in places such as Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan where they should never have been sent in the first place.

Unfortunately for Willard Mitt Romney, however, his aversion to conflict and disagreement is precisely why he, whose own RomneyCare was the prototype for the monstrosity that is ObamaDeathCare, waged a disgracefully incompetent campaign against a man, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, whose “character” permitted him to unleash the Internal Revenue Service on his political adversaries, to lie about the nature of ObamaDeathCare (“If you like your plan, your can keep your plan,” “If you like your doctor, you can keep you doctor”), to deceive the American public about the o enforce planned attack by Mohammedan terrorists upon the American compound (which was being used as a funnel for arms to Syrian rebels) in Benghazi, Libya, to refuse to enforce the just immigration of laws of the United States of America and to use the national security apparatus of the United States of America to spy upon private citizens, one of whom was a candidate for the Presidency of the United States of America. I suppose that is the sort of “character” that befits the office of the presidency according to the standards of Willard Mitt Romney.

More the point, though, is the fact that Willard Mitt Romney is the last one in the world to talk about having personal character. He is an amoral man who has taken whatever political positions he has had to take to advance his political career.

Too harsh?


Well, consider the evidence from an article on this site seven years ago:

Perhaps the most remarkable spectacle that occurred in the Circus of the Midget Naturalists was that put on by Willard Mitt Romney, the man who twice ran for office in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as a "defender" of Roe v. Wade and whose own Romneycare funded Planned Parenthood, which Romney himself has funded out of his own pocket with a donation, who lambasted Santorum on his votes to provide Federal funding for Planned Parenthood, asking how he could have opposed something the he funded. Fair enough question--except when you consider the following statement made in 2005 by Romney's own political advisor, who spilled the beans on Romney's alleged "conversion" to being "pro-life:"

By 2005, with Mr. Romney eyeing a possible presidential bid, he began to distance himself from his abortion rights platform. “My political philosophy is pro-life,” he told National Review, a conservative magazine, in an article that June. That same article quoted his top strategist at the time, Mike Murphy, as saying Mr. Romney had been “a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly.” (Romney's Path to 'Pro-Life' Position on Abortion.)

Taking into consideration only the purely strategic considerations of partisan politics, it is nothing other than astounding that none of the other three midget naturalists [Richard John Santorum Newton Leroy Gingrish, Ronald Paul] gathered two nights ago in Mesa, Arizona, did not bring up this quote. Astounding. 

The former Governor of Massachusetts, Willard Mitt Romney, also did not tell the truth when he said that he did not force once Catholic hospitals now under the control of the conciliar authorities to dispense the so-called "Plan B" emergency contraceptive, which is, as noted above, an abortifacient. This is what he said in the debate two nights ago, that is, on Ash Wednesday, February 22, 2012:

KING: It's an issue on which all of you have criticism on the Obama administration, it's an issue on which some of you have also criticized each other. 

Governor Romney, both Senator Santorum and Speaker Gingrich have said during your tenure as governor, you required Catholic hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape victims. 

And Mr. Speaker, you compared the president to President Obama, saying he infringed on Catholics' rights.

Governor, did you do that?

ROMNEY: No, absolutely not. Of course not. 

There was no requirement in Massachusetts for the Catholic Church to provide morning-after pills to rape victims. That was entirely voluntary on their report. There was no such requirement. 

Likewise, in Massachusetts health care bill, there's a provision in Massachusetts general laws that says people don't have to have coverage for contraceptives or other type of medical devices which are contrary to their religious teachings. Churches also don't have to provide that to entities which are either the church themselves or entities they control. So we have provisions that make sure that something of that nature does not occur. 

That's why when I worked closely with the leaders of the Catholic Church, I met with the cardinal a number of times, and with his emissaries. We talked about the issues we were concerned about. 

We battled, for instance, to help the Catholic Church stay in the adoption business. The amazing thing was that while the Catholic Church was responsible for half the adoptions in my state -- half the adoptions -- they had to get out of that business because the legislature wouldn't support me and give them an exemption from having to place children in homes where there was a mom and a dad on a preferential basis. 

Absolutely extraordinary. We have to have individuals that will stand up for religious conscience, and I did and I will again as president. (Full Transcript of CNN ARIZONA REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE.)

Governor Romney did not tell the truth. Then again, what do you expect from a moment who belongs to a cult that was founded by a Freemason and confidence man, Joseph Smith, that has taken many souls out of the true Church in Latin America and here in the United States of America. One who belongs to a false religion, which by definition is built on a fabric of lies, must become a liar himself.

Replete with a link to the full story, here is a brief summary of the way in which Romney misrepresented facts two nights ago:

The Bottom Line:

When Romney was asked in the debate if he had required Catholic hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape victims and had infringed on Catholics’ rights, he responded, “No, absolutely not. Of course not.” That was untrue.

When Romney said “for the Catholic Church to provide morning-after pills to rape victims…was entirely voluntary on their part”, that was also untrue.  (Fact-Check: Did Romney Lie During the Debate?)

Admitting that there have been instances in which some Catholic hospitals under the control of the conciliar revolutionaries have dispensed the “Plan B” abortifacient, whose over-the-counter-sales to women over the age of eighteen, by the way, was authorized by the United States Food and Drug Administration under the watch and with the approval of President George Walker Bush, Willard Mitt Romney lied in 2012. He is a liar. Perhaps Romney considers his lying to be “virtuous” as he believes himself to be a man of true “character.” He is, nevertheless, a liar.

What is even more tragic is that so many Americans who are opposed to abortion shut their eyes to the truth about Romney’s lack of convictions about anything not having to do with his false religion and with the visage he sees in the mirror when he was running for the Republican Party presidential nomination in 2008 and again in 2012. Here is this “man of character’s” true track record, starting with a transcript of his debate with the egregious pro-abortion, pro-Soviet, pro-sodomite, pro-everything bad Senator Edward Moore Kennedy in 1994:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What was one of those actions?

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to States News Service on October 2, 2006,

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

Romney loves to take credit for it.

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

From Chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006:

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

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

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

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

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

It doesn’t stop with this, though.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Romney is a craven opportunist. He was one at Bain Capital. He was one when he was running for the United States Senate in 1994 against the late Edward Moore Kennedy, whose own lack of character was never mentioned by Romney. He was one when he ran for the governorship of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in 2002, and he was one when he ran for president in 2008 and 2012. Romney was an opportunist when he invested in Stericycle, unconcerned about its practices of disposing of the remains of babies butchered in America’s killing centers, abortuaries (see Blood Money Talks Loud And Clear). Romney may not have known what Stericycle did. However, he did not care as the company was a good investment for him. Willard Mitt Romney’s character is as much defined by the “bottom line” as that of the man he criticizes so hypocritically, President Donald John Trump.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See Willard Mitt Romney condemn Todd Akin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you remember these facts?

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

Sure, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro is a statist who had no regard for the laws of God or of man, and he is still helping to mastermind the coup against President Donald John Trump. A “President” Willard Mitt Romney would have governed little differently than Obama/Soetoro did. That is a fact that few people wanted to accept in 2012, and it is a fact that so few people want to recognize now.

Willard Mitt Romney just wanted to get elected. He is no man of virtue at all. He is a craven opportunist who is now champing at the bit to be praised by the mainslime media as he attempts to carve out the role as “the conscience of the Senate,” although it is my surmise that Marco Rubio will play tag team with him in this regard. Romney remains an opportunist as he seeks to create a rebel niche for himself to launch yet a third quest for the presidency next year, especially if Trump is impeached by the United States House of Representatives, which seems probable to occur, and then tried by the United States Senate. Count on Romney to be one of several Republicans (joined by Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Marco Rubio) who will vote for the president’s conviction on bogus charges of high crimes and misdemeanors. That won’t be enough to effect the president’s removal, but it would position Romney as a “man of courage” in the eyes of the mainslime media, which is what he wants.

Ultimately, good readers, the country is divided not by Donald John Trump’s style and policies, many of which, especially pertaining to the supposed “rights” of those practicing the sin of Sodom and its related vices, are actually in agreement with those of Willard Mitt Romney’s nor by the president’s justified decision to stand firm, at least for now, about border security or to denounce foreign leaders who countries have been feeding at the trough provided them by American taxpayers since World War II. The United States of America is divided as error divides and only Catholicism unites. This is something that neither Mormon Romney nor the nominal Protestant, Trump, understand or accept. However, it is nevertheless true. Although Catholicism is not a guarantor of social order, it is the necessary precondition for it. Period. . I will simply keep reminding you all that this is all a gigantic trap that was unleashed by the Protestant Revolution and has been institutionalized by the forces of naturalism that have a vested interest in keeping us agitated over events that have as their only remedy the daily conversion of men and their nations to the sweet yoke of Christ the King as they rely so tenderly upon the loving intercession of Our Lady, she is our Immaculate Queen, especially by means of her Most Holy Rosary.

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

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

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

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

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

This is a point that was made forty years later by Father Edward Leen in The Holy Ghost, to explain that our own form of naturalism is just a different kind of expression in the quintessential naturalist ideology, Bolshevism, as the anti-Incarnational civil state of Modernity must wind up producing a situation of total state control over men as there is no naturalist means on the face of this earth (no, not constitutions or laws or elections or this or that naturalist or secularist or nondenominational ideology or "philosophy) that can stop it. Here are Father Leen's words of wisdom:

A shudder of apprehension is traversing the world which still retains its loyalty to Jesus expressing Himself through the authority of His Church. That apprehension has not its sole cause the sight of the horrors that the world has witnessed in recent years in both hemispheres. Many Christians are beginning to feel that perhaps all may not be right with themselves. There is solid reason for this fear. The contemplation of the complete and reasoned abandonment of all hitherto accepted human values that has taken place in Russia and is taking place elsewhere, causes a good deal of anxious soul-searching. It is beginning to be dimly perceived that in social life, as it is lived, even in countries that have not as yet definitely broken with Christianity, there lie all the possibilities of what has become actual in Bolshevism. A considerable body of Christians, untrained in the Christian philosophy of life, are allowing themselves to absorb principles which undermine the constructions of Christian thought. They do not realise how much dangerous it is for Christianity to exist in an atmosphere of Naturalism than to be exposed to positive persecution. In the old days of the Roman Empire those who enrolled themselves under the standard of Christ saw, with logical clearness, that they had perforce to cut themselves adrift from the social life of the world in which they lived--from its tastes, practices and amusements. The line of demarcation between pagan and Christian life was sharp, clearly defined and obvious. Modern Christians have not been so favorably situated. As has been stated already, the framework of the Christian social organisation has as yet survived. This organisation is, to outward appearances, so solid and imposing that it is easy to be blind to the truth that the soul had gradually gone out of it. Under the shelter and utilising the resources of the organisation of life created by Christianity, customs, ways of conduct, habits of thought, have crept in, more completely perhaps, at variance with the spirit of Christianity than even the ways and manners of pagan Rome.

This infiltration of post-Christian paganism has been steady but slow, and at each stage is imperceptible. The Christian of to-day thinks that he is living in what is to all intents and purposes a Christian civilisation. Without misgivings he follows the current of social life around him. His amusements, his pleasures, his pursuits, his games, his books, his papers, his social and political ideas are of much the same kind as are those of the people with whom he mingles, and who may not have a vestige of a Christian principle left in their minds. He differs merely from them in that he holds to certain definite religious truths and clings to certain definite religious practices. But apart from this there is not any striking contrast in the outward conduct of life between Christian and non-Christian in what is called the civilised world. Catholics are amused by, and interested in, the very same things that appeal to those who have abandoned all belief in God. The result is a growing divorce between religion and life in the soul of the individual Christian. Little by little his faith ceases to be a determining effect on the bulk of his ideas, judgments and decisions that have relation to what he regards as his purely "secular" life. His physiognomy as a social being no longer bears trace of any formative effect of the beliefs he professes. And his faith rapidly becomes a thing of tradition and routine and not something which is looked to as a source of a life that is real.

The Bolshevist Revolution has had one good effect. It has awakened the averagely good Christian to the danger runs in allowing himself to drift with the current of social life about him. It has revealed to him the precipice towards which he has was heading by shaping his worldly career after principles the context of which the revolution has mercilessly exposed and revealed to be at variance with real Christianity. The sincerely religious--and there are many such still--are beginning to realise that if they are to live as Christians they must react violently against the milieu in which they live. It is beginning to be felt that one cannot be a true Christian and live as the bulk of men in civilised society are living. It is clearly seen that "life" is not to be found along those ways by which the vast majority of men are hurrying to disillusionment and despair. Up to the time of the recent cataclysm the average unreflecting Christian dwelt in the comfortable illusion that he could fall in with the ways of the world about him here, and, by holding on to the practices of religion, arrange matters satisfactorily for the hereafter. That illusion is dispelled. It is coming home to the discerning Christian that their religion is not a mere provision for the future. There is a growing conviction that it is only through Christianity lived integrally that the evils of the present time can be remedied and disaster in the time to come averted. (Father Edward Leen, The Holy Ghost, published in 1953 by Sheed and Ward, pp. 6-9.)

Sixty-six years later, however, we can see that there is no longer a growing conviction that "Christianity lived integrally" is the means by which the evils of the present time "can be remedied and disaster in the time to come averted." Conciliarism has made its "reconciliation" with every falsehood imaginable, and Jorge Mario Bergoglio is actually a friend and supporter to every Bolshevik on the face of this earth. Father Leen's words about the dangers of a Catholic living in a naturalist world are still valid, of course, but the world has changed since 1953. Bolshevism has triumphed as the errors of Russia continue to spread unchecked, and no naturalist in the White House who has an inchoate sense that socialism is wrong but who does not understand that there no true social order with the true Faith can do anything other than plug one in a a dam that is about to burst asunder as a chastisement for us all.

How can a land where the blasphemy of Holy Name of Jesus is considered to be a "civil right" and is now trumpeted in every aspect of popular culture and public law receive blessings in His Holy Name?

How can a land which enshrines each of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance and permits commercial trade on Sundays expect to withstand the judgment of Christ the King?

How can a land where people revel in immodesty, indedency and perversity expect to go unscathed by the consequences of its sins?

How can a land based upon religious indifferentism, which must and is actually giving way to overt atheism, receive the favor of the Most Holy Trinity.

Sober up.

Be not distracted by the agitations of the moment as even the Romney temper tantrum against Donald John Trump is but a distraction designed to make one believe some type of "good naturalism" can pull us out of the abyss. Such is a delusion of the devil. Do not be deceived. While it is good to remind readers of Romney's own character flaws at a time he criticizes those of the president's, this exercise is not an end in and of itself as it is designed to demonstrate that men must be divided unnecessarily when they are not united on First and Last Things.

As Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique on August 15, 1910:

Here we have, founded by Catholics, an inter-denominational association that is to work for the reform of civilization, an undertaking which is above all religious in character; for there is no true civilization without a moral civilization, and no true moral civilization without the true religion: it is a proven truth, a historical fact. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)


Father Edward Leen was simply giving expression in 1953 to simple, timeless and immutable truths that true pope after true pope had reiterated time and time again in the last three centuries now. No Catholicism, no social order. It's that simple.

Care to disagree? This statement is either true or it is false. A Catholic should understand and accept that it is true and stop wasting his time worrying about which naturalist or which naturalistic "philosophy" is going to "improve" society. Only Catholicism can improve society as it penetrates into the souls of men. It is really that simple. In truth you see, the conflicts between Donald John Trump and his adversaries is an illusion as naturalism is the devil's tool to convince us that something short of Catholicism can produce true standards of justice and hence of social order. 

Pope Pius XI put the matter this way in Mitt Brennender Sorge, March 17, 1937:

We can command: it is not enough to be a member of the Church of Christ, one needs to be a living member, in spirit and in truth, i.e., living in the state of grace and in the presence of God, either in innocence or in sincere repentance. If the Apostle of the nations, the vase of election, chastised his body and brought it into subjection: lest perhaps, when he had preached to others, he himself should become a castaway (1 Cor. ix. 27), could anybody responsible for the extension of the Kingdom of God claim any other method but personal sanctification? Only thus can we show to the present generation, and to the critics of the Church that "the salt of the earth," the leaven of Christianity has not decayed, but is ready to give the men of today -- prisoners of doubt and error, victims of indifference, tired of their Faith and straying from God -- the spiritual renewal they so much need. A Christianity which keeps a grip on itself, refuses every compromise with the world, takes the commands of God and the Church seriously, preserves its love of God and of men in all its freshness, such a Christianity can be, and will be, a model and a guide to a world which is sick to death and clamors for directions, unless it be condemned to a catastrophe that would baffle the imagination.

20. Every true and lasting reform has ultimately sprung from the sanctity of men who were driven by the love of God and of men. Generous, ready to stand to attention to any call from God, yet confident in themselves because confident in their vocation, they grew to the size of beacons and reformers. On the other hand, any reformatory zeal, which instead of springing from personal purity, flashes out of passion, has produced unrest instead of light, destruction instead of construction, and more than once set up evils worse than those it was out to remedy. No doubt "the Spirit breatheth where he will" (John iii. 8): "of stones He is able to raise men to prepare the way to his designs" (Matt. iii. 9). He chooses the instruments of His will according to His own plans, not those of men. But the Founder of the Church, who breathed her into existence at Pentecost, cannot disown the foundations as He laid them. Whoever is moved by the spirit of God, spontaneously adopts both outwardly and inwardly, the true attitude toward the Church, this sacred fruit from the tree of the cross, this gift from the Spirit of God, bestowed on Pentecost day to an erratic world.  (Pope Pius XI, Mit Brennender Sorge, March 17, 1937.)

The evils of our times can be fought only with the supernatural weapons at our disposal, starting with Holy Mass and Eucharistic piety, if this is at all possible in one's area of residence in this time of apostasy and betrayal, and, of course, including frequent Confession, and deep devotion to the Mother of God, especially by means of her Most Holy Rosary, as we fast and make sacrifices to separate ourselves from the world and by seeking to make reparation for our own sins, which have worsened the state of the Church Militant on earth and of the world-at-large far more than we are willing to admit. 

We need Our Lady's help to save our souls and to know the restoration of right order in the world as the fruit of the fulfillment of her Fatima Message that will be the Triumph of her Immaculate Heart.

Ever Rosary we pray plants a few seeds for this triumph?

It is time to pray another Rosary now, is it not?

A blessed Octave Day of the Holy Innocents to you all.

Vivat Christus RexViva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, Patron of the Universal Church and Protector of the Faithful, 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.

Saint Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saint Caspar, Melchior and Balthasar, pray for us.


The Holy Innocents, pray for us.