Writing in Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896, Pope Leo XIII explained that it is God's Holy Will for His rational creatures, human beings, to be of a single mind concerning First and Last Things:
Agreement and union of minds is the necessary foundation of this perfect concord amongst men, from which concurrence of wills and similarity of action are the natural results. Wherefore, in His divine wisdom, He ordained in His Church Unity of Faith; a virtue which is the first of those bonds which unite man to God, and whence we receive the name of the faithful - "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph. iv., 5). That is, as there is one Lord and one baptism, so should all Christians, without exception, have but one faith. And so the Apostle St. Paul not merely begs, but entreats and implores Christians to be all of the same mind, and to avoid difference of opinions: "I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms amongst you, and that you be perfect in the same mind and in the same judgment" (I Cor. i., 10). Such passages certainly need no interpreter; they speak clearly enough for themselves. Besides, all who profess Christianity allow that there can be but one faith. It is of the greatest importance and indeed of absolute necessity, as to which many are deceived, that the nature and character of this unity should be recognized. And, as We have already stated, this is not to be ascertained by conjecture, but by the certain knowledge of what was done; that is by seeking for and ascertaining what kind of unity in faith has been commanded by Jesus Christ. (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)
We live in a country, the United States of America, that is the direct and immediate result of the disagreement and division of minds wrought by the Protestant Revolt and its wretched, diabolical aftermath that has created a world where most people live their entire lives steeped in one Judeo-Masonic naturalist error after another.
Writing in Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885, Pope Leo XIII discussed the confusion wrought by the Protestant Revolt and how it give rise to confusion in philosophical circles that helped to popularize naturalism as the logical replacement for Protestantism's heretical views of Christianity:
But that harmful and deplorable passion for innovation which was aroused in the sixteenth century threw first of all into confusion the Christian religion, and next, by natural sequence, invaded the precincts of philosophy, whence it spread amongst all classes of society. From this source, as from a fountain-head, burst forth all those later tenets of unbridled license which, in the midst of the terrible upheavals of the last century, were wildly conceived and boldly proclaimed as the principles and foundation of that new conception of law which was not merely previously unknown, but was at variance on many points with not only the Christian, but even the natural law. (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)
The confusion that exists in the minds of most men in the world at this time has, of course, been exacerbated by the apostasies of Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, which has made its "reconciliation" with the naturalistic, anti-Incarnational, religiously indifferentist and semi-Pelagian (the belief that human beings can more or less "save themselves" by "stirring up" graces in their own immortal souls) principles of Modernity. Long before conciliarism came to light at the "Second" Vatican Council, however, even the minds of many, if not most, Catholics were deformed as a result of living in a world of pluralism and unfettered "free speech" and "freedom of the press" and "freedom of religion," resulting in most of them accepting the premises of naturalism most uncritically as both natural and normal and as perfectly compatible with the truths of the Catholic Faith.
This was certainly true in my own household as I was growing up in Queens Village and Great Neck and Oyster Bay Cove, New York, from the time of my birth, November 24, 1951, to the time that my parents sold our home in the oasis of Oyster Bay Cove in January of 1973 after I had complete my undergraduate studies at Saint John's University in Jamaica, Queens, in December of 1972. Although I learned the Faith very well from the Reverend Sisters of Mercy at Saint Aloysius School in Great Neck, New York, from the time of my entrance into Kindergarten on September 10, 1956, to the time that I transferred to public school in the Fall of 1962 shortly after the beginning of sixth grade, thus sparing me institutional exposure to the propaganda in behalf of the "Second" Vatican Council from sixth through twelfth grades, my parents' home was awash in naturalism as I listened to my parents discuss current events every single night without fail at the dinner table solely from the perspectives of naturalism.
My father and mother were rock-ribbed Republicans. It was as natural, or so I thought at the time as a very young boy, to be a Republican as it was to be a fan of the Brooklyn Dodgers before they moved to Los Angeles, California, at the end of the 1957 season. Yes, it was unusual, although not unheard of, for Catholics to be such rock-ribbed Republicans in the 1950s.
I did not realize just how unusual it was until I showed my fourth grade teacher, Sister Inez Marie, R.S.M., a letter that had been sent to me by then Vice President Richard M. Nixon in September of 1960 in response to a four-page typewritten letter that I had written to Mr. Nixon to explain why I, not yet nine years ago, was supporting the Nixon-Henry Cabot Lodge ticket as opposed to that of John Fitzgerald Kennedy and Lyndon Baines Johnson. Sister Inez Marie, who really did not like me even though I was goody-goody-two shoes (something that did not make me terribly popular with my peers), was to put it mildly, unimpressed. I remember her look of disdain to this very day as it communicated the following response, "Don't you realize that one of ours is running for President. How could you support this Quaker?"
Seeing Sister's less than enthusiastic reaction, I said, "Sister, Senator Kennedy will not be as strong against Soviet Russia as Vice President Nixon, and he (meaning Kennedy) is not as good a Catholic as most people think he is." She just told me to sit down. She had had enough of my Republicanism for one class as she, along with most other Catholics, was steeped in the naturalism of the Democratic Party variety. After all, the Democratic Party had been, solely for reasons of its own electoral aggrandizement, the means by which many Catholic immigrants were "socialized" into the American political system and thus the means by which so many Catholics were able to receive jobs and favors from political "bosses" at a time when there was overt and even violent discrimination against them. To be a Democrat, I learned at the time, was synonymous in the minds of most Catholics with being a good Catholic.
I was disappointed by Richard Nixon's narrow loss to John Kennedy, believing from my parents' conversation at the time that the election had been stolen as a result of fraudulent vote cotes in Cook County, Illinois, which was under the control of the man who was Mayor of the City of Chicago from 1954 to the time of his death in 1976, and in Lyndon Baines Johnson's home state of Texas, a belief that I hold to this very day and has been the subject of much documentation in the past nearly fifty-four years. I wrote to the then outgoing Vice President once again to express my disappointment over his loss. He wrote back, and I have every reason to believe that it was a personal response as most historians and biographers who have reported on the post-1960 presidential election in Nixon's life state that he answered almost every letter that he received personally.
My naturalistic view of current events as a "Republican" was reaffirmed in the 1960s following the vacillation of President John F. Kennedy that led to the Bay of Pigs fiasco from April 17 to 19, 1961, and the weak impression that Kennedy gave to Soviet dictator Nikita S. Khrushchev in their Vienna Summit meeting of June 4, 1961, which led directly to Khrushchev's erection of the Berlin Wall starting on August 13, 1961 in full violation of the Quadripartite Agreements after World War II to maintain access to all quarters of Berlin, events that would precipitate the Cuban Missile Crisis from October 14, 1962, to October 28, 1962, which had many of us convinced that a full-scale nuclear war between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was very imminent.
Kennedy's lack of preparation for the presidency, I thought at the time, certainly vindicated my support of Richard Nixon in 1960, and Kennedy's "resolution" of the Cuban Missile Crisis, though considered to be "brilliant" at the time, prompted the Soviet Union to commence the most massive arms race in human history so as to never be in the position of strategic inferiority again that led Khrushchev to back down after Kennedy's October 22, 1962, nationally televised speech and after then Attorney General Robert Francis Kennedy's decision to settle the dispute on the grounds of a first letter that Khrushchev had sent to the president rather than on the basis of a second one, believed generally to be the work of the Soviet Politburo and not Khrushchev himself. "None of this would have happened," the young naturalist named Thomas Albert Henry Droleskey thought at the time, "under Nixon's watch." (For a review of Kennedy's presidency, see John F. Kennedy's Overlooked Legacy.)
The years of Kennedy's successor, President Lyndon Baines Johnson saw massive increases in the size and the power of the scope of the Federal government to such an extent that my late father, Dr. Albert Henry Martin Droleskey, was engaged in negotiations after the 1964 Johnson landslide over United States Senator Barry M. Goldwater (R-Arizona) with a veterinarian in Cottesloe, Australia (which is near Perth on Australia's west coast, by the Indian Ocean), to purchase a veterinary practice there to avoid the creeping socialism of Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty and Great Society. We moved to Oyster Bay Cove, New York, instead of Australia as the veterinarian in Australia was using my father's interest in purchasing his practice as a wedge to put pressure on an Australian buyer, and, as it turned out, Australia was light years ahead in socialism itself.
Following the years of civil unrest over the Vietnam War and the bloated promises of Johnson to end poverty in the United States of America that play a contribution factor in the urban riots that rocked many cities between 1964 and 1968, I thought that Vice President Richard Nixon was indeed poised to be the "answer" to "restoring" limited government and to pursuing a sane foreign policy. I worked as a volunteer in the headquarters of the Republican Party in the hamlet of Oyster Bay during the Fall of my senior year at Oyster Bay High School in 1968, serving as a Republican poll watcher (not an election registrar) even though I was not yet then old enough to vote.
I was the first eighteen to twenty year-old in Nassau County to register to vote following the ratification of the Twenty-sixth Amendment, which forbade the states from prohibiting eighteen to twenty-year olds to vote, telling then Untied States Representative Lester Wolff, who was present for the first such registrations, that I could now vote against him. Those of you who might dismiss my political commentary about the futility of an electoral system based on false premises and steeped in the deceit of the organized crime families of naturalism whose leaders believe that we exist to enable them to acquire and maintain political power with our money and at the expense of our legitimate freedoms ought to realize that I did not come to my current positions without being absolutely immersed in the naturalism of our political system, later coming to participate in it myself as a candidate for office and as a surrogate speaker for presidential candidates.
It was, however, with great disappointment that I saw the events associated with Watergate (including the Plumbers' Unit and the use of the Central Intelligence Agency in domestic surveillance) unfold during the Nixon administration. Despite Nixon's support for the population control agenda, something whose importance I understood only after Nixon's resignation, I liked Richard Nixon. I had a "soft spot," if you will, for this naturalist. He could expatiate on almost any topic (including baseball) extemporaneously. He did have, despite all of the caricatures about him to the contrary, a tremendous and very self-effacing sense of humor. Alas, all of this was just pure naturalism. I had a lot to learn and to unlearn.
Part of this learning process involved a conversation that I had with the late John G. Schmitz, then a Congressman from the State of California, shortly after the 1972 presidential election in which he had been the nominee of the American Independent Party. He gave me an earful about Nixon and his policies as we were on a flight from Cleveland, Ohio, to South Bend, Indiana, where he was to meet with Dr. Charles E. Rice, a Professor of Law at the University of Notre Dame, and where I was to be interviewed by members of the law school admissions committee and the graduate program in the Department of Government and International Studies for a joint M.A./J.D. degree program (I wound up forgoing the law school admission and getting my master's in political science at the University of Notre Dame prior to pursuing my doctorate at the then named Graduate School of Public Affairs of the State University of New York at Albany, earning the doctorate on August 5, 1977. My education had begun.
Indeed, I was very disappointed with what I saw unfold in the Nixon administration from January of 1973 to the time of Nixon's resignation speech, which was delivered forty years ago ago last evening, that is, on Thursday, August 8, 1974 (Nixon came in preempting Ironside, another of my naturalist preoccupations in my misspent youth, along with the New York Mets, of course) on that date as he gave his acceptance speech to the Republican National Convention in Miami Beach, Florida, and he went out preempting Ironside). I had been convinced by the summer of 1973 that Nixon had to resign, and wrote him a letter to urge him to do so when living at 1440-A Rosemary Lane in the Village Terre apartment complex in South Bend, Indiana. I never received a response to that letter! All of the venality. All of the scheming. All of blasphmey. All of the profanity. All of the bitter denunciations of enemies. All of the lying. For what? To what end?
Sure, Nixon had his enemies, including a young Yale University law school graduate named Hillary Rodham, who served as legislative aide to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino during that committee's impeachment proceedings against Nixon in 1974. Some of those who wanted to destroy Nixon had hated him from the days of his ferreting out Communists in the government, especially Alger Hiss, who had served in the United States Department of State, as a member of the House Un-American Activities Community. As Nixon said to interviewer David Frost in one of the four ninety-minute interviews that aired on May 4, 12, 19, and 25, 1977, however:
I gave 'em a sword. And they stuck it in, and they twisted it with relish. And I guess if I had been in their position, I'd have done the same thing. (Frost Nixon Interview Clip 6 of 6.)
This is quite a commentary, and so very reflective of the amoral world of realpolitik ("real" politics, that the ends justify whatever means are necessary to be employed to realize them) in which Nixon, a Quaker, a sect that believes that God's "revelation" continues through individual believers and not even from Sacred Scripture, no less Apostolic or Sacred Tradition, itself, admitted that he gave his enemies the ammunition that they were looking for and that he would have done the same thing to them if he had been given a chance to do so. Nixon was surrounded by other practitioners of amorality, including National Security Advisor and, starting on September 22, 1973, United States Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger, Chief of Staff Harry Robbins Haldeman and Domestic Policy Advisor John Ehrlichman, both of whom were Christian Scientists who believed in destroying their enemies, and White House Press Secretary Ronald Ziegler. Ziegler, in particular, was one of those who believed to the bitter end forty years ago that Nixon could do no wrong and that it was essential to be "loyal" to him despite all of the lies and all of the crimes that had been committed.
It is not a defense of Richard Nixon, whose support for population and abortion in "mixed race" situations was documented in Making It Up As They Go Along, that others, such as Franklin Delano Roosevelt or John Fitzgerald Kennedy or Lyndon Baines Johnson, had done almost the same--or far worse--things as Nixon had done and lived to get away with their own crimes, many of which, although known generally, were not revealed until well after their deaths. It is no defense of the crimes of one person to say that others have committed the same crimes.
Even Nixon himself, according to H. R. Haldeman's posthumously published diaries, The Haldeman Diaries, realized in April of 1973 that his role in the cover-up of what was called in the colloquial as "Watergate" was going to lead to his inevitable resignation. It is always the "cover-up" that does in those who think that certain crimes committed by their subordinates, perhaps even trivial ones that they themselves were not even aware of or would have approved in advance, will never be made public that winds up unraveling over the course of time. No amount of denying the truth can ever make the truth go away as the truth about each of us is going to be revealed for all to see at the General Judgment of the Living on the Dead on the Last Day, if not well before then in various ways.
Perhaps the most tragic part of the whole Nixon saga that led to his resignation speech resignation speech forty years ago last evening (his farewell speech to his staff came the following morning, Friday, August 9, 1974, the actual day that his resignation became effective, as I watched it while visiting my parents in Harlingen, Texas) is his completely naturalistic view of world peace and how to achieve it. In this, of course, Nixon was of one mind with all of the men who preceded him as President of the United States of America and all of the men who have succeeded him in the forty, including the naturalist of the statist variety named Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro. All naturalistic efforts to achieve world peace must fail as peace among men within their nations and among the nations of the world is but the fruit of the peace of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ that dwells in the souls of men by means of Sanctifying Grace.
Richard Milhous Nixon did not understand this at any point in this life, choosing to believe that he could help to forge a "generation of prosperity at home and peace abroad" as he put it in his August 8, 1968, acceptance address at the Republican National Convention in Miami Beach, Florida, and in his Vietnamization speech of November 3, 1969, and his resignation speech of thirty-five years ago this evening:
I see a day when our nation is at peace and the world is at peace and everyone on earth -- those who hope, those who aspire, those who crave liberty -- will look to America as the shining example of hopes realized and dreams achieved. (Nixon Acceptance Speech, August 8, 1968.)
Fifty years ago, in this room and at this very desk, President Woodrow Wilson spoke words which caught the imagination of a war-weary world. He said: "This is the war to end war." His dream for peace after World War I was shattered on the hard realities of great power politics and Woodrow Wilson died a broken man.
Tonight I do not tell you that the war in Vietnam is the war to end wars. But I do say this: I have initiated a plan which will end this war in a way that will bring us closer to that great goal to which Woodrow Wilson and every American President in our history has been dedicated the goal of a just and lasting peace.
As President I hold the responsibility for choosing the best path to that goal and then leading the Nation along it.
I pledge to you tonight that I shall meet this responsibility with all of the strength and wisdom I can command in accordance with your hopes, mindful of your concerns, sustained by your prayers. (The Vietnamization/Silent Majority Speech, November 3, 1979; see also A Tale of Two Speeches)
I pledge to you tonight that as long as I have a breath of life in my body, I shall continue in that spirit. I shall continue to work for the great causes to which I have been dedicated throughout my years as a Congressman, a Senator, Vice President and President, the cause of peace -- not just for America but among all nations -- prosperity, justice and opportunity for all of our people.
There is one cause above all to which I have been devoted and to which I shall always be devoted for as long as I live.
When I first took the oath of office as President five and a half years ago, I made this sacred commitment: to consecrate my office, my energies, and all the wisdom I can summon to the cause of peace among nations. I've done my very best in all the days since to be true to that pledge. As a result of these efforts, I am confident that the world is a safer place today, not only for the people of America but for the people of all nations, and that all of our children have a better chance than before of living in peace rather than dying in war.
This, more than anything, is what I hoped to achieve when I sought the Presidency.
This, more than anything, is what I hope will be my legacy to you, to our country, as I leave the Presidency. (resignation speech, August 8, 1974.)
Richard Nixon really believed this rhetoric. He was a naturalist. He was, like each of his predecessors and each of his successors, a poster boy of Modernity, founded in the deceit that men can know order in their own lives and in the lives of their own nations and in the world-at-large absent a total subordination to the Deposit of Faith that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ entrusted exclusively to His Catholic Church for Its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication and absent their firm cooperation with the Sanctifying Graces won them by the shedding of Our Lord's Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross that flow into their hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces.
Unlike the tragic figure of Richard Nixon and all of other naturalists, each of whom means to do good by adhering to their naturalistic theories and programs, believing Catholics know that Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order and hence the one and only foundation of a genuine peace rooted in a love for the true God as He has revealed Himself to us exclusively through the Catholic Church. Pope Pius XI made this clear in Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 22, 1923:
Because the Church is by divine institution the sole depository and interpreter of the ideals and teachings of Christ, she alone possesses in any complete and true sense the power effectively to combat that materialistic philosophy which has already done and, still threatens, such tremendous harm to the home and to the state. The Church alone can introduce into society and maintain therein the prestige of a true, sound spiritualism, the spiritualism of Christianity which both from the point of view of truth and of its practical value is quite superior to any exclusively philosophical theory. The Church is the teacher and an example of world good-will, for she is able to inculcate and develop in mankind the "true spirit of brotherly love" (St. Augustine, De Moribus Ecclesiae Catholicae, i, 30) and by raising the public estimation of the value and dignity of the individual's soul help thereby to lift us even unto God.
Finally, the Church is able to set both public and private life on the road to righteousness by demanding that everything and all men become obedient to God "Who beholdeth the heart," to His commands, to His laws, to His sanctions. If the teachings of the Church could only penetrate in some such manner as We have described the inner recesses of the consciences of mankind, be they rulers or be they subjects, all eventually would be so apprised of their personal and civic duties and their mutual responsibilities that in a short time "Christ would be all, and in all." (Colossians iii, 11)
Since the Church is the safe and sure guide to conscience, for to her safe-keeping alone there has been confided the doctrines and the promise of the assistance of Christ, she is able not only to bring about at the present hour a peace that is truly the peace of Christ, but can, better than any other agency which We know of, contribute greatly to the securing of the same peace for the future, to the making impossible of war in the future. For the Church teaches (she alone has been given by God the mandate and the right to teach with authority) that not only our acts as individuals but also as groups and as nations must conform to the eternal law of God. In fact, it is much more important that the acts of a nation follow God's law, since on the nation rests a much greater responsibility for the consequences of its acts than on the individual.
When, therefore, governments and nations follow in all their activities, whether they be national or international, the dictates of conscience grounded in the teachings, precepts, and example of Jesus Christ, and which are binding on each and every individual, then only can we have faith in one another's word and trust in the peaceful solution of the difficulties and controversies which may grow out of differences in point of view or from clash of interests. An attempt in this direction has already and is now being made; its results, however, are almost negligible and, especially so, as far as they can be said to affect those major questions which divide seriously and serve to arouse nations one against the other. No merely human institution of today can be as successful in devising a set of international laws which will be in harmony with world conditions as the Middle Ages were in the possession of that true League of Nations, Christianity. It cannot be denied that in the Middle Ages this law was often violated; still it always existed as an ideal, according to which one might judge the acts of nations, and a beacon light calling those who had lost their way back to the safe road.
There exists an institution able to safeguard the sanctity of the law of nations. This institution is a part of every nation; at the same time it is above all nations. She enjoys, too, the highest authority, the fullness of the teaching power of the Apostles. Such an institution is the Church of Christ. She alone is adapted to do this great work, for she is not only divinely commissioned to lead mankind, but moreover, because of her very make-up and the constitution which she possesses, by reason of her age-old traditions and her great prestige, which has not been lessened but has been greatly increased since the close of the War, cannot but succeed in such a venture where others assuredly will fail. (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.)
As alluded to above, another part of the legacy of the nation's late thirty-seventh president, Richard Milhous Nixon, who died on April 22, 1994, at the age of eighty-one, is his complete support for "family planning" and his utilitarian position on the surgical dismemberment of the innocent preborn. Remember, it was Richard Milhous Nixon, after all, who appointed Warren Burger and Harry Blackmun to the Supreme Court of the United States of America. These two jurists joined five other justices, two of whom (William Brennan, a Catholic, and Potter Stewart, a Freemason, had been appointed by President Dwight David Eisenhower, under whom Nixon had served as Vice President from January 20, 1953, to January 20, 1961, as the seven votes in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973, that made possible the decriminalization of surgical baby-killing-on-demand until the day of birth in the United States of America.
Nixon, for example, embarked on an aggressive campaign of "population control." His first Secretary of State, William Pierce Rogers, who had been the Attorney General of the United States of America from October 13, 1957, to January 20, 1961, was responsible for implementing President Richard Milhous Nixon's July 18, 1969, Special Message to Congress on the Problems of Population Growth. Nixon's special message contained the following passage that should send shivers up the spine of any believing Catholic who loves God as He has revealed Himself to men exclusively through the Catholic Church as a very clear indication of the extent to which the leaders of both organized crime families of naturalism in the United States of America, have been committed to anti-life and anti-family policies that mock God and lead to social and international chaos:
It is my view that no American woman should be denied access to family planning assistance because of her economic condition. I believe, therefore, that we should establish as a national goal the provision of adequate family planning services within the next five years to all those who want them but cannot afford them. This we have the capacity to do.
Clearly, in no circumstances will the activities associated with our pursuit of this goal be allowed to infringe upon the religious convictions or personal wishes and freedom of any individual, nor will they be allowed to impair the absolute right of all individuals to have such matters of conscience respected by public authorities.
In order to achieve this national goal, we will have to increase the amount we are spending on population and family planning. But success in this endeavor will not result from higher expenditures alone. Because the life circumstances and family planning wishes of those who receive services vary considerably, an effective program must be more flexible in its design than are many present efforts. In addition, programs should be better coordinated and more effectively administered. Under current legislation, a comprehensive State or local project must assemble a patchwork of funds from many different sources--a time-consuming and confusing process. Moreover, under existing legislation, requests for funds for family planning services must often compete with requests for other deserving health endeavors. (Special Message to Congress on the Problems of Population Growth.)
In other words, Nixon did not want the government to force religiously run institutions to adopt policies to their beliefs. He only wanted every American taxpayer, regardless of religious convictions, to fund the evil of "family planning."
Nixon's second Secretary of State, Dr. Heinz Alfred Kissinger, who served succeeded William Pierce Rogers on September 3, 1973, was a thorough supporter of abortion and contraception. Kissinger
Kissinger, a former aide to the arch supporter of contraception and abortion, the late adulterous former Governor of New York and Vice President of the United States, Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller, and Nixon sought to issue a National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM-200) in 1974 which would have encouraging countries to impose a one-child-per family policy in order to receive American foreign aid. The Nixon Administration authorized the writing of National Security Study Memorandum 200 in 1974 that was designed to implement a variety of the “population control” measures that had been recommended by the Rockefeller Commission, a panel appointed by President Nixon in 1969 following his own Special Message to Congress on July 18, 1969, on the “necessity” of controlling population growth.
This particular Memorandum, which was the brainchild of Nixon and Henry Kissinger and presidential counselor Donald D. Rumsfeld, included such draconian measures as encouraging countries to develop a one child per family policy and to regulate the control of food to developing nations. As a result of pressure brought by several Catholic cardinals in the United States, this NSSM was classified until 1989, at which point its terms were released.
It still amazes my friends, that the Nixon administration, whose officials believed in the abject immorality of the whole panoply of “population control” measures recommended in NSSM 200, including encouraging parents to have “one child per family,” can be praised and defended by any Catholic to this very day. Have we no love for God? Have we no regard for the horror of sin and how it is an evil thing to promote sin under cover of law?
Nixon, ever the practitioner of amorality, was favorably inclined to the surgical dismemberment of children in their mothers' wombs under "some conditions," stating clearly during the presidential election of 1992 that it was time to get the issue of abortion out of electoral politics, that other issues were more important. Nixon also believed in eugenic abortions, especially in cases of interracial marriages.
Oblivious to the fact that a statement of his about abortion on April 3, 1971, made it appear as though he was opposed to abortion as a means of "population control" without mentioning his support of abortion for eugenic reasons. Nixon's stand was hideous and reprehensible. It would be interesting to hear how those who defend the nonexistent"right" of a woman to "choose" to kill her baby explain
HISTORICALLY, laws regulating abortion in the United States have been the province of States, not the Federal Government. That remains the situation today, as one State after another takes up this question, debates it, and decides it. That is where the decisions should be made.
Partly for that reason, I have directed that the policy on abortions at American military bases in the United States be made to correspond with the laws of the States where those bases are located. If the laws in a particular State restrict abortions, the rules at the military base hospitals are to correspond to that law.
The effect of this directive is to reverse service regulations issued last summer, which had liberalized the rules on abortions at military hospitals. The new ruling supersedes this--and has been put into effect by the Secretary of Defense.
But while this matter is being debated in State capitals and weighed by various courts, the country has a right to know my personal views.
From personal and religious beliefs I consider abortion an unacceptable form of population control. Further, unrestricted abortion policies, or abortion on demand, I cannot square with my personal belief in the sanctity of human life--including the life of the yet unborn. For, surely, the unborn have rights also, recognized in law, recognized even in principles expounded by the United Nations.
Ours is a nation with a Judeo-Christian heritage. It is also a nation with serious social problems--problems of malnutrition, of broken homes, of poverty, and of delinquency. But none of these problems justifies such a solution.
A good and generous people will not opt, in my view, for this kind of alternative to its social dilemmas. Rather, it will open its hearts and homes to the unwanted children of its own, as it has done for the unwanted millions of other lands. (Nixon Statement on Abortion, April 3, 1971.)
Such confusion, starting with the fact that there is no such thing as a "Judeo-Christian" heritage. Truth can never be mixed in with error. Catholicism is the sole means of personal and social order. Nothing else. Not Talmudic Judaism Not the thousands of permutations of Protestantism, each of which is founded on a rejection of the Deposit of Faith that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has revealed exclusively to His true Church that He founded upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope.
Then President Nixon told the nation in 1971 that he considered surgical baby-killing to be "an unacceptable form of population control" and that he opposed "abortion on demand" at the same time he permitted babies to be slaughtered by surgical means on the ground of American military bases in those states that permitted abortion-on-demand. Nixon was oblivious as to the simple truth that no human institution of civil governance has any authority to dispense with the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law so as to permit any direct, intentional taking of an innocent human life from the first moment of conception through all subsequent stages until the day of natural death under cover of the civil law. Nixon was saying, in effect, "I am personally opposed to abortion-on-demand, but I will permit surgeons in the employ of the government of the United States of America on American military bases to kill babies in those states that permit abortion-on-demand. Perhaps Nixon was prophetically anticipating the Apostate Emeritus Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict's XVI logically absurd and dogmatically condemned "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity" that stands the the principle of non-contradiction on its head.
Richard Nixon, who, as will be noted below, accepted the abject moral evil of contraception in order to advance the goals of "population control," reiterated his confused views about abortion following the release of the report on population control that was issued by a commission headed by John D. Rockefeller III, the brother of the then Governor of the State of New York, the pro-abortion Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller, and the father of the junior United States senator from West Virginia, John D. "Jay" Rockefeller IV, that supported abortion-on-demand:
While I do not plan to comment extensively on the contents and recommendations of the report, I do feel that it is important that the public know my views on some of the issues raised.
In particular, I want to reaffirm and reemphasize that I do not support unrestricted abortion policies. As I stated on April 3, 1971, when I revised abortion policies in military hospitals, I consider abortion an unacceptable form of population control. In my judgment, unrestricted abortion policies would demean human life. I also want to make it clear that I do not support the unrestricted distribution of family planning services and devices to minors. Such measures would do nothing to preserve and strengthen close family relationships.
I have a basic faith that the American people themselves will make sound judgments regarding family size and frequency of births, judgments that are conducive both to the public interest and to personal family goals--and I believe in the right of married couples to make these judgments for themselves.
While disagreeing with the general thrust of some of the Commission's recommendations, I wish to extend my thanks to the members of the Commission for their work and for having assembled much valuable information.
The findings and conclusions of the Commission should be of great value in assisting governments at all levels to formulate policy. At the Federal level, through our recent reorganization of the Executive Office of the President, we have the means through the Domestic Council and the Office of Management and Budget to follow up on the Commission's report. The recommendations of the Commission will be taken into account as we formulate our national growth and population research policies, and our agency budgets through these processes for the years ahead.
Many of the questions raised by the report cannot be answered purely on the basis of fact, but rather involve moral judgments about which reasonable men will disagree. I hope that the discussions ahead will be informed ones, so that we all will be better able to face these questions relating to population in full knowledge of the consequences of our decisions. (Statement About the Report of the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future.)
The confusion inherent in this statement is as mind-boggling as anything contained in Ratzinger's Principles of Catholic Theology.
Nixon believed in "the right of married couples to make these judgments for themselves" when, of course, no human being has any right to use contraceptive pills or devices at any time for any reason as to do so is to violate the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage. Although most contraceptives abort and abort most of the time, contraception is in and of itself a violation of the immutable laws of God that bind the consciences of all human beings at all times in all places and under all circumstances without any exception, reservation or qualification whatsoever. One who supports "family planning" as a matter of principle does not believe in God as He has revealed Himself through His true Church and is thus incapable of serving as a agent in behalf of the common temporal good undertaken as it must be in light of man's Last End.
Moreover, "reasonable men" are not free to disagree about the binding nature of the immutable laws of God. Contingent beings who did not create themselves and whose bodies are destined one day for the corruption of the grave until the General Resurrection on the Last Day must obey God as He has revealed Himself through His true Church. This is not subject to debate or "legitimate" disagreement. Richard Nixon's belief that men could disagree about moral judgments concerning "population control" was very similar to the canards mouth by one of his successors as President of the United States of America, George Walker Bush, who said constantly in 1999 and 2000 during his campaign for the Republican Party presidential nomination and in the general election against then Vice President Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., that abortion was "a difficult" issue about which "good people" may disagree legitimately. Wrong. No one has any "right" to "disagree" with the laws of their Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier.
Other Republicans, most notably Nixon acolyte Robert Joseph Dole, Jr. and John Sidney McCain III among them, have mouthed the same inanity about the slaughter of innocent babes being a "difficult" issue about which people of "good will" could disagree legitimately. This is an approach taken by none other than Barack Hussein Obama, who said the following at the University of Notre Dame du Lac on Sunday, May 17, 2009:
After I read the doctor's letter, I wrote back to him and thanked him. I didn't change my position, but I did tell my staff to change the words on my website. And I said a prayer that night that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me. Because when we do that - when we open our hearts and our minds to those who may not think like we do or believe what we do - that's when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.
That's when we begin to say, "Maybe we won't agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions.
So let's work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term. Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women."
Understand - I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. No matter how much we may want to fudge it - indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory - the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature. (Text of Obama Speech at the University of Notre Dame.)
There is no "common ground" between truth and error, between good and evil. The precepts of the Fifth Commandment make it clear that it is never permissible to directly intend to kill an innocent human being as the first end of a moral act.
An expectant mother has no "decision" to make when she discovers that she is carrying a child in her womb. She has a baby to nurture unto birth and then to bring to the Baptismal font to be made a spiritual child by adoption of the Most Blessed Trinity, Whose very inner life is flooded into that baby's soul as the Original Sin and that soul's captivity to the devil is flooded out of it. There is no "decision" to be made. There is no "choice" to be made. There is God's Holy Will to fulfill with love and with perfection, made possible by the supernatural helps won for us 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 and that flow into human hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces.
The winner of the 1968 presidential election had a position on the surgical dismemberment of preborn children that was only slightly less pro-death than that of the winner of the 2008 presidential election, Barack Hussein Obama (aka Barry Soetero). Nixon also shared pretty similar views with Obama on the chemical assassination of children by means of abortifacient contraceptives.
The lords of Modernity do not believe this. Neither do the lords of Modernism such as Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI (see Kindred Spirits of the New World Order, Kindred Spirit of the New World Order, Give Me Two Bayers, Please, Two More Bayers, Please, and A "Blessing" on a Murderer and His Work) and his successor, Jorge Mario Bergoglio (see, among so many others, Commissar of Antichrist Speaks, part one, Commissar of Antichrist Speaks, part two, Commissar of Antichrist Speaks, part three, Commissar of Antichrist Speaks, part four, Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part one, Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part two, Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part three, Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part four, Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part five, Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part six and Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part seven).
Indeed, it is tragic that no prelate of the Catholic Church in the United States of America prior to the dawning of the age of conciliarism at the "Second" Vatican Council sought to evangelize the likes of Richard Nixon when he was a member of the United States House of Representatives or the United States Senate or when he was Vice President of the United States of America. Nixon could have used his native intelligence and eloquence in the service of helping to restore the Social Reign of Christ the King and Mary our Immaculate Queen. He could have organized Rosary processions and given talks on Our Lady's Fatima Peace Plan. Instead, however, Nixon--and millions upon millions of other non-Catholics--have been left to spend their entire lives in the darkness of false religions and the lies of naturalism, oblivious to the truths of the true Faith and of the identity of the true God Who became Man in Our Lady's Virginal and Immaculate Womb by the power of God the Holy Ghost to atone for our sins on the wood of the Holy Cross so that we could reform our lives and have the possibility of dying in a state of Sanctifying Grace and being with Him for all eternity in Heaven. And the counterfeit church of conciliarism has actually reaffirmed people in their false religions and eschewed what Ratzinger/Benedict XVI disparagingly called "the ecumenism of the return" on August 19, 2005, in Cologne, Germany.
Richard Nixon is just one of the tragic stories of people who were abandoned by the Americanist bishops of the Catholic Church in the United States of America before the "Second" Vatican Council, and he was one of the millions who were actually reaffirmed in their falsehoods by the falsehoods of false ecumenism, the new ecclesiology, dogmatic evolutionism and religious liberty sponsored by the counterfeit church of conciliarism.
The false spirit of the "Second" Vatican Council and the postconciliar "popes is far from that of Pope Pius IX, expressed in Iam Vos Omnes, September 13, 1868, as he recognized that the salvation of his own immortal souls depended upon his inviting non-Catholics into the true Church lest they die outside her maternal bosom:
It is therefore by force of the right of Our supreme Apostolic ministry, entrusted to us by the same Christ the Lord, which, having to carry out with [supreme] participation all the duties of the good Shepherd and to follow and embrace with paternal love all the men of the world, we send this Letter of Ours to all the Christians from whom We are separated, with which we exhort them warmly and beseech them with insistence to hasten to return to the one fold of Christ; we desire in fact from the depths of the heart their salvation in Christ Jesus, and we fear having to render an account one day to Him, Our Judge, if, through some possibility, we have not pointed out and prepared the way for them to attain eternal salvation. In all Our prayers and supplications, with thankfulness, day and night we never omit to ask for them, with humble insistence, from the eternal Shepherd of souls the abundance of goods and heavenly graces. And since, if also, we fulfill in the earth the office of vicar, with all our heart we await with open arms the return of the wayward sons to the Catholic Church, in order to receive them with infinite fondness into the house of the Heavenly Father and to enrich them with its inexhaustible treasures. By our greatest wish for the return to the truth and the communion with the Catholic Church, upon which depends not only the salvation of all of them, but above all also of the whole Christian society: the entire world in fact cannot enjoy true peace if it is not of one fold and one shepherd. (Pope Pius IX, Iam Vos Omnes, September 13, 1868)
Anyone who believes that Jorge Mario Bergolio, who has told us on numerous occasions that he does not want to convert anyone to what he thinks is the Catholic Church, shares Pope Pius IX's fear for his soul if he did not invite non-Catholics into Church is either mired in delusion or is steeped in ranked intellectual dishonesty as they shut their eyes and close their mouths to the truth that Bergoglio believes not a word of Pope Pius IX's exhortation contained in Iam Vos Omnes. Unlike Pope Pius XI, the Argentine Apostate does not does not believe that Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order. And he does not believe this, as is evident, then why should anyone have believed it in the past, including Richard Nixon? Why should anyone, including Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, believe it now?
Each of us, of course, contributes to the cause of a genuine world peace, the peace of Christ the King, by growing the more in Sanctifying Grace with every beat of our hearts, consecrated as those hearts must be to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. Each of us, impedes the cause of a genuine world peace, that of Christ the King, the more that we persist in our sins and refuse to make reparation for them as the consecrated slaves of Our Lord through Our Lady's Immaculate Heart. And in His ineffable Mercy, Our Lord Himself has sent us His Most Blessed Mother to give us her Fatima Peace Plan, Heaven's Peace Plan, whereby the errors of Russia, which are on full display in the United States of America at the present time in the administration of Barack Hussein Obama (as they were in the administration of George Walker Bush), will be thwarted when a true pope consecrates Russia with all of the world's true bishops to Our Lady's Immaculate Heart, ushering in the Reign of Mary as the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ is restored (see Our Lady Does Not Act on Her Own and Two Last Remedies).
The cause of peace in our nation and in the world begins in our own souls.
Alas, there can be no "peace" in the world when men persist in warfare with God by means of persisting in unrepentant sins. There can be no "peace" in a world where innocent babies in their mothers' wombs are killed by the millions every year by means of chemical and surgical abortions. There can be no "peace" in a world where men promote sin under cover of the civil law and in every aspect of the popular culture. There can be no "peace" in a world where God is offended so regularly and with such impunity by putative "popes" and putative "bishops" and as these spiritual robber barons are defended, either by acts of omission or commission, in their blasphemous offenses against God by those seeking to claim that one, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who believes in the ability of false religions to "contribute" to the cause of world peace is a restorer of the Church Militant in this time of apostasy and betrayal.
We must have patience in these trying times, recognizing that God has known from all eternity that we would be alive now, meaning that His graces are sufficient for the moment of these trials. We show forth our true love for our nation by praying for her ultimate good, that is, her conversion to the true Faith and thus the Social Reign of Christ the King and Mary our Immaculate Queen as we pray at the same time for the restoration of the Church Militant on earth and the vanquishing of conciliarism once and for al, praying as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits.
We need to be poster children of the Holy Rosary as lift high the standard of the Holy Cross.
What are waiting for?
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now.
Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!
Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us!
Saint Joseph, Patron of Departing Souls, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.
Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.
Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.
Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.
Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.
Saint John Mary Vianney, pray for us.
Saint Lawrence the Deacon, pray for us.
Saint Romanus, pray for us.