[A short preface at a very early hour on the Feast of Saints Abdon and Sennen.
[In light of unveiling of a statue in honor of the adversary in the City of Detroit, Michigan, that has yet to be denounced by the conciliar “archbishop” of Detroit, Allan Vigneron, an article of mine from nearly sixty-months ago, Religious "Liberty" Even For The Adversary, which dealt with open demo worship in the armed forces of the United States of America, is relevant yet again.]
As has been noted on this site rather consistently over the years, the fine art of “killing the messenger” has been practiced quite a lot in the corridors and offices chancery officials of archdioceses and dioceses under the control of the counterfeit church of conciliarism in this time of apostasy and betrayal. This is not simply some “observation” I have made as a sideline observer of some sort, but from first-hand experience dealing with the no-goodniks in those chancery offices.
Although not mentioned by name, yours truly was pretty thoroughly excoriated from a pulpit in Sioux City, Iowa, in early May of 1993 after I had provided parents with assistance in "fighting" programs that involved explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments, which included a meeting we held in the offices of the then diocesan ordinary "Bishop" Lawrence Soens, who continues to deny allegations of clergy abuse that came to public light in the last decade (denials that continue despite a review board in the Diocese of Davenport having found that some of those allegations to be credible Retired "Bishop" Abused Minors). "Bishop" Soens looked as though we were talking Swahili to him when we discussed the teaching of the Catholic Church.
Unlike the experience I had ten years previously when Silvio Cardinal Oddi came to the rescue of a beleaguered pastor on Long Island who was under attack for his orthodoxy, however, "Rome" did not come to the rescue in 1993. The then-prefect of the conciliar church's Congregation for the Clergy," Jose Tomas "Cardinal" Sanchez, shrugged his shoulders when I met with him in Rome later in late-May of 1993, "Who should I believe? You say one thing. The bishop will say another. Who do I believe? Why are these programs wrong?" You think that I would have learned that the cavalry wasn't coming to the rescue?
There is probably no need to recount once again the vitriol that was directed at the courageous Mr. Stephen G. Brady, the founder of Roman Catholic Faithful, Inc., who publicly accused "Bishop" Daniel Leo Ryan of corrupt behavior in a press conference that he held on February 12, 1997, after all private entreaties made to Ryan and to the Congregation for the Bishops in Rome failed to secure his resignation. Mrs. Kathleen Sass, who served for many years as the communications director for the Diocese of Springfield in Illinois, denounced Mr. Brady.
Even some "conservative" Catholics, most of whom were associated with Opus Dei, denounced Mr. Brady and the man who wrote the following article, Roman Catholic Faithful Accuses Bishop Ryan of Harassment. "You're causing scandal." "You're dividing the Church." "You've committed calumny." "No one has any need to know this." And those were only the printable sorts of reactions that can be recounted eighteen and one-half years later. Bitter divisions emerged in the diocese between those who supported the "loving," "caring" "bishop" and those who had been stonewalled for years by Ryan on doctrinal and liturgical abuses in the Diocese of Springfield who were predisposed to believe the charges of moral corruption against him. (For something of a synopsis of the Ryan case, see Seven Years Later, written about twenty-six months before the first article appeared on this site that discussed the papal vacancy that exists at this time.)
Even the conciliar authorities had to admit publicly in early-2003 what the late Francis "Cardinal" George admitted privately to Stephen Brady in early 1998, namely, that Daniel Leo Ryan was guilty as charged. Stephen Brady was never credited with his courage by the conciliar revolutionaries who enabled him and protected him at every turn imaginable until the matter become public. The "clerical club" mattered more than anything else, and the chickens are still coming home to roost in the counterfeit church of conciliarism as a result.
Thus it is that I have been an eyewitness to clerical abuse of the sheep. Patterns of human behavior aren't all that different when people attempt to protect themselves by shooting the messenger. It's the same in politics or the courtroom or all along and up and down the vast expanse of the ecclesiastical divide at this time of apostasy and betrayal. It's amazing to see the likes of a William Jefferson Blythe Clinton or his wife, the always-programmed robot named Hillary Rodham Clinton, or Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro or Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., or Eric Holder or Loretta Lynch or Andrew Mark Figlio di Sfachim Cuomo use the most vile terms to seek to caricature and demonize anyone and everyone who opposes them. It's the same in the counterfeit church of conciliarism. As a general, although far from ironclad, rule, those who resort to the name-calling and use of emotionalism to deflect just criticisms are the ones who are not telling the truth in a given conflict.
The basic methodology used by the lords of Modernity in civil government and politics and the lords of Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism can be summarized as follows:
(1) Denials that anything occurred.
(2) Attempts to claim that they were “framed” or “set-up” or that various remarks were taken out of context and/or various actions must be viewed in “context.”
(3) Accusations that that whistle-blowers or victims are lying and are motivated by malice.
(4) Efforts to intimidate whistle-blowers or, in the case of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, victims of clerical abuse and their family members/friends/supporters with threats of lawsuits, sometimes threatened by chancery officials or attorneys for insurance companies in the employ of a diocese or religious community.
(5) Numerous threats to publicly humiliate the accusers with a recitation of their own sins and faults, something that William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, Jr., did with particular aplomb in the wake of the efforts of Republicans In the United States House of Representatives to impeach him in 1998 and 1999. The late United States Representative Henry Hyde (R-Illinois), then-House Speaker Newton Leroy Gingrich (R-Georgia), then-Representative Robert Barr (R-Georgia), then-Representative and Speaker-elect Robert Livingston (R-Louisiana), and United States Senator Dan Burton (R-Indiana) had their dirty laundry aired rather thoroughly by Clinton, thanks to the efforts of the private investigator, Jack Palladino, that he hired to discredit his political adversaries
Notoriously, of course, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro and various of his supporters in both houses of the United States Congress and in the mainslime media have used the “race card” repeatedly to seek to discredit the current caesar's opponents (see Memo to Eric Holder: There Is No Affirmative Action Program In Heaven and Taking Refuge in Racism to Break the Laws of God and Man), a strategy that has worked very effectively to neutralize the ever-hapless, power and money-hungry careerists within the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist “right.” It is indeed supremely ironic that many of the naturalists of the “right” are just as eager to lambaste those within their own ranks who dare to speak about the Constitution or the rule of law, to say nothing of God's immutable laws.
The current presidential administration, of course, views any and all criticism, no matter how well founded in fact, as illegitimate. Obama/Soetoro has been particularly reckless in his practice of race-baiting demagoguery, noting also that this supporter of homosexual imperialism who believes himself to be endowed with the charism of personal impeccability and political/constitutional infallibility will lecture African leaders on the “necessity” of supporting those who practice the sin of Sodom. The current caesar is simply a demagogue. Period. Everyone must agree with him or suffer the consequences of his wrath or his “Department of Injustice,” which is current under the misdirection of Eric Holder's very able successor in the persecution of political opponents, Loretta Lynch. To with, Attorney General Lynch has decided to investigate the Center for Medical Progress, whose undercover video recordings have once again exposed the evil practices of that which has been evil from its very inceptions, Planned Barrenhood:
The U.S. Department of Justice announced plans to investigate the group that produced undercover videos showing Planned Parenthood employees admitting that they harvest and sell organs ripped from the bodies aborted babies. Politico reported the news of the coming DOJ investigation earlier today:
JUSTICE TO PROBE CENTER FOR MEDICAL PROGRESS — While congressional committees investigate Planned Parenthood’s practices, the Justice Department agreed to look into whether the group that released the sting videos obtained the footage legally. In response to a request by House Democrats, Attorney General Loretta Lynch said Wednesday afternoon that Justice would “review all of the information and determine what the appropriate steps moving forward would be.” Planned Parenthood has staunchly defended its practices and claims that the Center for Medical Progress illegally obtained its footage, then excessively edited it to misrepresent what the organization does.
The DOJ investigation of the Center for Medical Progress, which, unlike Planned Parenthood, is not in the business of killing healthy, viable unborn babies in order to sell their organs for cash, was announced after several Democratic lawmakers called for the organization to be targeted:
Four Democrats in Congress — Reps. Jan Schakowsky, Zoe Lofgren, Jerry Nadler, and Yvette Clarke — have written to Attorney General Loretta Lynch and California Attorney General Kamala Harris, asking them to open investigations into the Center for Medical Progress. The Democrats say the videos were filmed as part of an “elaborate scheme” — using “fake identification” and without the approval of the Planned Parenthood doctor who appears in them.
It’s interesting that Lynch decided so early to make a statement about the group. There are certainly more videos to come, and if Planned Parenthood’s panicked press releases are any indication, the footage may be far more damaging than anything that’s been revealed thus far. However, given the abject politicization of multiple agencies under Obama’s command — including the Internal Revenue Service, which targeted conservative non-profits, and the DOJ, which has been hesitant to investigate Obama allies — it seems unlikely that Lynch and those who report to her will ever crack down on Abortion, Inc. (Obama DOJ To Investigate Group That Busted Planned.)
In other words, Planned Barrenhood can do no wrong. Its officials can never break the civil law as they go about their daily business of breaking God's law with complete legal impunity and with the support of almost every public official of the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist “left” and with the support of many within the organized crime family of false opposite of the naturalist “right.”
Although United States Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell has sought to express “respect” for the "passion and emotion and belief on many sides of the issue,” the plain fact of the matter is that Loretta Lynch and a Federal judge, who has now issued a temporary restraining order against the release of more videos that have been taken by the Center for Medical Progress, are using the full brunt of Federal power, no matter how illicitly exercised, to “kill” messengers who are simply seeking to bring to the public's attention the bloody business that defines Planned Barrenhood, which has been drinking from the public trough ever since the horrific statist, Lyndon Baines Johnson, who was determined to out-statist mentor, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, had his rubber-stamp Congress enact funding for “family planning” programs in 1967 as part of his “Great Society” putsch. Title X funding begun of such programs began in 1970 with the full support of President Richard Milhous Nixon (see Poster Boy of Modernity.)
[Political scientist James David Barber, whose paradigm of presidential personality types very conveniently labeled most, although not all, Democrats as “active-positive”--that is, those with invested a great deal of energy in their while deriving satisfaction from it without being threatened by criticism, recounted a poem that Johnson had his students recite every day when he walked into the classroom of the elementary school while he was completing his studies at the Southwest Texas State Teachers College in 1929: “Good morning, Mister Johnson, how are you? We love you, Mister Johnson, yes, we do. We'll do everything we can, we stand by you to a man. We love you, Mister Johnson, we love you.” I used to joke in my college teaching career that Johnson had Vice President Hubert Horatio Humphrey recite this poem at Cabinet meetings, something that students in the 1970s appreciated.]
One should not be surprised by the efforts of Loretta Lynch to intimidate those who are opposed to the evils of the day. It must be remembered that the United States Department of Injustice under her predecessor, Eric Holder, sought to persecute political opponents and to stonewall legitimate efforts on the part of members of the United States Congress, which just happens to be a co-equal branch of the Federal government (not that means anything to Obama/Soetoro and his minions as they write and enforce presidential directives and executive orders and issue Federal rules to circumvent the provisions of Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution of the United States of America) to investigate the cover-up of the facts of Benghazi, Fast and Furious, the targeting of “conservative” non-for-profit groups by the Internal Revenue Service and the subsequent “loss” of e-mails about this targeting when it was under the direction of the nefarious Lois Lerner have been gargantuan in nature. Gargantuan.
Remember, former Attorney General Eric Holder targeted a pro-life woman in Florida who was engaging in sidewalk counseling, earning a rebuke from a Federal judge.
The Department of Justice has given up its bid to prosecute a pro-life counselor and agreed to pay her $120,000 in a case a judge said never should have been brought.
Mary Susan Pine, who stands outside abortion clinics and advises women not to have the procedure, was accused of blocking a car from entering a Florida abortion clinic in 2009. In December, a judge threw out the case, in which the government sought $10,000 in fines and a permanent injunction barring Pine from counseling women outside the Presidential Women's Center in West Palm Beach, Fla. The government had been appealing the ruling until it was announced Monday it would no longer pursue the case.
Pine's lawyer said she was a victim of a politically-driven prosecution.
"It is irresponsible for the U.S. Department of Justice to place politics above principle when deciding to prosecute, and thus attempt to silence, a pro-life sidewalk counselor without any evidence of wrongdoing," Mathew Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, said in a statement. "When the nation’s highest law enforcement officer files suit against any citizen, the suit must be based on the law coupled with compelling evidence. Anything less is an abuse of the high office."
A spokesperson for the Department of Justice defended prosecution decision as "based on the facts presented during our investigations and the applicable federal laws." In Pine's case, "the department made a decision to settle with the defendant rather than continue with costly litigation."
Florida District Judge Kenneth Ryskamp said in December the case appeared to be part of a "concerted effort" between the government and the Presidential Women's Center.
"The Court is at a loss as to why the government chose to prosecute this particular case in the first place,” Ryskamp wrote in a summary judgment order against the feds. “The court can only wonder whether this action was the product of a concerted effort between the government and PWC, which began well before the date of the incident at issue, to quell Ms. Pine’s activities rather than to vindicate the rights of those allegedly aggrieved by Ms. Pine’s conduct."
Under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) federal law, DOJ officials alleged that Pine obstructed a car from entering the Florida abortion clinic on Nov. 19, 2009.
Pine, who could not be reached for comment, had denied obstructing any vehicle from entering the clinic. (DOJ officials drops appeal, pays Florida pro-life sidewalk counselor.)
LOS ANGELES – A temporary restraining order has been issued preventing an anti-abortion group from releasing any video of leaders of a California company that provides fetal tissue to researchers. The group is the same one that previously shot viral covert video of a Planned Parenthood leader discussing the sale of aborted fetuses for research.
The Los Angeles Superior Court order issued Tuesday prohibits the Center for Medical Progress from releasing any video of three high-ranking StemExpress officials taken at a restaurant in May. It appears to be the first legal action prohibiting the release of a video from the organization.
The Center for Medical Progress has released three surreptitiously recorded videos to date that have riled anti-abortion activists. The Senate is expected to vote before its August recess on a Republican effort to bar federal aid to Planned Parenthood in the aftermath of the videos' release.
In a statement Wednesday, center leader David Daleiden said StemExpress was using "meritless litigation" to cover up an "illegal baby parts trade."
"The Center for Medical Progress follows all applicable laws in the course of our investigative journalism work," he said.
StemExpress is a Placerville-based company started in 2010 that provides human tissue, blood and other specimens to researchers. Planned Parenthood is one of the company's providers of fetal tissue.
A company spokesman said StemExpress is "grateful its rights have been vindicated in a court of law."
In the first video released by the Center for Medical Progress, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, Planned Parenthood's senior director of medical services, describes techniques for obtaining fetal body parts for researchers to activists posing as potential buyers from a human biologics company over lunch. When asked about partnering with Planned Parenthood directly rather than through its affiliates, Nucatola mentioned StemExpress as one company that had approached them.
In another previously released video, a woman identified as a former StemExpress phlebotomist describes drawing blood and dissecting dead fetuses.
"I thought I was going to be just drawing blood, not procuring tissue from aborted fetuses," the employee, Holly O'Donnell, said.
Planned Parenthood's affiliates in fewer than five states provide fetal tissue for researchers, according to the organization. The Center for Medical Progress accuses the group of illegally making a profit from that.
Planned Parenthood has said it only receives reimbursements for costs of providing tissue donated by women and that it has done nothing wrong.
The temporary restraining order issued Tuesday will remain in place until a hearing on Aug. 19. (Restraining Order Issued Against Those Who Exposed Planned Barrenhood's Vivisection of Living Human Beings.)
The United States Department of Justice under Attorney Generals Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch has become somewhat analogous to the "Ministry of Justice" in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics from its earliest days of operation. Nikolai Krylenko, who would rise eventually to the post of "Commissar of Justice" under Joseph Stalin in 1929 and served in this position until 1931, was the chief prosecutor of Moscow in 1923 during the show trial of Archbishop Jan Cieplak, of the countless numbers of Catholic martyrs of the Soviet Union that was so admired by Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro's Marxist mentor, Frank Marshall Davis. It was during ths unjust prosecution of Archbishop Cieplak that Krylenko made a bold pronouncement, which is contained in the following paragraph about the persecution of Christians by the Soviets:
Krylenko, who began to speak at 6:10 PM, was moderate enough at first, but quickly launched into an attack on religion in general and the Catholic Church in particular. "The Catholic Church", he declared, "has always exploited the working classes." When he demanded the Archbishop's death, he said, "All the Jesuitical duplicity with which you have defended yourself will not save you from the death penalty. No Pope in the Vatican can save you now." As the long oration proceeded, the Red Procurator worked himself into a fury of anti-religious hatred. "Your religion", he yelled, "I spit on it, as I do on all religions, -- on Orthodox, Jewish, Mohammedan, and the rest." "There is no law here but Soviet Law," he yelled at another stage, "and by that law you must die." (Francis McCullagh, The Bolshevik Persecution of Christianity, E. P. Dutton Company, New York, New York, 1924, p. 221.)
It is also by Soviet "law" that Nikolai Krylenko died as he was executed after a twenty minute show trial on July 29, 1938. And it is by such "law" that we are governed at this time.
Alas, as has been noted on this site many times in the past, intimidation of political opponents has been a staple of of American government and politics from its inception.
The anti-Catholic bigot and notorious blasphemer named John Adams attempted to silence opposition voices by having Congress enact the Alien and Sedition Acts, which were passed on July 14, 1798, and made it a crime to publish "false, scandalous, and malicious" writing against the government of the United States of America and its officials.
The sixteenth President of the United States of America, Abraham Lincoln, did not exactly "cotton" to political opposition during the War Between the States from 1861 to 1865, as he intimidated judges, shut down newspapers, suspended the writ of habeas corpus without an Act of Congress, held opponents in prison without trial and put civilians on trial in military courts at a time when civilian courts were open. And this is just a partial listing of what led John Wilkes Booth to cry out, "Sic temper tyrannis!" as he jumped onto the stage of the Ford Theater in Washington, District of Columbia, on Good Friday, April 14, 1865, from the balcony where he had just shot Lincoln in the head, a wound that would take Lincoln's life early the next morning, Holy Saturday, April 15, 1865.
Suppression of opposition to American involvement in World War I under the administration of President Thomas Woodrow Wilson was so extensive that Senator Hiram Johnson of California, who had run as former President Theodore Roosevelt's Vice Presidential running-mate on the Progressive (Bull Moose) Party ticket in 1912 when Wilson was running for his first term as President against Roosevelt and then President William Howard Taft, who had defeated Roosevelt, to say on the floor of the United States Senate: "It is now a crime for anyone to say anything or print anything against the government of the United States. The punishment for doing so is to go to jail" (quoted in Dr Paul Johnson's Modern Times). (See also my Fascists for Freedom.)
Just as an aside, President Thomas Woodrow Wilson wanted to use the unconstitutional Federal Reserve System, created in an act passed by the Congress of the United States of America and signed into law by Wilson on December 23, 1913, as the means to centralize the banking and monetary systems under the authority of the government of the United States of America in order to restrict the legitimate freedom of Americans to control their own private property and to make private industry dependent upon the "direction" provided it by governmental regulators and overseers. It was for this reason as well that Wilson saw to it that Congress enacted legislation, following the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, to create our current system of confiscatory taxation on our incomes. And it was Wilson, of course, who believed that the Masonic revolutionaries in Mexico, aping the "example" established by the French Revolutionaries, could "build" or "engineer" the "better" society in Our Lady's country by the killing of thousands upon thousands of Catholics:
Wilson replied [in 1915, to Father Francis Clement Kelley, who was a representative of James Cardinal Gibbons, the Archbishop of Baltimore, for whom Wilson had such contempt that he addressed him as Mister Gibbons]: 'I have no doubt but that the terrible things you mention have happened during the Mexican revolution. But terrible things happened also during the French revolution, perhaps more terrible things than have happened in Mexico. Nevertheless, out of that French revolution came the liberal ideas that have dominated in so many countries, including our own. I hope that out of the bloodletting in Mexico some such good yet may come.'
"Having thus instructed his caller in the benefits which must perforce accrue to mankind out of the systematic robbery, murder, torture and rape of people holding a proscribed religious conviction, the professor of politics [Wilson] suggested that Father Kelley visit Secretary of State Williams Jennings Bryan, who expressed his deepest sympathy. Obviously, the Wilson administration was committed to supporting the revolutionaries (Robert Leckie American and Catholic, Doubleday, 1970, pp. 274.)
Franklin Delano Roosevelt used the Internal Revenue Service to audit his "enemies." He contravened the law in numerous ways as he used the legislative powers illicitly given to regulatory agencies by Congress during the Great Depression and during World War II to set the stage for Barack Hussein Obama's rule by decree and presidential fiat. Roosevelt, the fifth cousin of the Republican statist and fellow thirty-third degree Freemason, Theodore Roosevelt, the uncle of Eleanor Roosevelt, even ordered his Attorney General, Robert Jackson, to engage in domestic espionage. Roosevelt’s directive took the form of a memorandum dated May 21, 1940.
Robert Jackson, who was appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States of America on July 11, 1941, did not like the directive as he believed that Franklin Roosevelt had authorized domestic surveillance on anyone suspected of being subversive. Jackson’s successor, however, Francis Biddle, who took office as the Attorney General of the United States of America on August 25, 1941, had no qualms about the directive, delegating the task of carrying it out to the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, John Edgar Hoover, who was more than happy to run with this new expansion of his authority to investigate anyone at any time for any reason. The history of the Federal government’s surveillance since that time is one of completely unchecked growth.
The Fourth Amendment?
Our minders in the Federal government of the United States of America have, in effect told us, “We don’t need no stinkin’ Fourth Commandment.
Moreover, it has been case for most of this country’s history that our minders in the Federal government of the United States of America have violated the laws of God and of men to suit their sorry purposes whenever they deemed it “necessary” to do so.
Congress after Congress abdicated its legislative authority to the Executive Branch of the Federal Government of the United States of America from the time of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s “New Deal” forward, although, as noted earlier, a lot of the spade work had been done during the administrations of Theodore Roosevelt and Thomas Woodrow Wilson. Nearly seventy independent or quasi-independent regulatory agencies within the Federal government exist to this very day, each composed of commissioners who are beyond the control of a president to remove and who chafe at the thought of true legislative oversight of their unconstitutional “rule-making” authority (deemed to be “constitutional” by the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Company).
Readers will note I claimed that independent regulatory commissions (and the quasi-independent commissions) are unconstitutional. I have taught this in my government classes over the decades. I will make this claim whenever I write about this subject (or have taught about it in my bygone days as a college professor of political science and constitutional law) no matter the fact that the Supreme Court of the United States of America has ruled that such agencies, which are staffed by commissioners who are appointed by a president for a term, usually seven years, that is longer than one presidential administration but shorter than two, and confirmed by the United States Senate are constitutional (see, for example, Humphrey's Executor v. United States of America, May 27, 1935).
My reasoning is simple: these agencies exercise each powers that are particular to each of the three branches of government as they make rules that having the binding force of law (which rules are supposed to be founded in Congressional legislation) and also enforce the very rules that they create while serving finally as the court of first instance for litigants to appeal decisions made about the enforcement of these rules. Although readers of this site, few in number though you may be, know that I am a critic of the founders of this nation, they are the individuals who crafted the Constitution in order to prevent what they believed could be a tyranny of the majority. Writing in The Federalist, Number 47, James Madison explained:
No political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value, or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty, than that on which the objection is founded. The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. Were the federal Constitution, therefore, really chargeable with the accumulation of power, or with a mixture of powers, having a dangerous tendency to such an accumulation, no further arguments would be necessary to inspire a universal reprobation of the system. I persuade myself, however, that it will be made apparent to every one, that the charge cannot be supported, and that the maxim on which it relies has been totally misconceived and misapplied. In order to form correct ideas on this important subject, it will be proper to investigate the sense in which the preservation of liberty requires that the three great departments of power should be separate and distinct. (Federalist No. 47.)
Behold a system, however, that has indeed degenerated to a point where non-elected officials have the accumulated powers of the three branches of government--legislative, executive, and judicial. This has occurred because James Madison, a virulent anti-Catholic who is considered to be the "father" of the Constitution, believed that there were sufficient safeguards contained within the Constitution to provide a check upon the consistent misuse of power by those serving in the three branches of government.
This is not even to mention William Jefferson Blythe Clinton's aggressive promotion of the chemical and surgical execution of the innocent preborn and the role played by Attorney General Janet Reno, a Catholic, mind you, in organizing the Violence Against Abortion Providers Conspiracy (VAAPCON) Task Force under the authority of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to intimidate pro-life Americans, including a woman in Toledo, Ohio, who was visited by FBI agents after she had written to a baby-killer to tell her that she was praying for her conversion, an act that was deemed by the agents to have constituted a "violent threat" against the baby-killer (see FBI's VAAPCON Spies on Pro-Lifers for more information about the Clinton-Reno war against pro-lifers).
It was also during the administration of William Jefferson Blythe Clinton that the Chairman of the Federal Election Commission, a woman by the name of Lois Lerner, sought to intimidate former Illinois State Representative Al Salvi by seeking to bring charges against him that were found by a Federal judge to be without merit whatsoever.
Here is a report that was published twenty-six months ago now:
CHICAGO - The IRS scandal may have its roots in Illinois politics. Specifically, the 1996 U.S. Senate race between Democrat Congressman Dick Durbin and conservative Republican State Rep. Al Salvi.
More than a decade before his 2010 letter to IRS officials urging the agency to target conservative organizations, U.S. Senator Dick Durbin's political career crossed paths with Ms. Lerner when she was head of the Enforcement Division of the Federal Election Commission (FEC), and directly involved in the 1996 Illinois U.S. Senate race.
Soon after the IRS story broke, Al Salvi told Illinois Review that it was IRS official Lois Lerner who represented the FEC in the 1996 Democrat complaint against him. According to Salvi, Lerner was, without question, politically motivated, and went so far as to make him an offer: "Promise me you will never run for office again, and we'll drop this case."
Salvi declined her offer. In fact he ran for Illinois Secretary of State in 1998.
But when he saw Lerner plead the Fifth Amendment before Congress last week, he recognized her. "That's the woman," Salvi said. "And I didn't plead the Fifth like she did."
In 2000, a federal judge dismissed the FEC case against him, clearing Salvi's name and reputation.
Now with the revelations about Lerner, the IRS, and the intriguing connection to Durbin, Salvi shared with Illinois Review his experience with Lois Lerner.
During the last several weeks of the 1996 Illinois U.S. Senate campaign, two FEC complaints were filed against Salvi - one by Illinois Democrats about the way he reported a loan he made to himself, and another by the Democratic Senatorial Committee about a reported business donation.
Salvi made a personal loan to his campaign for $1.1 million to fund the last campaign ads in the expensive Chicago television ad market. News of that loan and the filed FEC complaint dominated Chicago media headlines towards the end of the campaign, suffocating the life out of Salvi's threatening momentum.
"We couldn't get our message out because day after day, the media carried story after story about the FEC complaint," Salvi told Illinois Review in an exclusive interview.
After Salvi lost to Durbin, he was left to face the FEC complaints. The Commission alleged that the Salvi committee:
- Reported bank loans to Mr. Salvi as personal loans from the candidate, never identifying the source of the funds;
- Failed to report debts to the candidate;
- Failed to file 48-hour notices for personal advances from the candidate; and
- Failed to disclose campaign-related payments by the candidate to vendors and a bank.
A federal district court dismissed the case against Salvi in 1999, and the FEC appealed it to the 7th U.S. District Court of Appeals.
The FBI was called in at one point to gather evidence on the case. According to Salvi, two FBI agents unexpectedly visited the Salvis' home, and interrogated his elderly mother about her $2,000 check to her son's campaign and where she got "that kind of money."
Salvi says he saw the visits as nothing but intimidation, making it clear the FEC intended to use his case as a example to others.
At the same time, Salvi said, other conservative groups such as the Christian Coalition were besieged by the FEC demands. One time, representatives from several investigated conservative groups even convened on a conference call to compare notes on how the Clinton Administration was scouring their organizations' financial and activity records.
In fact, Salvi's case (and name) was highlighted as an example several times in the FEC's monthly publication until the case was finally dismissed in 2000.
It was while dealing with the FEC complaint that Salvi says he first met Lois Lerner, then the head of the FEC Enforcement Division.
During one conversation with Lerner, she offered a deal Salvi says he'll never forget, and neither will his brother and attorney, Mike Salvi.
"She said, 'If you promise to never run for office again, we'll drop this case,'" Salvi recalled.
At the time, Salvi said, he figured it was probably just Dick Durbin's way of getting him out of politics.
Salvi said he refused Lerner's offer because he knew he had done nothing wrong and wanted to leave the door open for future campaigns. In 1998, Salvi ran for Illinois Secretary of State while the 1996 FEC case against him continued.
Nearly four years and a hundred thousand dollars in legal fees later, federal judge George Lindbergh dismissed the FEC case against him, leaving the FEC attorney Lois Lerner -- who was present and actively arguing before the judge -- shocked.
"The judge said to Lerner, 'Let me get this straight - Mr. Salvi loaning himself money is legal, and you have no complaint against that, is that right?'" Salvi said. "Ms. Lerner agreed. Then the judge said, 'You just don't like the way his attorneys filled out the report?' Lerner agreed."
Case dismissed, the judge said shaking his head and pounding his gavel, as Lerner objected.
"We never lose!" Lerner said to Salvi afterwards.
Despite all the Democrats' efforts, Salvi never paid the FEC a dollar in fines or penalties.
Congressional Hearings On IRS Scandal
Salvi, now 53, said when he saw Lerner on television last week, those FEC hearings all came back to his memory -- 13 years later. "I didn't plead the Fifth," Salvi said.
And the taxpayers had no choice but to pay for Lerner's legal trail that lasted for over four years.
Durbin Asks IRS For Help in 2010
After the U.S. Supreme Court decided the Citizens United case, many incumbent politicians became concerned about the activities of organizations like Crossroads GPS, which had announced it would be running issue ads against Illinois' Democrat candidate for U.S. Senate Alexi Giannoulias, who was campaigning to succeed Barack Obama in the U.S. Senate.
In October 2010, Durbin wrote IRS Commissioner Shulman about the tax exemption status of Crossroads - a job that would find its way to IRS official Lois Lerner.
I write to urge the Internal Revenue Service to examine the purpose and primary activities of several 501(c)(4) organizations that appear to be in violation of the law.
One organization whose activities appear to be inconsistent with its tax status is Crossroads GPS, organized as a (c)(4) entity in June. The group has spent nearly $20 million on television advertising specific to Senate campaigns this year. If this political activity is indeed the primary activity of the organization, it raises serious questions about the organization's compliance with the Internal Revenue Code.
Other 2010 letters to the IRS with similar requests from elected officials may be included in four Congressional investigations now scheduled to take place in the next few weeks.
Salvi says it will be interesting to see how Lois Lerner, Dick Durbin, the FEC, IRS, and Illinois politics intersect as these investigations continue. (Lerner intrigue goes back to '96 Durbin/ Salvi.)
Unfortunately for Mr. Salvi, however, he did knuckle under to the then Chairman of the Republican National Senatorial Campaign Committee after he had told him to quit talking about abortion or lose the committee's financial support. Oh, yes, you want the name of that individual? I will happily give it to you as it is none other than the now-former United States Senator Alfonse M. D'Amato (R-New York), against whom I ran, unsuccessfully, of course, for the senatorial nomination of the Right to Life Party of the State of New York in 1998. (See Blood Money Talks Loud And Clear, part two, for details.)
Mind you, this is not to ignore President Richard Milhous Nixon's efforts to investigate and intimidate, if not sabotage, political opponents. In his case, however, even some Republicans at the time recognized wrongdoing for what it was and refused to suborn it. There are no Democrats today who are complaining about Loretta Lynch's planned investigation into the Center for Medical Progress while accepting the “word” of Planned Barrenhood's officials that provisions of the 1993 National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act have not been broken, although there are a few who have protested the current administration's decision to permit agencies under investigation to receive advance notice of wiretap requests made by the office of whichever inspector-general has jurisdiction over those agencies. Wrongdoing is enabled today, not checked.
Although no one who serves on the House Judiciary Committee or who serves on the United States Committee on the Judiciary will do so, here are a series of questions that should be asked of Attorney General Loretta Lynch concerning the growing scandal of Planned Barrenhood's careful vivisection of living human beings for their bodily members.
- Do you believe that there is a law above human law that governs men and their nations? That is, do you believe in the binding precepts of the Ten Commandments?
- Do you believe in the Natural Law, that is, an immutable law that exists in the nature of things and is knowable by human reason, a law that is universal and eternal, a law that applies to all human beings in all circumstances without exception?
- As you answer to this is no, Madame Secretary, then I presume you must disagree with the statement of Cicero, the Roman orator who was put to death for his defense of the Natural Law, about the Natural Law: "True law is right reason conformable to nature, universal, unchangeable, eternal, whose commands urge us to duty, and whose prohibitions restrain us from evil. Whether it enjoins or forbids, the good respect its injunctions, and the wicked treat them with indifference. This law cannot be contradicted by any other law, and is not liable either to derogation or abrogation. Neither the senate nor the people can give us any dispensation for not obeying this universal law of justice. It needs no other expositor and interpreter than our own conscience. It is not one thing at Rome, and another at Athens; one thing to-day, and another to-morrow; but in all times and nations this universal law must forever reign, eternal and imperishable. It is the sovereign master and emperor of all beings. God himself is its author, its promulgator, its enforcer. And he who does not obey it flies from himself, and does violence to the very nature of man. And by so doing he will endure the severest penalties even if he avoid the other evils which are usually accounted punishments."
- As you disagree with this statement, which was drawn from human reason alone having nothing to do with the Divine Revelation that you say is irrelevant to civil law, then I must presume you disagree with the use of the Natural Law as the foundation of the judgments rendered by the judges at the Nuremberg Trials after World War II as described the late Morris Abram, who was an aide to Supreme Court of the United States Associate Justice Robert H. Jackson: "In my opinion, there was preexisting applicable law for most of the acts declared criminal at Nuremberg. The law consisted of treaties against aggressive war, war crimes as defined in the Hague Conventions and the general principles of law recognized by all nations based in part on the natural law, for it is inconceivable that Hitler, Himler, Eichmann, or any subaltern did not know that it was an offense against civilization that children and other noncombatants be tortured and exterminated on ethnic grounds." (Morris Abram, Hearing before the Commission on Cooperation and Security in Europe, April 21. 1993.)
- This is sad, Madame Attorney General. Very sad, indeed. Upon what basis, therefore, is the direct, intentional killing of an innocent human being deemed to be wrong?
- Social standards, General Lynch? Social standards? As you reject the Natural Law and believe in “community standards” as the foundation of civil law, you must subscribe to moral relativism, the belief that there is no absolute truth that governs all human beings in all circumstances at all times and in all places. Is this correct?
- Ah, you do believe in absolute moral truth, Madame Attorney General, as the belief that nothing is absolutely true and that morality is relative to the motives of an individual and the circumstances of a given moment is itself an absolute statement that contradicts your contention that nothing is no absolute moral truth. Well, then, it is clear that you believe that the Supreme Court of the United States of America is the final arbiter of moral truth in this country, correct?
- General Lynch, how can nine human beings who did not create themselves and whose mortal bodies are destined one day for the corruption of the grave be the arbiters of moral right and wrong?
- Were chattel slavery and invidious racial segregation under the cover of the civil law morally right because they were deemed to be so by a majority of the justices who served on the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the cases of Dred Scott v. Sandford, March 6, 1857, and Plessy v. Ferguson, May 18, 1896, correct?
- Fine. Then why are the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the cases of Griswold v. Connecticut, June 7, 1965, and Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973, beyond review or opposition?
- Oh, women have the right to do with their bodies as they please? Let us get to a basic question, therefore. Is the conception of a child the natural consequence of that which is proper to married couples during a woman's years of child-bearing?
- Who, therefore, has made mere men the arbiters of whether children whose only “crime” was being conceived as the natural consequence of human conjugal relations can live or be put to death.
- Really? A “fetus” is not a human being. Tell me, General Lynch, what kind of DNA other than human DNA does a “fetus” have? What is added to a “fetus” after conception other than time, nutrition and hydration none of which changes its genetic code?
- The issue is “who decides”? Fine. Why shouldn't someone decide whether you should live or die? That is, are we are all to live in the fear of arbitrary execution simply because we are deemed to be “unwanted,” “deformed,” or merely chronically ill? Are words spoken by Bishop Clemens von Galen of Munster, Germany, that condemned Adolf Hitler's eugenics program, which was fully legal under the Weimar Constitution of 1919, by the way, to be dismissed as irrelevant to our situation in the United States of America:
No: We are concerned with men and women, our fellow creatures, our brothers and sisters! Poor human beings, ill human beings, they are unproductive, if you will. But does that mean that they have lost the right to live? Have you, have I, the right to live only so long as we are productive, so long as we are recognised by others as productive?
If the principle that men is entitled to kill his unproductive fellow-man is established and applied, then woe betide all of us when we become aged and infirm! If it is legitimate to kill unproductive members of the community, woe betide the disabled who have sacrificed their health or their limbs in the productive process! If unproductive men and women can be disposed of by violent means, woe betide our brave soldiers who return home with major disabilities as cripples, as invalids! If it is once admitted that men have the right to kill “unproductive” fellow-men even though it is at present applied only to poor and defenceless mentally ill patients” then the way is open for the murder of all unproductive men and women: the incurably ill, the handicapped who are unable to work, those disabled in industry or war. The way is open, indeed, for the murder of all of us when we become old and infirm and therefore unproductive. Then it will require only a secret order to be issued that the procedure which has been tried and tested with the mentally ill should be extended to other “unproductive” persons, that it should also be applied to those suffering from incurable tuberculosis, the aged and infirm, persons disabled in industry, soldiers with disabling injuries!
Then no man will be safe: some committee or other will be able to put him on the list of “unproductive” persons, who in their judgment have become “unworthy to live”. And there will be no police to protect him, no court to avenge his murder and bring his murderers to justice.
Who could then have any confidence in a doctor? He might report a patient as unproductive and then be given instructions to kill him! It does not bear thinking of, the moral depravity, the universal mistrust which will spread even in the bosom of the family, if this terrible doctrine is tolerated, accepted and put into practice. Woe betide mankind, woe betide our German people, if the divine commandment, “Thou shalt not kill”, which the Lord proclaimed on Sinai amid thunder and lightning, which God our Creator wrote into man's conscience from the beginning, if this commandment is not merely violated but the violation is tolerated and remains unpunished!
15. Do you agree with the following statements? If not, why not?
"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race (Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923) (Margaret Sanger Quotes.)
"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon.
16. These—and the quotes that are being submitted to you presently by my aide (see Appendix A below)—belong to none other than Margaret Sanger, the founder of the Birth Control League that merged with other organizations to form Planned Parenthood. The submissions you have in front of you at present include documentation of how a Nazi eugenicist, Ernst Rudin, published an article in Sanger's own Birth Control Review. Given Sanger's completely racialist views that were perfectly in accord with those of the Third Reich of Adolf Hitler and his minions, do you believe that Planned Parenthood was committed to an agenda of racial purification from its very beginning?
17. Why do you presume that officials of Planned Barrenhood have done broken no Federal laws?
18. Why did you seek to target the Center for Medical Progress for merely filming the statements of Planned Barrenhood's current and past employees?
19. Why are the practices of Planned Barrenhood beyond Federal review? Are their actions deemed to be infallibly correct and thus incapable of ever being wrong in se or in violation of various provisions of state and Federal laws?
20. I am going to describe to you the conditions at a Planned Barrenhood facility in Wilmington, Delaware, that were exposed in 2013 at the same time that butcher Kermit Gosnell was on trial for his own bloody practices, the same Kermit Gosnell about which President Obama has yet so say one word. Please give me you reaction to this documented account of Planned Barrenhood's pratices in Wilmington, practices that are common in many other facilities as well:
A meat-market style of assembly line abortions. Operating tables smeared with bloody drainage not washed down between patients. Unsterilized instruments. The abortionist didn’t wear gloves. Patients at risk of getting hepatitis or AIDS because of unsanitary conditions. No routine health department inspections.
This was the scenario as described by two former nurses employed at Planned Parenthood’s Wilmington abortion facility. The two quit their jobs inside the facility to protect their nursing licenses.
The local ABC affiliate broke the story, showing Jayne Mitchell-Werbrich, one of the former PP nurses saying, “It was just unsafe. I couldn’t tell you how ridiculously unsafe it was. . . . Planned Parenthood needs to close its doors, it needs to be cleaned up, the staff needs to be trained.”
The news report revealed that the Delaware Department of Health does not do routine inspections and “Planned Parenthood is essentially in charge of inspecting itself.” The report shows Mary Peterson from the Delaware Department of Health and Human Services saying, “I am not going to lie to you, we don’t have the manpower to do routine inspections.”
“Since January 4, five patients allegedly have been rushed from the facility to the emergency room,” the news reporter said.
Planned Parenthood officials did not appear on camera but released a statement saying, “Ensuring high-quality care and maintaining the valued trust of our community is of the utmost importance.” Following its usual pattern, rather than taking the blame for any breach in ethical medical care, it threatened to fire “any employee who does not live up to [its] standards of patient care.”
The facility has, at least temporarily, halted surgical abortions.
The Wilmington, Delaware, ABC affiliate broke the Delaware Planned Parenthood horror story as ghastly testimony was emerging in the case of abortionist Kermit Gosnell, charged with the grisly murder of seven newborn babies born alive during the course of abortions, and the death of one woman who was allegedly sedated to death in his abortion facility in Pennsylvania.
Gosnell and his employees have admitted to severing the spinal cords of babies born alive—a process they called “snipping.” One of the infants “screamed like a little alien” after it was born, according to a Gosnell employee. One was so big that Gosnell joked it could walk him to the bus station.
Testimony has shown Gosnell stored the remains of infants in cat food containers and milk jugs. More than 40 aborted babies were stored in a freezer. He kept a collection of severed baby feet in jars in the office as well. Though not a Planned Parenthood facility, this, too, was a filthy abortion center where instruments were not sterilized, blood was not cleaned up, and women were treated with as much respect as pieces of meat in a slaughterhouse. (Filthy meat-market assembly line: Planned Parenthood abortions halted in Wilmington
21. I will put the question to you again, General Lynch, why seek to kill the messenger with the full force of your office while you let butchers vivisect living human beings in violation of the laws of God that are clearly written on the heart of every human being?
Thank you, Mister Chairman. I have no further questions of the witness.
Obviously, these questions—nor any variation of them—will ever be asked by a member of the House Judiciary or the Senate Committee on the Judiciary of the Congress of the United States of America. All that will done is to hold hearings. Graphic evidence will be presented. Those among the general public who are as of yet unconvinced may find the proceedings of these hearings to be useful if they pay attention to them on C-SPAN as they will not be covered on the mainslime television networks. All and well and good.
Nonetheless, however, it remains the fact that whatever “show vote” the United States Senate takes next week on defunding Planned Barrenhood remains precisely that, a “show vote” designed to show “pro-life” voters that “something” is being done. This is very similar to what happened when Republicans controlled only the United States House of Representatives and not the United States Senate from January 3, 2011, to January 3, 2015, as a number of “show votes” to repeal the so-called Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ObamaDeathCare) were taken.
These votes were taken with the full knowledge that the now-former Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid (D-Nevada), would never permit Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro's signature piece of unconstitutional statist expansionism to be repealed, and Reid, now the Senate Minority Leader, knows full well that there are not the necessary sixty votes in the United States Senate to pass any piece of legislation that defunds Planned Barrenhood, although United States Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) believes that it is possible to get within two votes of the sixty-vote threshhold necesary to pass a bill in the Senate. This is good if it turns out to be true, although there is one little bit of a problem: a man named Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, who would, I dare guess, veto such a defunding law if passed in identical form by the Senate and the United States House of Representatives, where a vote is not scheduled to take place next week as it stands now (see Rand Paul Thinks He Has Fifty-Eight Votes to Defend Planned Barrenhood.)
Ah, remember, however, that the hapless gang of careerists in the organized crime family of naturalism of the false opposite of the “right” counted upon the election of a Republican president on November 6, 2012, during the first and second sessions of the one hundred twelfth Congress. That did not work out too well for them, of course, and there is no guarantee that a “President” Willard Mitt Romney, the progenitor of RomneyCare, after all, would have signed any ObamaDeathCare repeal legislation, something that was explained in Here To Stay thirty-seven months ago now. There is also no guarantee that a Republican is going to be elected to the White House on November 8, 2016, or that such an individual would ever get a bill to defund Planned Barrenhood on his desk to sign given the fact that his political party will not control sixty seats in the United States Senate if it even manages to retain a majority of seats in that legislative body in the first place.
This will never happen as long as some in the "right" believe that Planned Parenthood does some "good" even though it is founded on the evil proposition that human beings have a "right" to defy the plain laws of God concerning the proper use of the gift of propagation solely within the context of a valid marriage while being open to however many or few children He Himself chooses fit to bestow upon them without doing anything to frustrate that which is natural during a women's child-bearing years, namely, the conception of a child. Contraception is evil in se, and Planned Parenthood is founded upon this evil, which was denounced even by The Washington Post on March 22, 1931:
The Federal Council of Churches in America some time ago appointed a committee on "marriage and the home," which has now submitted a report favoring a "careful and restrained" use of contraceptive devices to regulate the size of families. The committee seems to have a serious struggle with itself in adhering to Christian doctrine while at the same time indulging in amateurish excursions in the field of economics, legislation, medicine, and sociology. The resulting report is a mixture of religious obscurantism and modernistic materialism which departs from the ancient standards of religion and yet fails to blaze a path toward something better.
The mischief that would result from an attempt to place the stamp of church approval upon any scheme for "regulating the size of families" is evidently quite beyond the comprehension of this pseudo-scientific committee. It is impossible to reconcile the doctrine of the divine institution of marriage with any modernistic plan for the mechanical regulation of human birth. The church must either reject the plain teachings of the Bible or reject schemes for the “scientific” production of human souls. Carried to its logical conclusion, the committee’s report if carried into effect would lead to the death-knell of marriage as a holy institution, by establishing degrading practices which would encourage indiscriminate immorality. The suggestion that the use of legalized contraceptives would be “careful and restrained” is preposterous. If the churches are to become organizations for political and 'scientific' propaganda they should be honest and reject the Bible, scoff at Christ as an obsolete and unscientific teacher, and strike out boldly as champions of politics and science as substitutes for the old-time religion. ("Forgetting Religion," Editorial, The Washington Post, March 22, 1932.)
One of the supreme ironies of the moment is no one in civil office in the United States of America and very few within the power structure of the counterfeit church of conciliarism believe that this is so.
This remains a diabolical trap, something that I have I have said for many years now, much to the consternation of Americanists even within fully Catholic encampments who refuse to see reality for what it is. There is as little chance to change the direction of this country politically as there is for those within the counterfeit church of conciliarism to change the direction of Jorge Mario Bergoglio's own putsch in favor of the celebration of the “lifestyles” of the perverse and the infamous.
Indeed, it is more difficult than ever before for well-meaning Catholics and others to oppose the moral evils of the day when the supposed “pope” says not a word about Planned Barrenhood's evil practices. Not one word. The Argentine Apostate, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, is concerned about “saving the planet,” not about discharging the duties that a true pope has never hesitated to fulfill by denouncing sin and error while calling to correction hardened sinners and those propagating various errors. He is a figure of Antichrist, not a figure of a true and legitimate Vicar of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ on earth.
Ulimately, however, we must remember that the evils of our age did not start with the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton on January 22, 1983.
The evils of our age did not start with the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut on June 7, 1965.
The evils of our age did not start did not start with the appointment of then California Governor Earl Warren, a thirty-third degree Freemason, as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America by then President Dwight David Eisenhower in 1953.
The evils of our age did not start with the the appointment of Freemasons Hugo Black, Stanley Reed, William Douglas, James F. Byrnes, Robert H. Jackson, Wiley B. Rutledge, Harold Burton, Fred Vinson, Tom Clark, and Sherman Minton by the thirty-third degree Freemasons named Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman between 1937 and 1949. (There were eight--count 'em, eight--Freemasons on the court between 1949 and 1954!)
The evils of our day are the direct and inevitable result of the planned, intentional overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King begun by the Protestant Revolt in 1517 and institutionalized by the rise of contemporary Judeo-Masonry in 1717 and thereafter.
Pope Leo XIII noted how the "rage for innovation" in the Sixteenth Century resulted in the deification of man in the context of the modern state. Writing in Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885, Pope Leo discussed the glories of Christendom and how they were overthrown by the very things that are extolled currently by Jorge Mario Bergoglio:
There was once a time when States were governed by the philosophy of the Gospel. Then it was that the power and divine virtue of Christian wisdom had diffused itself throughout the laws, institutions, and morals of the people, permeating all ranks and relations of civil society. Then, too, the religion instituted by Jesus Christ, established firmly in befitting dignity, flourished everywhere, by the favor of princes and the legitimate protection of magistrates; and Church and State were happily united in concord and friendly interchange of good offices. The State, constituted in this wise, bore fruits important beyond all expectation, whose remembrance is still, and always will be, in renown, witnessed to as they are by countless proofs which can never be blotted out or ever obscured by any craft of any enemies. Christian Europe has subdued barbarous nations, and changed them from a savage to a civilized condition, from superstition to true worship. It victoriously rolled back the tide of Mohammedan conquest; retained the headship of civilization; stood forth in the front rank as the leader and teacher of all, in every branch of national culture; bestowed on the world the gift of true and many-sided liberty; and most wisely founded very numerous institutions for the solace of human suffering. And if we inquire how it was able to bring about so altered a condition of things, the answer is -- beyond all question, in large measure, through religion, under whose auspices so many great undertakings were set on foot, through whose aid they were brought to completion.
A similar state of things would certainly have continued had the agreement of the two powers been lasting. More important results even might have been justly looked for, had obedience waited upon the authority, teaching, and counsels of the Church, and had this submission been specially marked by greater and more unswerving loyalty. For that should be regarded in the light of an ever-changeless law which Ivo of Chartres wrote to Pope Paschal II: "When kingdom and priesthood are at one, in complete accord, the world is well ruled, and the Church flourishes, and brings forth abundant fruit. But when they are at variance, not only smaller interests prosper not, but even things of greatest moment fall into deplorable decay."
But that harmful and deplorable passion for innovation which was aroused in the sixteenth century threw first of all into confusion the Christian religion, and next, by natural sequence, invaded the precincts of philosophy, whence it spread amongst all classes of society. From this source, as from a fountain-head, burst forth all those later tenets of unbridled license which, in the midst of the terrible upheavals of the last century, were wildly conceived and boldly proclaimed as the principles and foundation of that new conception of law which was not merely previously unknown, but was at variance on many points with not only the Christian, but even the natural law.
Amongst these principles the main one lays down that as all men are alike by race and nature, so in like manner all are equal in the control of their life; that each one is so far his own master as to be in no sense under the rule of any other individual; that each is free to think on every subject just as he may choose, and to do whatever he may like to do; that no man has any right to rule over other men. In a society grounded upon such maxims all government is nothing more nor less than the will of the people, and the people, being under the power of itself alone, is alone its own ruler. It does choose, nevertheless, some to whose charge it may commit itself, but in such wise that it makes over to them not the right so much as the business of governing, to be exercised, however, in its name.
The authority of God is passed over in silence, just as if there were no God; or as if He cared nothing for human society; or as if men, whether in their individual capacity or bound together in social relations, owed nothing to God; or as if there could be a government of which the whole origin and power and authority did not reside in God Himself. Thus, as is evident, a State becomes nothing but a multitude which is its own master and ruler. And since the people is declared to contain within itself the spring-head of all rights and of all power, it follows that the State does not consider itself bound by any kind of duty toward God. Moreover. it believes that it is not obliged to make public profession of any religion; or to inquire which of the very many religions is the only one true; or to prefer one religion to all the rest; or to show to any form of religion special favor; but, on the contrary, is bound to grant equal rights to every creed, so that public order may not be disturbed by any particular form of religious belief.
And it is a part of this theory that all questions that concern religion are to be referred to private judgment; that every one is to be free to follow whatever religion he prefers, or none at all if he disapprove of all. From this the following consequences logically flow: that the judgment of each one's conscience is independent of all law; that the most unrestrained opinions may be openly expressed as to the practice or omission of divine worship; and that every one has unbounded license to think whatever he chooses and to publish abroad whatever he thinks.
Now, when the State rests on foundations like those just named -- and for the time being they are greatly in favor -- it readily appears into what and how unrightful a position the Church is driven. For, when the management of public business is in harmony with doctrines of such a kind, the Catholic religion is allowed a standing in civil society equal only, or inferior, to societies alien from it; no regard is paid to the laws of the Church, and she who, by the order and commission of Jesus Christ, has the duty of teaching all nations, finds herself forbidden to take any part in the instruction of the people. With reference to matters that are of twofold jurisdiction, they who administer the civil power lay down the law at their own will, and in matters that appertain to religion defiantly put aside the most sacred decrees of the Church. They claim jurisdiction over the marriages of Catholics, even over the bond as well as the unity and the indissolubility of matrimony. They lay hands on the goods of the clergy, contending that the Church cannot possess property. Lastly, they treat the Church with such arrogance that, rejecting entirely her title to the nature and rights of a perfect society, they hold that she differs in no respect from other societies in the State, and for this reason possesses no right nor any legal power of action, save that which she holds by the concession and favor of the government. If in any State the Church retains her own agreement publicly entered into by the two powers, men forthwith begin to cry out that matters affecting the Church must be separated from those of the State. (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)
Pope Pius XII sounded a similar theme in his first encyclical letter, Summi Pontificatus, October 10, 1939:
The denial of the fundamentals of morality had its origin, in Europe, in the abandonment of that Christian teaching of which the Chair of Peter is the depository and exponent. That teaching had once given spiritual cohesion to a Europe which, educated, ennobled and civilized by the Cross, had reached such a degree of civil progress as to become the teacher of other peoples, of other continents. But, cut off from the infallible teaching authority of the Church, not a few separated brethren have gone so far as to overthrow the central dogma of Christianity, the Divinity of the Savior, and have hastened thereby the progress of spiritual decay.
The Holy Gospel narrates that when Jesus was crucified "there was darkness over the whole earth" (Matthew xxvii. 45); a terrifying symbol of what happened and what still happens spiritually wherever incredulity, blind and proud of itself, has succeeded in excluding Christ from modern life, especially from public life, and has undermined faith in God as well as faith in Christ. The consequence is that the moral values by which in other times public and private conduct was gauged have fallen into disuse; and the much vaunted civilization of society, which has made ever more rapid progress, withdrawing man, the family and the State from the beneficent and regenerating effects of the idea of God and the teaching of the Church, has caused to reappear, in regions in which for many centuries shone the splendors of Christian civilization, in a manner ever clearer, ever more distinct, ever more distressing, the signs of a corrupt and corrupting paganism: "There was darkness when they crucified Jesus" (Roman Breviary, Good Friday, Response Five).
Many perhaps, while abandoning the teaching of Christ, were not fully conscious of being led astray by a mirage of glittering phrases, which proclaimed such estrangement as an escape from the slavery in which they were before held; nor did they then foresee the bitter consequences of bartering the truth that sets free, for error which enslaves. They did not realize that, in renouncing the infinitely wise and paternal laws of God, and the unifying and elevating doctrines of Christ's love, they were resigning themselves to the whim of a poor, fickle human wisdom; they spoke of progress, when they were going back; of being raised, when they groveled; of arriving at man's estate, when they stooped to servility. They did not perceive the inability of all human effort to replace the law of Christ by anything equal to it; "they became vain in their thoughts" (Romans i. 21).
With the weakening of faith in God and in Jesus Christ, and the darkening in men's minds of the light of moral principles, there disappeared the indispensable foundation of the stability and quiet of that internal and external, private and public order, which alone can support and safeguard the prosperity of States.
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.)
The teaching of our true popes is, course, in direct, incontrovertible contradiction of the Judeo-Masonic spirit that has been embraced by the counterfeit church of conciliarism and its "popes" concerning the relationship between the Church and the State. Our true popes saw the problems of the world clearly through the eyes of the Catholic Faith, recognizing that the only way--and I do mean the only way--social evils can be ameliorated is by a return of men and their nations to the Social Reign of Christ the King and of Mary our Immaculate Queen. All other approaches, no matter how well intentioned, are absolutely illusory. Not even the pagans of yore embraced the concept of the secular state.
As the conciliar "popes" have embraced a fundamental error of Modernity and Modernism, the secular state, it is easy to understand how most of the efforts to combat the evils of our day, such as contraception and abortion and perversion, among many others, are being undertaken either by poorly catechized Catholic laity, people who are completely ignorant of the authentic Social Teaching of the Church as a result of the ethos of the Second Vatican Council, or by well-intentioned Protestants who do not realize that the evils they are trying to combat are the direct result of what was let loose upon the world by the likes of Martin Luther, John Calvin, Thomas Cranmer, John Wesley, et al.
That is, while the Church has taught from time immemorial that she can adapt herself to any legitimate form of government, all such forms of government must recognize her rights to defend the good of souls. This is the fatal flaw of the States of Modernity, as Pope Leo XIII noted in Immortale Dei:
Whatever, therefore, is opposed to virtue and truth may not rightly be brought temptingly before the eye of man, much less sanctioned by the favor and protection of the law. A well-spent life is the only way to heaven, whither all are bound, and on this account the State is acting against the laws and dictates of nature whenever it permits the license of opinion and of action to lead minds astray from truth and souls away from the practice of virtue. To exclude the Church, founded by God Himself, from life, from laws, from the education of youth, from domestic society is a grave and fatal error. A State from which religion is banished can never be well regulated; and already perhaps more than is desirable is known of the nature and tendency of the so-called civil philosophy of life and morals. The Church of Christ is the true and sole teacher of virtue and guardian of morals. She it is who preserves in their purity the principles from which duties flow, and, by setting forth most urgent reasons for virtuous life, bids us not only to turn away from wicked deeds, but even to curb all movements of the mind that are opposed to reason, even though they be not carried out in action. (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)
The chief emphasis in our work as Catholics, therefore, must be to seek to plant the seeds for the mystical resurrection of Holy Mother Church as we give everything we have and do to the Most Blessed Trinity through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, which will indeed triumph in the end.
This does not mean, as some traditionally Catholics attached to the counterfeit church of conciliarism contend quite erroneously, that we remain inert and passive in the face of the daily carnage of the preborn by means of chemical and surgical abortion. Not at all. We can support legitimate legislative initiatives that are unqualifiedly "pro-life" We can pray with our fellow fully traditional Catholics in front of the killing centers. We should hand out truly blessed Miraculous Medals and Green Scapulars to those seeking to enter such centers. And we must perform acts of reparation for our own sins and those of the whole world, offering each act of reparation as the consecrated slave of Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart. We must also be sure to pray our Rosaries in reparation for our own sins and those of the whole world, always conscious of the fact that our sins have worsened the state of the Church Militant on earth and of the world-at-large.
Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary has vanquished the enemies of the Catholic Faith in the past. She will do so in our times. Have no doubt this. Indeed, take inspiration from this story of how Our Lady's Most Rosary vanquished those hateful Dutch Calvinists who were attempting to invade and Protestantize The Philippines in the year 1546:
Sculpted by a non-Catholic Chinese artist who was later converted through the intercession of the Blessed Mother, the image of Our Lady of the Rosary was commissioned in 1593 by the Spanish Governor of the Philippines. Luis Perez Dasmarinas, who wanted the statue to memorialize both his deceased father and his own regime. The statue was entrusted to the Dominicans in Manila and was enshrined in Santo Domingo Church, where it received an outpouring of love and devotion.
Fifty-three years later, in March, 1646, while Spanish invaders were still governing the islands and were outright enemies of the Dutch, the people were shocked to learn that a fleet of five Dutch war ships was bearing down on Manila. Carrying the triple threat of conquest, pillage and Dutch Protestantism, the enemy had chosen a tim when Spanish warships were unavailable for defense.
Two commercial galleons, "The Rosary" and "The Incarnation," were donated by their owners and were quickly outfitted in preparation for battle. While sailing into position for the confrontation, the men prayed the Rosary and dedicated themselves to La Naval, Our Lady of the Rosary.
The five Dutch ships were well-equipped with canons, firearms and trained seamen; the two Spanish-Filipino cargo ships were poorly fitted with a few guns. At the end of the day it seemed unbelievable that the Dutch fled the area while the defenders of the city returned home in glory, praising Our Lady for her protection.
For the next four months the two cargo ships patrolled the waters, then, in July, they discovered that they had been trapped in a narrow strait by not five, but seven Dutch ships. Since their position did not afford a proper angle for battle, they prayed and waited. Fearful that they would be attacked, they vowed that if they were victorious they would pilgrimage barefoot to the Church of Santo Domingo to thank Our Lady of the Rosary. Through the intercession of La Naval, the two cargo ships were apparently unseen in the fading sunset since the Dutch ships turned toward Manila without firing on them. The two cargo ships then gave chase and closed in. At sunrise the next day the Dutch retreated in disgrace. As soon as the victors arrived home, they gratefully fulfilled their vow.
After the next battle the people of Manila began to call the cargo ships "the galleons of the miracle." After the fourth confrontation and victory the name was confirmed. Yet a fifth time the Dutch fleet appeared for battle. Anxious to defend their honor and restore their pride, the Dutch resolved to win at any cost. The advantage was definitely theirs when they found the two cargo ships anchored with the wind against them. Unable to move, the new cargo ships fought where they were and defeated the enemy so badly that they limped away, never to return.
Our Lady of the Rosary and the men of her two cargo ships defeated 15 well-equipped warships.
This victory at Manila is similar in many respects to the great naval victory at Lepanto, which was also credited to the intervention of Our Lady and the power of her Holy Rosary. In both instances Our Lady miraculously defended and granted victory to their seamen who placed their trust in her.
Sixteen years after the successful defense of Manila, an Ecclesiastical Council was convened in Cavite to study the unusual aspects of the five naval victories. The Council consisted of theologians, canonists, and prominent religious. On April 9, 1662, after studying all the written testimonies of the participants and eyewitnesses, the Council declared that the victories were:
Granted by the Sovereign Lord through the intercession of the Most Holy Virgin and devotion to her Rosary, that the miracles be celebrated, preached and held in festivities and to be recounted among the miracles wrought by the Lady of the Rosary for the greater devotion of the faithful to Our Most Blessed Virgin Mary and her Holy Rosary.
This decree was signed by all eight members of the Ecclesiastical Council. (Joan Carroll Cruz, Miraculous Images of Our Lady: 100 Famous Catholic Portraits and Statues, TAN Books and Publishers, 1993, pp. 367-369.)
The words of the popes quoted above are clear: The Social Reign of Christ the King must be restored. And restored it will be when there is the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary when a true pope fulfills her Fatima Message.
Vivat Christus Rex!
Our Lady of Fatima, 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.
Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.
Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.
Saints Abdon and Sennen, pray for us.
Reprising Material About Margaret Sanger's Record of Racialism and Eugenicism
A 1992 article from something called Citizen magazine provided great evidence to prove Sanger’s racialist agenda of eugenics and social control of the “undesirables”. Here are some excerpts from that article:
At a March 1925 international birth control gathering in New York City, a speaker warned of the menace posed by the "black" and "yellow" peril. The man was not a Nazi or Klansman; he was Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, a member of Margaret Sanger's American Birth Control League (ABCL), which along with other groups eventually became known as Planned Parenthood.
Sanger's other colleagues included avowed and sophisticated racists. One, Lothrop Stoddard, was a Harvard graduate and the author of The Rising Tide of Color against White Supremacy. Stoddard was something of a Nazi enthusiast who described the eugenic practices of the Third Reich as "scientific" and "humanitarian." And Dr. Harry Laughlin, another Sanger associate and board member for her group, spoke of purifying America's human "breeding stock" and purging America's "bad strains." These "strains" included the "shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of antisocial whites of the South."
Not to be outdone by her followers, Margaret Sanger spoke of sterilizing those she designated as "unfit," a plan she said would be the "salvation of American civilization.: And she also spike of those who were "irresponsible and reckless," among whom she included those " whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers." She further contended that "there is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped." That many Americans of African origin constituted a segment of Sanger considered "unfit" cannot be easily refuted.
While Planned Parenthood's current apologists try to place some distance between the eugenics and birth control movements, history definitively says otherwise. The eugenic theme figured prominently in the Birth Control Review, which Sanger founded in 1917. She published such articles as "Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics" (June 1920), "The Eugenic Conscience" (February 1921), "The purpose of Eugenics" (December 1924), "Birth Control and Positive Eugenics" (July 1925), "Birth Control: The True Eugenics" (August 1928), and many others.
These eugenic and racial origins are hardly what most people associate with the modern Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), which gave its Margaret Sanger award to the late Dr. Martin Luther King in 1966, and whose current president, Faye Wattleton, is black, a former nurse, and attractive.
Though once a social pariah group, routinely castigated by religious and government leaders, the PPFA is now an established, high-profile, well-funded organization with ample organizational and ideological support in high places of American society and government. Its statistics are accepted by major media and public health officials as "gospel"; its full-page ads appear in major newspapers; its spokespeople are called upon to give authoritative analyses of what America's family policies should be and to prescribe official answers that congressmen, state legislator and Supreme Court justiices all accept as "social orthodoxy”. . . .
It was in 1939 that Sanger's larger vision for dealing with the reproductive practices of black Americans emerged. After the January 1939 merger of her Clinical Research Bureau and the ABCL to form the Birth Control Federation of America, Dr. Clarence J. Gamble was selected to become the BCFA regional director for the South. Dr. Gamble, of the soap-manufacturing Procter and Gamble company, was no newcomer to Sanger's organization. He had previously served as director at large to the predecessor ABCL.
Gamble lost no time and drew up a memorandum in November 1939 entitled "Suggestion for Negro Project." Acknowledging that black leaders might regard birth control as an extermination plot, he suggested that black leaders be place in positions where it would appear that they were in charge as it was at an Atlanta conference.
It is evident from the rest of the memo that Gamble conceived the project almost as a traveling road show. A charismatic black minister was to start a revival, with "contributions" to come from other local cooperating ministers. A "colored nurse" would follow, supported by a subsidized "colored doctor." Gamble even suggested that music might be a useful lure to bring the prospects to a meeting.
Sanger answered Gamble on Dec. 10. 1939, agreeing with the assessment. She wrote: "We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten that idea out if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." In 1940, money for two "Negro Project" demonstration programs in southern states was donated by advertising magnate Albert D. Lasker and his wife, Mary. (Black Genocide.org | The Truth About Margaret Sanger.)
Sanger knew that frustrating the natural end of what is proper to marriage, the procreation of children, by means of contraception would lead to widespread promiscuity, including adultery by men and women alike. Such promiscuity would result in the destabilization of the stable two-parent family, thus necessitating the intervention of the civil state to provide “assistance” upon which the children of broken families could receive their sustenance as their minders saw to it that they were “educated” about the ways to frustrate the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of that which is proper to be married state and thus become as promiscuous and irresponsible as their father and/or mother had been.
Although Sanger died on September 6, 1966, a year after the full-scale launch of then President Lyndon Baines Johnson’s Great Society, which including “Title X” funding for “family planning” programs such as those offered by Planned Parenthood, she had planted the seeds for the complete demolition of the stable two-parent family in black neighborhoods that empowered the statists of the Johnson administration, worthy inheritors and enlargers of the social engineering represented by Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal” thirty years before, to complete the job of creating a sense of entitlement among those who had been “taught” to depend upon government programs for their every need.
Sanger’s policy racialism and eugenics was such that she embraced the director of Adolf Hitler’s own eugenics program, Ernst Rudin, who was permitted to publish an article in 1939 in her own Birth Control Review:
Ernst Rudin was director of the foremost German eugenics research institute (Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Genealogy, in Munich, Germany). "On June 2, 1933, [German] Reich Interior Minister Wilhelm Frick announced the formation of an Expert Committee on Questions of Population and Racial Policy .... to plan the course of Nazi racial policy. The committee brought together the elite of Nazi racial theory: Alfred Ploetz, ..... Ernst Rudin, director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Genealogy in Munich;...." (4) On July 14, 1933 this committee's recommendations were made law, the sterilization law ("Law for the Prevention of Genetically Diseased Offspring"); the start date for exercising the law was 1 Jan 1934. What was Ernst Rudin's opinion of Adolf Hitler and eugenics ('racial hygiene')?:
Academic William H. Tucker (The Science and Politics of Racial Research, 1994, University of Illinois Press) tells us about Ernst Rudin (p. 121):
In an address to the German Society for Rassenhygiene [Race-hygiene] Ernst Rudin, a professor of psychiatry who was one of the organization's original members and now its head, recalled the early, fruitless days when the racial hygienists had labored in vain to alert the public to special value of the Nordic race as "culture creators" and the danger of "unnatural" attempts to preserve the health of heredity defectives. Now Rassenhygiene [Race-hygiene] was finally receiving the attention it deserved, and Rudin virtually slavered over the man whose efforts produced this change: "The significance of Rassenhygiene did not become evident to all aware Germans until the political activity of Adolf Hitler and only through his work has our 30 year long dream of translating Rassen- hygiene into action finally become a reality." Terming it a "duty of honor" (Ehrenpflicht) for the society to aid in implementing Hitler's program, Rudin proclaimed, "We can hardly express our efforts more plainly or appropriately than in the words of the Fuhrer: 'Whoever is not physically or mentally fit must not pass on his defects to his children. The state must take care that only the fit produce children. Conversely, it must be regarded as reprehensible to withhold healthy children from the state.' (E. Rudin, "Aufgaben and Ziele der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Rassenhygiene," Archiv Fur Rassen- und Gesellschafts- biologie 28 (1934): 228-29)
Who is author William H. Tucker? He is an associate professor of psychology at Rutgers University, Camden, New Jersey. Tucker is apparently somewhat left of center politically, since he complains about the 'Reagan slash and burn spending cuts.'
How many Germans were 'force sterilized'? Most estimates are in the range of 250,000-500,000. The Germans started twenty-seven years later that the U.S. but within a few years they greatly outpaced them.
Did Ernst Rudin advocate sterilization of Americans?
Three months before the German 'sterilization law' was passed, Rudin's "Eugenic Sterilization: An Urgent Need" article was published in the journal (BCR) Margaret Sanger started and continued to influence until its demise in 1940.
In addressing an American audience Rudin is much more circumspect with his choice of words:
The following essay is concerned only with sterilization as a voluntary practice, that is, when undertaken with the consent of the patient himself or his statutory guardians......
But as the essay wears on, the mask begins to slip:
My experience has led me to the conclusion that systematic and careful propaganda should be undertaken where sterilization is advisable. Such propaganda should, of course, be gradual and should be directed in the first instance at the medical directors in institutions and schools, medical officers of health, and finally at private practitioners.....
Margaret Sanger corresponded with Ernst Rudin and never once renounced his eugenic views. (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization.)
Just as Woodrow Wilson believed that he could engineer “peace” in the world by breaking up the Austro-Hungarian Empire and creating completely secular, Masonic states in Central and Eastern Europe, so did Margaret Sanger believe that engineering of population rates could contribute to “peace” in the world.
Here is Sanger’s “Plan for Peace,” which was published in the Birth Control Review in April of 1932:
First, put into action President Wilson's fourteen points, upon which terms Germany and Austria surrendered to the Allies in 1918.
Second, have Congress set up a special department for the study of population problems and appoint a Parliament of Population, the directors representing the various branches of science: this body to direct and control the population through birth rates and immigration, and to direct its distribution over the country according to national needs consistent with taste, fitness and interest of individuals. The main objects of the Population Congress would be:
a. to raise the level and increase the general intelligence of population.
b. to increase the population slowly by keeping the birth rate at its present level of fifteen per thousand, decreasing the death rate below its present mark of 11 per thousand.
c. to keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.
d. to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.
e. to insure the country against future burdens of maintenance for numerous offspring as may be born of feebleminded parents, by pensioning all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization.
f. to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.
g. to apportion farm lands and homesteads for these segregated persons where they would be taught to work under competent instructors for the period of their entire lives.
The first step would thus be to control the intake and output of morons, mental defectives, epileptics.
The second step would be to take an inventory of the secondary group such as illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals, prostitutes, dope-fiends; classify them in special departments under government medical protection, and segregate them on farms and open spaces as long as necessary for the strengthening and development of moral conduct.
Having corralled this enormous part of our population and placed it on a basis of health instead of punishment, it is safe to say that fifteen or twenty millions of our population would then be organized into soldiers of defense---defending the unborn against their own disabilities.
The third step would be to give special attention to the mothers' health, to see that women who are suffering from tuberculosis, heart or kidney disease, toxic goitre, gonorrhea, or any disease where the condition of pregnancy disturbs their health are placed under public health nurses to instruct them in practical, scientific methods of contraception in order to safeguard their lives---thus reducing maternal mortality.
The above steps may seem to place emphasis on a health program instead of on tariffs, moratoriums and debts, but I believe that national health is the first essential factor in any program for universal peace.
With the future citizen safeguarded from hereditary taints, with five million mental and moral degenerates segregated, with ten million women and ten million children receiving adequate care, we could then turn our attention to the basic needs for international peace.
There would then be a definite effort to make population increase slowly and at a specified rate, in order to accommodate and adjust increasing numbers to the best social and economic system.
In the meantime we should organize and join an International League of Low Birth Rate Nations to secure and maintain World Peace. (Black Genocide.org | The Truth About Margaret Sanger.)
Let Margaret Sanger tell you in her very own words:
I accepted an invitation to talk to the women's branch of the Ku Klux Klan...I saw through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses...I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak...In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered." (Margaret Sanger: An Autobiography, p. 366)
On blacks, immigrants and indigents:
"...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people
On sterilization & racial purification:
Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial "purification," couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.
On the right of married couples to bear children:
Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her "Plan for Peace." Birth Control Review, April 1932.
On the purpose of birth control:
The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)
On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:
"More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12
On religious convictions regarding sex outside of marriage:
"This book aims to answer the needs expressed in thousands on thousands of letters to me in the solution of marriage problems... Knowledge of sex truths frankly and plainly presented cannot possibly injure healthy, normal, young minds. Concealment, suppression, futile attempts to veil the unveilable - these work injury, as they seldom succeed and only render those who indulge in them ridiculous. For myself, I have full confidence in the cleanliness, the open-mindedness, the promise of the younger generation." Margaret Sanger, Happiness in Marriage (Bretano's, New York, 1927)
On the extermination of blacks:
"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon
On respecting the rights of the mentally ill:
In her "Plan for Peace," Sanger outlined her strategy for eradication of those she deemed "feebleminded." Among the steps included in her evil scheme were immigration restrictions; compulsory sterilization; segregation to a lifetime of farm work; etc. Birth Control Review, April 1932, p. 107
A woman's physical satisfaction was more important than any marriage vow, Sanger believed. Birth Control in America, p. 11
On the Catholic Church's view of contraception:
"...enforce SUBJUGATION by TURNING WOMAN INTO A MERE INCUBATOR." The Woman Rebel - No Gods, No Masters, May 1914, Vol. 1, No. 3.
"I cannot refrain from saying that women must come to recognize there is some function of womanhood other than being a child-bearing machine." What Every Girl Should Know, by Margaret Sanger (Max Maisel, Publisher, 1915) [Jesus said: "Daughters of Jerusalem, weep... for your children. For, behold, the days are coming, in which they shall say, Blessed (happy) are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the breasts which never gave suck." (Luke 23:24)]
"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race (Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923) (Margaret Sanger Quotes.)