Another Reason Why Mitt Romney Will Lose
Thomas A. Droleskey
Why, my good and few readers, is any one surprised, shocked at the lawlessness of Barry Soetero, aka Barack Hussein, who has no regard for the laws of God or of man? No one should be surprised that he is ruling by arbitrary decrees that lack any foundation in even a liberal reading of the implications or "penumbras" that Associate Justice Arthur Goldberg, one of the most liberal justices who ever served on the Supreme Court of the United States of America, wrote in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut (June 7, 1965) "emanate" from various provisions in the Constitution's first tend amendments, the "Bill of Rights," even though they are enumerated in the text's plain words. Please see Hugo Chavez Ortega Obama if you have forgotten that the attitude of Barack Hussein Obama concerning laws is, "Laws? We don't need no stinkin' laws. L'Etat, c'est moi. The state, it is me. I am the law."
Diverted by bread and circuses, most Americans--and I do mean most Americans--are not the least bit interested in the reigning caesar's many illegalities, some of which actually contradict earlier positions he had taken, meaning that caesar might have a job as a "bishop" in the counterfeit church of conciliarism if he ever decides to leave the White House (I am convinced that he will seek to have the Twenty-second Amendment repealed to permit him to run for a third term in 2016, although by doing that he would open the way for a challenge by one of the transplanted Arkansans living in Chappaqua, New York, by the name of Clinton). After all, United States Attorney General Eric Holder could serve as a general counsel for the United States Conference of "Catholic 'Bishops'" as he is so adept at covering up crimes and of lying with a straight face to Congress as he does so.
Barack Hussein Obama shamelessly contradicted himself on Friday, June 15, 2012, the Feast of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, when he said that he had the authority to act" to implement part of the so-called "DREAM" (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act that Congress has refused to take it to a floor vote despite his entreaties and that of Congressional Democrats.
This what Barack Hussein Obama said way, way back when on that faraway date of distant memory, March 28, 2011 A.D., on the same subject when asked about it during town hall meeting held at Bell Multicultural High School, Washington, District of Columbia, that was sponsored by Univision, a Spanish-language television network:
MR. RAMOS: Mr. President, my question will be as follows: With an executive order, could you be able to stop deportations of the students? And if that’s so, that links to another of the questions that we have
received through univision.com. We have received hundreds, thousand, all
related to immigration and the students. Kay Tomar (ph) through
univision.com told us — I’m reading — “What if at least you grant
temporary protective status, TPS, to undocumented students? If the
answer is yes, when? And if no, why not?”
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, temporary protective status
historically has been used for special circumstances where you have
immigrants to this country who are fleeing persecution in their
countries, or there is some emergency situation in their native land
that required them to come to the United States. So it would not be
appropriate to use that just for a particular group that came here
primarily, for example, because they were looking for economic
With respect to the notion that I can just suspend
deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because
there are laws on the books that Congress has passed — and I know that
everybody here at Bell is studying hard so you know that we’ve got three
branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s
job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has
to interpret the laws.
There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very
clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for
me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional
mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.
That does not mean, though, that we can’t make decisions, for
example, to emphasize enforcement on those who’ve engaged in criminal
activity. It also doesn’t mean that we can’t strongly advocate and
propose legislation that would change the law in order to make it more
fair, more just, and ultimately would help young people who are here
trying to do the right thing and whose talents we want to embrace in
order to succeed as a country. (Applause.) (Transcript of March 28, 2011, Appearance of Caesar Obamus at Bell Multicultural High School, Washington, District of Columbia.)
Authority? Ah, Barry Soetero did not know where to find it in 2011 before he finally founded it a few days ago. So few ordinary citizens even care about the contradiction. For the record, good readers, here is what Caesar Barackus Obamus Ignoramus on Friday, June 15, 2012:
Now, both parties wrote this legislation. And a year and a half ago,
Democrats passed the DREAM Act in the House, but Republicans walked away
from it. It got 55 votes in the Senate, but Republicans blocked it.
The bill hasn’t really changed. The need hasn’t changed. It’s still
the right thing to do. The only thing that has changed, apparently, was
As I said in my speech on the economy yesterday, it makes no sense to
expel talented young people, who, for all intents and purposes, are
Americans -- they’ve been raised as Americans; understand themselves to
be part of this country -- to expel these young people who want to staff
our labs, or start new businesses, or defend our country simply because
of the actions of their parents -- or because of the inaction of
In the absence of any immigration action from Congress to fix our
broken immigration system, what we’ve tried to do is focus our
immigration enforcement resources in the right places. So we
prioritized border security, putting more boots on the southern border
than at any time in our history -- today, there are fewer illegal
crossings than at any time in the past 40 years. We focused and used
discretion about whom to prosecute, focusing on criminals who endanger
our communities rather than students who are earning their education.
And today, deportation of criminals is up 80 percent. We've improved
on that discretion carefully and thoughtfully. Well, today, we're
improving it again.
Effective immediately, the Department of Homeland Security is taking steps to lift the shadow of deportation from these young
people. Over the next few months, eligible individuals who do not
present a risk to national security or public safety will be able to
request temporary relief from deportation proceedings and apply for work
Now, let's be clear -- this is not amnesty, this is not immunity. This
is not a path to citizenship. It's not a permanent fix. This is a
temporary stopgap measure that lets us focus our resources wisely while
giving a degree of relief and hope to talented, driven, patriotic young
people. It is - (Remarks by President Hugo Chavez Obama on Immigration.)
Border security? There is none in this current administration. The border of the United States of America with Mexico is a sieve precisely because the resources have not been deployed by the Obama administration to enforce the law, which has had the books "cooked" in order to show that its "enforcement" measures are working (see Arizona Sheriff Cites Flood of Border Agents). One lie after another. Gee, maybe Roger Clemens, fresh off of his Orenthal James Simpson-like acquittal yesterday, can get a job at the United States Department of Education to instruct young boys how to develop a muscular physique by imitating his absolute refusal to use any kind of "performance enhancing drugs." He'd fit right in with this lawless crowd.
At issue here is not necessarily the specific policy provisions that the man who is above the laws of both God and man believes that he has "enacted" arbitrarily. It would be impossible, both politically and practically, to seek to deport so many millions of people back to Mexico and elsewhere in Latin America. I dealt with the whole issue of immigration in a two part series two years ago, attempting to make important distinctions on an issue that is exploited by the organized crime family of the "left" to curry favor with a sizeable and very powerful bloc of voters whose turnout is critical to their hold on power and by some on the false opposite of the naturalist "right," many of whom use the same kind of nativist language that the Know Nothings and Ku Klux Klansmen of the Nineteenth Century to disparage immigrants even though everyone (other than American Indians who have not married outside of their race) here is descended from immigrants. (See Good Catholic Common Sense Must Prevail, part 1 and Good Catholic Common Sense Must Prevail, part 2.)
Sure, the immigrant ancestors of most Americans came here legally, abiding by the prevailing laws of the day. This has not been the case with much of the immigration from south of the American border in recent decades. Granted.
Nevertheless, however, adherents of both organized crime families of naturalism in this country have played games with this issue even though both do not seem to mind when those who have come here illegally, having found their way into the work force despite existing laws to fill jobs that many Americans refuse to take and/or to fill positions that go vacant because of the socioeconomic consequences of contraception and abortion, pay their taxes and do not commit crimes. Democrats want such people on the voting rolls, whether or not they ever become citizens. Many Republicans know that the hotel and restaurant industry would collapse if all illegal alien workers were sent packing. The "dispute" is all a farce and just another example of how the two parties play the game of false opposites so very well for purposes of raising campaign cash.
A number of commentators amongst the vast ranks of well-paid naturalists have noted that Barack Hussein Obama's decision to reverse himself so dramatically four days ago now was a blatantly political act of grandstanding. So? Of course it was. It was meant to be. As just noted, The organized crime family of the naturalist "left" has long used immigration policy as the one of the principal means of acquiring and retaining power.
After all, ladies and gentlemen, one of the reasons that so many Catholics in the United States of America continue to adhere to the organized crime family of the naturalist "left" as it was the old bosses and ward leaders of the big city Democratic Party political machines in the Northeast and industrial Midwest that understood the utility of having the immigrants on "their" side at the ballot box as well as on city and county payrolls. Whigs, at first, and their successors, the Republicans, passed laws, many of which were aimed directly at the heart of the practice of the Catholic Faith in this country, that helped to drive Catholic immigrants, in particular, into the waiting arms of the bosses of the Democratic Party machines, which is where so many of them remain to this very day despite the party's institutional support for the chemical and surgical slaughter of the innocent preborn and for the "right" of those of the same gender to "marry," among many other evils. This is just a variation of what I wrote about yesterday in We Must Abide By Truth, Not By Persons, namely, defining one's very identity by adherence to a creature or, in this instance, a man-made institution to the point of complete dependency and unfailing trust.
Sure, Barack Hussein Obama's decision on Friday, June 15, 2012, to do what he said on March 28, 2011, he did not have the legal authority to do was politically motivated. He hopes to solidify his base among Spanish-speaking voters, something that might be pivotal in some "swing" states to push him over the edge to victory, blunting whatever political "hay" that the hapless, mercurial Mormon named Willard Mitt Romney might make from running with the likes of Senator Marco Rubio (R-Florida) as his vice presidential selection.
It might work. And do you know who's helping him mightily right now? That's right. None other than Willard Mitt Romney himself, that's who.
What do I mean? As always, quite of course, I am delighted that you asked.
Knowing the political stakes involved in caesar's blatant violation of the Constitution and his thwarting of the will of the United States Congress that is, in actual point of fact, one of many impeachable offenses he has committed since January 20, 2009, Willard Mitt Romney refuses to say whether he would reverse caesar's illegal and unconstitutional executive order. It's all politics for Willard Mitt Romney, my friends. What Constitution? We don't need to no stinkin' Constitution. We got focus groups and political advisers. That's all we need:
Mitt Romney declined to say whether, if elected president, he would nix
the Obama administration's controversial new order allowing potentially
hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants who came to the United
States as children to avoid deportation.
In an interview broadcast Sunday on CBS' "Face the Nation," Romney criticized the move by the Department of Homeland Security as political and a short-term fix.
"I don't know why (Obama) feels stopgap measures are the right way to go," Romney said.
He said he wants to pursue long-term legislation if elected that
would address the status of illegal immigrants who were brought to the
United States when they were young.
Still, the Republican presidential candidate would not say whether he
would overturn the Obama administration's policy while such a long-term
solution is being worked out.
"We'll look at that setting as we reach it," Romney said, noting that
the immigration order would eventually be "overtaken" by long-term
Speaking on "Fox News Sunday," White House adviser David Plouffe
acknowledged that the Obama administration order is not a "permanent
fix." But he also alleged that voters will not be able to "trust" Romney
when it comes to fixing the immigration system.
"I think that's a clear choice just not for the Latino community, but for the American electorate at large," Plouffe said.
Romney, though, accused the president of having "saved" the policy
change for an election year, suggesting it was a sop to Hispanic voters.
"If he felt seriously about this, he should have taken action when he
had a Democrat House and Senate," Romney said.
Romney is in a tough spot on the immigration policy change.
His positions on immigration during the GOP primary battle were among
the most conservative in the field. But Hispanics remain a critical
voting bloc going into November. And while Romney said earlier that he'd
veto the DREAM Act -- a stalled bill that was meant to let some illegal
immigrants who came here as children stay so long as they attend college or serve in the military -- a key ally, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., has been working on a legislative alternative to that bill.
Romney said Friday that he agrees with Rubio that he'd "like to see legislation that deals with this issue."
On "Face the Nation" Sunday, former Democratic presidential candidate
Howard Dean described the DHS announcement as a "brilliant move" by the
president considering the position it puts Romney in.
"If he says anything in favor of what the president wants to do, he
alienates the right wing ... and if he denies what the president has
said and (says) it's a terrible idea, he digs himself an even deeper
hole with Latinos," Dean said.
But Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said all the order does is take the "breathtaking" step of having a federal agency stop enforcing the law without addressing
the status of most of the illegal immigrants in the country.
"You're going to have 800,000 work permits issued by the stroke of a
pen. You're going around Congress and the American people. And you're
doing nothing about a broken immigration system," he said.
The Obama administration said the policy change announced Friday will
affect as many as 800,000 immigrants who have lived in fear of
deportation. Obama's move bypasses Congress and partially achieves the
goals of the Democrats' long-stalled legislation aimed at young illegal
immigrants who went to college or served in the military.
Under the administration plan, illegal immigrants will be able to
avoid deportation if they can prove they were brought to the United
States before they turned 16 and are younger than 30, have been in the
country for at least five continuous years, have no major criminal
history, graduated from a U.S. high school or earned a GED diploma or
certificate, or served in the military. They also can apply for a work
permit that will be good for two years with no limits on how many times
it can be renewed.
The broadcast interview was conducted Saturday while Romney's Rust Belt bus tour stopped in Pennsylvania. (Romney mum on whether he'd nix immigration order.)
No one, not even United States Senator Lindsay Graham (R- S.C.) is willing to do so. Then again, Lindsay Graham, a thirty-third degree Freemason, is not any friend of fundamental justice founded in truth even on the natural level as he voted to put Elena Kagan on the Supreme Court of the United States of America (see Memo To Lindsey Graham).
This is all nothing new. Nothing new at all.
Let me refresh your memories a bit with this trip down memory lane to explain that outgoing caesar William Jefferson Blythe Clinton used a similar tactic twelve years ago now to attempt to put then Texas Governor George Walker Bush on the spot by having the United States Food and Drug Administration approving the marketing of the human pesticide, RU-486, right smack during the presidential contest between the stage-managed Bush and Clinton's vice president, the wooden caricature named Albert Arnold Gore, Jr.
Bush's handling of the matter was indicative of what he would do about the RU-486 during his eight years as president: nothing.
Let's go into the Wayback Machine, Sherman. The date: October 3, 2000. The place: Washington University, Saint Louis, Missouri. The event: the first presidential debate of the general election:
MODERATOR: New question,
new subject. Governor Bush. If elected president, would you try to
overturn the FDA's approval last week of the abortion pill RU-486?
BUSH: I don't think a president can do that. I
was disappointed in the ruling because I think abortions ought to be
more rare in America, and I'm worried that that pill will create more
abortions and cause more people to have abortions. This is a very
important topic and it's a very sensitive topic, because a lot of good people disagree
on the issue. I think what the next president ought to do is to promote a
culture of life in America. Life of the elderly and life of those women
all across the country. Life of the unborn. As a matter of fact, I
think a noble goal for this country is that every child, born or unborn,
need to be protected by law and welcomed to life. I know we need to
change a lot of minds before we get there in America. What I do believe
is that we can find good, common ground on issues of parental consent or
parental notification. I know we need to ban partial birth abortions.
This is a place where my opponent and I have strong disagreement. I
believe banning partial birth abortions would be a positive step to
reducing the number of abortions in America. It is an issue that will
require a new attitude. We've been battling over abortion for a long
period of time. Surely this nation can come together to promote the
value of life. Surely we can fight off these laws that will encourage
doctors to -- to allow doctors to take the lives of our seniors. Surely
we can work together to create a cultural life so some of these
youngsters who feel like they can take a neighbor's life with a gun will
understand that that's not the way America is meant to be. Surely we
can find common ground to reduce the number of abortions in America. As
to the drug itself, I mentioned I was disappointed. I hope the FDA took
its time to make sure that American women will be safe who use this
MODERATOR: Vice President Gore?
GORE: Well, Jim, the FDA took 12 years, and I do
support that decision. They determined it was medically safe for the
women who use that drug. This is indeed a very important issue. First of
all on the issue of partial birth or so-called late-term abortion, I
would sign a law banning that procedure, provided that doctors have the
ability to save a woman's life or to act if her health is severely at
risk. That's not the main issue. The main issue is whether or not the
Roe v. Wade decision is going to be overturned. I support a woman's
right to choose. My opponent does not. It is important because the next
president is going to appoint three and maybe even four justices of the
Supreme Court. And Governor Bush has declared to the anti-choice group
that he will appoint justices in the mold of Scalia and Clarence Thomas,
who are known for being the most vigorous opponents of a woman's right
to choose. Here is the difference. He trusts the government to order a
woman to do what it thinks she ought to do. I trust women to make the
decisions that affect their lives, their destinies and their bodies. And
I think a woman's right to choose ought to be protected and defended.
MODERATOR: Governor, we'll go to the Supreme
Court question in a moment, but make sure I understand your position on
RU-486. If you're elected president, you won't support legislation to
BUSH: I don't think a president can unilaterally overturn it. The FDA has made its decision.
MODERATOR: That means you wouldn't, through appointments, to the FDA and ask them to --
BUSH: I think once a decision has been made, it's been made unless it's proven to be unsafe to women.
GORE: Jim, the question you asked, if I heard
you correctly, was would he support legislation to overturn it. And if I
heard the statement day before yesterday, you said you would order --
he said he would order his FDA appointee to review the decision. Now
that sounds to me a little bit different. I just think that we ought to
support the decision.
BUSH: I said I would make sure that women would be safe who used the drug. (2000 Debate Transcript)
I very rarely write sentences
consisting of capitalized words to make a point emphatically. The
English language permits us to choose words without having to resort to
capitalized words and multiple exclamation points at the end of
sentences. I will make an exception in this instance, however;
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA HAS
FULL POWER TO DIRECT HIS SUBORDINATES TO REVERSE ADMINISTRATIVE
DECISIONS MADE BY A PREDECESSOR'S ADMINISTRATION.
George Walker Bush decided NOT to reverse the
decision announced by the Food and Drug Administration on September 28,
2000, because he did not want to run the risk of electoral rejection for
doing so. To assert that the President of the United States of America
is powerless to reverse an administrative decision demonstrates a woeful
ignorance of the Constitution of the United States of America or a
deliberate effort to wash one's hands of a decision that one prefers to
see stand as it was made.
As I demonstrated over four and one-half years ago now in Selective Use of Executive Power,
President George Herbert Walker Bush and President George Walker Bush
both pushed the limits of executive power to accomplish those things
that truly mattered to them in their respective administrations. The
younger President Bush was reported by a Republican member of the House
of Representatives to have said that the Constitution is just a
(expletive deleted) piece of paper when he, Bush, was questioned about
the constitutionality of his administration's warrantless wiretapping
and surveillance of American citizens residing in the United States of
America. Bush never cared about constitutional limits, issuing all manner of orders to approve the use of
"enhanced interrogation" (torture) on suspects held by third-party
contractors in foreign countries.
Willard Mitt Romney is cut from the same cloth. He is following the "safe" path on a "controversial" issue.
I have noted many times that the Constitution of the United States of America contains within it the seeds of its own destruction by refusing to acknowledge the true Faith and that a complex system of checks and balances with the Federal government and a division of powers between it and the state governments could prevent the rise of a tyranny, especially what James Madison called in The Federalist, Number Ten, the "tyranny of the majority." This is false as as separation of powers and checks and balances can never take the place of the self-restraint that those who hold public office must exercise, a self-restraint that can be known to its truest and fullest extent only by a firm belief in, access to and cooperation with Sanctifying Grace.
That having been noted once again, especially for newer readers of this site, it is amazing that even naturalists of the false opposite of the "right" who are vying for power in opposition to an openly Marxist-trained statist refuse even to make passing reference to a blatant effort to pretend that there is no such thing as a Constitution to "preserve, protect and defend." What's a little thing like that when one has to be "careful" in order to "win" an election?
This is just another reason why Willard Mitt Romney will lose to a man whose entire public persona is a work of compete and utter fiction, Barack Hussein Obama (see Self-Made Man), as the former pro-abortion, pro-perversion author of the prototype of ObamaCare, RomneyCare, is unwilling to speak even on a natural level as leader if this means offending "swing" voters in "swing" states. He is, at sixty-five years of age, paralyzed by focus groups and political advisers. It's all about "winning," after all, except that the only thing that usually happens to those who campaign this way is that they win a one-way ticket back to private life. George Walker Bush, who ran a similar campaign in 2000, only defeated Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., in the electoral college vote because Ralph Nader won 97,421 votes cast by committed leftists in the State of Florida,
permitting Bush to win the Sunshine State's twenty-five electoral votes
even though he out polled Gore in Florida by a meager margin of 517
Expect Willard Mitt Romney to talk about ObamaCare? Forget about it. He's neutralized on the issue.
Expect Willard Mitt Romney to talk about Eric Holder's contempt of Congress in the "fast and furious" gun running scandal? Forget about it.
Expect Willard Mitt Romney to talk about Barack Hussein Obama's manufactured autobiography that shows him to be a calculating liar of the sort that puts William Jefferson Blythe Clinton in a distant second place in the teller of tall tales? Forget about it.
Expect Willard Mitt Romney to talk about baby-killing and legal "rights" for those engaged in perverse sins in violation of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments? Forget about it.
Willard Mitt Romney will talk only about that which he is told is "safe." Nothing more. Nothing less.
Even in a system of pure naturalism such as ours, you see, that is a formula for failure as those who sound as though they stand for something and who appear to take political risks that are, of course, no risks at all, usually wind up on top when the needless strife of the farce of elections is done for a particular two-year or four-year cycle.
Men such as Barack Hussein Obama are bound to come to power and to stay in power as a system premised on a written document that admits of no source higher than the text of its own words decays over time. A written Constitution that admits of no ultimate authority for governance than its own words is as meaningless in the hands of the likes of Barack Hussein Obama as the words of Sacred Scripture are to a Protestant or a Modernist Catholic, both of whom make those words mean what they want them to mean, if not ignore them altogether (see, for example, "Bishop" Thomas Gumbleton's desire for the Catholic Church to "change" her teaching about sins against nature, Frontline, Public Boguscasting System, PBS; more on this tomorrow, however).
Our true popes have tried to warn us. Why don't we listen to them?
We have but too much evidence of the value
and result of a morality divorced from divine faith. How is it that, in
spite of all the zeal for the welfare of the masses, nations are in
such straits and even distress, and that the evil is daily on the
increase? We are told that society is quite able to help itself; that it
can flourish without the assistance of Christianity, and attain its end
by its own unaided efforts. Public administrators prefer a purely
secular system of government. All traces of the religion of our
forefathers are daily disappearing from political life and
administration. What blindness! Once the idea of the authority of God as
the Judge of right and wrong is forgotten, law must necessarily lose
its primary authority and justice must perish: and these are the two
most powerful and most necessary bonds of society. Similarly, once the
hope and expectation of eternal happiness is taken away, temporal goods
will be greedily sought after. Every man will strive to secure the
largest share for himself. Hence arise envy, jealousy, hatred. The
consequences are conspiracy, anarchy, nihilism. There is neither peace
abroad nor security at home. Public life is stained with crime. (Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900.)
The Church does not say that morality belongs purely, in the
sense of exclusively, to her; but that it belongs wholly to her. She has
never maintained that outside her fold and apart from her teaching, man
cannot arrive at any moral truth; she has on the contrary more than
once condemned this opinion because it has appeared under more forms
than one. She does however say, has said, and will ever say, that
because of her institution by Jesus Christ, because of the Holy Ghost
sent her in His name by the Father, she alone possesses what she has had
immediately from God and can never lose, the whole of moral truth,
omnem veritatem, in which all individual moral truths are included, as
well those which man may learn by the help of reason, as those which
form part of revelation or which may be deduced from it (Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.)
This is simply by way of
saying that men will be lost, both in the conduct of their own lives and
collectively as they act together with others in the institutions of
civil governance, when they do not submit themselves to the sure
guidance of the Catholic Church in all that pertains to Faith and
Morals. And it is to the shame of the conciliarists that they refuse to
remind men that the Catholic Faith is the one and only foundation of
personal and social order, that it is not by means of "harmony" or
"coexistence" that men are mean to please God and to pursue the common
temporal good in light of their Last End, the possession of the glory of
the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy
Ghost for all eternity in Heaven. Indeed, the conciliarists make it
appear as though every religion is a perfectly valid form of serving God
in some way or another and of working as "brothers" with those of
"different" beliefs or even of no beliefs at all into building the
"better, more peaceful, "greener" world. This is nothing other than
pure, unadulterated Judeo-Masonry. Nothing else.
We adhere to Catholic truth by means of the graces
won for us by Our Lord on the wood of the Holy Cross and that flow into
our souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix
of All Graces, my good and few readers, or we will suffer the
consequences of a world wherein violence, social upheavals, financial
crises, divorce, family instability, and statism--and all manner of
other evils--become accepted norms. Efforts are made by those in civil
government to address symptoms of problems without ever understanding
their root cause or pausing to consider that we must subordinate
everything we do in this passing, mortal vale of tears to the Deposit of
Faith that Our Lord has entrusted exclusively to His Catholic Church.
Naturalists wind up arguing with other naturalists about how to
"improve" the world according to various naturalistic formulae, heedless
of Christ the King and of Mary our Immaculate Queen.
We must remember that the forces we are not fighting
earthly powers. The likes of the little caesars who are in civil office
today are merely earthly manifestations of the forces of darkness that
have enveloped large parts of the world after first enveloping large
numbers of souls. Saint Paul warns us to fight these forces of darkness
in our own lives lest we be overcome by them:
Put you on the armour of God, that you may be able
to stand against the deceits of the devil. For our wrestling is not
against flesh and blood; but against principalities and power, against
the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of
wickedness in the high places. Therefore take unto you the armour of
God, that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and to stand in all
things perfect. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with
truth, and having on the breastplate of justice, And your feet shod
with the preparation of the gospel of peace: (Ephesians 6: 11-15.)
We must not be distracted by the side shows of naturalism or
conciliarism. We must serve as champions of Christ the King through the
Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, especially by praying as many
Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits, refusing to march along
in the parade of the midget naturalists.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!
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 Juliana Falconieri, pray for is.
Saints Gervase and Protase, pray for us.
also: A Litany of Saints
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?