Living at a Time When Confusion and Contradiction Pass for "Progress"

Nine days ago, Friday, January 24, 2020, the Feast of Saint Timothy, President Donald John Trump became the first president yesterday, to actually address the March for Life in person, noting that the spineless excuse of an ignoramus named George Walker Bush invited two hundred leaders of the establishment pro-life movement to meet with him in the White House on January 22, 2008, when it was no longer “detrimental” to his political career to do so. (Dubya avoided all contact with the March for Life on January 22, 2001, two days after his inauguration, and had United States Representative Christopher Smith, R-New Jersey, read a statement that had been prepared in his name at the rally before the march, which was held on the Ellipse .)

President Trump is to be commended for going to the March for Life. However, he believes that one can be “pro-life” while supporting the execution of the innocent preborn in the so-called “hard” cases (rape, incest and alleged threats to the life of the mother) as a matter of principle, not one of political expediency. He does not see that his position is a contradiction of his statements that “every child” should be welcomed in life as it is illogical say this yet support the destruction of innocent children in their mothers’ wombs as a matter of principle. 

Now, readers of this site know that I am critical of President Donald John Trump for many reasons, some of which were discussed last in The Civil State Must Exercise a Reign of Terror When the Social Reign of Christ the King Does Not Prevail thirteen days ago, I always give credit where credit is due, and the president deserves credit for going to the March for Life despite the fact that it does not hurt his political cause with a segment “base” to do so at a time when insane people aflame with hatred for anyone who dares to take exception, no matter how inchoately, to the prevailing uniparty system of false opposite, are trying to remove him from office.

The fact that the president supports “exceptions” to the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment is not his fault. While he is wrong and such rhetoric is deleterious to a proper understanding of right principles, the real fault lies with establishment “pro-life” leaders who have made at least the “life of the mother exception” ever since Roe v. Wade was handed down forty-seven years ago and actually scoff, not oppose outright, those very, very few candidates for public life who are actually opposed to all surgical baby-killing without exception. Moreover, those "pro-life" leaders, man of whom are Catholics who are attached to the conciliar structures, do not know as much as they should a they have been malformed in the cradle of conciliarism's "official reconciliation" with the anti-Incarnational principles of Modernity.

Those who want to see how consistent that I have been in exposing the “pro-life” rhetoric of Republican presidents can see an article that I wrote in 2002 that was published on the Daily Catholic website, which was the only place my work could be found other than the published pages of Christ or Chaos at the time: Tokenism and Blindness. Another column, one written by the Calvinist named Chuck Baldwin, provides this documentation as well: Is The Religious Right Gullible, Naive, or Willingly Ignorant?

This is a very long and detailed article, although it shorter than the one published two weeks ago. To understand the article’s organization, therefore, let me provide you with the following outline:

  • I.   The Sincerity of President Trump’s Opposition to Surgical Baby-Killing
  • II.  An Analysis of President Trump’s January 24, 2020 Address to the March for Life
  • III. The March for Life, Aided by the Conciliar “Bishops,” Seeks a “Consensus”
  • IV. The Potomac Flows into the Tiber—and Back Again
  • V.   Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s Willful Ignorance
  • VI. Concluding Remarks

The Sincerity of President Trump’s Opposition to Surgical Baby-Killing

Once again, longtime readers of this website know that I am a critic of President Donald John Trump. While I acknowledge right readily that he deserves credit for most of those he has nominated to serve on the Federal judiciary, the president’s amorality, including, as has been mentioned so many times previously, his penchant for outright lying (denying knowing Stephanie Clifford, aka “Stormy Daniels” and Lev Parnas, one of the lowlife Rudolph William Giuliani’s Talmudist confederates who has now followed the example of the lowlife Michael Cohen and the neoconservative war monger John Bolton in turning on Trump—see Why John Bolton's Bombshell Really Isn't, and his tendency to deny doing something that he has done—e.g.  denigrating the extent of the seriousness of the injuries sustained by American military personnel in the recent Iranian bombing of an American base in Iraq, etc.), and his utter lack of interest in the things of the mind, no less in First and Last Things, render his sincerity in question in the minds of so many Americans.

Although it can be said quite accurately that there was a decidedly political calculation in President Donald John Trump’s decision to personally address the March for Life as a means of shoring up a part of his “political base” at a time when the nation’s attention was focused on the impeachment trial in the United States Senate that will determine whether he will finish his term of office and be constitutionally eligible to run for re-election, I think that the record shows incontestably that Donald John Trump underwent a genuine change-of-heart about the surgical execution of the innocent preborn even though he lacks the intellectual wherewithal to understand that is a contradiction to claim to welcome “every child” when he supports direct, intentional killing of preborn children in some circumstances. (Yes, that was one sentence, thank you very much.)

Trump demonstrated his ability to defend his partial opposition to surgical abortion when he was interviewed by Christopher Matthews, a notorious Catholic pro-abort and pro-pervert, four years ago. It is worth reviewing the transcript of that March 20, 2016, townhall noting that then candidate Trump was instructed by his handlers to walk back some of things that he said in the Matthews townhall four years ago:

Let me proceed with the analysis of the transcript, which will be interspersed with a bit of commentary made at the time.

MATTHEWS:  OK, look, I'm monopolizing here.

Let's go, young lady? 

TRUMP:  Hello. 

QUESTION:  Hello. I am (inaudible) and have a question on, what is your stance on women's rights and their rights to choose in their own reproductive health? 

TRUMP:  OK, well look, I mean, as you know, I'm pro-life.  Right, I think you know that, and I -- with exceptions, with the three exceptions.  But pretty much, that's my stance.  Is that OK?  You understand? (Full Transcript of MSNBC Donald Trump Moderated by Christopher Matthews.)

Donald John Trump understands nothing—and I do mean absolutely nothing—about the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law that prohibit any direct, intentional attack, up to and including one that is deadly, upon an innocent human being at any time for any reason from the first moment of conception until the time of natural death willed by God. No one is “pro-life” who makes a single, solitary “exception” to “Thou shalt not kill” as explicated infallibly by the teaching authority of the Catholic Church.

Then again, the so-called "National Right to Life Committee," which takes no stand in opposition to one of the principal proximate root causes of abortion, contraception, does not demand that candidates oppose all opposition as its official position endorses the deliberate destruction of the innocent preborn in cases where it is alleged that a mother's life is endangered. 

The late Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a pioneering champion of baby-killing who presided over 70,000 abortions between 1970 and 1974 before quitting for purely scientific reasons once the ultrasound proved to him the humanity of the preborn baby (he converted to the conciliar structures in 1996), explained on many occasions that medical technology had advanced to such a degree that there is almost never a circumstance in which it is considered to be "medically necessary" to kill a preborn baby to "save" the life of his mother:

The situation where the mother's life is at stake if she were to continue a pregnancy is no longer a clinical reality.

Given the state of modern medicine, we can now manage any pregnant woman with any medical affliction successfully, to the natural conclusion of the pregnancy: the birth of a healthy child. [Written statement to the Idaho House of Representatives' State Affairs Committee, February 16, 1990.] (As found in a very good study written in 1994 by Mrs. Judie Brown, the founder and president of the American Life League and Brian Young: Exceptions: Abandoning "The Least of My Brethren," as found at Exceptions: Abandoning the Least of These Thy Brethren.)

If Donald John Trump wants to be truly knowledgeable on the issue of the slaughter of the innocent preborn, which I do not think that he has either the time or the interest in doing, he should the read the aforementioned article by Mrs. Brown and Mr. Young as well as the late Dr. Charles E. Rice's No Exceptions: The Pro-Life Imperative. More importantly than anything else he could read, however, is the allocution that Pope Pius XII gave to an assembly of large families on November 26, 1951, that included a complete and abject rejection of the deliberate targeting of an innocent preborn baby to "save" the life of his mother:

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

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

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

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

This principle applies to the child's life, like that of mother's. Never, under any circumstances, has the Church taught that the life of child must be preferred to that of the mother. It would be wrong to set the issue with this alternative: either the child's life or that of motherNo, nor the mother's life, nor that of her child, can be subjected to an act of direct suppression. For the one side and the other the need can be only one: to make every effort to save the life of both, mother and child (see Pious XI Encycl. Casti Connubii, 31 dec. 1930, Acta Ap. Sedis vol. 22, p.. 562-563).

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

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

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

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

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

Trump’s confusing pattern of self-contradiction when pressed about the issue of abortion is merely demonstrates the continuing effects of the theological and moral relativism that were sent into motion by Father Martin Luther, O.S.A. on October 31, 1517, and that have been capitalized upon by the combined forces of Judeo-Masonic naturalism for the past three hundred years now. Donald John Trump is thus as much a product and victim of Modernity as Christopher Matthews is a product and victim of Modernism. (The Republican Waffle House on Abortion, part two.)

I know that this was a lengthy digression. However, it has been an important one to demonstrate that President Donald John Trump is indeed sincere in his opposition to most surgical abortions albeit without any understanding that his position is morally indefensible as a matter of principle and an absolute contradiction of a desire to protect “every life.” Such must be the mush of the mind of a man without any knowledge of First and Last Things and who has been obsessed with carnal pursuits, including the satisfying of his own lust for money, fame and power, throughout the course of his life.

Then again, why should President Trump know more than the establishment “pro-life” figures who reaffirm him that he is indeed “pro-life” when he is simply less pro-abortion than those who support the execution of innocent babies at all times, including after birth, without any exceptions, qualifications, conditions or reservations?

II.        An Analysis of President Trump’s January 24, 2020 Address to the March for Life

One must keep in mind that most people do not retain much, if anything, of what they read. This is especially the case now with the truly overwhelming flow of information one can amass with the press of a finger on a digital device of one kind or another, which is why this website, which is not for anyone with a limited span of attention, exists as something of an “memory bank” to help bring some sobriety at times when people are prone to be “excited” when they hear something that appears to be “new” and that sounds “good” to them.

Believe me, I attended the March for Life as possible as I could when living in New York in the 1980s and 1990s, and I wrote an annual summary of the March and of the Rose Dinner held thereafter for The Wanderer in the 1990s. President Trump’s rhetoric represents nothing new at all.

In truth, therefore, apart from a few matters here and there, there was nothing “new” in President Donald John Trump’s address to the March for Life on Friday, January 24, 2020, that has not been said many times before by his allegedly “pro-life” predecessors. The first excerpt below will be followed a general comment before providing examples of such rhetoric:

Thank you very much and thank you, Jeanne. It is my profound honor to be the first president in history to attend the March for Life. [applause] We are here for a very simple reason: to defend the right of every child, born and unborn, to fulfill their God-given potential. [applause] 

For 47 years, Americans of all backgrounds have traveled from across the country to stand for life.  

And today as President of the United States, I am truly proud to stand with you. [applause]

I want to welcome tens of thousands – this is a tremendous turnout – tens of thousands of high school and college students who took long bus rides to be here in our nation's capital. And to make you feel even better, there are tens of thousands of people outside that we passed on the way in. If anybody would like to give up their spot, we can work it out.

We have a tremendous group of people outside. Thousands and thousands wanted to get in. This is some great success. [applause]

Young people are the heart of the March for Life. And it’s your generation that is making America the pro-family, pro-life nation. [applause]

The life movement is led by strong women, amazing faith leaders, and brave students who carry on the legacy of pioneers before us who fought to raise the conscience of our nation and uphold the rights of our citizens. You embrace mothers with care and compassion. You are empowered by prayer and motivated by your unselfish love. You are grateful and we are so grateful ­­– these are incredible people – to be joined by Secretary Alex Azar and Kellyanne Conway. [applause]

And thanks also to Senators Mike Lee and James Lankford who are here. Thank you, fellas. And Representatives Steve Scalise, Chris Smith, Ralph Abraham, Warren Davidson, Bob Latta, John Joyce, Lloyd Smucker, Brian Fitzpatrick, and Brad Wenstrup. Thank you all. I have to say – and I look at it, and I see it exactly – we have many more politicians in the audience. But if you don't mind, I won’t introduce them all.

All of us here understand an eternal truth: Every child is a precious and sacred gift from God. [applause] Together, we must protect, cherish, and defend the dignity and the sanctity of every human life. [applause]

When we see the image of a baby in the womb, we glimpse the majesty of God's creation. [applause] When we hold a newborn in our arms, we know the endless love that each child brings to a family. When we watch a child grow, we see the splendor that radiates from each human soul. One life changes the world – from my family, and I can tell you, I send love, and I send great, great love – and from the first day in office, I have taken historic action to support America’s families and to protect the unborn. [applause] (President Trump's Remarks at the 47th Annual March for Life.)

Interjection Number One:

All well and good.

As noted in earlier in Part I of this commentary, it is oxymoronic to claim that one can “defend the life of every child, born and unborn, to fulfill their God-given potential” when he believes that some preborn children can be killed under “exceptional” circumstances, a point that has been hammered home in part one.

What President Donald John Trump said on January 24, 2020, was pretty much what President Ronald Wilson Reagan said repeatedly as he phoned in his remarks to Miss Nellie Gray, the founder of the March for Life:

I've spoken here of the evidence today that establishes that the unborn is a living human being. We must not forget that in reality, if there is any justice in the abortionist position, it would require that they establish beyond a doubt that there is not life in the unborn -- and they can't do that.

It's been a long, hard struggle the past dozen years. But I know all of us are feeling hopeful about a positive resolution of this issue, and I don't think our feeling of hope is inappropriate. There are already signs that we've changed the public attitude on abortion. The number performed each year is finally leveling off. The general feeling that abortion is just a small, harmless medical procedure that's simply a matter of choice has almost disappeared.

We're making a lot of progress, and partly because a dozen years ago people like yourselves who were told that banning abortion was a losing battle said, ``Fine, that's the only kind of battle worth fighting.''

God bless you for your courage and commitment, and thank you for your wonderful work. And I'm proud to stand with you in the long march for the right to life.

Ms. Gray. Mr. President?

The President. Yes, Nellie.

Ms. Gray. Mr. President, before you leave us, you know, many times we have been in the White House and you have said to us that we must come together. And I want you to know that we have had, maybe, some of our differences before. But now this grassroots, pro-life, American, whole movement is united. We want the paramount human life amendment with no compromises, Mr. President.

The President. Good for you, and I support you.*

Ms. Gray. And, Mr. President, we want to work with you this year because we know that there are some things that we can do right now. One is, we can stop the funding of abortions in the District of Columbia, and we, as pro-life Americans, want to work with you to get that bill through. There are things that we can do, and we want to work with you.

And before you leave us, we just want to give you a resounding ``Thank you, Mr. President'' from all of us here who are standing with you.

Goodbye, Mr. President.

The President. Goodbye, and thank you.

Ms. Gray. God bless you, Mr. President.

The President. Thank you very much, Nellie, and thank everyone.

January 22, 1986:

Remarks to Participants in the March for Life Rally

January 22, 1986

The President. Hello, Nellie Gray?

Miss Gray. Hello, Mr. President. [Applause]

The President. Nellie, first of all -- --

Miss Gray. Mr. President, that is prolife America welcoming you to this 13th March for Life, and we wait to listen to your words.

The President. Well, thank you very much. And Nellie, first of all, thank you all for those beautiful red roses that have arrived here for Nancy and myself.

But now I'm pleased to tell all of you who've come today to march for life, welcome to Washington, and thank you all for your commitment and support for the right to life. When you insist upon legal protection for all human life, you're simply being true to our most basic principles and convictions as Americans. We'll continue to work together with Members of the Congress to overturn the tragedy of Roe versus Wade.

By your presence today, you reaffirm the self-evident truths set forth in our Declaration of Independence. Each year remarkable advances in prenatal medicine bring even more dramatic confirmation of what common sense has told us all along: that the child in the womb is simply what each of us once was, a very young, very small, dependent, and very vulnerable live member of the human family. Last year in my State of the Union Address, I stated that abortion is either the taking of human life or it isn't. And if it is -- and medical technology is increasingly showing it is -- it must be stopped. Now, together -- --

Miss Gray. Yes, Mr. President?

The President. -- -- together, we will ensure that the resources of government are not used to promote or perform abortions. And I know that many of you provide compassionate care for women seeking alternatives to abortion. The heroic efforts of these women who choose life are a moving testimony to our reverence of human life. Each child about to be born is a unique, unrepeatable gift. Each child who escapes the tragedy of abortion is an immeasurable victory.

Last month I had a very special visitor in the Oval Office. Mother Teresa was in town, and we were able to exchange holiday greetings. We've often heard Mother Teresa say that: ``Abortion has become the greatest destroyer of peace. If we really want peace, if we're sincere in our hearts that we really want peace, we should make a strong resolution that we will not allow a single child to feel unwanted, to feel unloved.'' That was Mother Teresa's reminder to us.

Our nation's affirmation of the sacredness of all human life must begin with respect for our most basic civil right: the right to life. And again this year, let me say I'm proud to stand with you in the long march for the right to life. God bless you all. (President Reagan's Phone  Remarks to Miss Nellie Gray at the 13th Annual March for Life .)

January 22, 1987:

Remarks to Participants in the March for Life Rally

January 22, 1987

The President. Hello, Nellie Gray?

Miss Gray. Hello, Mr. President.

The President. Hello, Nellie. It's good to hear your voice again. [Applause]

Miss Gray. Mr. President, this is prolife America greeting you today. And as you can see, the determination of prolife America is that we are going to save these babies. We are not letting any elements or anything deter us. And we want to work strongly with the White House and the legislators, because we are going to have the paramount human life amendment. And we await your word, Mr. President.

The President. Well, Nellie, it's evident to me that you're not going to let a little weather stand in the way of this noble cause, and to all of you there in this year's March for Life: Welcome to Washington, and thank you for your commitment to the right to life of America's unborn children.

Today you remind all of us that abortion is not a harmless medical procedure but the taking of the life of a living human being. This tragic and terrible toll continues at a rate of more than 4,000 young lives lost each day. Our national commitment to the dignity of all human life must begin with the respect for our most basic civil right: the right to life. In my State of the Union Address last year, I observed that America will never be whole as long as the right to life, granted by our Creator, is denied to the unborn. Together we can overturn Roe v. Wade, and end this national tragedy.

Miss Gray. Yes, Mr. President.

The President. Well, by your presence here today, Nellie and all of you, you answer the violence of abortion with confidence in our democratic process. Your nonviolent commitment to life can overcome the violence of abortion, and we shall overcome bitterness to reach a greater respect for human life. Many of you've already done much in our legislatures and courts. Others of you've provided counseling and compassionate care for women seeking alternatives to abortion. Each woman who chooses life for her child affirms our reverence for human life and ennobles our society. Each child is a unique, unrepeatable gift, and every child who escapes the violence of abortion is an immeasurable victory for life.

During my administration we've worked together to restrict the use of Federal funds to perform abortions, we've denied government funds to organizations overseas that perform or promote abortion, and we have repeatedly called upon the Congress and the Supreme Court to take those steps necessary to overturn Roe v. Wade. Your prayers and your hard work have brought us a long way since the tragedy of 1973. Together, with God's help, we will finish the task and heal our wounded nation. God bless you all. (President Reagan's Phone Remarks to to Miss Nellie Gray and the 14th Annual March for Life*On the same day, the Principal Deputy Press Secretary to the President issued a statement that read: ``There is no change in the President's position on abortion. He believes that abortion should be prohibited except when the life of the mother is endangered.''.)

As you can see, President Reagan said pretty much what President Trump said, and that was at a time when idiots such as yours truly, who became jaded about Reagan after he nominated the pro-abortion Sandra Day O’Connor to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America on July 7, 1981, to replace retiring Associate Justice Potter Stewart, thought that we had a “pope” who was on the side of “life” without realizing that he, Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul was not on the side of Christ the King and the immutable truths of the Catholic Faith.

Reagan’s successor, President George Herbert Walker Bush, put in his annual phone call to Nellie Gray and got done with it as quickly as he could:

January 22, 1990

Well, at first I want to welcome all of you gathered in Washington from around the country for this year's March for Life. Before you begin the march, I want to take a minute to share my deep, personal concern about abortion on demand, which I oppose.

For 17 years, the March for Life has served as a poignant reminder to all Americans that human life in all its forms must be respected. And I think all of you know my deep conviction on Roe versus Wade. The continuing strong presence of the March for Life reminds those of us in decisionmaking capacities -- in the White House and in the Congress and in the Court -- that millions of Americans care fundamentally about this issue and are committed to preserving the sanctity of life.

Your movement also reminds Americans, especially young Americans, of the self-evident moral superiority of adoption over abortion. We should all be grateful to the families that adopt babies, giving them care and love and a chance for a wonderful life.

Ladies and gentlemen, let me assure you that this President stands with you on this issue of life and that my prayers go out to all of you for your faith and courage. God bless you, and God bless life. Thank you very much. (President George Herbert Walker Bush's Phone Remarks to Miss Nellie Gray and the 17th Annual March for Life.)

Please take note of the fact that President George Herbert Walker Bush said that he was opposed to “abortion on demand,” meaning, of course, that he accepted the moral liceity of baby killing in “hard cases” and, quite possibly given his family’s decades-old ties to Margaret Sanger and Planned Barrenhood, in cases where “eugenics” demanded a “merciful termination” of a preborn child’s life. Catholics must be opposed to all abortions at all times without exception.

George Herbert Walker Bush's son, George Walker Bush, addressed the March for Life by telephone from 2002 to 2008, and it was invariably the case that he was, as noted earlier, out of Washington, District of Columbia, when he placed the call. This is what he said on January 23, 2008, when he was at some "all important" and most "urgent" event in Manhattan, Kansas, a day after addressing a group of two hundred pro-life leaders from across the country in the White House:

January 23, 2008

Nellie, thank you very much. I appreciate the invitation to speak. I'm calling from Manhattan, Kansas. Sounds like you got some good folks from Kansas there. I want to thank everybody there -- if you're from Kansas, or anywhere else in our country, for your devotion to such a noble cause.

You believe, as I do, that every human life has value, that the strong have a duty to protect the weak, and that the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence apply to everyone, not just to those considered healthy or wanted or convenient. These principles call us to defend the sick and the dying, persons with disabilities and birth defects, all who are weak and vulnerable, especially unborn children.

We're making good progress in defending these principles, Nellie, and you and I are working together, along with others, to build what I've called a "culture of life." One of my first acts as the President was to ban the use of taxpayer money on programs that promote abortion overseas. I want to thank you all for getting that ban on partial-birth abortion to my desk, a bill I was proud to sign -- and a law which we are going to defend -- and are defending -- vigorously in our courts. Because we acted, infants who are born despite an attempted abortion are now protected by law. Thanks to "Laci and Conner's Law," prosecutors can now charge those who harm or kill a pregnant woman with harming or killing her unborn child, as well.

We're vigorously promoting parental notification laws, adoption, teen abstinence, crisis pregnancy programs, and the vital work of our faith-based groups. We're sending a clear message to any woman facing a crisis pregnancy: We love you; we love your child, and we're here to help you.

There's more work to be done. The House has passed a bill to ensure that state parental involvement laws are not circumvented by those who take minors across state lines to have abortion[s]. And the United States Senate needs to pass this bill so I can sign it into law.

We also must respect human life and dignity when advancing medical science, and we're making progress here, as well. Last month, I signed a pro-life bill supporting ethical treatment and research using stem cells from umbilical cord blood. I also renew my call for Congress to ban all forms of human cloning. Because human life is a gift from our Creator and should never be used as a means to an end, we will not sanction the creation of life only to destroy it.

By changing laws we can change our culture. And your persistence and prayers, Nellie, and the folks there with you, are making a real difference. We, of course, seek common ground where possible; we're working to persuade more of our fellow Americans of the rightness of our cause. And this is a cause that appeals to the conscience of our citizens, and is rooted in America's deepest principles -- and history tells us that with such a cause, we will prevail.


Again, Nellie, thank you for letting me come to speak to you. Tell everybody there that I ask for God's blessings on them and their families, and, of course, may God continue to bless our grand country. (George Walker Bush's Phone Remarks to Miss Nellie Gray and the March for Life, January 23, 2008.)

In other words, you’ve heard one presidential address to the March of Life you’ve heard them all, regardless of whether they were delivered over the phone or in person.

Are you still there?



Well, here is the next excerpt from President Donald John Trump’s January 24, 2020, address to the March for Life in Washington, District of Columbia:

And during my first week in office, I reinstated and expanded the Mexico City Policy and we issued a landmark pro-life rule to govern the use of Title X taxpayer funding. I notified Congress that I would veto any legislation that weakens pro-life policy or that encourages the destruction of human life. [applause]

At the United Nations, I made clear that global bureaucrats have no business attacking the sovereignty of nations that protect innocent life. [applause] Unborn children have never had a stronger defender in the White House. [applause] (President Trump's Remarks at the 47th Annual March for Life.)


I will concede right readily that President Donald John Trump has been more pro-active about surgical abortion than were the administrations of President Ronald Wilson Regan, George Herbert Walker Bush and George Walker Bush, noting that the current administration continues to administer “family planning” programs that make possible the frustration of the natural end for which God has joined man together in Holy Matrimony and that do, in most instances, actually serve as abortifacients that kill preborn babies chemically just as surely as babies are killed surgically by suction machines, saline solutions or the very hands of abortionists.

In this regard, you see, the Mexico City policy is a complete farce no matter its reiteration during the Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43 and Trump administrations. The Mexico City Policy is not a “pro-life” accomplishment of any kind.

Moreover, even though President Trump’s iteration of the Mexico City Policy extends to all Federal agencies and not just to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to forbid them from using American taxpayer dollars to promote surgical abortion as a means of “family planning,” “family planning” is itself odious to God, injurious to individuals, destructive to families and fatal to the welfare of nations. Most of our social problems are the direct result of the destruction of the stability of the family, the proliferation of unwed mothers and of children sent off to pre-school and after-school “care” programs, meaning that grow up never having experienced the meaning of a stable family and thus of the true love and sense of security to be found therein. Indeed, many of Federal entitlement programs exist to provide taxpayer assistance to children who live in poverty as a result of the consequences of contraception and the unstable situations in which they live.

Here is the text of President Trump’s presidential memorandum restoring the Mexico City Policy, which extends the ban of American taxpayer dollars being provided to “family planning” agencies in foreign countries that use surgical abortion as a means of “family planning”:

                                    THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
                                    THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE UNITED STATES AGENCY
                                    FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

SUBJECT:                    The Mexico City Policy

I hereby revoke the Presidential Memorandum of January 23, 2009, for the Secretary of State and the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development (Mexico City Policy and Assistance for Voluntary Population Planning), and reinstate the Presidential Memorandum of January 22, 2001, for the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development (Restoration of the Mexico City Policy).

I direct the Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to the extent allowable by law, to implement a plan to extend the requirements of the reinstated Memorandum to global health assistance furnished by all departments or agencies.

I further direct the Secretary of State to take all necessary actions, to the extent permitted by law, to ensure that U.S. taxpayer dollars do not fund organizations or programs that support or participate in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.

This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

The Secretary of State is authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

DONALD J. TRUMP  (Presidential Memorandum on The Mexico City Policy.)

The George Walker Bush version of the "Mexico City" policy, as the "gag" order is called, was fraught with holes and exceptions as to make it an utter sham that convinces the average "pro-life" American that "something" is being done to save lives when the truth of the matter is that Bush's executive order that Trump has now restored permits employees of international "family planning" agencies in foreign countries to refer for abortions on their own time in any off-site location of their choosing. In other words, the "Mexico City" policy permits an employee of the International Planned Parenthood chapter in Nairobi, Kenya, for example to say, "Look, there are things I can't tell you now. Meet me at the Nairobi McDonald's after I get out of work. I can tell you more then." The employee is then free to speak frankly about surgical abortion, to recommend the killing of a child as the only "sensible" option, to recommend a specific baby-killer and a specific place for the baby to be killed.

Mrs. Judie Brown, the president and founder of the American Life League, offered the following commentary thirteen years ago after the United States Congress had passed a bill containing the language of the Mexico City Policy:

While many are celebrating the Congressional passage of a bill that contains the Mexico City Policy, there are those of us who are not so quick to throw a party.

The policy was contained in a piece of legislation that also provides an increase in funding for Planned Parenthood. But that's not really the worst of it.

The Mexico City Policy contains exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother ... standard fare for the pro-life politicos these days. The problem is, they fail to point out that the Mexico City Policy does not and cannot prohibit our tax dollars from paying for abortion; it can only prevent our tax dollars from paying for some abortions. Why, you may ask, did I use the word "some"?

Well, the Mexico City Policy will pay for surgical abortion in the cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother in addition to paying for chemical abortions caused by RU-486, the morning-after pill and the various birth control methods that can cause abortion.

Further, it is not clear what happens when an organization agrees to refrain from paying for abortion with U.S. tax dollars, but chooses to use those dollars to pay for other "services," thus freeing up other money to subsidize the killing.

In other words, the Mexico City Policy is fraught with problems that result in death.

So when some claim that America is no longer an "exporter of death," they are really not being totally honest with the public. America is still the number one exporter and subsidizer of preborn child killing, period. Of that there is no doubt. (America's Deadly Exports.)

This analysis was correct thirteen years ago, and it is correct today, and it is worth stressing that nothing but nothing in the restored and revised Mexico City Policy issued by President Trump forbids the use of the human pesticide, RU-486, which former President George Waker Bush refused to take off of the market, thereby retaining the United States Food and Drug Administration's decision, announced on September 28, 2000, the Feast of Saint Wenceslaus, to market the baby-killing potion during the midst of that year's presidential election. 

The late Mr. Howard Phillips, the publisher and editor of epnonymous Howard Phillips Issues and Strategies Bulletin, wrote  the following analysis of George Walker Bush's "Mexico City Policy" that was reinstated by President Donald John Trump three years ago:

Excerpted from Howard Phillips Issues & Strategy Bulletin of April 15, 2001


Previously, your editor has pointed out that President G.W.B.’s decision to restore the Reagan "Mexico City" policy, limiting the provision of your tax dollars flowing to overseas population control organizations was less significant than assumed by many well-intentioned pro-life leaders, in that, while the Bush policy does limit the direct use of U.S. subsidies to perform and promote abortion, nonetheless, the pro-abortion recipient organizations still get the money to which they are not Constitutionally or morally entitled, with these funds available to offset their other expenses, so long as the U.S. Treasury dollars are assigned to a separate bank account.

Now, in reviewing the policy as enunciated in the Federal Register (Vol. 66, No. 61, Thursday, March 29, 2001) Presidential Documents, "Memorandum of March 28, 2001: Restoration of the Mexico City Policy" over the signature of President Bush, it is clear that this is even less a pro-life victory than first believed.


GWB: "The Mexico City Policy announced by President Reagan in 1984 required foreign nongovernmental organizations to agree as a condition of their receipt of Federal funds for family planning activities that such organizations would neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations….

"It is my conviction that taxpayer funds appropriated pursuant to the Foreign Assistance Act should not be given to foreign nongovernmental organizations that perform abortions or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations…except as otherwise provided below...."


"The recipient agrees that it will not furnish assistance for family planning under this award to any foreign nongovernmental organization that performs or actively promotes abortion as a method of family planning in USAID-recipient countries or that provides financial support to any other foreign nongovernmental organization that conducts such activities. For purposes of this paragraph (e), a foreign nongovernmental organization is a nongovernmental organization that is not organized under the laws of any State of the United States, the District of Columbia or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. ..."


"Abortion is a method of family planning when it is for the purpose of spacing births. This includes, but is not limited to, abortions performed for the physical or mental health of the mother, but does not include abortions performed if the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term or abortions performed following rape or incest (since abortion under these circumstances is not a family planning act)."


"To perform abortions means to operate a facility where abortions are performed as a method of family planning. Excluded from this definition are clinics or hospitals that do not include abortion in their family planning programs. Also excluded from this definition is the treatment of injuries or illnesses caused by legal or illegal abortions, for example, post-abortion care. ..."


"([P]assively responding to a question regarding where a safe, legal abortion may be obtained is not considered active promotion if the question is specifically asked by a woman who is already pregnant, the woman clearly states that she has already decided to have a legal abortion, and the family planning counselor reasonably believes that the ethics of the medical profession in the country requires a response regarding where it may be obtained safely).…"


"Action by an individual acting in the individual’s capacity shall not be attributed to an organization with which the individual is associated, provided that the organization neither endorses nor provides financial support for the action and takes reasonable steps to ensure that the individual does not improperly represent that the individual is acting on behalf of the organization. ..."


"The recipient may request USAID’s approval to treat as separate the family planning activities of two or more organizations, that would not be considered separate under the preceding sentence, if the recipient believes, and provides a written justification to USAID therefor, that the family planning activities of the organizations are sufficiently distinct so as to warrant not imputing the activity of one to the other."


"Assistance for family planning may be furnished under this award by a recipient, subrecipient or sub-subrecipient to a foreign government even though the government includes abortion in its family planning program, provided that no assistance may be furnished in support of the abortion activity of the government and any funds transferred to the government shall be placed in a segregated account to ensure that such funds may not be used to support the abortion activity of the government."


"The requirements of this paragraph are not applicable to child spacing assistance furnished to a foreign nongovernmental organization that is engaged primarily in providing health services if the objective of the assistance is to finance integrated health care services to mothers and children and child spacing is one of several health care services being provided by the organization as part of a larger child survival effort with the objective of reducing infant and child mortality." (Excerpts on Pro-Life Issues in The Howard Phillips Issues and Strategies Bulletin. This is a very good resource that contained factual documentation of the consitent Republican betrayal of legitimate pro-life policy.)

The late Mr. Howard Phillips's analysis of nineteen years ago made it very clear that the Mexico City Policy has so many loopholes as to make any claim in its defense to be without rational foundation. 

Once again, President Trump knows none of this. Indeed, he knew nothing about the annual March for Life until recently, something that he noted in an interview with the American Broadcasting Company television network (ABC-TV) that aired on Wednesday, January 25, 2017, the Feast of the Conversion of Saint Paul the Apostle (Trump Plugs March for Life in Interviw with ABC-TV News.) 

In other words, the Mexico City Policy has been, is now and will forever continue to be a farce even though most of those who cheered President Donald John Trump’s words on Friday, January 24, 2020, do not believe this or would understand even if it was explained to them carefully as most of them would reply by saying, “Would you have preferred Hillary Clinton to Trump?” Such an emotional ploy, however, does nothing to detract from the fact that it is not to ignore the “reality” of our situation to explain that truth exists independently of whether it is politically convenient to the naturalist champion of the moment or not. Babies still get killed surgically under the Mexico City Policy and thus there is nothing whatsoever to celebrate about it.

Back to President Trump's address to the March for Life on January 24, 2020:

As the Bible tells us, each person is wonderfully made. [applause]

We have taken decisive action to protect the religious liberty – so important – religious liberty has been under attack all over the world and frankly, very strongly attacked in our nation. You see it better than anyone. But we are stopping it. And we’re taking care of doctors, nurses, teachers, and groups like the Little Sisters of the Poor. [applause]

We are preserving faith-based adoption and to uphold our founding documents, we have appointed 187 federal judges, who apply the consultation as written, including two phenomenal supreme court justices – Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. [applause]

We are protecting pro-life students’ rights to free speech on college campuses. And if universities want federal taxpayer dollars, then they must uphold your First Amendment right to speak your mind. And if they don't, they pay a very big financial penalty, which they will not be willing to pay. [applause]

Sadly, the far left is working to erase our God-given rights, shut down faith-based charities, ban religious leaders from the public square, and silence Americans who believe in the sanctity of life. They are coming after me because I am fighting for you and we are fighting for those who have no voice. And we will win because we know how to win. [applause] We all know how to win. We all know how to win. You’ve been winning for a long time. You’ve been winning for a long time. (President Trump's Remarks at the 47th Annual March for Life.)


Some of this is certainly true. However, I would point out that the heresy of “religious liberty” is one of the many consequences of the Protestant Revolution’s overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King and the subsequent rise of Calvinist and Judeo-Masonic naturalism that made possible the rise of the “public square” that puts truth on a level of equality with error and always makes inevitable conflicts about matters that inhere in the very nature of things and are thus beyond the moral right of mere mortals to dispute, debate and defy. The provision of "religious liberty" has been the means of making it possible for outright worshippers of the adversary to promote "devotion" to the enemies of their own salvation anad thus of all society order.

That was brief enough, eh?

Fine. I am glad that you are pleased.

Back to Mr. Trump's speech:

Together, we are the voice for the voiceless. When it comes to abortion – and you know this, you’ve seen what’s happened – Democrats have embraced the most radical and extreme positions taken and seen in this country for years and decades, and you can even say, for centuries.

Nearly every top Democrat in congress now supports taxpayer-funded abortion all the way up until the moment of birth. Last year, lawmakers in New York cheered with delight upon the passage of legislation that would allow a baby to be ripped from the mother's womb right up until delivery.

Then, we had the case of the Democrat governor in the state of Virginia, the commonwealth of Virginia. And we love the commonwealth of Virginia, but what is going on in Virginia? What is going on? The governor stated that he would execute a baby after birth. You remember that.

Senate Democrats even blocked legislation that would give medical care to babies who survive attempted abortions. And that’s why I’ve called on Congress – two of our great senators here, so many of our congressmen here – I called upon them to defend the dignity of life and to pass legislation prohibiting late-term abortion of children who can feel pain in their mother's womb. [applause] (President Trump's Remarks at the 47th Annual March for Life.)


Why is the killing of a child in the latter stages of his development in his mother’s womb or after birth more extreme than after he was first conceived or during his first three months of growth unto birth?

The direct, intentional killing of every innocent human being is an extreme defiance of the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment. It is a straw man argument to contend that the Democrats’ position is extreme, which is by way of saying that it is somehow less morally offensive or “extreme” to kill a baby when he is younger. The morality of the direct intentional killing of any innocent human being does not depend upon his age.

The emphasis on late-term abortions has always been a convenient tool by which “pro-life” public officials have sought to exculpate themselves from any duty to do anything substantive to oppose all abortions without exception at all times, not that it is, in the human order of things, really possible to do anything much at the Federal level given the fact that most people in the United States of America have made their peace with the availability of “some” surgical abortion up to a “certain point.” Although more will be written on this “certain point” criterion later in this commentary, to believe that it is somehow more morally heinous to kill a child later in his development than earlier is indefensible to the point of being inexcusable.

It is time for the next excerpt from the president's speech nine days ago:

This year, the March for Life is celebrating the 100th anniversary of the 19th amendment, which forever enshrined women's rights to vote in the United States and given by the United States constitution. Such a big event. Today, millions of extraordinary women across America are using the power of their votes to fight for the right and all of their rights as given in the Declaration of Independence – it’s the right to life. [applause]

To all the women here today, your devotion and your leadership uplifts our entire nation and we thank you for that. The tens of thousands of Americans gathered today not only stand for life – it’s really here that they stand for it so proudly together. And I want to thank everybody for that. You stand for life each and every day. You provide housing, education, jobs, and medical care to the women that you serve. You find loving families for children in need of a forever home. You host baby showers for expecting moms. You make – you just make it your life's mission to help spread God's grace.

And to all the moms here today, we celebrate you and we declare that mothers are heroes. [applause] Your strength, devotion, and drive is what powers our nation. Because of you, our country has been blessed with amazing souls who have changed the course of human history.

We cannot know what our citizens yet unborn will achieve. The dreams they will imagine. The masterpieces they will create. The discoveries they will make. But we know this: every life brings love into this world. Every child brings joy to a family. Every person is worth protecting.

And above all, we know that every human soul is divine and every human life, born and unborn, is made in the holy image of Almighty God. [applause]  (President Trump's Remarks at the 47th Annual March for Life.)

I will let Trump’s praise of the Nineteenth Commandment go without much comment except to say that we must pray for the restoration of a true pope on the Throne of Saint Peter and for the great French monarch to manifest himself to fight for the right principles upon which the civil state must be found, which are not those of the Judeo-Masonic Declaration of Independence nor of the universal suffrage that did not even exist in the Eighteenth Century and was considered repugnant even to the Protestant and/or Masonic founders themselves as being incompatible with the just social order. Catholics do not believe in the egalitarianism of Protestantism and its unintended but nevertheless inexorable secular offshoots. Catholics believe in the principles of a hierarchy here on earth, staring with Holy Mother Church herself and her domestic cell, the family, as a reflection of God’s absolute sovereignty over us all. Societies must be based on hierarchical, not egalitarian, principles.

Whoever wrote the president’s remarks, however, does not understand theology as a human soul is not “divine” in its substance as the only Theandric Person was Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Human souls have  rational and immoral souls that are made in the image of likeness of God and are created by Him to give Him honor and glory in this life through His true Church and to die in a state of Sanctifying Grace for all eternity in Heaven. Human souls have a divine original and destiny but are not of themselves divine. Not even Our Blessed Mother, who was conceived without stain of Original Sin and was never touched by any Actual Sin was “divine.”

Back to the final excerpt Trump address at the March for Life:

Together, we will defend this truth all across our magnificent land. We will set free the dreams of our people. And with determined hope, we look forward to all of the blessings that will come from the beauty, talent, purpose, nobility, and grace of every American child.

I want to thank you. This is a very special moment. It’s so great to represent you. I love you all. [applause] And I say with a true passion, thank you, God bless you, and God bless America. Thank you all. Thank you. [applause] (President Trump's Remarks at the 47th Annual March for Life.)


Much time has been spent earlier in this commentary discussing that it is impossible to claim want to protect “every” child when one believes that there are circumstances that justify his direct, intentional killing. It is similarly impossible to claim to want to protect every life while supporting what are in, plain language, death panels in the form of “algorithms” to direct the provision of “palliative care,” which is, of course, a means to kill innocent human beings who are said to be suffering from a terminal illness or are assessed subjectively by healthcare “professionals” as lacking a sufficient “quality of life” to continue the expenditure of resources (money, treatment, drugs, hospitalization, etc.) to sustain their lives. Once again, the those not familiar with this subject can read Chronicling the Adversary's Global Takeover of the Healthcare Industry.

President Donald Trump and his administration are fully supportive of “palliative care,” and the president is sure to sign the egregious brainchild of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and Soros Foundation, Palliative Care and Hospice Education Training Act (PCHETA), whenever it is the United State Senate is able to get back to its legislative agenda once the current circus taking place within its midst has run its melodramatic course. There was overwhelming bipartisan support for PCHETA in the United States House of Representatives as it had 294 sponsors when introduced and passed by a voice vote on October 28, 2019, the Feast of Saints Simon and Jude. No one who supports “palliative care” is pro-life.” Period.

However, it is actually worse than all this as Trump has chosen a man who helped to found Aspire Health in Tennessee, a major provider of “hospice” and “palliative care,” to direct, in effect, the Medicare system’s efforts to promote “palliative care”:

The work experience of the candidate President Trump is likely to tap for a health innovation slot threatens to trigger politically volatile discussions about end-of-life care among Republicans.

The candidate, Brad Smith, 36, co-founded and oversaw a Nashville-based startup called Aspire Health that offered services to patients who were likely to die. The company uses algorithms to identify patients with serious medical conditions, many of whom have only a year to live, and helps those who don't want intensive medical care to get palliative care, which helps people relieve suffering at home until they die or recover.

For a large swath of the medical community, the type of work Aspire does has been a godsend: They find patients are too often pushed into aggressive care at the end of their lives that they don't want and that worsens their quality of life. Such care is also extremely expensive to the healthcare system.

"These programs really work to understand people's goals. Some people want more aggressive treatment and others don't," said Douglas McCarthy, senior researcher at the Commonwealth Fund. (Trump Favorite for top  Healthcare Position Shows GOP U-Turn on Death Panel Talk.)

Well, Brad Smith was appointed by President Trump to be the head of the so-called “Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI), where he will oversee the creation and stewardship of value-based payment models” (see Former Anthen Executive and Palliative Care Entrepreneur Brad Smith to Lead CMMI). “Innovation” and “value-based payment models” are simply euphemisms for killing innocent human beings in the name of providing them with a “quality of life” that masks the reality of their being coaxed by a “healthcare team” into devising a program that will make them accomplices in their own murder by agreeing to a regimen of pills, potions and other treatments that have but one end: their death.

Brad Smith’s appointment, however, did not place in a vacuum as he had founded “Aspire Health” in 2012 with Dr. William Harrison Frist, who was the Majority Leader of the United States Senate from January 3, 2003, to January 3, 2007, before he was succeeded by Addison Mitchell McConnell. Dr. William Harrison Frist is deeply involved in the myth of “brain death” and vital organ transplantations as he has performed “heart transplants,” thus making it quite logical for him to become a champion of “hospice” and “palliative care.”

Additionally, Dr. Frist’s direct connection with surgical baby-killing was documented in a Conservative News Service report in January of 2003 when he was selected by his fellow adherents of the false opposite of the naturalist “right” to succeed United States Senator Chester Trent “Insert Foot in Mouth” Lott (R-Mississippi), who had served as the floor leader of the Republican Party from June 12, 1996, to January 3, 2003, to serve as the Majority Leader of the United States Senate:

"Bill Frist is not pro-life," said Judie Brown, president and co-founder of American Life League, whose members believe in the sanctity of "innocent human life from fertilization to natural death; without compromise, without exception, without apology."

"He's made all kinds of strange statements," Brown said of Frist, "and is a shareholder in a huge for-profit hospital company that does abortions."

She is referring to Hospital Corporation of America (HCA). The senator's late father, Dr. Thomas Frist, Sr., and brother, Dr. Thomas Frist, Jr., founded HCA in 1968. The company merged with Columbia Hospital Corporation in 1994 to become Columbia/HCA.

Stephen Ally of the Timothy Plan, a pro-life, pro-family, biblically based mutual fund group, confirmed to that the plan does not invest in Columbia/HCA stock, primarily because of the hospital chain's policy allowing abortions to be performed at its facilities.

Columbia/HCA representatives have not responded to multiple press inquiries about the company's abortion policy.

Conservatives Question Possible Double Standard

According to Senate records, Frist held a minimum of $5,000,001 in Columbia/HCA stock in a blind trust originated in December 2000 and just over $560,000 in 15 other companies.

The amount of Columbia/HCA stock could be as high as $74,930,085, but is not specified because of the value range ($1,001 to $15,001) within which senators are allowed to classify their holdings.

Terence Jeffrey, editor of Human Events, noted that, regardless of the dollar amount in question, the report indicates that 89 percent of Sen. Frist's stock holdings are in Columbia/HCA. He believes that fact forces other Republican senators to face what could be a politically uncomfortable question.

"If it is disqualifying for their Senate leader to make offensive remarks interpreted as endorsing an immoral policy that denied African-Americans equal rights," Jeffrey asked in Friday's edition of the national conservative weekly newsmagazine, "is it also disqualifying for their Senate leader to make money from a hospital chain that denies unborn babies the right to life?"

The answer to that question, according to Brown, is an unwavering, "Yes!"

"I'm horrified," she said at the thought of Frist becoming Senate majority leader.

His support of Clinton nominee, Dr. David Satcher, to the post of surgeon general also irritated many pro-life activists. Satcher was routinely criticized for his endorsement of the "safe-sex" philosophy promoted by the Clinton administration.

Brown: Pro-Life Conservatives Have A Better Choice

Brown suggested that for those who truly believe in the sanctity of human life, there is a better choice.

"I'd pick Don Nickles (R-Okla.)," she said. "I wouldn't even have to think about it."

As an example of the difference between the two on life issues, Brown noted that Frist voted for the Schumer Amendment to the 2002 bankruptcy bill.

The amendment blocked peaceful pro-life protesters from filing bankruptcy to void large cash judgments awarded to abortion clinic owners who sue the protesters, knowing they often have little money to mount a legal defense.

Blocking such filings allows the clinic owners to force the sale of protesters' homes, vehicles and other personal assets that could otherwise be protected through bankruptcy. Lott also voted for the amendment, which passed 80 to 17. Nickles voted against it.

Brown also dismissed those who charge that Nickles is too abrasive to carry out the "sensitive negotiations" demanded of a majority leader.

"It's time for senators to stand up and be counted," she urged. "People like Don Nickles will stand up ... and say that abortion kills a person.

"You can be so soft spoken, and so desirous of not offending anybody that you don't do anything substantive to stop abortion," Brown continued. "We've got 30 years of history to show us that that's not working."

Frist's Official Position on Abortion

In a statement emailed in response to an inquiry from, Nick Smith, spokesman for Frist, wrote that Frist's ownership of Columbia/HCA stock and his position on abortion are "separate and distinct" issues.

"On his own accord, by placing his assets in a federally qualified blind trust, Senator Frist took a step above and beyond to ensure there is no conflict of interest," Smith wrote. "He believes this was the proper and responsible thing to do. He has never been employed by, or served on the board of, HCA or any of its hospitals."

Smith also stated that Frist's "record on abortion is clear."

"He is opposed to abortion except in the instances of rape, incest and when the life of the mother is threatened," Smith wrote. "He is opposed to federal funding of abortions. And in the Senate, he led the fight against partial-birth abortions."

Frist's website does not list abortion among the 14 top issues detailed on its homepage. A keyword search for "abortion" yielded only seven results, one of which is an email link, one a reference to former President Clinton's pro-abortion policies, and six to the partial-birth abortion debate.

No statement of Frist's position on abortion in general could be located.

There is a statement, however, regarding the issue of cloning.

"No one can deny the potential human cloning holds for increased scientific understanding," Frist wrote.

"But given the serious ethical concerns this research raises, the fact that promising embryonic stem cell research will continue even under a cloning ban, the lack of significant research in animal models, and the existence of promising alternatives, I am unable to find a compelling justification for allowing human cloning today," he wrote.

That last part of Frist's statement troubles Human Events' Jeffrey.

"As Bill Clinton might say, that doesn't rule out tomorrow," Jeffrey observed, "when he may be Senate majority leader."

Republican senators had tentatively scheduled a Jan. 6 meeting to discuss Lott's fate. No announcement has been made as to whether or not they will wait until that date to hold an election for a new majority leader. (Conservative News Service: Frist Seen as Lott's Like Heir; Pr0-Life Record Challenged. Also see my own Frist for the Mill that was written at the time.)

This is relevant again, seventeen years later, as President Donald John Trump’s claim to be “pro-life” is belied by the fact that he not only makes “exceptions” to the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment but has placed supporters of “palliative care” in the United States Department of Health and Human Services, including Secretary Alex Azar, who was present at the March for Life with President Trump, and many of his deputies (Medicare Alternative Payment Model Provides Opportunities for Home and Community Palliative Care).  

Who is speaking in behalf of those being targeted by the “third path movement’s” agenda of evaluating patients on subjective standards to determine that which is beyond their moral authority to judge namely, deciding who is worthy or “useful” enough to receive medical care and who must be led gently down the path to their “merciful” execution.


Just empty rhetoric, especially since Trump’s remarks at the March for Life a week ago never appeared on the website’s home page and can be found only if one knows to scroll to the upper left hand corner of one’s computer screen and click on "News" and then “Remarks.” One can find the president’s address on January 24, 2020, listed at this time as twelfth entry on that page, but it was not even the first entry a week ago as the president gave two other speeches that day that took precedence over his appearance before the March for Life.

Final Interjection:

Rhetoric thrills the masses for a time, but they quickly forget what they have heard as they permit themselves to be wrapped up in the agitations of the moment, and they tend to forget that almost every seemingly “pro-life” policy or executive action adopted by a partly pro-life, partly pro-abortion can be reversed with several strokes of a men by a president who is completely committed to the destruction of the innocent preborn under cover of the law. This what William Jefferson Blythe Clinton did in 1993 and it is what Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro did in January of 2009.

What is “done” by one administration can be undone by others, and everything that Donald John Trump’s administration has done administratively will be undone by some Democrat, whether in 2021 or 2025. Given the demographic changes that have taken place and will continue to take place, changes that have occurred in large measure because contraception and abortion have robbed the workforce of native born workers, it is only a matter of time before the useless Republican Party goes the way of the Federalist Party and the Whig Party.

This is not to disparage the quality of most President Donald John Trump’s judicial nominees. However, it is to illustrate the fact that it is a sad, sad commentary when those who call themselves “pro-life” believe that one can be such while "some" surgical abortions as legally and morally acceptable and when most have no clue about the evil of "palliative care" and of "natural family planning." .

No, nations can never be made “great” or secure when its laws permit and its people readily commit and revel in the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance, including the willful murder of innocent beings under the aegis of the medical industry’s manufactured, profit-making myth called “brain death” and the euthanizing of the chronically or terminally ill or anyone else said to be suffering from a declining “quality” of life under the aegis of “palliative care” in hospitals, hospices, nursing homes, assisted living centers and, all too frequently, in the very comforts of one’s own home as one’s own family members are instructed by a “home hospice worker” to administer increasingly higher doses of drugs that are designed to make a patient “comfortable” as he is killed gradually in a manner worthy of Arsenic and Old Lace.

The March for Life, Aided by the Conciliar “Bishops,” Seeks a “Consensus

Over sixty million preborn babies have been executed in their mothers’ wombs since the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973. Thousands more babies, however, had been slaughtered in their mothers’ wombs for the preceding six years in some states (Colorado, California, Hawaii, New York, New Jersey) whose legislatures enacted “liberalizing” statutes to permit innocent children to be butchered in their mothers’ wombs (see below). Moreover, hundreds of thousands of other children had been killed chemically by abortifacient contraceptives and devices.

Unfortunately, however, the late and very valiant Nellie Gray, who conceived of, helped to organized and presided over all but one of Marches for Life after the first one on January 22, 1974, refused to include opposition to contraception as part of her “life principles,” choosing to concentrate solely on opposing Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton even though the Supreme Court’s rationale in support of baby-killing had been established in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut, June 7, 1965, that declared a long unused Connecticut statute forbidding the sale of contraceptives to married couples to be unconstitutional. Just as the widespread acceptance of the contraceptive mentality led to the widespread acceptance of baby-killing-on-demand, so is the case that the Court’s “reasoning” in Griswold led directly to the outcome in Roe. Griswold v. Connecticut, though, was the jurisprudential foundation for them all, however, as the court’s seven justice majority (Chief Justice Earl Warren and Associate Justices William O. Douglas, Tom C. Clark, John Marshall Harlan II, William Brennan—then the court’s lone Catholic justice, Byron White and Arthur Goldberg) “found” a “right to privacy” emanating from alleged “penumbras” in the Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America.

Even Associate Justice Hugo Black, the Freemason and former member of the Ku Klux Klan in Alabama who became a court liberal on many matters, found that kind of judicial activism too much to stomach, denouncing it very plainly even though he did not like the law, which we know as Catholics is objectively just and good of its nature, in question:

The Court talks about a constitutional 'right of privacy' as though there is some constitutional provision or provisions forbidding any law ever to be passed which might abridge the 'privacy' of individuals. But there is not. There are, of course, guarantees in certain specific constitutional provisions which are designed in part to protect privacy at certain times and places with respect to certain activities. Such, for example, is the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against 'unreasonable searches and seizures.' But I think it belittles that Amendment to talk about it as though it protects nothing but 'privacy.' To treat it that way is to give it a niggardly interpretation, not the kind of liberal reading I think any Bill of Rights provision should be given. The average man would very likely not have his feelings soothed any more by having his property seized openly than by having it seized privately and by stealth. He simply wants his property left alone. And a person can be just as much, if not more, irritated, annoyed and injured by an unceremonious public arrest by a policeman as he is by a seizure in the privacy of his office or home.

One of the most effective ways of diluting or expanding a constitutionally guaranteed right is to substitute for the crucial word or words of a constitutional guarantee another word or words, more or less flexible and more or less restricted in meaning. This fact is well illustrated by the use of the term 'right of privacy' as a comprehensive substitute for the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against 'unreasonable searches and seizures.' 'Privacy' is a broad, abstract and ambiguous concept which can easily be shrunken in meaning but which can also, on the other hand, easily be interpreted as a constitutional ban against many things other than searches and seizures. I have expressed the view many times that First Amendment freedoms, for example, have suffered from a failure of the courts to stick to the simple language of the First Amendment in construing it, instead of invoking multitudes of words substituted for those the Framers used. See, e.g., New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 293, 84 S.Ct. 710, 733, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (concurring opinion); cases collected in City of El Paso v. Simmons, 379 U.S. 497, 517, n. 1, 85 S.Ct. 577, 588, 13 L.Ed.2d 446 (dissenting opinion); Black, The Bill of Rights, 35 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 865. For these reasons I get nowhere in this case by talk about a constitutional 'right or privacy' as an emanation from one or more constitutional provisions.[1] I like my privacy as well as the next one, but I am nevertheless compelled to admit that government has a right to invade it unless prohibited by some specific constitutional provision. For these reasons I cannot agree with the Court's judgment and the reasons it gives for holding this Connecticut law unconstitutional.. . .

I repeat so as not to be misunderstood that this Court does have power, which it should exercise, to hold laws unconstitutional where they are forbidden by the Federal Constitution. My point is that there is no provision of the Constitution which either expressly or impliedly vests power in this Court to sit as a supervisory agency over acts of duly constituted legislative bodies and set aside their laws because of the Court's belief that the legislative policies adopted are unreasonable, unwise, arbitrary, capricious or irrational. The adoption of such a loose, flexible, uncontrolled standard for holding laws unconstitutional, if ever it is finally achieved, will amount to a great unconstitutional shift of power to the courts which I believe and am constrained to say will be bad for the courts and worse for the country. Subjecting federal and state laws to such an unrestrained and unrestrainable judicial control as to the wisdom of legislative enactments would, I fear, jeopardize the separation of governmental powers that the Framers set up and at the same time threaten to take away much of the power of States to govern themselves which the Constitution plainly intended them to have.[16]

I realize that many good and able men have eloquently spoken and written, sometimes in rhapsodical strains, about the duty of this Court to keep the Constitution in tune with the times. The idea is that the Constitution must be changed from time to time and that this Court is charged with a duty to make those changes. For myself, I must with all deference reject that philosophy. The Constitution makers knew the need for change and provided for it. Amendments suggested by the people's elected representatives can be submitted to the people or their selected agents for ratification. That method of change was good for our Fathers, and being somewhat old fashioned I must add it is good enough for me. And so, I cannot rely on the Due Process Clause or the Ninth Amendment or any mysterious and uncertain natural law concept as a reason for striking down this state law. The Due Process Clause with an 'arbitrary and capricious' or 'shocking to the conscience' formula was liberally used by this Court to strike down economic legislation in the early decades of this century, threatening, many people thought, the tranquility and stability of the Nation. See, e.g., Lochner v. State of New York, 198 U.S. 45, 25 S.Ct. 539, 49 L.Ed. 937. That formula, based on subjective considerations of 'natural justice,' is no less dangerous when used to enforce this Court's views about personal rights than those about economic rights. I had thought that we had laid that formula, as a means for striking down state legislation, to rest once and for all in cases like West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379, 57 S.Ct. 578, 81 L.Ed. 703; Olsen v. State of Nebraska ex rel. Western Reference & Bond Assn., 313 U.S. 236, 61 S.Ct. 862, 85 L.Ed. 1305, and many other opinions.[17] See also Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45, 74, 25 S.Ct. 539, 551 (Holmes, J., dissenting). (Associate Justice Hugo Black, Dissenting Opinion, Griswold v. Connecticut, June 7, 1965.)

The late Associate Justice Hugo Lafayette Black, a Freemason and former member of the Ku Klux Klan in his native Alabama, who had was fellow Freemason Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s first appointee to the Supreme Court of the United States of America on August 13, 1937, did not like the Connecticut statute under review in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut. Indeed, he defended a fellow Klansman who had murdered Father James Coyle in 1921 when he, Black, a thirty-five year-old attorney in private practice. Nonetheless, though, Black understood the principles of just constitutional interpretation, articulating very clearly what would happen if the Court continued to “invent” “rights” that had no foundation in the Constitution of the United States of America whatsoever.

It impossible to oppose surgical abortion unless one also opposes contraception, which is overthrows the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage and thus makes the conception of a baby to be considered an “accident” if he is not “planned” or “wanted.” Mrs. Gray chose not to do so, some who knew her better than I did told me, as she wanted to involve as many non-Catholic “religious leaders” as possible, not that many Catholic leaders wanted to doso. They did not.

Roe v. Wade could have been overturned by a no exceptions constitutional amendment in the 1970s if the conciliar bishops (many of them at the time were true bishops) worked in unison to penalize Catholics in public life who supported the surgical execution of preborn babies and if they themselves opposed all abortions without exception. The real fault here lies not with the intrepid Nellie Gray but with the conciliar bishops, both true and false, as they forfeited what they should have seen as their solemn apostolic duty to defend the inviolability of all innocent human life from the moment of conception through all subsequent stages without any exceptions, qualifications or reservations whatsoever.

Sadly, however, the conciliar bishops in 1973 did nothing then and thereafter to prevent and/or punish rhetorically “pro-life” Catholics in public life as Edward Moore Kennedy. Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., Hugh Leo Carey, Thomas P. O’Neill and Mario Matthew Cuomo, among so many others at the time, when they switched their positions to support what they called was the “choice” of a woman to do with “her” body as she pleases. This shopworn slogan ignores the simple biological fact that a preborn child is not the mother’s body even though God Himself has ordained creation so that he spends his first nine months in what she be the sanctuary of his mother’s womb.

Only four American bishops, Timothy “Cardinal” Manning of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, John “Cardinal” Krol of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, Humberto Medeiros of the Archdiocese of Boston and John Cardinal Cody of the Archdiocese of Chicago testified against the Buckley Amendment (named after its sponsor, United James Senator James Buckley, C-New York) on the grounds that the civil law could never permit the direct taking of a single, solitary innocent human life from the first moment of conception through all subsequent stages until natural death. These bishops, however, however, although part of the conciliar church by that time, were opposed by the entire "pro-life" establishment whose machinations were being orchestrated, at least to a very large extent, by the then Monsignor James Timothy McHugh of the Archdiocese of Newark, New Jersey. McHugh did not have a qualm of conscience whatsoever about the "life of the mother exception" as a matter of legislative expedience or as a core moral principle of the National Right to Life Committee his work at the then named Family Life Bureau of the United States Catholic Conference helped to launch.

As time progressed, of course, some of the Jacobin/Bolshevik members of the conciliar hierarchy in the United States of America began to distance themselves from any effort to oppose abortion on demand without exception as they followed the path of Joseph “Cardinal” Bernardin’s “consistent ethic of life” that he enunciated at Fordham University, Bronx, New York, December 6, 1983:

The substance of a Catholic position on a consistent ethic of life is rooted in a religious vision. But the citizenry of the United States is radically pluralistic in moral and religious conviction. So we face the challenge of stating our case, which is shaped in terms of our faith and our religious convictions, in non-religious terms which others of different faith convictions might find morally persuasive. . . . As we seek to shape and share the vision of a consistent ethic of life, I suggest a style governed by the following rule: We should maintain and clearly communicate our religious convictions but also maintain our civil courtesy. We should be vigorous in stating a case and attentive in hearing another's case; we should test everyone's logic but not question his or her motives. ("A Consistent Ethic of Life: An American-Catholic Dialogue".). 

To what must a Catholic listen on the issue of the taking of innocent human life?

Those who support the chemical and/or surgical taking of innocent human life in the womb do not have a "case." They have lies. Such people, if they are non-Catholics, must be converted to the Catholic Faith. Those who are Catholics must be told that they excommunicate themselves from the Church's maternal bosom by supporting willful murder, one the four crimes that cry out to Heaven for vengeance.

The Bernardin approach to "life issues" contrasts, of course, very sharply with that of the true popes of the Catholic Church, who taught clearly and unequivocally that Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order. We do not speak in "non-religious" terms. We make proper Catholic distinctions when speaking about moral issues, remembering always to speak as Catholics at all times without ever dissenting from anything contained within the Deposit of Faith at any time for any reason, something that Pope Leo XIII made clear Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890:

The chief elements of this duty consist in professing openly and unflinchingly the Catholic doctrine, and in propagating it to the utmost of our power. For, as is often said, with the greatest truth, there is nothing so hurtful to Christian wisdom as that it should not be known, since it possesses, when loyally received, inherent power to drive away error. (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890.)

The very reason that contraception and abortion are part of our culture and protected by civil law is because the Protestant Revolution overthrew the Social Reign of Christ the King in the Sixteenth Century in many parts of Europe and the revolutions and movements inspired by the naturalism of Judeo-Masonry finished the job in the rest while creating entirely new nations elsewhere, such as in the United States of America, whose people were to celebrate religious "diversity" as a "protection" against tyranny and a "guarantee" of individual liberties rather than as the means by which the devil can propagate and then institutionalize Every Error Imaginable.

Every Catholic must be opposed to contraception and abortion, and there is no room to “settle” for a “consensus” that accepts the killing of innocent preborn babies in earlier stages of his prenatal development but restricts must, but not all, such killing in the last three months before he is born.

Yet it is, of course, that the conciliar “bishops” have now co-opted the March for Life by making it a vessel of the sort of “consensus” with the devil that is of the essence of the entire false spirit of conciliarism in its entirety. This is a statement that was issued by the March of Life’s affiliate, “March for Life Action” prior to the March for Life:

8 in 10 Americans believe that abortion should have real, legal limits. Even 6 out of 10 pro-choice Americans agree that abortion should happen only during the first three months of pregnancy, at most. Furthermore, almost 2/3rds of Americans oppose tax dollars paying for abortion.

Yet most pro-choice politicians support the extreme position that abortion should be legal right up until birth. And, they want Americans to pay for abortion with our tax dollars.

It’s time for this extremism to end. It’s time for politicians to stop listening to the pro-abortion lobby, and join the national consensus. (March for Life Action.)

This is what passes for “pro-life” leadership?

We can no more settle for a “consensus” about one of the four crimes that cry out to Heaven for vengeance, willful murder, than we can for a “consensus” about just accepting the existence of false religions without believing that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has given us a mission to convert all men everywhere to the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order.

lways eager to find “common ground” between truth and error, Joseph Louis Bernardin even started what he called the “Common Ground Initiative” to produce “dialogue” between those who support unrestricted baby-killing on demand in all circumstances as a matter of “human rights” and a woman’s supposed “right to choose” (to kill a baby, of course!) and those who oppose such killing in all circumstances without exception.

There is no “common ground” between truth and error.

None. Truth must be proclaimed.

Those in error must be corrected.

Civil law that defies the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law has no binding force over men and must be opposed and defied, not accepted as “settled law” or made subject to “discussions.”

The truths of the moral law are non-negotiable.

Then again, the conciliar revolutionaries believe that everything contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith is subject to “discussion,” “reflection” and “adaptation” according to alleged “pastoral needs” that, to recall the words uttered by Pope Pius XII to the Jesuits sixty-three years ago, “would draw norms for action for eternal salvation from what is actually done, rather than from what should be done.”



Moreover, the establishment “pro-life” movement, most of whose leaders rarely, if ever, discuss the immorality and impermissibility of “in vitro fertilization,” “surrogate parenthood” and the march of the homosexualist collective, have adopted the very language of the devil by use the phrase “pro-choice” to refer to those who support the wanton destruction of the innocent in their mothers’ wombs. No woman has the moral freedom to “choose” to kill her unborn baby. There is no “choice” or “decision” to be made, only a baby to be nurtured in the womb and then brought to the Baptismal font after birth so that he be liberated from Original Sin and nurtured by his parents in the true Faith.

As noted earlier when discussing President Donald John Trump’s address to the March for Life on January 24, 2020, to focus on pro-death “extremism” makes it appear, whether intentionally or not, that it is not “extreme” to kill an innocent baby inside the sanctuary of his mother’s womb earlier in his development as a “consensus” exists that, as regrettable as it might be, such killings have come to be viewed as “acceptable” by most Americans.

What makes this all the more absurd is that there is nearly, although not quite, a universal consensus within the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist “left” that it is “extreme” to oppose any surgical executions of innocent preborn children at any time for any reason. United States Senator Kirsten Gillebrand (D-New York), a pro-abortion, pro-perversity advocate who remains in perfectly good standing within the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, put the matter in very direct terms last year during her failed run for this year’s Democratic Party presidential nomination to which I am paying zero attention as I am completely uninterested in following the spectacle of which globalist, environmentalist, Communist, collectivist, statist plutocrats debating one another:

- Gillibrand, who met with abortion providers, activists and state legislators before giving her speech, said most Democrats have become more direct when talking about reproductive rights than they were a few years ago. There’s less throat clearing than there used to be. Very few politicians use the “safe, legal, and rare” talking point that was so standard during the Bill Clinton era.

“As a party, we should be 100 percent pro-choice, and it should be nonnegotiable,” Gillibrand said in our interview. “We should not settle for less, and if our party cannot support women's basic human rights, their fundamental freedoms to make decisions about their bodies and their futures, then we are not the party of women. … I will not compromise on women's reproductive freedom.”

The senator attributes the more strident tone to the fact that more women are participating in politics, and they are more passionate about protecting their rights than the men who used to call the shots in the party. “I think women's voices are being heard now more than ever,” said Gillibrand. “Women are feeling self-empowered. I don't think they’re going to take excuses anymore, and I don't think they're going to support candidates that don't believe they should get to make those fundamentally personal decisions.” (Gillibrand Trip  to Georgia Showcases the Changing Politics of Abortion for Democrats. By the way, I am paying even less attention to the members of the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist "left" competing for their syndicate's presidential nomination thatn I am to the impeachment proceedings whose outcome was never in doubt. We do not need to permit the adversary to agitate us with these side shows that mean nothing.)

Unlike most Republicans and unlike most of those in the pro-life “establishment,” pro-death advocates are zealous in their commitment to the protection of the killing of the innocent preborn. They do not compromise. They do not bend. They are philosophically more consistent in their support for evil than Republicans and their “pro-life” establishment enablers and lackeys are in their lukewarm, inconsistently applied rhetorical “defense” of the preborn that features so many contradictory statements as to defy comprehension at times. The consistency of the "left" is such that they will act to remove opponents, whether by impeachment or by simple calumnies aimed to ruin the lives of those who they think pose a threat to their "infallible" beliefs and practices, which is quite unlike their hapless opponents who never threatened the likes of Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, Eric Himpton Holder, Lois Lerner, Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton and, among so many others, Loretty Lynch with any kind of legitimate sanctions during their own demonstrable abuse of power, outright violations of the Constitution and actions that jeopardized American national security and gave aid and comfort to this country's enemies around the world.

Moreover, most of those who are “pro-life,” especially those in the “establishment,” support at least one, if not three “exceptions” to the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment, and serve as advocates of “natural family planning” (see  Forty-Three Years After Humanae VitaeAlways Trying To Find A Way and Planting Seeds of Revolutionary ChangeJorge Puts On His "Catholic Hat"? Don't You Believe It and "Rabbits" to Jorge, God's Blessings to Pope Pius XII), “brain death,” “vital organ donation and transplantation, “palliative care” and are in the vanguard of promoting explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments, up to and including Karol Josef Wojtyla’s hideous “theology of the body” that has been critiqued so superbly by Mrs. Randy Engel (see The Phenomenology of Dietrich von Hildebrand and His Novel Teaching on Marriage and Theology of the Body).

We cannot fight evil with evil nor error with error.

We can only fight evil with Catholicism. Nothing else.

The harsh reality of our situation is, however, that we find ourselves constantly arguing about the inarguable because we are not united by the bonds of the Holy Faith, the one and only means on the face of this earth that can, admitting the vagaries of fallen human nature and the propensity of men to sin and use their free wills to please themselves and not Christ the King, direct the minds and actions of men in light of First and Last Things and provide them with the supernatural helps to do so. No Catholicism, no social order. It is that simple.

The Potomac Flows into the Tiber—and Back Again

Although much is being done at the state level to try to pass legislation to curb the surgical killing of the innocent preborn subject to the “infallible” judges of the inarguable on the Supreme Court of the United States of America, the fight against surgical abortion is this country is one that will not be won by means merely natural. As noted just above, most people of child bearing age in this country use contraceptives of one sort or another and most have made their “peace” with at least “a little bit” of the surgical execution of the innocent preborn under the cover of the civil law, noting that younger generations, raised in the incubator of America’s public indoctrination program that we must be subsidize with our property taxes (public schools), are more supportive of baby killing, a reality that does not bode well for the long term if it is within the Providence of God for there to be such a long term.

Nations not grounded in right principles and, quite instead, whose founders believed that the “people,” not Christ the King, are sovereign must degenerate into abject chaos, immorality and amorality over the course of time. The process of manifesting the perfection of the founding principles’ inherent degeneracy has accelerated in the past fifty years because the wellsprings of a superabundance of Sanctifying and Actual Graces have dried up in the aftermath of the “Second” Vatican Council and its false, liturgically invalid and thus sacramentally barren liturgical rites (including the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical abomination and the alleged rites of episcopal consecration, priestly ordination, confirmation and the so-called “sacrament of the sick”).

The true sacraments provided the bulwark that, despite the influences of the world, the flesh and the devil, kept Catholics in the United States of America and elsewhere in the world from endorsing moral evils that had been taught were such and that they knew were detrimental to men and to their civil societies no matter how else they may have been compromised by the Americanist spirit of religious indifferentism, cultural pluralism, egalitarianism and majoritarianism. All restraints of decency, morality, modesty and piety were removed when the false spirit of the world began to be embraced and celebrated by the conciliar “popes, “bishops” and many of its clergy. Even the supposed champions of “tradition” and “orthodoxy” within the conciliar structures such as Athanasius Schneider and Raymond Leo Burke support the new ecclesiology, false ecumenism, separation of Church and State, religious liberty, episcopal collegiality and dogmatic evolution, and none of those supposed champions believes that the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical abomination is evil in se. Mind you, this is to say nothing about one of their most fundamental errors, namely, their belief that Catholics can oppose the teaching of a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter that reduces the papacy to nothing more than an office equivalent to that of a national chief executive.

Therein, however, lies the nub of the matter. Catholics used to hold the papacy with reverence as having been instituted by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Himself, and they were taught to respect a pope as the very Vicar of Christ on earth as they discharged their duties of filial piety to pray daily for him, his intentions and his good health. That this is no longer the case is the result of many factors, including the inevitable catechizing influence that the secular religion known as “democracy” has had on Catholics worldwide.

That is, as I have noted so many times in the past, Catholics in the United States of America, became so coopted by the Americanist ethos by the end of the Nineteenth Century that it was only a matter of time before they would come to view Holy Mother Church and the Sacred Deposit of Faith that Our Lord Jesus Christ has entrusted to her exclusively for its infallible explication and eternal safekeeping through the lens of democracy (elections, majority rule, partisan politics) rather than viewing the world through the eyes of the Holy Faith. This is an inversion of epic proportions, but it is one that caused the likes of the late Monsignor John Ryan to become a firm supporter of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s statist “New Deal” that was in direct violation of the Natural Law principle of subsidiarity and it was this same inversion that would make it possible for pro-abortion and pro-perversity Catholics in public life to claim that they could make a “separation” between their “private beliefs” and their “personal duties” to uphold “the law” even when said law was a violation of the Divine and Natural Laws and thus deleterious  to the temporal good of men and their nations and, of course, to the eternal good of their own souls.

Pope Leo XIII recognized this danger, expressing it clearly in Longiqua Oceani, January 6, 1895, and then amplifying his concerns in Testem Benveolentiae Nostrae, January 22, 1899, precisely seventy-four years before the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. He had alread used Longiqua Oceani to upbraid the American bishops for not making known the Social Teaching of the Church that he had been explicating in one encyclical letter after another, thereby depriving the sheep entrusted unto their pastoral care from even recognizing that they had an obligation to plant the seeds for the conversion of the nation to the true Faith, that it was not correct for the Church and State in the United States of America to be dissevered and divorced:

The main factor, no doubt, in bringing things into this happy state were the ordinances and decrees of your synods, especially of those which in more recent times were convened and confirmed by the authority of the Apostolic See. But, moreover (a fact which it gives pleasure to acknowledge), thanks are due to the equity of the laws which obtain in America and to the customs of the well-ordered Republic. For the Church amongst you, unopposed by the Constitution and government of your nation, fettered by no hostile legislation, protected against violence by the common laws and the impartiality of the tribunals, is free to live and act without hindrance. Yet, though all this is true, it would be very erroneous to draw the conclusion that in America is to be sought the type of the most desirable status of the Church, or that it would be universally lawful or expedient for State and Church to be, as in America, dissevered and divorced. The fact that Catholicity with you is in good condition, nay, is even enjoying a prosperous growth, is by all means to be attributed to the fecundity with which God has endowed His Church, in virtue of which unless men or circumstances interfere, she spontaneously expands and propagates herself; but she would bring forth more abundant fruits if, in addition to liberty, she enjoyed the favor of the laws and the patronage of the public authority. (Pope Leo XIII, Longiqua Oceani, January 6, 1895.)

As regards civil affairs, experience has shown how important it is that the citizens should be upright and virtuous. In a free State, unless justice be generally cultivated, unless the people be repeatedly and diligently urged to observe the precepts and laws of the Gospel, liberty itself may be pernicious. Let those of the clergy, therefore, who are occupied with the instruction of the multitude, treat plainly this topic of the duties of citizens, so that all may understand and feel the necessity, in political life, of conscientiousness, self restraint, and integrity; for that cannot be lawful in public which is unlawful in private affairs. On this whole subject there are to be found, as you know, in the encyclical letters written by Us from time to time in the course of Our pontificate, many things which Catholics should attend to and observe. In these writings and expositions We have treated of human liberty, of the chief Christian duties, of civil government, and of the Christian constitution of States, drawing Our principles as well from the teaching of the Gospels as from reason. They, then, who wish to be good citizens and discharge their duties faithfully may readily learn from Our Letters the ideal of an upright life. In like manner, let the priests be persistent in keeping before the minds of the people the enactments of the Third Council of Baltimore, particularly those which inculcate the virtue of temperance, the frequent use of the sacraments and the observance of the just laws and institutions of the Republic. (Pope Leo XIII, Longiqua Oceani, January 6, 1895.).) 

Pope Leo XIII was warning the likes of James Cardinal Gibbons, the fervent Americanist Archbishop of Baltimore 1877 to 1921 and John Ireland, the arch-Americanist Archbishop of Saint Paul from 1884 to 1918, that the growth of the Catholic Church in the United States of America was not the result of the “free exercise of religion” clause in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America but of the graces won for us on Calvary by the shedding of every single drop of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross. "Religious liberty" as enshrined in the Constitution of the United States of America was not the reason that the Catholic Church had experienced such growth. God Himself was responsible for effecting this growth in spite of, not because of, the "dissevered and divorced" status of the Church from the civil state in the United States of America. Moreover, the longest reigning true pope in the history of the Catholic Church other than Saint Peter hiimself examplained that civil liberty itself would be perditious if the people themselves did not "observe the precepts and laws of the Gospel."

Ah, the shallow group of intellectually dishonest people who have defected from the Faith by embracing the tenets of the condemned heresy of Americanism do not provide their readers with the full context of those opening quotes from Longiqua Oceani, January 6, 1895, choosing to stop right at the sentences highlighted in bold above. This misleads readers into drawing the conclusion that true popes gave their unquestioned support to the nature of the American constitutional regime. This is not so.

It is important to make some careful distinctions when discussing the heresy of Americanism:

First, the Catholic Church's condemnation of the heresy of Americanism has nothing to do with whether the conditions extant in the thirteen English colonies situated alongside the eastern seaboard of what became the United States of America justified a revolt from the authority of King George III. This is a matter about which the Church has nothing to say. Arguments could be made in support of a revolt. Arguments could be made against such a revolt. It is interesting to note, however, that only about a third of the colonists supported a break from the United Kingdom in 1776 and that many of those who did not support the revolt were harassed rather mercilessly by the self-styled "patriots". The Americanist heresy, however, has nothing to do with a debate over whether the conditions of a justified revolt, which are more or less synonymous with the tenets of the Theory of the Just War, existed in the thirteen English colonies in what became the United States of America.

Second, the Catholic Church's condemnation of the heresy of American has nothing to do with the specific institutional arrangements created by the Constitution of the United States of America. Holy Mother Church has taught from time immemorial that she can adapt herself to any legitimate form of government provided that she be recognized as the true Church and that she be accorded the ultimate right, following the discharge of her Indirect Power of teaching and preaching and exhortation, to interpose herself, albeit rarely and judiciously, with the civil authorities when the good of souls demands her motherly intervention. Holy Mother Church, however, has no specific models of government to which men must adhere. She can adapt herself to a monarchy or to a presidential-congressional or parliamentary-ministerial form or to some other sort of government, noting that the monarchical system is hierarchial and thus reflects the hierarchical, monarchial nature of Holy Mother Church herself.

So many Americanists emote about these red herrings that have nothing to do with Americanism at all. Those who want to continue to emote can do so. Those who want to understand why Americanism is a heresy can continue to read this article.

What is at issue in the Americanist heresy are the false principles upon which the American founding were premised and how those false principles adversely influence the minds, hearts and souls of Catholics in the United States of America to view the Church through the eyes of the world rather than viewing the world through the eyes of the true Faith. These false principles have convinced generations upon generations of Catholics in the United States of America to look to partisan politics as the means (at first) for their upward mobility in American society and then as the means by which social problems can be resolved, usually by means of the massive expansion of the size and power of all levels of government (Federal, state and local) in full violation of the Natural Law principle of subsidiarity and by the use of the confiscatory taxing power of the civil state. Having been convinced of the basic compatibility of pluralist paradigm with the Faith, Catholics of a "leftist" bent consider the Democrat Party to be the true secular "church," outside of which there can be no secular “salvation.”

Caught up in this diabolical trap, however, Catholics of a "rightist" bent believe that the statism and social evils promoted by the Democrat Party can be retarded, at least to a certain extent, by the Republican Party, thereby boxing themselves into a naturalistic prison from which there is absolutely no escape. There will always be some Democrat Party boogeyman from the 'left" to make the latest agent of Judeo-Masonic naturalism of the "right" in the Republican Party look "better" by comparison. Alas, as I will keep repeating until the day I die or until I lose the ability to speak and write, whichever shall first occur, that the devil wins no matter who wins a particular election. And no one can be forced to do the devil's bidding. There is no moral obligation to be an agent in the advancement of the devil's agenda of naturalism, whether by rapid or more incremental means.

It is rather well known that I carry no brief for the naturalists of the Republican Party, most of whom are simply less pro-abortion than those who support unrestricted baby-killing at all times under cover of law.

However, let the record show for those who have short memories that a good deal of my teaching and writing career has been spent in open and frequent criticism of those Catholics in public life who cleave to the "leftist" agenda of naturalism advanced by the Democrat Party. I won no friends at a Brooklyn Catholic Charities Congress on Saturday, May 7, 1983, when I noted during my presentation that the most pressing matter of social justice facing the United States of America, the daily slaughter of the preborn, was not at all to be seen on that day's agenda. And I certainly did my teaching career no good whatsoever by running for lieutenant governor of the State of New York in 1986 on the Right to Life Party line, speaking out very loudly about the apostasies of one Mario Matthew Cuomo, then the Governor of New York, nor did I do myself any temporal favors by writing scores upon scores of articles against William Jefferson Blythe Clinton from 1992 to 2001. Additionally, I was unstinting in my criticism of Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro and Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., between January 20, 2009, and January 20, 2017.

My opposition to all forms of naturalism extends, therefore, equally and without reserve to the agents of death, both physical and eternal, and statism in the Democrat Party without for one second indemnifying their like-minded brethren in the false opposite known as the Republican Party. No one but absolutely one can claim that he “loves” Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ while supporting even one, solitary instance in which He is mystically sliced and diced under cover of the civil law in the persons of innocent preborn human beings, no less those who support His mystical destruction under cover of law without any restrictions whatsoever. Let me repeat this for the sake of any Catholic who is bold enough to support any pro-abort candidate for public office, including the pro-aborts now running for the Democratic Party presidential nomination in what will be the eighteenth presidential election of my life in this year of 2020: no one can claim that he "loves" Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ while supporting His mystical dismemberment in the persons of preborn children in their mothers' wombs under cover of law. It is impossible to pursue any form of “social justice” or to realize any sort of “peace” among nations as long as men make war upon the Divine Redeemer by means of unrepentant sins, including the four sins (willful murder, the sin of Sodom, defrauding a widow, withholding the day laborer's wages), and especially by the sin of baby-killing, whether by chemical or surgical means, under cover of law.

The fact that we even have to use a term such as "pro-life" is tragic as a country united by the bonds of the true Faith would never have to engage in endless debates on matters that are not subject to debate as contingent beings who did not create themselves and whose mortal bodies are destined one day for the corruption of the grave must be subordinate at all times and in all circumstances to the binding dictates of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s Willful Ignorance

Unlike, Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul, whose opposition to abortion, albeit couched in conciliarspeak (human dignity, solidarity) peppered now and again with infrequent references to the Fifth Commandment, was well known to anyone with a pulse during his 9,666 day reign as the fourth in the current line of antipopes, Jorge Mario Bergoglio rarely, if ever, speaks publicly about abortion. Indeed, he did not use the word once during his propaganda tour of the United States of America in September of 2015, including when he spoke before a special joint meeting of the Congress of the United States of America on Thursday, September 24, 2015, the Feast of Our Lady of Ransom. He did choose to speak against the death penalty on that occasion, however.

However, he had been very generous with his praise to public officials who support abortion because they support illegal immigration and are committed to the “protection of the planet.” Bergoglio has even gone so far as to praise the work of the “Margaret Sanger of Italy," Emma Bonino, for her work with “migrants” and “refugees” even though she is an abortionist. In other words, she is a baby-killer:

The baby-killer named Emma Bonino, a member of the Bilderberg Group and an associate of the aforementioned agent of Antichrist named George Soros, is the “Margaret Sanger of Italy. Yet it is that Senor Jorge praised her in 2016 as one of Italy’s “forgotten greats”:

He also named former foreign minister Emma Bonino, ex-Italian president Giorgio Napolitano, and Lampedusa Mayor Giusi Nicolini as the country's “forgotten greats” for their selfless dedication to building bridges with Africa, to serving Italy, and to upholding the rights of refugees. (See  Jorge Praises Feminist Pro-Abortion Radical Emma Bonino as one of Italy’s “Great Ones”.)

Monsignore Ignacio Barreiro, the director of the Rome office of Human Life International, told the appointment is deeply concerning. “Some cabinet positions are token, but not the Foreign Minister,” he said.

In that position Bonino, a strong supporter of the “European Project” of a federalist European superstate, will have inordinate influence at the European and international level. “More than one diplomat is dismayed at having Bonino as their boss,” Barreiro added.

When the dust settled on Italy’s chaotic general election in February, the nation found itself with no government and a hung parliament. The crisis was not resolved until last week when Enrico Letta was confirmed as President of the Council of Ministers of Italy. His 22-member cabinet was sworn in on April 28th.

After her unsuccessful bid in 2010 for the governorship of Lazio, the region of the Roman capital, Bonino resurfaced in February this year, running for President of the Republic, supported by then-Prime Minister Mario Monti. After the re-election of Giorgio Napolitiano as head of state, many Italians were surprised to see her appointment as Foreign Minister.

Critics on the right have been perplexed by Bonino’s inclusion in the cabinet and in such a prominent post, saying that her inclusion is mark of “inconsistency” in the present government.

Bonino’s appointment, Barreiro said, is “a problem of coherence”. “If you look at the coalition that has voted to put her in, it’s made of Catholics,” he said.

A member of the International Bilderberg Group and a protégé of billionaire internationalist George Soros, Bonino was a Member of the European Parliament and of the Italian Senate, and served as Minister of International Trade from 2006 to 2008. She served on the executive committee of the International Crisis Group that created the International Criminal Court.

During her time as a Deputy, Bonino campaigned for loosening of divorce laws, and the legalization of abortion and drugs. As a leading anti-clericalist, she has been a fervent adversary of the influence of the Catholic Church in Italian politics. 

The Italian Radical Party, to which Bonino belongs, has been a fixture on the extreme left of Italian politics since its founding in 1970s. Described as “libertarian” in the American model on economic issues, its social policies include support for abortion, same-sex “marriage,” legal euthanasia, artificial insemination, embryonic stem cell research, abolition of capital punishment and the legalization of “soft drugs.”

Msgr. Barreiro, a lawyer and former diplomat at the UN, noted that many in Italy have questioned the huge influence of the Radicals on politicians of other parties.

“The Radicals have an enormous influence but with very few votes. They have an undue ability to put pressure on other politicians that is totally disproportionate to their numbers,” he said.

Bonino’s past as an abortionist has not failed to keep up with her. An editorial in responded to her bid for the presidency in early April with, “A woman who has trampled all moral and juridical law, including the suppression of more than 10,000 lives, can fill the role of the highest office of the Italian State? This question is a must in the days of the end of the mandate of [President] Napolitano.” (Bonino is an abortion worshipper and has admitted to conducting 10,141 abortions! Both links found at Novus Ordo Watch Wire Digest.)

That is quite an impressive pro-abortion resume, and one that can lead this poor woman to one place only if she does not repent before she dies: eternal damnation. Bergoglio may praise such a killer because of her alleged work with refugees, but such praise will damn them both to hell for all eternity as he, believing himself to be the Vicar of Our Lord Jesus Christ on earth, has a duty to condemn her baby-killing, the debt of which she owes God, of course, is not canceled out by any good she may have done for “humanitarian” reasons.

Bergoglio has also associates of the nefarious George Soros to serve on the Pontifical Academy for the Sciences and the “Pontifical” Academy for Life, and has permitted his proteges in the conciliar Vatican to invite such pro-population control (contraception, sterilization, abortion, euthanasia, “doctor assisted suicide) such as Jeffrey Sachs and Paul Ehrlich to speak at Vatican conferences. He has also endorsed everything about Soros’s propagandizing and funding of “palliative care.”

Bergoglio speaks incessantly about “sustainable development goals,” “saving the planet,” “protecting the Amazon rain forest, global warming and environmental pollution. Incessantly.

It is thus no surprise that this egregious reprobate who is more demon than human to tell some of the American “bishops” who were making their ad limina apostolorum visit earlier this month that he, the great expert on carbon footprints and the ozone layer, did not know that over sixty million babies have been killed in the United States of America by means of surgical abortion. This is nothing other than willful ignorance:

VATICAN CITY, January 17, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Pope Francis reportedly told a gathering of U.S. bishops in Rome that protection of the unborn is a “preeminent priority,” while also expressing surprise that over 60 million abortions have occurred in the United States since the 1973 Roe v Wade decision legalized abortion. 

Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann of Kansas City, Kansas, who is also chairman of the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops (USCCB) Committee for Pro-Life Activities, was one of fifteen bishops from the U.S. midwest at the Vatican for their “ad limina” visit on Wednesday.  

Naumann told Catholic News Service (CNS) that the Pope agreed with the U.S. bishops “identifying the protection of the unborn as a preeminent priority.”

Near the beginning of his pontificate, Pope Francis said in a 2013 interview that the Church was “obsessed” with opposing “abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods.” In 2017, he claimed that challenges faced by refugees and migrants are the “greatest tragedy since that of World War II” and has spoken and written in an alarmist tone about climate change. In his 2018 apostolic exhortation “Gaudete et Exsultate,” the Pope indicated that caring for migrants and the poor is as “equally sacred” a pursuit as opposing abortion. “Our defense of the innocent unborn, for example, needs to be clear, firm and passionate. Equally sacred, however, are the lives of the poor, those already born, the destitute, the abandoned,” he wrote. 

Perhaps sensing the need to explain the seeming paradoxical portrait of the Pope emerging from the meeting, Naumann acknowledged that Pope Francis has previously elevated other issues.  

“I think sometimes as he elevates those things, people mistakenly think, ‘Well, that means that the abortion issue will become less important,'” Naumann told CNS. 

The issue remains an important one and has proven to be a flashpoint among U.S. bishops, some of whom have used Pope Francis’ previous statements to deny that abortion remains the preeminent life issue of the day.

At the most recent gathering of the USCCB in November, a disagreement erupted revealing how the current pontificate had divided them on fighting abortion as a social justice priority. They voted 143-69 against including a full quote by Pope Francis in their document on citizenship that downplayed abortion and which one bishop argued was necessary to keep the bishops' priorities in line with the Pope's. 

Bishop Robert W. McElroy of San Diego objected, saying, “It is not Catholic teaching that abortion is the pre-eminent issue that we face as the world in Catholic social teaching. It is not.” 

McElroy said he believed that saying the threat of abortion is the USCCB’s “pre-eminent priority” is “at least discordant with the pope’s teaching if not inconsistent” and that it is a “grave disservice to our people if we’re trying to communicate to them what the Magisterium teaches.”

Bishop W. Shawn McKnight of Jefferson City, Missouri, who was present at this week’s ad limina meeting at the Vatican reported that regarding abortion, Pope Francis “simply reiterated what he’s already said in many different ways,” that “without life, what other rights are there? So, you have to begin with that. 

“It’s not the only issue — I don’t think anybody has ever said that,” continued McKnight.  “But when you’re looking at the core beliefs and the more essential rights, the right to life of the unborn is very important.”

Pope Francis, “put it in a very beautiful way: Do we always want to simply eliminate those who are inconvenient?” said McKnight. “And, unfortunately, that’s part of our culture in the United States — the practice, the habit, if you will, of just eliminating the uncomfortable, the unwanted, as the solution. 

And we’re called to be better than that. We as a country are better than that.”

When the U.S. bishops say, “the right to life is the ‘preeminent issue,’” that word is “carefully chosen,” said McKnight.  

“We want to avoid the perspective or the understanding that it’s the only issue — because it is not,” he added. 

Archbishop Robert J. Carlson of St. Louis, said that while the Pope talked about abortion as a preeminent issue, at the same time he said there’s another significant issue and that would be ‘transgender’ — where we are trying to make all human beings the same, it makes no difference, you can be whoever you want to be.”

Carlson explained that the Pope said that the beliefs of those who promote transgenderism “fly in the face of what (St.) John Paul II talked about on complementarity and it would fly in the face of the dignity of the woman and the dignity of the man, that we could just change into whatever we wanted. (Jorge Says that Abortion is Preeminent Priority.)

How can a man who never utters the word "abortion" to civic officials claim that this the issue of baby-slaughtering is a "preeminent priority"?

How can a man who believes abortion to be a "preeminent priority" claim not to be aware of the staggering numbers of babies killed in the last fifty years in the United States and around the world.

This is willful ignorance.

Oh, I said that before?

Too bad.

I will probably say it again.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio keeps himself informed on what every “leftist” and “globalist” and pro-abort figure in public life says and does. He offers his false views on the environment, saving the planet, climate change, sustainable development goals, illegal immigration, universal healthcare, on every kind of matter. He almost never uses the word “abortion” and most of his favorite “bishops,” such as Blase Cupich, actually rebuke the “pro-life” movement for not doing enough to “save the planet.” These apes in shepherds’ clothing who indemnify fornication, adultery, perversity and all manner of indecencies

Bergoglio’s willful ignorance about the number of babies killed by means of surgical abortion in the United States of America called to my mind what his ideological soulmate, Roger “Cardinal” Mahony, said in 2009 when asked about abortion:

( - When asked whether he agreed with Cardinal Justin Rigali, head of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' pro-life committee, that the House health care bill funds abortion and needs to be amended to prohibit abortion funding, Cardinal Roger Mahony told that the issue of abortion funding in the health care bill is “way beyond my field.”

When asked whether he believed abortion should  be funded under the bill, Cardinal Mahony said: "No, but that's what the president said, too, so."

Mahony is the Roman Catholic archbishop of Los Angeles. Rigali is the Roman Catholic archbishop of Philadelphia. 
On August 11, Cardinal Rigali sent a letter on behalf of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to members of the U.S. House of Representatives explaining in detail why the House health care bill would fund abortions.

“Because some federal funds are authorized and appropriated by this legislation without passing through the Labor/HHS appropriations bill, they are not covered by the Hyde amendment and other federal provisions that have long prevented federal funding of abortion and of health benefits packages that include abortion,” Rigali wrote in this letter.

“The committee rejected an amendment to extend this longstanding policy to the use of federal subsidies for health care premiums under this Act,” the cardinal wrote. “Instead the committee created a legal fiction, a paper separation between federal funding and abortion: Federal funds will subsidize the public plan, as well as private health plans that include abortion on demand; but anyone who purchases these plans is required to pay a premium out of his or her own pocket (specified in the Act to be at least $1.00 a month) to cover all abortions beyond those eligible for federal funds under the current Hyde amendment. Thus some will claim that federal taxpayer funds do not support abortion under the Act. But this is an illusion. Funds paid into these plans are fungible, and federal taxpayer funds will subsidize the operating budget and provider networks that expand access to abortions.”

When asked by whether he agreed with Cardinal Rigali that the bill funds abortion and should be amended to explicitly prohibit abortion funding, Cardinal Mahony said: “This is way beyond my field. My field is immigration. I really haven’t kept up on that, and I spend all my time on this other. You have to get somebody who spends time on that.

When asked whether he believed abortion should be funded under the health care bill, Cardinal Mahony said: “No, but that’s what the president said, too, so.”

The cardinal spoke to at a Sept. 22 panel discussion in Washington, D.C., focusing on the involvement of faith communities in immigration reform. The event was sponsored by a liberal think tank, the Center for American Progress.

In his August 11 letter to members of the House of Representatives, Cardinal Rigali called on members to support amendments to correct the provisions in the bill that allow for abortion funding.

In direct contradiction to what Cardinal Rigali wrote in his letter to members of Congress, President Obama said in his speech to a joint session of Congress on Sept. 9 that the health care bill does not fund abortion. Previously, the president had said that people who say the health care bill funds abortion were fabricating. (Cardinal Roger Mahony: Abortion Beyond His Pay Grade; for a review of the truth about Obama's claims concerning abortion funding in ObamaDeathCare, see Richard Doerflinger Re: Summary of Current Amendments; see also part of a transcript of an interview between a member of the United States House of Representatives, Bart Stupach, D-Michigan, with the Fox News Channel last week, Democrat MI Congressman Bart Stupak states that Obama and Pelosi's contention that abortion isn't in healthcare "is just not true.")

Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Roger Mahony, Blase Cupich and so many others of like mind within the conciliar structures do not realize or care that the direct, intentional taking of an innocent preborn life, whether by chemical or surgical means, is one of the four crimes that cry out to Heaven for vengeance. There is no moral equivalency between the daily slaughter of the innocent preborn and the issues of the death penalty, which is simply part of the Natural Law, “global warming” (or “climate control/environmentalism) and immigration.

Unlike the willfully ignorant Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Pope Pius XI explained what happens to those involved in and/or the promotion of abortion will be subject to the just judgment of God if they do not repent before they die:

Those who hold the reins of government should not forget that it is the duty of public authority by appropriate laws and sanctions to defend the lives of the innocent, and this all the more so since those whose lives are endangered and assailed cannot defend themselves. Among whom we must mention in the first place infants hidden in the mother's womb. And if the public magistrates not only do not defend them, but by their laws and ordinances betray them to death at the hands of doctors or of others, let them remember that God is the Judge and Avenger of innocent blood which cried from earth to Heaven. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)

It is thus very difficult for the establishment “pro-life” leaders to even know what is true, no less act courageously in its defense, when their “pope” gives lip-service attention to a crime that cries out to Heaven for vengeance while speaking about “dialogue” with those who “disagree” with the Catholic Church. It is also understandable, though not entirely excusable, that President Donald John Trump knows nothing when those who are supposed to know what is right get “direction” from the “prelates” of a false religious sect who make offend God daily by staging a liturgical abomination and who promote the very false doctrines that have their origin from the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic errors that have led us to the point of a world where everything can be done and said except to defend the true Faith as the only foundation of social order and to speak ceaselessly in its defense.


As horrific as the chemical and surgical execution of the innocent preborn is one of the four crimes that cry out to Heaven for vengeance, we must remember that the greatest criminals alive today are the spiritual robber barons of the counterfeit church of conciliarism who promote one false, heretical proposition after another on an almost daily basis as they reaffirm hardened sinners in their lives of eternal perdition and castigate believing Catholics.

The conciliar revolutionaries have sought to undermine and eclipse all notion of dogmatic permanence and liturgical reverence.

The conciliar revolutionaries have made it appear as though the “Church of Christ” is not coextensive with the Catholic Church.

The conciliar revolutionaries have made it appear as though false religions please God and are a legitimate means of human sanctification and salvation.

The conciliar revolutionaries have made it appear as though the Old Covenant God made with Moses is perfectly valid and was never superseded by the New and Eternal Covenant that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ instituted at the Last Supper on Holy Thursday and that He ratified by shedding every single drop of His Most Precious Blood during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday.

The conciliar revolutionaries have endorsed countless errors that have been condemned by our true popes, whose reaffirmations of immutable truths contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith and/or inhere in the very nature of things have been scuttled by use of various euphemisms (“living tradition,” “hermeneutic of continuity”) to mask the old Modernist precept of dogmatic evolutionism that has finally been called as such and embraced with enthusiasm by various and sundry of Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s henchmen within the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

Crimes against God and His Holy Deposit Faith are graver in His sight than are even the crimes that cry out to Heaven for vengeance (willful murder, the sin of Sodom, withholding the day laborer’s wages, defrauding the widow). Yet it is that these crimes are being committed each day as God Himself is profaned every time the liturgical abomination of desolation promulgated by Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI is staged.

This is to say nothing of the way in which the honor and glory of the Most Holy Trinity is blasphemed by billions of ordinary people worldwide on a daily basis nor to discuss sins of impurity, indecency, scurrilous speech and the wholesale usury that is at the foundation of the world’s economic system. It impossible for there to be right order in civil societies when such order does not exist in the souls of men who not only persist in their sins unrepentantly but who have sought to protect their sins under the cover of the civil law and to celebrate them widely.

Once again, therefore, consider these words of Silvio Cardinal Antoniano, who lived from December 31, 1540, to August 16, 1603, as quoted in Pope Pius XI’s Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929:

The more closely the temporal power of a nation aligns itself with the spiritual, and the more it fosters and promotes the latter, by so much the more it contributes to the conservation of the commonwealth. For it is the aim of the ecclesiastical authority by the use of spiritual means, to form good Christians in accordance with its own particular end and object; and in doing this it helps at the same time to form good citizens, and prepares them to meet their obligations as members of a civil society. This follows of necessity because in the City of God, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, a good citizen and an upright man are absolutely one and the same thing. How grave therefore is the error of those who separate things so closely united, and who think that they can produce good citizens by ways and methods other than those which make for the formation of good Christians. For, let human prudence say what it likes and reason as it pleases, it is impossible to produce true temporal peace and tranquillity by things repugnant or opposed to the peace and happiness of eternity. (Silvio Cardinal Antoniano, quoted by Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.)

God the Holy Ghost saw fit to instruct us in Sacred Scripture, including in the passage from the Book of Proverbs:

[34] Justice exalteth a nation: but sin maketh nations miserable. (Proverbs 14: 34.)

Christ the King will not be mocked. He will suffer the sins of men so that they and their nations might be brought to repentance. He is not, however, indifferent that which Him to suffer in His Sacred Humanity during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross, sin, and that wounds the Church Militant on earth and impedes the pursuit of the true common temporal good of men and their nations.

This is the time of the Great Apostasy. We are being chastised for our sins and those of the whole world. Although it is unknown whether the coronavirus will become the global pandemic that some fear, it is certainly no accident that the amoral Communist Chinese are in the forefront of baby-killing, genetic experimentation, trafficking in the black market of bodily organs for transplantation and, among other things, in the manufacture of virus strains that just happen to make their way to many parts of the world.

After all, the City of Wuhan in Hunan Province in Red China served as the headquarters of Mao Tse-Tung’s (Mao Zedong’s) Communist Party between 1921 and 1927. This is, for those who want to think about the matter, another “dividend” of President Richard Milhous Nixon’s Shanghai Communique of February 28, 1972, that opened the path for multinational corporations to outsource American jobs to Red China and started the process of “cultural” exchanges that have made it possible for Chinese “exchange students” to learn American scientists that are then applied in monstrous ways in Red China and then exported elsewhere around the world.

No matter the genuine threat, if any, from the spread of coronavirus, however, this chastisement is not the worst thing that happen to us. Far from it! This country and the other nations of the so-called “civilized world” are suffering chastisements because of a manifest refusal to be submissive to Christ the King and His true Catholic Church and by letting loose endless numbers of demons in the name of “freedom of conscience,” including unfettered free speech and “religious liberty.”

Popes Gregory XVI and Pius IX warned us as to what would happen when men no longer lived for Christ the King and acted only to the siren sound of their deformed consciences:

This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error," as Augustine was wont to say. When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly "the bottomless pit" is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws -- in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty.

Here We must include that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people, which some dare to demand and promote with so great a clamor. We are horrified to see what monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors are disseminated far and wide in countless books, pamphlets, and other writings which, though small in weight, are very great in malice. We are in tears at the abuse which proceeds from them over the face of the earth. Some are so carried away that they contentiously assert that the flock of errors arising from them is sufficiently compensated by the publication of some book which defends religion and truth. Every law condemns deliberately doing evil simply because there is some hope that good may result. Is there any sane man who would say poison ought to be distributed, sold publicly, stored, and even drunk because some antidote is available and those who use it may be snatched from death again and again? (Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)

"For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of "naturalism," as they call it, dare to teach that "the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones." And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that "that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require." From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity," viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;" and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling."

And, since where religion has been removed from civil society, and the doctrine and authority of divine revelation repudiated, the genuine notion itself of justice and human right is darkened and lost, and the place of true justice and legitimate right is supplied by material force, thence it appears why it is that some, utterly neglecting and disregarding the surest principles of sound reason, dare to proclaim that "the people's will, manifested by what is called public opinion or in some other way, constitutes a supreme law, free from all divine and human control; and that in the political order accomplished facts, from the very circumstance that they are accomplished, have the force of right." But who, does not see and clearly perceive that human society, when set loose from the bonds of religion and true justice, can have, in truth, no other end than the purpose of obtaining and amassing wealth, and that (society under such circumstances) follows no other law in its actions, except the unchastened desire of ministering to its own pleasure and interests? (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864.)

Despite the efforts being made at the state level here in the United States of America and without for one moment seeking to overlook the hard work and sacrifice of countless thousands of people who are engaged in sidewalk counseling and crisis pregnancy centers, we must remember that there will be no justice for innocent beings—whether in their mothers’ wombs or at any subsequent stage thereafter—when men are personally unjust in their own lives. Men must cease sinning, and they must seek to do reparation for their sins by cooperating with the graces won for us by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross and that flow into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces.

The most terrible thing that can happen to us is not the coronavirus.

The most terrible thing that can happen to us is not the election of socialist reprobate who will seek to use the full force of governmental coercion, including the taxing power, to censor opposition to abortion, sodomy and even socialism itself.

No, the most terrible thing that can happen to us is to die in state of a Mortal Sin and thus live forever in the fiery pit and darkness of hell, deprived of the very purpose of our existence, to behold the glory of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost for all eternity in Heaven.

To build up the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the world, therefore, we must seek to build up his Kingship in our own souls as members of the Catholic Church by living as befits redeemed creatures, seeking always to give honor and glory to the Most Blessed Trinity as the consecrated slaves of Christ the King through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, and to this end we must wear the Miraculous Medal, which is helps protect us against spiritual and physical harm (see ), and, of course the Brown Scapular of Our Lady of Mount Carmel.

Yes, there is no way out of this chastisement save for the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, 

We must have total trust in the Mother of God and her Fatima Message as we pray as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits to console the good God and to make reparation for our own sins, each of which has worsened both the state of the world-at-large and the state of the Church Militant here on earth in this time of apostasy and betrayal.

This time of chastisement will pass. The Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary will be made manifest in God's good time, not ours.

True, we may not be alive to witness this triumph. We can, however, plant the seeds for it by our patient endurance of the crosses of the moment as we make whatever sacrifice necessary and endure whatever calumny, humiliation and hardship that is required in order to make no concessions to falsehoods, whether of Modernity or Modernism, of any kind at any time for any reason.

Let us lift high the Cross of Christ the King, He Who is the King of men and their nations even though most men do not realize this and even though most nations seek to suppress all mention of His Holy Name and mock any possibility that He is their King, the King Who will come in glory to judge the living and dead.

Vivat Christus Rex!

Viva Cristo Rey!

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us. 

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

Saint Ignatius of Antioch, pray for us.