Bush the Lesser in a Coiffure
Thomas A. Droleskey
Behold! We have another "Bob Dole," that is, another putative "front-runner" in the march of the midget naturalists who are competing for the 2012 Republican Party presidential nomination. This year's "Bob Dole" is none other than former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, who is one of two Mormons (see Pure, Unadulterated Americanism and Union of Americanists) participating in the march of the midget naturalists, who has flipped flopped so many times on so many issues that the only thing that seems stable about him is his perpetual tanned skin and the carefully coiffed nature of his well-maintained hair.
Mitt Romney, although more articulate that the hapless, mercurial thirty-third degree Mason named Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., is, however, just as vapid and and vacuous as the former Majority (and Minority) Leader of the United States Senate from Russell, Kansas. He could also be described as George Walker Bush, Bush the Lesser, in a coiffure. There is much air and no real substance to a man who belongs to a religion that teaches Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and the adversary are "brothers."
Romney, who gave the citizens of the Commonwealth of Taxachusetts a prototype of ObamaCare when he was governor of the Bay State from January 2, 2003, to January 4, 2007, ran on a completely pro-abortion platform in 1994 when running for the United States Senate against incumbent Edward Moore Kennedy and when running for Governor of Massachusetts in 2002 against State Treasurer Shannon O'Brien. Famously, Mitt Romney wavered so much about abortion in 1994 as to confuse both friends and foes alike, a confusion that the throat-cutting Kennedy took full advantage of in the campaign:
The Kennedy camp also hammered Romney on abortion, asserting that he
had a secret pro-life agenda. Although he always said he was personally
opposed to abortion, Romney sought to reassure Massachusetts voters of
his pro-choice bona fides by citing his mother's example. Lenore had run
for the Senate on an abortion-rights platform, a stance forged by the
death of her son-in-law's teenage sister from an illegal abortion.
mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can
believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that
matter," Romney declared. "And you will not see me wavering on that."
there had been some wavering. Early in the campaign, he said he opposed
Medicaid funding for abortions, except in cases of rape, incest, or
threat to the mother's life. Later in the campaign, he said he would
leave that matter up to the states.
Women's groups and political
foes voiced skepticism over Romney's support of abortion rights.
Although he said that as a politician he would not force his beliefs on
others, Romney acknowledged that as a church leader, he had counseled
women against having abortions. The Globe reported that as a Mormon
bishop Romney had urged a mother of five, whose pelvic blood clot made
her pregnancy dangerous, not to have an abortion.
the endorsement of Massachusetts Citizens for Life, though his aides
labored to blur the distinctions with Kennedy, who years earlier had
dropped his opposition to abortion and become a leader on abortion
rights. Asked at the time how the two candidates differed on abortion,
Romney's political consultant Charles Manning said, "It's tiny nuances." (Neil Swidey; Stephanie Ebbert, "The Making of Mitt Romney: Part 4: The Family Man," The Boston Globe, June 27, 2007, p. A-1. This article was purchased for you, my few and most invisible readers, as I spare no effort or expense to expose the deceits of the naturalists! By the way, the article cost $4.95, just in case you are interested.)
Why should we be at all surprised that Mitt Romney is refusing to take what is called the "one hundred percent pro-life pledge," which requires the midget naturalists who do not understand that the proximate cause of our problems at this time is the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King wrought by the Protestant Revolution and the rise of Judeo-Masonry to promise not to appoint pro-aborts to the Federal bench? This is no surprise at all. This is just par for the course for Bush the Lesser in a coiffure. Here is a story about Romney's refusal to take the "pledge":
Perhaps the best evidence of Mitt Romney's
new status as the clear frontrunner in the Republican field is the
ferocity with which his competitors have begun attacking him.
Some of the other candidates for the
Republican presidential nomination were accused of being too
genteel with their criticisms of the former Massachusetts governor
during last week’s debate in Manchester, N.H., but they are making up
for it this week with repeated broadsides against Romney.
The shots are mostly aimed at Romney's
refusal to sign a pledge offered by pro-life group Susan B. Anthony List
The pledge calls on signers to support only
judicial nominees who are pro-life, to select pro-life cabinet
members, to stop taxpayer funding of abortions, and to support a bill
that would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.
Five of the Republican presidential candidates, including Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Texas Rep. Ron Paul, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, have all signed the pledge.
Businessman Herman Cain did not sign it, citing Congressional jurisdiction over abortion
funding. But it was Romney’s refusal that set off the rest of the field.
"The excuses for not signing clearly
continue the doubts about his leadership and commitment to ending the
practice of abortion - particularly for a candidate who ran as
pro-choice for the Senate and governorship of Massachusetts," says a
statement from Bachmann’s campaign.
Santorum was just as caustic. "This past
Monday night at the Republican Presidential Debate, I was asked about
Governor Romney's pro-life conversion, and I gave him the benefit of the
doubt. I apparently spoke too soon," said Santorum.
Jim Talent, a former Republican Senator from
Missouri, and one of Romney’s top advisers, defended the candidate's
refusal to sign the pledge, while touting Romney's pro-life credentials.
"He's strongly pro-life. He just affirmed it
again, and it's on our website, a whole array of pro-life positions
that went further, I think, than the pledge went," Talent told Fox News.
Talent went on to say that Romney's
decision was based on what the campaign said are overly broad
requirement of the pledge that would prohibit the consideration of any
pro-choice appointee, even if that appointment is for a
"He (Romney) doesn't want to say he's
disqualified from considering people who may not agree with him on
everything on that issue for a job like FBI director, " said Talent.
Former President George W. Bush adviser Brad Blakeman said he thought Romney was making the right move in refusing the influential group’s demands.
"You can't pander to third-party groups. If
you pander to this group, what about the gun lobby, what about others
who want you to take a tax pledge? " Blakeman told Fox News. “I think
[the abortion pledge] is not something that is not going to be on the
minds of Republican voters or the voters in November. It's going to be
all about the economy."
But social conservatives are a core part of
the Republican primary electorate and many are expressing excitement
about the possible entry of pro-life Texas Gov. Rick Perry into the presidential field. Perry’s team says that the governor is
weeks away from a decision, but in a series of speeches around the
country testing the waters, Perry has expressed scorn for Republicans
who equivocate on the issue of abortion.
''Our loudest opponents on the left are
never going to like us, so let's quit trying to curry favor with them,”
Perry said to cheers at the Republican Leadership Conference in New
Orleans on Saturday.
To further complicate matters for Romney, former Utah governor and ambassador to China Jon Huntsman is set to announce his own presidential candidacy on
Tuesday in a series of high-profile events. Huntsman, who has been
shunned by some social conservatives for his support for civil unions
for gay couples, has been ardently courting the moderate Republican on
whom Romney has built his coalition. (Romney Refuses to take the Pro-Life Pledge.)
Yes, Bush the Lesser in a coiffure, a man who is being cheered on by those who worked for the supposedly "pro-life" President Walker Bush. Why do any of you think that all of this sound and fury represent anything other than a gigantic sideshow from the devil to convince Catholics and non-Catholics alike that there is something "short" of Catholicism that can help to restore social order, that one does not need to lift high the banner of Christ the King in all that we do in our personal and social lives?
Don't you see what Bush the Lesser really believed, that to take such a "pro-life pledge" is to pander to what his adviser Brad Blakeman called "third-party groups," lumping the killing of babies, one of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance, with the "gun lobby" and those who are concerned about not lowering our already sky-high confiscatory taxes to fund a statist monster that was fed in large part by George Walker Bush's needless, immoral foreign wars and his statist measures domestically?
George Walker Bush would never have appointed anyone to his administration or to the Federal bench who suffered from the slightest suspicion of being a racist or anti-Semitic or anti-Mohammedan. He would have considered even the suspicion of such attitudes to disqualify one from the holding of any office, whether elected or appointed.
The killing of babies, however, was just a "difficult issue" about which "people of good will" could disagree, just a matter of "opinion," something that the dunderhead from Midland, Texas, by way of Kennebunkport Maine, would never have said about racism or anti-Semitism or hostility to Mohammedans. Thus it was the war monger who shed the blood of countless scores of thousands of innocents abroad and sent American military personnel to kill and be killed in wars of his neoconservative choosing, helping to bring this country to the brink of fiscal bankruptcy, appointed pro-aborts such as Christine Todd Whitman, Alberto Gonzales, Michael Mukasey, Michael Chertoff, Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Mary Matalin, Andrew Card and any number of others in his eight years in office. What's the big deal? It's just a matter of "opinion," right?
Once again, my friends, no one
who supports a single, solitary abortion under cover of law is
pro-life. Such a person is simply less pro-abortion than those who
support unrestricted access to abortion at all times under cover of law.
It does violence to language and to logic to term anyone as "pro-life"
who believes that any innocent baby may be executed licitly under the
cover of civil law.
Dr. Charles E. Rice, writing in the August 27, 1998, issue of The Wanderer,
put the matter this way as I was opposing then United States Senator
Alfonse M. D'Amato's bid for renomination by the Right to Life Party of
the State of New York:
Sen. D'Amato will face a pro-abortion Democratic opponent in the fall. While a voter could morally vote for a pro-abortion candidate who is less objectionable on abortion than his opponent, he should not.
The tactic of voting for the less objectionable of two pro-abortion
candidates is a tactic of incremental surrender. The incremental
strategy of accepting the legalization of abortion in some cases
concedes that some innocent human life is negotiable after all. The
pro-death movement is a guaranteed winner against an opposition that
qualifies its own position by conceding that there are some innocent
human beings whom it will allow to be directly and intentionally killed.
That approach in practice has mortgaged the pro-life effort to the
interests and judgment of what Paul Johnson called "the great human
scourge of the 20th century, the professional politician." (Modern Times, 1985, p. 510.)
When a politician says he favors legalized
abortion in life of the mother, rape and incest, or other cases, he
affirms the nonpersonhood of the unborn child by proposing that he be
subjected to execution at the discretion of another. The politician's
pro-life rhetoric will be drowned out by the loud and clear message of
his position, that he concedes that the law can validly tolerate the
intentional killing of innocent human beings. Apart from exceptions, of
course, Sen. D'Amato is objectionable as well for some of his other
stands on abortion and for his positions on other issues, including
especially the homosexual issue.
Pro-lifers could increase their political impact
if they were single-issue voters, treating abortion as an absolutely
disqualifying issue. Any candidate who believes that the law should
treat any innocent human beings as nonpersons by tolerating their
execution is unworthy to hold any public office, whether President,
trustee of a mosquito abatement district, or senator. (Dr. Charles E.
Rice, "Pro-Life Reflections on Sen. D'Amato, The Wanderer, August 27, 1998.)
Although I have come to the
noninfallible, prudential judgment that participation in our fraudulent
system of of Judeo-Masonic electoral politics serves no rational good, a
position which is not outside of the pale of Catholic thought (see: Reference Resource: The Fraud of Voting),
Dr. Rice's analysis thirteen years ago should serve to give some of those
who refuse to learn the lessons of the past and/or who continue to
project, without any rational foundation whatsoever, their fondest hopes
and desires into the skulls of the midget naturalists who are attempting to secure next year's Republican presidential nomination, including the likes of Mitt Romney.
Remember, the devil always raises up a statist boogeyman of the "left" to make the statists of the "right" seem more acceptable by way of comparison. In reality, however, George Walker Bush was used by the devil to make possible the election of the current caesar, Barack Hussein Obama, as he helped to institutionalize the chemical and surgical assassination of innocent preborn children in numerous ways. You need a reminder? Fine. Let's go over the real Bush the Lesser "pro-life" record once again, albeit in digest form:
1) George Walker Bush said constantly in 1999 and 200 during his campaign for the Republican Party presidential nomination that abortion was a "difficult" issue about which people of "good will" could disagree. What's difficult about knowing that killing a baby is morally wrong? Would he say that people of "good will" could disagree about racism or anti-Semitism?
2) George Walker Bush supported "exceptions" to the Fifth Commandment's absolute prohibitions to the direct, intentional taking of any innocent human life. When challenged by Dr. Alan Keys in a televised debate in Manchester, New Hampshire, in December of 1999 as to how he could justify the killing of preborn babies under any circumstances, the then Texas Governor grimaced, visibly annoyed at having been forced to confront his own mutually contradictory position, and said: "I can't explain it. It's just how I feel." Bush does not realize that he is not pro-life, that he is simply less pro-abortion than others in public life who are unconditionally pro-abortion.
3) George Walker Bush denied in his first debate with then Vice President Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., held on October 3, 2000, at Washington University in Saint Louis, Missouri, that he could do anything to reverse the United States Food and Drug Administration's authorization to market RU-486, the human pesticide, unless it had been determined to be "unsafe" for women. What about the fact that that pill is always deadly for babies?
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) [Droleskey comment: Uh, Mister Former President, the President of the United States of America can make appointments to the Food and Drug Administration who could indeed overturn such a decision by means of an administrative fiat.)
4) George Walker Bush said consistently throughout his eight years as President of the United States of America that he was working for the day when every child would be welcomed in life and protected by law." How can one claim that he is in favor of "welcoming every child and protecting him "by law" when he believes that the civil law licitly can permit the killing of certain children at certain times? How can one claim that he is in favor of "welcoming every child" and protecting him "by law" when he campaigned actively for politicians in his own political party who were completely pro-abortion (Rudolph Giuliani, Michael Bloomberg, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Susan Collins, Olympia Snow Arlen Specter--whom Bush endorsed over a partly pro-life/partly pro-abortion opponent, Patrick Toomey, in a Republican Party primary in 2004, et al.)? How can one claim that he is in favor of "welcoming every child" and protecting him "by law" when he appointed pro-abort after pro-abort. some of whom are listed above, to the upper echelons of his administration. Some of others over the years were Tom Ridge, Michael Mukasey, Alberto Gonzales, The Supreme Court? John Roberts and Samuel Alito? Sure. Remember Harriet Miers? If you don't, read these articles: The Triumph of Protestantism and Posturing and Preening
5) George Walker Bush was proud of the fact that his administration increased the amount of money being spent by our tax dollars on domestic and international "family planning" programs, which, of course, dispatched innocent preborn babies to death by chemical means. Here is a letter sent in behalf of then President Bush to United States Representatives Carolyn Maloney (D-New York) on May 25, 2006:
The Honorable Carolyn B. Maloney
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Ms. Maloney:
Thank you for your letter to President Bush to request his views on access to birth control. The President has asked that I respond on his behalf. This Administration supports the availability of safe and effective products and services to assist responsible adults in making decisions about preventing or delaying conception.
The Department of Health and Human Services faithfully executes laws establishing Federal programs to provide contraception and family planning services. The Title X Family Planning Program and Medicaid are each significant providers of family planning services.
Additionally, this Administration strongly supports teaching abstinence to young people as the only 100 percent effective means of preventing pregnancy, HIV, and sexually transmitted infections (STIs).
I will provide this response to the other signatories of your letter.
Sincerely yours, John O. Agwunobi, Assistant Secretary for Health (Bush Supports Contraception Letter)
Contraception, of course, of its very evil nature, over and above the fact that most contraceptives serve as abortifacients that kill babies chemically or act to expel fertilized human beings from implanting in the uterus, is denial of the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage.
6) George Walker Bush made announced at 9:00 p.m. on Thursday, August 9, 2001, that he was going to permitted the use of Federal taxpayer dollars to fund embryonic stem cell research on embryonic human beings whose "lines" were created before the time of his announcement. In so doing, of course, Bush authorized the death of those human beings and at the same time justify the immoral, evil practice of in vitro fertilization while doing nothing to stop the privately funded death and destruction of such embryonic human beings on those "lines" created after the date and time of his announcement:
My administration must decide whether to allow federal funds, your tax dollars, to be used for scientific research on stem cells derived from human embryos. A large number of these embryos already exist. They are the product of a process called in vitro fertilization, which helps so many couples conceive children. When doctors match sperm and egg to create life outside the womb, they usually produce more embryos than are planted in the mother. Once a couple successfully has children, or if they are unsuccessful, the additional embryos remain frozen in laboratories. (Remarks by the President on Stem Cell Research.)
This is what I wrote at the time in the printed pages of Christ or Chaos:
Indeed, this whole controversy is the direct result of the rejection of the teaching authority of the Church on matters of faith and morals, as well as on matters of fundamental justice. For it is the rejection of the Deposit of Faith our Lord entrusted to Holy Mother Church that gave rise to the ethos of secularism and religious indifferentism, which became the breeding grounds for secularism and relativism and positivism.
A world steeped in all manner of secular political ideologies comes not only to reject the Deposit of Faith but to make war against all that is contained therein, especially as it relates to matters of the sanctity of marital relations and the stability of the family.
Contraception gave rise to abortion. Contraception also gave rise to the mentality which resulted in artificial conception. If a child's conception can be prevented as suits "partners," then it stands to reason that a child can be conceived "on demand" by using the latest technology science has to offer.
The Church has condemned artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization on a number of occasions as offenses to the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity of marital relations. Yet it is the very rejection of the Church's affirmation of what is contained in the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law which leads people, including George W. Bush, into thinking that artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization are morally licit to help couples deal with the problem of childlessness, ignoring the simple little truth that no one is entitled to a child.
Children are gifts from God to be accepted according to His plan for a particular couple. If a married couple cannot have a child on their own, they can adopt -- or they can use their time to be of greater service to the cause of the Church in the evangelization of the true Faith. No one, however, is entitled to a child.
Indeed, the whole tragedy of harvesting the stem cells of living human beings has arisen as a result of discoveries made by scientists experimenting on human beings conceived in fertility clinics to help couples conceive artificially.
That George W. Bush endorses this immoral enterprise (which is big business, by the way) and actually commends it as a way to "help" couples is deplorable.
It is as though he is saying the following: "We are not going to kill any more Jews for their body parts. We will only use the body parts of the Jews we have killed already. After all, we have people who will benefit from this research, do we not?"
Living human embryos do not have the "potential" for life, as Bush asserted on August 9, 2001. They are living human beings! To seek to profit from their destruction is ghoulish, and will only wind up encouraging the private sector to fund all stem-cell research, creating more "stem cell lines" from the destruction of living human beings. ("Preposterous," Christ or Chaos, September, 2001)
Mrs. Judie Brown, the president and founder of the American Life League, wrote a retrospective on Caesar Georgii Bushus Ignoramus's stem cell decision some years later:
You have probably heard that right at the top of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's agenda is the promise of "hope to families with devastating diseases."
What she is promising, of course, is a Congressional action that will result in tons of federal tax dollars being spent on failed research using the dead bodies of embryonic children.
The White House, of course, is saying "the president has made it clear he believes in stem cell research so much -- the administration has done more to finance stem cell research, embryonic and otherwise, than any administration in history."
You see, Bush never really banned research using the bodies of embryonic children, he merely curtailed how much research could be done using tax dollars. So it would appear that everyone ... Democrat and Republican ... is on the same page.
The tragic reality underlying such statements is that over the course of the last 34 years, politicians and a whole lot of pro-lifers have let the principle of personhood slide away into oblivion for the sake of winning elections. And the result is staring us all in the face. (Embryo Wars.)
7) The George Walker Bush version of the "Mexico City" policy, as the "gag" order that prohibited international family planning organizations from killing babies on an "elective" basis on their premises or referring women to abortuaries was called, was fraught with holes and exceptions as to make it an utter sham that convinces the average "pro-life" American that "something" is being done to save lives when the truth of the matter is that Bush's executive order permitted employees of international "family planning" agencies in foreign countries to refer for abortions on their own time in any off-site location of their choosing. In other words, the "Bush 43" "Mexico City" policy permitted an employee of the International Planned Parenthood chapter in Nairobi, Kenya, for example to say, "Look, there are things I can't tell you now. Meet me at the Nairobi McDonald's after I get out of work. I can tell you more then." The employee was then free to speak frankly about surgical abortion, to recommend the killing of a child as the only "sensible" option, to recommend a specific baby-killer and a specific place for the baby to be killed.
Here are the specific conditions outlined by the Bush executive order that re instituted the "Mexico City" policy in 2001:
1) American taxpayer funds are only denied to organizations that promote abortion as a means of "family planning." This means that direct counseling in behalf of abortion can be done if a woman claims some that she falls into one of the three usual "exceptions" (rape, incest, alleged threats to her life) for seeking an abortion.
2) Employees of international "family planning" organizations may meet with their clients off of the premises of those organizations to counsel them to use abortion as a means of "family planning" and to direct them where to kill their babies surgically.
3) International "family planning" organizations can propagate in behalf of abortion abroad as long as they "segregate" their funds. That is, such organizations must use "private" funds for promoting abortion, not the monies provided by the Federal government of the United States of America. There is, however, no accounting oversight to determine how these funds are "segregated," if they are in fact "segregated" at all.
Moreover, as noted above, the domestic and international "family planning" programs that were funded to the hilt by the administration of George Walker Bush and Richard N. Cheney killed untold hundreds of thousands of children each year by means of chemical abortifacients. Mrs. Judie Brown, the founder and President of the American Life League, explained it as follows on December 18, 2007:
While many are celebrating the Congressional passage of a bill that contains the Mexico City Policy, there are those of us who are not so quick to throw a party.
The policy was contained in a piece of legislation that also provides an increase in funding for Planned Parenthood. But that's not really the worst of it.
The Mexico City Policy contains exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother ... standard fare for the pro-life politicos these days. The problem is, they fail to point out that the Mexico City Policy does not and cannot prohibit our tax dollars from paying for abortion; it can only prevent our tax dollars from paying for some abortions. Why, you may ask, did I use the word "some"?
Well, the Mexico City Policy will pay for surgical abortion in the cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother in addition to paying for chemical abortions caused by RU-486, the morning-after pill and the various birth control methods that can cause abortion.
Further, it is not clear what happens when an organization agrees to refrain from paying for abortion with U.S. tax dollars, but chooses to use those dollars to pay for other "services," thus freeing up other money to subsidize the killing.
In other words, the Mexico City Policy is fraught with problems that result in death.
So when some claim that America is no longer an "exporter of death," they are really not being totally honest with the public. America is still the number one exporter and subsidizer of preborn child killing, period. Of that there is no doubt. (AMERICA'S DEADLY EXPORT)
8) George Walker Bush's Food and Drug Administration not only did not reverse the Clinton Food and Drug and Administration to market RU-496, the French abortion pill, the human pesticide. The Bush administration fully funded the use of RU-486 in both domestic and international "family planning" programs. Moreover, George Walker Bush's Food and Drug Administration approved over-the-counter sales of the so-called "Plan B" "emergency contraceptive" that is, of course, an abortifacient:
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today announced approval of Plan B, a contraceptive drug, as an over-the-counter (OTC) option for women aged 18 and older. Plan B is often referred to as emergency contraception or the "morning after pill." It contains an ingredient used in prescription birth control pills--only in the case of Plan B, each pill contains a higher dose and the product has a different dosing regimen. Like other birth control pills, Plan B has been available to all women as a prescription drug. When used as directed, Plan B effectively and safely prevents pregnancy. Plan B will remain available as a prescription-only product for women age 17 and under.
Duramed, a subsidiary of Barr Pharmaceuticals, will make Plan B available with a rigorous labeling, packaging, education, distribution and monitoring program. In the CARE (Convenient Access, Responsible Education) program Duramed commits to:
- Provide consumers and healthcare professionals with labeling and education about the appropriate use of prescription and OTC Plan B, including an informational toll-free number for questions about Plan B;
- Ensure that distribution of Plan B will only be through licensed drug wholesalers, retail operations with pharmacy services, and clinics with licensed healthcare practitioners, and not through convenience stores or other retail outlets where it could be made available to younger women without a prescription;
- Packaging designed to hold both OTC and prescription Plan B. Plan B will be stocked by pharmacies behind the counter because it cannot be dispensed without a prescription or proof of age; and
- Monitor the effectiveness of the age restriction and the safe distribution of OTC Plan B to consumers 18 and above and prescription Plan B to women under 18.
Today's action concludes an extensive process that included obtaining expert advice from a joint meeting of two FDA advisory committees and providing an opportunity for public comment on issues regarding the scientific and policy questions associated with the application to switch Plan B to OTC use. Duramed's application raised novel issues regarding simultaneously marketing both prescription and non-prescription Plan B for emergency contraception, but for different populations, in a single package.
The agency remains committed to a careful and rigorous scientific process for resolving novel issues in order to fulfill its responsibility to protect the health of all Americans. (FDA Approves Over-the-Counter Access for Plan B for Women 18 and Over .)
Where was the outrage from Catholics when this decision was announced? Where were the e-mails sent out in a frenzy to oppose this decision? Where were the voices to denounce George Walker Bush for what he was, a consummate "pro-life" fraud from beginning to end? Where? Where? Indeed, I have met Catholics, both in the clergy and laity alike, who, upon being informed of this fact, shrug their shoulders and say, "Gore or Kerry would have done worse. Obama is doing worse now " And this is supposed to exculpate one from not have denounced Bush at the time did did these terrible things? Reprehensible. Absolutely reprehensible.
9) The partial, conditional ban on partial-birth abortions remains little more than a political ruse designed to convince "pro-life" voters that something substantive was being done to stop the killing of babies. There is a needless "life of the mother" exception in the ban, meaning that babies are still being killed by this method if it can be claimed that a mother's life is endangered. Moreover, killing a baby by which is termed medically by the euphemism of "intact dilation and extraction" is no more morally heinous than killing a baby by any other method at any other age. Killing a baby by means of a suction abortion or by a saline solution abortion or by a dilation and evacuation abortion (where the baby is carved up by a butcher inside of the birth canal) is no less morally heinous than partial-birth abortion. Each is the same crime before God: willful murder, one of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance.
Also, as I have pointed out repeatedly since this issue came to forefront of public debate over fifteen years ago, there are two methods--the hysterotomy and dilation and evacuation--by which babies may be killed in the later stages of pregnancy. These methods can still be used to kill babies in the later stages of pregnancy with complete legal impunity. Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy specifically referred to these two methods when upholding the constitutionality of the partial-birth abortion ban in Gonzales v. Carhart:
D&E and intact D&E are not the only second-trimester abortion methods. Doctors also may abort a fetus through medical induction. The doctor medicates the woman to induce labor, and contractions occur to deliver the fetus. Induction, which unlike D&E should occur in a hospital, can last as little as 6 hours but can take longer than 48. It accounts for about five percent of second-trimester abortions before 20 weeks of gestation and 15 percent of those after 20 weeks. Doctors turn to two other methods of second-trimester abortion, hysterotomy and hysterectomy, only in emergency situations because they carry increased risk of complications. In a hysterotomy, as in a cesarean section, the doctor removes the fetus by making an incision through the abdomen and uterine wall to gain access to the uterine cavity. A hysterectomy requires the removal of the entire uterus. These two procedures represent about .07% of second-trimester abortions. Nat. Abortion Federation, 330 F. Supp. 2d, at 467; Planned Parenthood, supra, at 962-963. (Text of the Court's Opinion; see also
An Illusion of a Victory.)
10) George Walker Bush's first Solicitor General of the United States of America, Theodore Olson, submitted the following brief to the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Joseph Scheidler v. National Organization for Women to argue that the sidewalk counseling activities of pro-life champion Joseph Scheidler, the founder of the Pro-Life Action Network, constituted "banditry" under terms of the Hobbs Act of 1946 as he was depriving legitimate business, abortuaries, of their income. Can anyone say "pro-life fraud," thank you very much?
"It is irrelevant under the Hobbs Act whether the defendant is motivated by an economic purpose, as the lower courts that have addressed the issue have correctly recognized. The text of the Hobbs Act contains no requirement of an economic motive. As explained, when a person uses force or threats to compel a business to cede control over what goods or services the business will offer, the defendant obtains the victim's property by acquiring the power to decide how the business will be conducted. That conclusion holds true whether or not the defendant has a profit-making objective.
"A contrary conclusion would allow a defendant to hijack legitimate businesses by wrongful acts of violence, threats, or fear simply because the defendant had a non-economic objective. That result would defeat the government's strong interest in protecting interstate commerce under the Hobbs Act by prosecuting extortionists who are motivated by causes other than financial gain. For instance, an economic motive requirement would immunize a defendant from prosecution under the Hobbs Act even though the defendant threatened acts of murder against a bank that loaned money to foreign nations whose policies the defendant opposed, against a retail store that sold products to which the defendant objected, or against any other business that used its land or other valuable property for a purpose that the defendant found unpalatable.
"Those acts have deleterious effects on interstate commerce, whether or not the defendant directs the use of such property for his own financial gain. To exempt such conduct from the Hobbs Act would retreat from the Act's purpose to 'protect the right of citizens of this country to market their products without any interference from lawless bandits.' In sum, when the defendant uses wrongful force or threats to wrest control over the victim's business decisions, the defendant obtains that property interest." (Brief of United States Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson in the case of Joseph Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, December 4, 2002.)
This could go on interminably. Although wearying, I have compiled this list yet again because I know that people forget and need to be reminded of basic facts that are always fresh in my mind as this my area of study and of active personal involvement for a long time. It is important to keep these facts in mind, especially to realize that Theodore Olson, who is now helping clients to reverse California Proposition 8 (see Meathead Meets Meathead), believed that saving babies from death was akin to stealing money from baby-killers in violation of interstate commerce! He made this argument in behalf of the "pro-life" administration of President George Walker Bush and Vice President Richard Bruce Cheney.
The fact that the current completely pro-abortion team of President Barack Hussein Obama and Vice President Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., are doing more terrible things should not make us pine for the "good old days" of Bush-Cheney. Those days were not so "good" for preborn babies in the United States of America and elsewhere in the world, to say nothing for innocent lives in Iraq and Afghanistan who were subject to indiscriminate American bombing or other military action and/or who have suffered from the destabilization of their countries by the American presence there.
Those who support sin under the cover of the civil law, no matter their personal, subjective motivations, sow the seeds for the destruction of their societies. No person is a true lover of his nation--a patriot--if he promotes things that are offensive to Our Lord and harmful, both temporally and eternally, to the souls He redeemed by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood. No one can promote the common temporal good by promoting those things that are repugnant to the peace and happiness of eternity. No one can escape the wrath of God who persists in the promotion of the nonexistent "right" to kill babies under cover of the civil law.
The more closely the temporal power of a nation aligns itself with the spiritual, and the more it fosters and promotes the latter, by so much the more it contributes to the conservation of the commonwealth. For it is the aim of the ecclesiastical authority by the use of spiritual means, to form good Christians in accordance with its own particular end and object; and in doing this it helps at the same time to form good citizens, and prepares them to meet their obligations as members of a civil society. This follows of necessity because in the City of God, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, a good citizen and an upright man are absolutely one and the same thing. How grave therefore is the error of those who separate things so closely united, and who think that they can produce good citizens by ways and methods other than those which make for the formation of good Christians. For, let human prudence say what it likes and reason as it pleases, it is impossible to produce true temporal peace and tranquillity by things repugnant or opposed to the peace and happiness of eternity. (Silvio Cardinal Antoniano, quoted by Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.)
The same applies to the notion of Fraternity which they found on the love of common interest or, beyond all philosophies and religions, on the mere notion of humanity, thus embracing with an equal love and tolerance all human beings and their miseries, whether these are intellectual, moral, or physical and temporal. But Catholic doctrine tells us that the primary duty of charity does not lie in the toleration of false ideas, however sincere they may be, nor in the theoretical or practical indifference towards the errors and vices in which we see our brethren plunged, but in the zeal for their intellectual and moral improvement as well as for their material well-being. Catholic doctrine further tells us that love for our neighbor flows from our love for God, Who is Father to all, and goal of the whole human family; and in Jesus Christ whose members we are, to the point that in doing good to others we are doing good to Jesus Christ Himself. Any other kind of love is sheer illusion, sterile and fleeting.
Indeed, we have the human experience of pagan and secular societies of ages past to show that concern for common interests or affinities of nature weigh very little against the passions and wild desires of the heart. No, Venerable Brethren, there is no genuine fraternity outside Christian charity. Through the love of God and His Son Jesus Christ Our Saviour, Christian charity embraces all men, comforts all, and leads all to the same faith and same heavenly happiness.
By separating fraternity from Christian charity thus understood, Democracy, far from being a progress, would mean a disastrous step backwards for civilization. If, as We desire with all Our heart, the highest possible peak of well being for society and its members is to be attained through fraternity or, as it is also called, universal solidarity, all minds must be united in the knowledge of Truth, all wills united in morality, and all hearts in the love of God and His Son Jesus Christ. But this union is attainable only by Catholic charity, and that is why Catholic charity alone can lead the people in the march of progress towards the ideal civilization. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)
Those who hold the reins of government should not forget that it is the duty of public authority by appropriate laws and sanctions to defend the lives of the innocent, and this all the more so since those whose lives are endangered and assailed cannot defend themselves. Among whom we must mention in the first place infants hidden in the mother's womb. And if the public magistrates not only do not defend them, but by their laws and ordinances betray them to death at the hands of doctors or of others, let them remember that God is the Judge and Avenger of innocent blood which cried from earth to Heaven. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 30, 1930.)
Then again, why should non-Catholics understand any of this when such clear reiterations of Catholic doctrine are not made by the men who are thought, albeit erroneously, to be the leaders of the Catholic Church but who are, of course, leaders of her counterfeit ape, the counterfeit church of conciliarism? The counterfeit church of conciliarism has made its "reconciliation" with the principles of Modernity as they bewail social evils that have their very proximate roots in Modernity's warfare against the Social Reign of Christ the King and the confessionally Catholic civil state. It is no wonder that we are awash with the errors of the Bushes and Obamas and Bidens and Clintons and Pelosis and Kennedys and Patersons and Cuomos and Reids and Romneys and Gingriches and Bachmans and Palins and Pawlentys and Hunstmans and Santorums and all of the other midget naturalists of both major organized crime families of naturalism in this country, the Republican and the Democratic Parties. There is no voice in the "mainstream" of American politics and discourse to defend the Social Reign of Christ the King and the honor of Mary our Immaculate Queen.
As I have noted in article after article on this site, as horrible as the daily slaughter of abortion is, an offense that calls down the wrath of God on this country every time a baby is killed, whether by chemical or surgical means, the fact that we have lived to see such a genocide of the innocent in the "land of the free and the home of the brave" is just a consequence, albeit a horrid one, of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King wrought by the Protestant Revolution and the rise of Judeo-Masonry. It is nothing other than diabolical that the lords of the counterfeit church of conciliarism have made their "reconciliation" to the very anti-Incarnational principles of the modern civil state that have made it possible for men and their nations to defy the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law while they enjoy their incessant bread and circuses.
Today is the great Solemnity of Corpus Christi. Although my republished article for today's feast, Marching With Our King, contains several passages from Pope Leo XIII's last encyclical letter, Mirae Caritatis, May 28, 1902, it is useful to include one paragraph from that encyclical letter in this commentary to demonstrate the difference between the sort of men that the devil has raised up to appear as "champions" in the public arena and the sort that Pope Leo XIII knew that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ desires in order to foster the common temporal good in light of our Last End, the possession of the glory of the Beatific Vision in Heaven:
Indeed it is greatly to be desired that those men would rightly
esteem and would make due provision for life everlasting, whose industry
or talents or rank have put it in their power to shape the course of
human events. But alas! we see with sorrow that such men too often
proudly flatter themselves that they have conferred upon this world as
it were a fresh lease of life and prosperity, inasmuch as by their own
energetic action they are urging it on to the race for wealth, to a
struggle for the possession of commodities which minister to the love of
comfort and display. And yet, whithersoever we turn,
we see that human society, if it be estranged from God, instead of
enjoying that peace in its possessions for which it had sought, is
shaken and tossed like one who is in the agony and heat of fever; for
while it anxiously strives for prosperity, and trusts to it alone, it is
pursuing an object that ever escapes it, clinging to one that ever
eludes the grasp. For as men and states alike necessarily have their
being from God, so they can do nothing good except in God through Jesus
Christ, through whom every best and choicest gift has ever proceeded and
proceeds. But the source and chief of all these gifts is the venerable
Eucharist, which not only nourishes and sustains that life the desire
whereof demands our most strenuous efforts, but also enhances beyond
measure that dignity of man of which in these days we hear so much. For
what can be more honourable or a more worthy object of desire than to be
made, as far as possible, sharers and partakers in the divine nature?
Now this is precisely what Christ does for us in the Eucharist, wherein,
after having raised man by the operation of His grace to a supernatural
state, he yet more closely associates and unites him with Himself. For
there is this difference between the food of the body and that of the
soul, that whereas the former is changed into our substance, the latter
changes us into its own; so that St. Augustine makes Christ Himself say:
"You shall not change Me into yourself as you do the food of your body,
but you shall be changed into Me" (confessions 1. vii., c. x.). (Pope Leo XIII, Mirae Caritatis, March 28, 1902.)
This is truth. This is Catholic truth. This is the kind of Catholic truth that you will never hear on Fox News or on "mainstream" "conservative" websites that serve as champions of this or that naturalist of the false opposite of the "right." This is the kind of Catholic truth that you will not hear form the mouth or read from the pen of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who rejects the confessionally Catholic civil state as an anachronism of the past and who believes that adherents of false religions can use their false beliefs in the promotion of the common temporal good. We need to turn, therefore, to our true popes, such as Pope Leo XIII, to drink from the wisdom of this Catholic truth.
Yes, the naturalists of the false opposites of the "right" and the "left" have no difficulty whatsoever raising hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars in fund-raising events and direct-mail and web-based advertising appeals. Schleps such as this writer have difficulty raising $7400 for a currently pressing need, a need that wouldn't exist, obviously, if the academic world was not composed of naturalists hostile to the Faith and if formerly Catholic universities were not composed of individuals hostile to the authentic, immutable Social Teaching of the Catholic Church. Few heeded the words of Pope Leo XIII when they were published one hundred nine years ago now. Very few indeed today are even aware of their ever having been published! Many recoil when they read them.
We must remember that the Cross is the only path to Heaven. It is the Sacrifice of the Cross that is perpetuated in an unbloody manner in every true and valid offering of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. And it is the Cross that has become for us the true manger from which we are fed the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, He Who is King of men and also of their nations at all times and in all circumstances even if they are ignorant or contemptuous of that Kingship.
We need to be Catholics of profound Eucharistic piety as we seek to overcome the wiles of the devil in our own lives as we make reparation to he Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary for our own many sins that have so worsened the state of the Church Militant on earth and the world-at-large, to say nothing of how they have scandalized others and have, quite possibly, hardened the hearts of others and have kept non-Catholics out of the true Church and reaffirmed fallen away Catholics in their decision to quit the practice of the true Faith.
We must pray our Rosaries of penance every day, hoping to be able to plant a a few seeds for the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, which will be ushered in when a true pope consecrates Russia to her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart with all of the bishops of the world in perfect fulfillment of her unreconstructed Fatima Message.
We cannot project into the thoughts of career politicians and their advisers our own deepest beliefs and/or discount their promotion of various evils as "no big deal" simply because they are "nice" and "mean" to do good. We must be about the business of looking at the world--and everything in it--solely through the eyes of the true Faith, and it from the time we spend before Our Lord's Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament that we can be given infused graces to see the world more clearly through those eyes of the Faith and to be willing to risk everything, including suffering the loss of friendships and our "reputations," to do so.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!
Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?
Our Lady of Fatima, 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.
See also: A Litany of Saints