Blood Money Talks Loud and Clear

Part One

by Thomas A. Droleskey

This is going one of those articles that will drive delusional Americans who believe that Willard Mitt Romney is the "answer" to the latest Democratic Party devil's statist ways absolutely berserk, perhaps even more berserk than some of my recent articles (Yadda, Yadda, Yadda, Heard It All Before, Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., Demagogue Update and Devils Without Tails) on the circus of naturalism that has another seventy-seven days yet to go before it comes to end, barring of course, an electoral stalemate such as the type that occurred after the elections on Tuesday, November 7, 2012.

We must first face a first basic facts before delving into the heart of this article, which I do hope, for your sake and my sake, is reasonably short.

First, let it be stipulated the the leftists in the "mainstream media" (which includes columnists and other commentators) "cover" for their own champions, including their reigning "champ," Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetero.

Second, let it be stipulated that the rightists in the "mainstream media" "cover" for their own champions of the moment, a distinction, if you want to call it that, that belongs to Willard Mitt Romney and Paul Davis Ryan.

Third, let it be stipulated that the leftists in the "mainstream media" seek to go after those who oppose their darlings of the moment.

Fourth, let it be stipulated that the rightists in the "mainstream media" seek to go after those who represent the statists of the "left."

All of this having been stipulated, therefore, it is also important to point out that "leftists" in the "mainstream media" sometimes get their facts correct, that is, that they do good investigative research and then come to reasonable conclusions based on the evidence brought forth even though they are reporting about one for whom they have an in-built bias.

Such is the case with former Commonwealth of Massachusetts Governor Willard Mitt Romney, who is hated by many in the "mainstream media" solely because he is the putative presidential nominee of the organized crime family of the naturalist "right" known as the Republican Party and thus stands as a potential obstacle to the re-election of their anointed one, President Barack Hussein Obama/Barr Soetero, on Tuesday, November 6, 2012. While it is true that some "mainstream media" outlets have reported on the incredible stupidities of Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., and on some of the "misstatements" about Romney by Obama's campaign and hatchet men and women, is the case, generally speaking, that the "mainstream media is "out to get" Willard Mitt Romney and United States Representative Paul Davis Ryan, both of whom must fight the media's in-built left-leaning biases, which reaches absurd heights on such leftist organs as MSNBC.

Even with such an agenda, though, the fact remains that amoral men such as Romney, formed by the lies of the con-man from Palmyra, New York, known as Joseph Smith, the founder of the Americanist cult known as Mormonism, sometimes provide their enemies in the "mainstream media" with the ammunition that can be used against them. The amoral Richard Milhous Nixon knew this very well, explaining the following to David Frost in the famous Nixon-Frost interview:

"I don’t go with the idea that what brought me down was a coup, a conspiracy. I gave ‘em the sword. They stuck it in and twisted it with relish. I guess if I’d been in their position, I’d’a done the same thing.” (April 15, 1977: Frost, Nixon Spar over Watergate'.)

Romney knows that there are facts in those tax returns he refuses to disclose that he does not want to have "conservative" voters to see. He cares about the "bottom line" in business and in politics. When he was in business, you see, he cared about the money, money, money, and it did not matter to him what he invested in as long as it was legal and would realize a return. In politics, of course, he thinks that there are great dividends in the current election cycle to emphasizing the money, money, money, points that have been made on this site many times in the past year now and were made when Romney ran for the Republican Party's presidential nomination in the 2008 election cycle.

David Corn, a leftist journalist who writes currently for the thoroughly far "left" Mother Jones journal, has followed quite a paper trail that leads very reasonably to the conclusion that the real reason that Willard Mitt Romney does not want to reveal his tax returns is that they will show that he invested, both when associated with Bain Capital and on his own after he left that company for good in 2002, in a company, Stericycle, which disposes of "medical waste." Among the "medical waste" that Stericycle collects and then incinerates are innocent babies who have been sliced and diced to death in their mothers' wombs at baby-killing mills and hospitals:

Despite the firm's [Stericycle's] regulatory run-ins, the deal worked out well for Bain. In 2001, the Bain-Madison Dearborn partnership that had invested in the company sold 40 percent of its holdings in Stericycle for about $88 million—marking a hefty profit on its original investment of $75 million. The Bain-related group sold the rest of its holdings by 2004. By that point it had earned $49.5 million. It was not until six years later that anti-abortion activists would target Stericycle for collecting medical waste at abortion clinics. This campaign has compared Stericycle to German firms that provided assistance to the Nazis during the Holocaust. A Stericycle official told Huffington Post that its abortion clinics business constitutes a "small" portion of its total operations. (Stericycle declined a request for comment from Mother Jones.)

In response to questions from Mother Jones, a spokeswoman for Bain maintained that Romney was not involved in the Stericycle deal in 1999, saying that he had "resigned" months before the stock purchase was negotiated. The spokeswoman noted that following his resignation Romney remained only "a signatory on certain documents," until his separation agreement with Bain was finalized in 2002. And Bain issued this statement: "Mitt Romney retired from Bain Capital in February 1999. He has had no involvement in the management or investment activities of Bain Capital, or with any of its portfolio companies since that time." (The Romney presidential campaign did not respond to requests for comment.)

But the document Romney signed related to the Stericycle deal did identify him as a participant in that particular deal and the person in charge of several Bain entities. (Did Bain and Romney file a document with the SEC that was not accurate?) Moreover, in 1999, Bain and Romney both described his departure from Bain not as a resignation and far from absolute. On February 12, 1999, the Boston Herald reported, "Romney said he will stay on as a part-timer with Bain, providing input on investment and key personnel decisions." And a Bain press release issued on July 19, 1999, noted that Romney was "currently on a part-time leave of absence"—and quoted Romney speaking for Bain Capital. In 2001 and 2002, Romney filed Massachusetts state disclosure forms noting he was the 100 percent owner of Bain Capital NY, Inc.—a Bain outfit that was incorporated in Delaware on April 13, 1999—two months after Romney's supposed retirement from the firm. A May 2001 filing with the SEC identified Romney as "a member of the Management Committee" of two Bain entities. And in 2007, the Washington Post reported that R. Bradford Malt, a Bain lawyer, said Romney took a "leave of absence" when he assumed the Olympics post and retained sole ownership of the firm for two more years.

All of this undermines Bain's contention that Romney, though he maintained an ownership interest in the firm and its funds, had nothing to do with the firm's activities after February 1999. The Stericycle deal may raise red flags for anti-abortion activists. But it also raises questions about the true timing of Romney's departure from Bain and casts doubt on claims by the company and the Romney campaign that he had nothing to do with Bain business after February 1999. (Romney Invested in Medical-Waste Firm That Disposed of Slaughtered Babies.)

It was not too long after Corn's explosive report came under critical scrutiny, including by a writer for Fortune magazine in article found on the CNN website:

First, we've already dealt with why Romney was listed on the documents. The part about lying to the SEC is absurd, since the SEC doesn't require an owner to be the operational decision-maker (Romney delegated such responsibilities, as is his right).

As for the second part, is it terribly surprising that neither Bain nor Romney was certain that his divorce from Bain was permanent? He had already left once before -- in 1994, to run for U.S. Senate against Ted Kennedy -- so the initial impulse was to term Salt Lake as yet another leave of absence. And Romney assumed that he'd still be involved in decision-making, albeit from a distance.

Unlike in what happened in 1994, however, Romney was successful in 1999 -- and would later parlay his Olympic "victory" into elective office. He also was consumed by the Olympics job, and numerous sources -- including many with Bain at the time -- have told me that Romney did not make any investment-related decisions for Bain after February 1999. The firm didn't ask, and Romney didn't offer. He had other things to do, and those he left behind considered themselves more than capable of handling the baton.

I know that's the Romney party line, but I've still seen no evidence yet to contradict it. Not even from David Corn. Unless that changes, February 1999 remains important. And Stericycle remains out of bounds. (When did Romney really leave Bain?)

Unsurprisingly, of course, the partisans of the naturalist "right" at National Review also took exception to the conclusions reached by David Corn after presenting the paper trail of Willard Mitt Romney's approval of various investments made by Bain Capital:

The right-wingers at the Huffington Post reported earlier this year, “By the time Bain Capital had made the investment in Stericycle, he had left the firm to run the 2002 Winter Olympic Games. He maintained ownership in Bain and kept holdings in its private equity funds, which included Stericycle stock, but he had no say in the managerial or strategic decisions at the firm, according to Bain officials.”

That report also noted, “Stericycle’s work with abortion clinics constitutes a ‘small’ portion of its overall operations, an official with the company told The Huffington Post (the official declined to confirm whether or not Planned Parenthood specifically is still a client)… There is no publicly available data showing that either Romney or other officials at Bain knew of Stericycle’s work with Planned Parenthood and abortion clinics before the investment.” (The Obama Attack Coming Down the Road.)

Conceding for the sake of argument that "there is no publicly available data showing that either Romney or other officials at Bain knew of Stericycle's work with Planned Parenthood and abortion clinics before the investment," I will simply point out that, if this was the case, the reason for Romney and the other Bain Capital officials to be ignorant of Stericycle's nefarious "business" was because they did not care what Stericycle did as long as it was a good investment. It's all about the money, the money, the money.

The National Review article concluded as follows:

UPDATE: More useful information from Steven Ertelt of LifeNews.com here. Among the highlights:

 

• Bain Capital sold off 40 percent of its shares in Stericycle in 2001 and sold the rest by 2004.
• Stericycle apparently began contracting with abortion clinics in 2007.
• The pro-life community only became aware of Stericycle’s role in abortion clinics, and campaigning against its work, in 2011.

Despite the fact that the timeline contradicts the smear, I’ll bet you a doughnut that somebody tries to discourage pro-life turnout by telling likely pro-life audiences that Mitt Romney “profited from abortions” this autumn. (The Obama Attack Coming Down the Road.)

Steven Ertelt is not a reliable source. His LifeNews site tried to spin then Texas Governor George Walker Bush's hideous answer to moderator Jim Lehrer during the first Bush-Gore debate on October 3, 2000, about his supposed inability if elected president to reverse the decision of the United States Food and Drug Administration to authorize the marketing of the human pesticide, RU-486, as a president could do so if the murderous pill had been found "safe for women," into a strong "pro-life" answer without quoting the entire line of questioning about the issue, relying on Bush's initial response, to Lehrer, which talked all around the question by blathering about how he wanted to foster a "culture of life." Ertelt omitted the following exchange between Lehrer and Bush in its entirety:

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 overturn this?

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 sent off a strong response to Mr. Ertelt in an e-mail to denounce his misrepresentation of what Bush actually said in an effort to "spin" a thoroughly reprehensible answer into a courageous "pro-life" response by reporting only the cliches Bush had memorized without having the intellectual honesty or the journalistic integrity to report that the "pro-life" candidate said said he would make sure that "women would be safe who used" the baby-killing pill. This disgusted and outraged me then. It still does. It's sick and irresponsible shilling, especially in behalf of a man who was responsible for the deaths of so many innocent human beings in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, to say nothing his open support for the chemical assassination of children by means of domestic and international funding of "family planning" programs (see

Mr. Ertelt is no more accurate or responsible twelve years later. As it turns out, yes, Bain Capital sold forty percent of its shares in Stericycle in 2001, but to another company owned and controlled by a man named Mitt Romney, a fact that David Corn missed but another left-leaning journalist discovered by following the paper trail:

David Corn notes that one of the  vehicles that owned Stericycle was Sankaty High Yield Asset Investors, Ltd., but in this paragraph--

Another SEC document filed November 30, 1999, by Stericycle also names Romney as an individual who holds "voting and dispositive power" with respect to the stock owned by Bain. If Romney had fully retired from the private equity firm he founded, why would he be the only Bain executive named as the person in control of this large amount of Stericycle stock?

--he misses an important point.  Sankaty is the Bermuda corporation that was listed on Mitt's 2010 tax return.  It was not owned by Bain; instead,

Sankaty was transferred to a trust owned by Romney's wife, Ann, one day before he was sworn in as Massachusetts governor in 2003, according to Bermuda records obtained by The Associated Press. The Romneys' ownership of the offshore firm did not appear on any state or federal financial reports during Romney's two presidential campaigns. Only the Romneys' 2010 tax records, released under political pressure earlier this year, confirmed their continuing control of the company.

So the Romneys owned Stericycle stock through Sankaty -- not as part of Bain.  And that's an extremely important point: If Mitt wasn't involved in Bain, why did he invest directly in Stericycle?

It's obvious why abortion foes would object to this, of course; but I think there's a larger point, and that goes to the non-release of the tax returns. Many have suggested nefarious reasons why those returns have not been released.  I'm coming to believe that the reason is more tactical in nature.  I'm betting that Mitt has been a truly amoral (n.b.: NOT immoral) investor.  If it made money and wasn't patently illegal, he'd invest in it.  If his tax returns are public, they will show bets on all kinds of things that look -- well, unseemly for a President to be involved in.  Mitt must know this; it's obviously why he transferred Sankaty to Ann's blind trust.  It's also obviously why he put long-time confidante Brad Malt in charge of the Romney's trusts, no doubt with an eye to weeding out the investments that shouldn't see the prying eyes of voters.  

When Mitt's folks vetted his returns, I think they still found things like Stericycle that would damage him.  Not illegal, as I said, but not good.  Let's hope when the Globe or the Post or the Times gets ahold of Stericycle, it points out the direct tie to the Romneys and not the Bain connection -- and wonders what else is lurking on Mitt's tax returns. (Stericycle will be Mitt's next scandal.)

Mr. Ertelt's claim that Stericycle only became involved in the business of collecting the butchered bodies of innocent babies at this nation's killing centers in 2007 is absolutely irresponsible as the documentary evidence completely contradicts him. He should be ashamed of his continued irresponsible spinning for the phony "pro-life" Republicans at whose poisoned trough he has been drinking for so long now. Here is a link to a personal data file (.pdf) that proves Stericycle was "collecting" and "disposing" of butchered babies at a baby-killing mill at the so-called Greenville Women's Clinic in Greenville, South Carolina, in 2003: Greenville Women's Clinic 2003.

Oh, I forgot. Romney's hidden interest and investment in Stericycle at that time was in a "blind trust," established under the laws of the Commonwealth of Masschusetts and directed by longtime Romney confidante R. Bradford Malt (see Assets offshore raise Romney wealth question). He was too busy being the pro-abortion Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and donating a few shekels out of his own monetary larder to Planned Parenthood to be involved. The investment of Bain and then Sankaty in Stericycle yielded dividends. That's all that mattered. Dividends. Dividends. 

Neither former United States Senator Richard John Santorum (R-Pennsylvania) and former United States Representative Newton Leroy Gingrich (R-Georgia) had the time, personnel or resource to pore through those 2010 tax returns of the Romneys. The facts, however, are clear. Willard Mitt Romney and his wife Ann Romney profited from an investment in a company that incinerated slaughtered preborn babies. That they may not have known about this is irrelevant. They would not have to have gone to the extent that they have to keep those tax returns from public scrutiny or to send their willing spin-doctors in the blogosphere to bat for them if they cared about Stericycle's evils and were truly sorry for having involved themselves in the company. Thy did not care at the time and they care now only to the extent that the issue must be dealt with by those who have no direct ties to the Romney-Ryan campaign apparatus.

What about the "blind trust." Well, a candidate for office said in 1994 that a "bind trust" is not so "blind:"

"The blind trust is an age old ruse, if you will, which is to say you can always tell the blind trust what it can and cannot do.  You give the blind trust rules." (Stericycle and the Issue of Blind Trust.)

You know "where" I'm "going" with this, of course, don't you? Sure. Come on, admit it. Yes, the man who said this was none other than the Republican Party nominee for the United States Senate in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in 1994, a fellow named Willard Mitt Romney, who was using the "blind trust" issue against his opponent, United States Senator Edward Moore Kennedy (see Another Victim of Americanism; Behold The Free Rein Given to Error; Behold The Free Rein Given to Error; Unfortunate Enough to Be A Baby; Unfortunate Enough to Be A Baby; Beacon of Social Justice?; Spotlight On The Ordinary; What's Good For Teddy Is Good For Benny; Sean O'Malley: Coward and Hypocrite: More Rationalizations and Distortions).

It was during that same race that the now "pro-life" Willard Mitt Romney tried to out-abortion Kennedy himself:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, "the right of all people to believe as they want, and not to impose our beliefs on other people. I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country, I have since the time that my mom took that position when she in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate." Fake, phony, calculating fraud. That is what Willard Mitt Romney is. He may not have known and he did not care about what Stericycle did when he was with Bain Capital or when it was owned by Sankaty, his "offshore" company based in Bermuda and placed into his wife's name the day of his being sworn in as Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in 2003. He cared about the money, the money, the money. After all, the butchered babies had to be "disposed" of somehow, right? Perish the thought that these victims of an American genocide should be buried properly. Perish that thought.

As scandalously amoral as this all is, what is even more scandalous is the calculating manner in which supposed "conservatives" and "establishment" "pro-life" leaders have tried to cover and spin for Willard Mitt Romney. No, "getting rid" of one open pro-abort statist with the "converted" pro-abort who seeks to conceal his potentially damaging investments in a company that profited handsomely from the butchery of innocent babies, a man whose own statism of RomneyCare served as the prototype for ObamaCare, is so important that "silence" about this scandal, which speaks volumes about Romney's utter amorality, must be maintained in order not to hurt the "cause."

A lot of those in the "pro-life" establishment who have maintained their silence on the Stericycle issue are well practiced at making excuses for their heroes. "Oh, if only poor Benedict knew what was happening. He doesn't really know everything that's going on. Well, he just has to say certain things to keep 'peace in the church.'" Yes, indeed, get used to silence about apostasy and betrayal and sacrilege in that which appertains to the Deposit of Faith and Sacred Worship and it is a very easy thing to make one's accommodations to realpolitik (politics in the "real" world).

Plenty of Outrage Over Todd Akin, None For Stericycle

Conceding for the sake of argument that there is indeed no public record to document the assertion that Willard Mitt Romney or Ann Romney knew of how Stericycle made its money that profited them handsomely and that they may not have become aware of the company's practice of incinerating the bodies of butchered babies until their financial team began poring over their tax returns to find any "red flags" and, as well, conceding that they may not have known about the Stericycle scandal until after initial reports began to surface in 2010 about it, it is nevertheless telling that there has been not word one of remorse about their involvement with Stericycle. No, to do this would be to focus on anything other than the "money, the money, the money," which Romney believes is his ticket to defeat Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetero. "The money, the money, the money," however, is the reason the Romneys chose to stay invested in Stericycle even conceding for the sake of the argumentation that they did not know. They have shown now that the matter is public that they did not care to know much about the company then and the fact that its hideous practices have now come to light does not bother them much now.

Willard Mitt Romney and a whole variety of others in the organized crime family of naturalism of the false opposite of the "right" have, however, found plenty of "outrage" to express at the thoroughly defensible remarks about abortion made by United States Representative Todd Akin (R-Missouri), who is the Republican Party nominee to challenge incumbent United States Senator Claire McCaskill, a pro-abortion Catholic (well, she is a "convert" to what she thinks is the Catholic Church), for the United States Senate seat in Missouri. Representative Akin is being beaten up one side and down the other for merely repeating what many of those, including this writer, who have spoken on the issue over the last thirty to forty years have noted, that is relatively rare for a child to be conceived instances where a woman is bodily assaulted. This is not a "fringe" view.

Representative Akin would have been better off if he had focused on the simple fact that no matter how rare pregnancy is in such circumstances--and it is fairly rare, see Dr. John Wilkie's defense of Akin's statement about the rarity of pregnancy in cases of violent assault), a bodily assault upon a woman's purity is a crime before God and man, an assault that may scar a woman for the rest of her life, but a crime that must be paid by the assailant not by the child conceived as a result of his assault. Akin made the latter point. However, the focus has been on his characterization of his use of the word "legitimate" to differentiate a forcible assault from one that may have had some degree of illicit consensual familiarity before events escalated (a distinction that some supposedly "pro-life" officials who, quite immorally, make an "exception" to the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment in such a case, believe such be codified in Federal law), not on his basic point, that one never punishes a child for the crime of his father. Even David Frum, a former economic speech writer for George Walker Bush and one who, it appears, takes issue with what Akin said, has written that what the Missouri Republican said is perfectly defensible from the standpoint of pure reason, that is, if one is "pro-life," how is it ever possible to justify a direct, intentional attack upon any innocent human life (see Akin's Abortion View: More Widespread in GOP Than You Think)?

As he is a not a Catholic but nevertheless takes correct "no exceptions" position with respect to any and all direct, intentional attacks on innocent human life, Todd Akin, who is on a death march now to his ultimate withdrawal from his Senate race as he makes a number of ill-advised and quite counter-productive "apology" interviews to help make himself "understood" by a public that will never accept him, was incapable of expressing the matter in more supernatural terms, namely, that a woman who conceives a child after such an assault has been asked by the good God to bear a cross for His greater honor and glory through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. The graces won for her by the shedding of every single drop of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ on the wood of the Holy Cross and that stand ready to flow into her heart and soul through the loving hands of His Most Blessed Mother, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces, are more than sufficient for her to deal with and prosper under her cross. Such a woman has been asked to bring to birth a new life, either raising the child herself to give Him honor and glory now as a foretaste of doing so for all eternity in Heaven or making arrangements for the child to be placed up for adoption into a loving Catholic family that would so in her place and as she prayed fervently for the child until she dies and as she forgave her assailant she herself is forgiven whenever she makes use of the Sacred Tribunal of Penance.

Alas, we do not live in a Catholic world, one where men and their nations submit themselves to the Social Reign of Christ the King as It must be exercised by the Catholic Church, which is precisely the reason why matters that have been revealed by God Himself and taught infallibly by His Holy Catholic Church, truths that are part of the Natural Law and thus knowable, albeit imperfectly, by reason alone, are open for "discussion" today.

There would be no discussion of abortion in a Catholic world. Catholics would understand that there can never be any deliberate, intentional attack upon an innocent human life at any time after conception. There would thus be nothing like Stericycle in which to invest one's money.

There would be no discussion of contraception, which Willard Mitt Romney said on Saturday, January 7, 2012, in a debate of the midget naturalists at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire, was "working just fine, just leave it alone" (see 2012 ABC/Yahoo!/WMUR New Hampshire GOP primary debate), in a Catholic world, as as Catholics would know that no one has any right from God to interfere with His Sovereignty over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage, that no one can ever change the primary end of marriage from the procreation and education of children into anything else.

There would be no discussion of the absurdity of "marriage" between persons of the same gender who are inclined to and/or commit perverse sins against nature in a Catholic world as Catholics would know that such sins are abominations in the sight of God and that those who commit them constitute a group consisting of people for whose conversion we must pray, not a legitimate "civil rights" constituency to which politicians must cater and cower in fright of offending.

Perhaps to drive home the point a bit more, a nation that submitted itself to the sweet yoke of the Social Reign of Christ the King would never find itself in a situation where a statist, pro-abort demagogue named Barack Hussein Obama (or Barry Soetero) enjoyed the support of between two-fifths and half of its voting-age population, no less one in which such a demagogue would be opposed by a man whose positions on fundamental issues of moral truth have shifted over the course of time to suit his immediate political ends and who has sought to make money as an ultimate end, being clueless about how the promotion and protection of sins under the cover of the civil law make it impossible to realize national "prosperity" and international "peace."

Alas, blood money talks loud and clear, both in the realm of the world in the realm of the counterfeit church of concilairism, which will be the subject of part two of this commentary tomorrow, August 23, 2012, the Feast of Saint Philip Benizi.

Willard Mitt Romney, you see, has made it a point to state that any administration he heads if elected in seventy-six days would indeed support the direct, intentional killing of innocent human lives in their mothers' wombs in circumstances of bodily assault, thereby abrogating the law of God and ignoring the fact that God wants those children conceived in such a terrible manner to be born and to give him honor and glory for all eternity in Heaven after a lifetime of doing so here on earth as members of the Catholic Church (see ‘A Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of bodily assault’, an article that contains some very compelling testimony from adults were conceived as a result of such bodily assaults). Willard Mitt Romney does not care that every innocent life is inviolable no matter the circumstances of the conception nor the condition of the child in the womb. To directly to kill an innocent human life is proscribed by the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law, a truth that contains no "precious votes" for the likes of the thoroughly disgraceful, money-hungry careerist named Willard Mitt Romney and the claque of sycophants who feeds off of him.

There is room in the Republican "big tent" for the thoroughly pro-abortion United States Senator Scott Brown (R-Massachusetts). There is none for United States Representative Todd Akin.

I report. You decide.

Believe in the tooth fairy if you want to do so. Believe that "things" will be different if the Romney-Ryan team wins in seventy-six days. As I noted two days ago now, Devils Without Tails permit various evils to be further institutionalized that the ones with their tails as those who believe in the political equivalent of the tooth fairy live in such dread fear of the devils with their tails that they decide to keep their mouths shut about the evils promoted by their supposed champions.

Such must be the fate of a world that rejects the Social Reign of Christ the King, which is why the one and only way out of this diabolical trap of false opposites is Our Lady's Fatima Message.

Today is the Feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, which was instituted by Pope Pius XII in 1944 in direct response to Our Lady's Fatima Message. It was two years before this that Pope Pius XII had consecrated the Church and the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, something that, of course, fell short of the collegial consecration of Russia by a true pope with all of the world's bishops. The text of this consecration, however, stands on its own as a most beautiful prayer that we should make our own, especially on this glorious feast day, which is also the octave day of the Feast of the Our Lady's Assumption body and soul into Heaven:

Most Holy Virgin Mary, tender Mother of men, to fulfill the desires of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the request of the Vicar of Your Son on earth, we consecrate ourselves and our families to your Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, O Queen of the Most Holy Rosary, and we recommend to You, all the people of our country and all the world.

Please accept our consecration, dearest Mother, and use us as You wish to accomplish Your designs in the world.

O Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, Queen of the Most Holy Rosary, and Queen of the World, rule over us, together with the Sacred Heart of Jesus Christ, Our King. Save us from the spreading flood of modern paganism; kindle in our hearts and homes the love of purity, the practice of a virtuous life, an ardent zeal for souls, and a desire to pray the Rosary more faithfully.

We come with confidence to You, O Throne of Grace and Mother of Fair Love. Inflame us with the same Divine Fire which has inflamed Your own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart. Make our hearts and homes Your shrine, and through us, make the Heart of Jesus, together with your rule, triumph in every heart and home. Amen. (Pope Pius XII, A Solemn Act of Consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, 1942.)

 

Keep praying your Rosaries. Offer unto the tender mercies of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary whatever merit you might earn from bearing the crosses of the present moment.

Remember this and remember it well: the Immaculate Heart of Mary will triumph in the end!

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now, and at the hour of our death.

 

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.

Saints Timothy and Symphorian, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints