Hush, Hush! Don't Tell The People
Thomas A. Droleskey
One of the many enduring myths of the American regime was expressed by a man whose presidency served as a prototype for the misuse of presidential power that has been the norm more often than not since the presidencies of Thomas Woodrow Wilson (March 4, 1913 to March 4, 1921) and Franklin Delano Roosevelt (March 4, 1933 to April 12, 1945) established the contemporary model of rule by executive decree that was employed by the administrations of Lyndon Baines Johnson (November 22, 1963 to January 20, 1969) and the three most recent presidents (William Jefferson Clinton, George Walker Bush and Barack Hussein Obama). That man who presidency was a the prototype for executive dictatorship was Abraham Lincoln, who expressed his undying love for the American concept of civil liberty that he was denying to those who opposed his War Between the States. It was in his Gettysburg Address, delivered on November 19, 1863, that Lincoln tickled the ears of those imbued with the myth of this nation's founding when he said the following:
The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
President Abraham Lincoln believed that he had to suspend the constitutional guarantee that mandated the release of those who had not been charged formally with a crime, preventing such people from seeking a writ of habeas corpus to demand their release. He believed that he had to jail newspaper editors and others who opposed his policies. He believed that he had to use various forms of harassment to "persuade" Federal judges to do his bidding for him. He believed that he had to have the Federal government try certain civilians in military courts even though civilian courts were open and functioning. Suppression of dissent was a cornerstone of his wartime policies. Yet it was this man, who many of us were taught as children fifty years ago to revere as a martyred hero, who claimed that the needless war that he was prosecuting was going to bring about a "new birth of freedom" in order that "government of the people, by the people, for people, shall not perish from the earth."
Abraham Lincoln believed in what he was doing. He was very sincere. He was amoral in the pursuit of his overriding goal, which was the the preservation of the "union" even though the sovereign states had joined that union voluntarily. Of all people, Soviet dictator Mikhail Gorbachev told reporters on one occasion after the collapse of the Berlin Wall on November 9, 1989, that then President George Herbert Walker Bush was on shaky ground when urging freedom for the Baltic States (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia), which had been "republics" of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics since the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact's provisions were enforced on June 14, 1940 (one year, eight days before the Nazis betrayed the Soviets and invaded the Baltic States, which were under Nazi control until 1944). Gorbachev, trying to blunt what he knew could be the very breakup of the Soviet Union itself, warned Bush the Elder that he ought not be quick to criticize the Soviet attack on a television station in Vilnius, Lithuania, on January 13, 1991, that left thirteen Lithuanian civilians dead as Abraham Lincoln had sought to keep the American states together by the use of armed force.
True, the Baltic States were seized by the Soviet Union while the states that seceded from the United States of America had entered that union voluntarily. Gorbachev, the man hailed as a great "reformer" just in the same manner that Lincoln is hailed as the "great emancipator," had much innocent blood on his hands, blood that he believed had to be spilled to preserve the very existence of his Communist country following the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the ending of Communism in Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria and the former Czechoslovakia. Mikhail Gorbachev was no more a "reformer" than Abraham Lincoln was an "emancipator" who loved freedom (Lincoln believed at various points in his career that freed slaves should be encouraged to leave the country for Liberia in Africa). Both of these dictators sought to suppress dissent violently. Both used whatever means were at their disposal to rule by decree.
It has ever been thus with dictators. The French Revolutionaries cried their slogans of liberte, egalite et fraternite while they did not believe in freedom or equality or brotherhood for those who disagreed with them, reserving special hatred for Roman Catholic bishops and priests and consecrated religious and laymen who recognized them to be agents of the devil. The French Revolutions, though, had their "principles," such as they were, and they were determined to create the "new world order" accordingly. The same has been true of the anticlericalists in Italy during the Risorgimento and the Freemason Otto von Bismarck in Germany during the Kulturkampf and in the Mexican and Bolshevik and Spanish and Maoist and Cuban and Nicaraguan Revolutions. The ends always justify the means for those whose naturalistic "principles" are said to provide the means to establish "peace and justice" for all.
We should not be surprised, therefore, that a true son of the anti-Incarantional revolutions that have rocked the world since Father Martin Luther, O.S.A., posted his ninety-five theses on the door of Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany, Barack Hussein Obama, is seeking to create a socialistic state by means of regulations issued by those who serve under him on various commissions that have been created to implement different pieces of complex legislation, most of which was never read in toto by those who voted upon it in the United States Congress, that have been used as veritable Trojan Horses into which they can control more and more aspects of daily living, up to and including who is going to live and who is going to die.
Elitists of the naturalist "left" claim to have such love for the "people" while they exhibit contempt for the "people" if the unwashed masses do not accept the fact that they, the elitists, know far, far better than they, the people, do about what is best for them. And thus it is that, despite all of Caesar Barackus Obamus Ignoramus's protestations to the contrary sixteen months ago, ObamaCare does permit the creation of "end of life" advisory panels to guide physicians and patients about "end of life care." Such "end of life" care would include the suspension of of food and water to disabled persons for whom there is no "hope" of recovery." It would also include refusing to provide Medicare funds for over a certain age with chronic or life-threatening illnesses not to seek further treatment:
WASHINGTON — When a proposal to encourage end-of-life planning touched off a political storm over “death panels,” Democrats dropped it from legislation to overhaul the health care system. But the Obama administration will achieve the same goal by regulation, starting Jan. 1.
Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment.
Congressional supporters of the new policy, though pleased, have kept quiet. They fear provoking another furor like the one in 2009 when Republicans seized on the idea of end-of-life counseling to argue that the Democrats’ bill would allow the government to cut off care for the critically ill.
The final version of the health care legislation, signed into law by President Obama in March, authorized Medicare coverage of yearly physical examinations, or wellness visits. The new rule says Medicare will cover “voluntary advance care planning,” to discuss end-of-life treatment, as part of the annual visit.
Under the rule, doctors can provide information to patients on how to prepare an “advance directive,” stating how aggressively they wish to be treated if they are so sick that they cannot make health care decisions for themselves.
While the new law does not mention advance care planning, the Obama administration has been able to achieve its policy goal through the regulation-writing process, a strategy that could become more prevalent in the next two years as the president deals with a strengthened Republican opposition in Congress. (Obama Returns to End-of-Life Plan That Caused Stir.)
Well, it turns out that those of us who wrote about these death panels--and they are nothing other than the same kind of death panels that existed in Nazi Germany starting in 1939 and were condemned by the courageous Bishop of Munster, Clemens von Galens--sixteen months ago is true after all (see, for example,
Death To Us All). Obama is using executive orders and regulations to bypass the legislative process. All of his empty talk assuring one and all that coverage for surgical baby-killing and euthanasia were not included in ObamaCare turns out to be nothing other than big, fat lies. After all, the "people" need to have the government take care of them even if some of them don't know that this is so. Except, of course, you don't want to tell the "people" what you are doing, right?
Several Democratic members of Congress, led by Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon and Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, had urged the administration to cover end-of-life planning as a service offered under the Medicare wellness benefit. A national organization of hospice care providers made the same recommendation.
Mr. Blumenauer, the author of the original end-of-life proposal, praised the rule as “a step in the right direction.”
“It will give people more control over the care they receive,” Mr. Blumenauer said in an interview. “It means that doctors and patients can have these conversations in the normal course of business, as part of our health care routine, not as something put off until we are forced to do it.”
After learning of the administration’s decision, Mr. Blumenauer’s office celebrated “a quiet victory,” but urged supporters not to crow about it.
“While we are very happy with the result, we won’t be shouting it from the rooftops because we aren’t out of the woods yet,” Mr. Blumenauer’s office said in an e-mail in early November to people working with him on the issue. “This regulation could be modified or reversed, especially if Republican leaders try to use this small provision to perpetuate the ‘death panel’ myth.”
Moreover, the e-mail said: “We would ask that you not broadcast this accomplishment out to any of your lists, even if they are ‘supporters’ — e-mails can too easily be forwarded.”
The e-mail continued: “Thus far, it seems that no press or blogs have discovered it, but we will be keeping a close watch and may be calling on you if we need a rapid, targeted response. The longer this goes unnoticed, the better our chances of keeping it.”
In the interview, Mr. Blumenauer said, “Lies can go viral if people use them for political purposes.” (Obama Returns to End-of-Life Plan That Caused Stir.)
Hush, hush! Don't let the "people" know. Indeed, how many of the "people" know that most hospices are in the business to relieve the pain of terminally ill patients by gradually increasing the dosage of various medications, including morphine, that they know will stop their hearts within a relatively short period of time. It is no accident that one will read of someone entering hospice and then read a few days later of the person's death. Hospices are just as much centers of killing as are abortuaries.
The administration of Barack Hussein Obama is filled to the rafters with naturalists of the "left" who have the hearts and souls of fascists and the minds of socialists. They will brook no opposition, which is why these regulations, which are formulated by unelected political appointees and/or career civil servants, must be kept secret, and it remains to be see to what extent Republicans in the United States of Representatives in the 112th Congress that convenes on January 3, 2011, will go to expend political capital to investigate this misuse of executive power. Those who are concerned about the "next election" fear "overreaching" on these matters might interfere with retaining power in the 113th Congress that convenes on January 3, 2013. What good, however, is retaining power when it is not used to blunt the advances of statism?
The statism that is upon us at the moment to serve as a salutary chastisement upon this country for its crimes against God and man, including the introduction of Protestant sects and Masonic lodges in Catholic lands such as Puerto Rico, Cuba and The Philippines and the support that presidential administrations gave to the Masonic revolutionaries in Mexico throughout the course of the first four decades of the Twentieth Century and, of course, the crimes against the innocent preborn and against modesty and purity and innocence, is winning the day because most Americans are diverted by their bread and circuses. Most of the "people" take little notice of the steady advances that are being made by the statists to encroach upon their legitimate liberties, including efforts to curb criticism of the administration on the internet, which the Federal Communications Commission issued a regulation last week seeking to regulate the internet under the slogan of "net neutrality" that is nothing other than yet another Trojan Horse to make it possible for the government to curb dissent to an extent that current practitioners of such censorship (John Adams, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, George Walker Bush, who refused to let the news media capture video images of the coffins carrying our military personnel who were killed in Iraq or Afghanistan) could not have imagined that the American citizenry would permit:
So what's wrong with the Internet? According to FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, “It may be dying because entrenched interests are positioning themselves to control the Internet's choke points.” That was Copps' prediction in 2003, one year before Facebook was launched, two years before some former employees of PayPal — another Internet success story — started YouTube, and three years before Amazon began offering cloud computing services.
If the last decade is an indication of what Internet necrosis and choke points look like, then by all means, let's have more of them. Yet in his statement concurring with the decision to regulate the Internet, Copps, who is still an FCC commissioner, writes unashamedly that his 2003 warning was issued “somewhat dramatically perhaps — but not inaccurately.”
The Internet isn't broken. So why are three Democrats on the Federal Communications Commission trying to fix it? They're pursuing a vague progressive objective with the deceptive name of net neutrality.
Net neutrality is anything but neutral. It takes the operation of the Internet away from the heterogeneous and diversified interests of the private sector that has created it and concentrates it in the hands of an unelected and unaccountable board of political appointees atop a federal bureaucracy. Does that sound like a recipe for continued innovation?
The dire problems net neutrality activists cry wolf about either don't exist or have already been resolved without the heavy hand of government influence. A federal court has ruled the FCC lacks the legal authority to regulate Internet service providers. So why try to do so? (Net Neutrality Anything But Neutral .)
The statists claim that the internet need government regulations in order to provide "fair access," something that will result in higher charges for those who use land lines to access the world wide web. This is, of course, just another lie from those who promised us that insurance coverage for surgical baby-killing and that the "end of life panels" had been excised from the final 2300 page version of ObamaCare that was passed by Congress. Forget all of the talk about providing "fair access." The policy of "net neutrality" is designed to concentrate control of the internet in the hands of government regulators and a few chosen companies, such as Google, which has one of its own former executives, Andrew McLaughlin, working as Caesar Obamus's telecommunications policy specialist. Google has already controlled access to internet sites in Red China at the behest of the murderous Chicom thugs. Do we really think that this can't or won't happen here?
Think, my friends, think: how many ordinary Americans would have thought it possible fifty years ago, that is, in 1960, that it would ever be "legal" in the United States of America to kill an innocent preborn baby under cover of the civil law up to and including the very day of his birth? Sure, content control is indeed the net goal of "net neutrality." Hush, hush! Don't tell the "people," though.
The Federal Communications Commission, an independent regulatory commission created by an act of Congress in 1934 during the administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, has sought to impose via its completely unconstitutional regulatory powers this Trojan Horse policy of "net neutrality" because Congress has thus far failed to enact legislation to do so. The solution? Simple. Bypass the elected representatives of the "people" and issue a regulation that has the binding force of Federal law once it is published in the Federal Register. The three Democrats on the Commission who outvoted the two Republican commissioners chose to proceed with this new regulation even though a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Circuit of the District of Columbia ruled on Tuesday, April 6, 2010, that it has no power to do so:
Because the FCC "has failed to tie its assertion" of regulatory authority to an actual law enacted by Congress, the agency does not have the power to regulate an Internet provider's network management practices, wrote Judge David Tatel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Tuesday's decision could doom one of the signature initiatives of FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, a Democrat. Last October, Genachowski announced plans to begin drafting a formal set of Net neutrality rules--even though Congress has not given the agency permission to do so. That push is opposed by Verizon and other broadband providers. (Court: FCC has no power to regulate Net neutrality.)
Federal Communications Commissioner
Julius Genachowski, an enthusiastic adherent of the Talmud who was recently profiled in the Jewish Daily Forward (see Talmud Ace Tackles Thorny Issue of Net Neutrality), proceeded to put the issue of "net neutrality" on the agenda of the Federal Communications Commission despite the decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Circuit of the District of Appeal. Statists only believe that legal matters are "settled" only when they are "settled" to their satisfaction (e.g., Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton).
Readers will note I claimed that independent regulatory commissions (and the quasi-independent commissions) are unconstitutional. I have taught this in my government classes over the decades. I will make this claim whenever I write about this subject (or teach about it, if that opportunity is ever to occur again within the Providence of God) no matter the fact that the Supreme Court of the United States of America has ruled that such agencies, which are staffed by commissioners who are appointed by a president for a term, usually seven years, that is longer than one presidential administration but shorter than two, and confirmed by the United States Senate are constitutional (see, for example, Humphrey's Executor v. United States of America, May 27, 1935).
My reasoning is simple: these agencies exercise each powers that are particular to each of the three branches of government as they make rules that having the binding force of law (which rules are supposed to be founded in Congressional legislation) and also enforce the very rules that they create while serving finally as the court of first instance for litigants to appeal decisions made about the enforcement of these rules. Although readers of this site, few in number though you may be, know that I am a critic of the founders of this nation, they are the individuals who crafted the Constitution in order to prevent what they believed could be a tyranny of the majority. Writing in The Federalist, Number 47, James Madison explained:
No political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value, or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty, than that on which the objection is founded. The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. Were the federal Constitution, therefore, really chargeable with the accumulation of power, or with a mixture of powers, having a dangerous tendency to such an accumulation, no further arguments would be necessary to inspire a universal reprobation of the system. I persuade myself, however, that it will be made apparent to every one, that the charge cannot be supported, and that the maxim on which it relies has been totally misconceived and misapplied. In order to form correct ideas on this important subject, it will be proper to investigate the sense in which the preservation of liberty requires that the three great departments of power should be separate and distinct. (Federalist No. 47.)
Behold a system, however, that has indeed degenerated to a point where non-elected officials have the accumulated powers of the three branches of government--legislative, executive, and judicial. This has occurred because James Madison, a virulent anti-Catholic who is considered to be the "father" of the Constitution, believed that there were sufficient safeguards contained within the Constitution to provide a check upon the consistent misuse of power by those serving in the three branches of government.
Such a belief was illusory as men who have revolted against the Catholic Faith and thus the Social Reign of Christ the King will have no more regard for the words of a written constitution that they have for the words of Sacred Scripture, believing themselves to be their own "interpreters" of Holy Writ. Who are the framers of the Constitution to limit our actions in our "modern" era. Shouldn't the Constitution be "updated" to meet new needs caused by changes in technology and economics and even public opinion? The Constitution was at its beginning and remains now utterly defenseless against itself, a truth that has been used by the statists to make short work of its actual provisions in order to expand the size, the scope and the power of the Federal government of the United States of America. Barack Hussein Obama's socialistic minions are very happy to expedite this process along to the point of a quasi-totalitarian dictatorship by regulation and executive order as the "people" feast on their bread and circuses.
The "people," however, will not be feasting on their bread and circuses for along. A day of temporal reckoning, to say nothing of the the day of reckoning with Christ the King, is coming soon, something that United States Senator Thomas Coburn (R-Oklahoma) has pointed out in graphic detail:
"Apocalyptic pain" from an out-of-control debt could cause 18 percent unemployment and a massive contraction in the economy that would destroy the middle class, a leading Republican deficit hawk said in an interview that aired Sunday.
Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who recently issued a report on government waste, warned that the U.S. only has about three or four years to get its fiscal house in order or it could find itself facing austerity measures seen in Greece, Ireland, Spain, Portugal and earlier in Japan.
"The history of republics is they average 200 years of life. And they all fail in the history over fiscal matters. They rot from within before they collapse or are attacked," Coburn told "Fox News Sunday."
"The problem that faces our country today, the last 30 years we have lived off the future, and the bill is coming due," he added.
The senator, who was recently elected to a second -- and he pledges -- final term in Congress, said he's not trying to scare anyone, but eliminating waste in the federal government's ledgers is imperative not just to prevent default but a massive implosion that he defined in catastrophic terms.
"I think you'll see a 15 to 18 percent unemployment rate. I think you will see an 8 to 9 percent decline in GDP. I think you'll see the middle class just destroyed if we don't do this. And the people that it will harm the most will be the poorest of the poor, because we'll print money to try to debase our currency and get out of it and what you will see is hyperinflation," Coburn said. "If we didn't take some pain now, we're going to experience apocalyptic pain, and it's going to be out of our control. The idea should be that we control it," he said. (Fix Economy or Middle Class Is Toast.)
Too draconian a picture to paint? No, I don't think so. Not all.
Indeed, Senator Coburn is right on "the money," pun intended, although he fails to point out that a good deal of the indebtedness that has been augmented in the past two years now by the current caesar and his policies began to mount as former Caesar Georgii Bushus Ignoramus waged two needless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while increasing entitlement spending, including on chemical baby-killing potions as part of "family planning" programs, dramatically.
That having been noted, however, Senator Coburn's analysis is very prophetic, and it is my surmise that the statists in the Obama administration know that the statistics he cites are for real, that great social dislocation is going to occur within the following decade. And it is thus my own belief--and it is nothing other than my belief--that this is precisely what the statists want so as to impose even more regulations on a daily life to such an extent that they can entice people to cease all criticism of their policies in exchange for food and electricity and running water. Yes, maybe I am wrong. I don't think so. however.
Senator Coburn's analysis, while accurate, is incomplete. Great empires as well as republics have fallen. The fall of ancient Rome, which was a republic for nearly five hundred years before becoming an empire for its final five hundred years, was expedited by its rampant immorality. Yes, the caesars of Rome overregulated the economy and they overtaxed their people. They engaged in needless foreign wars. They authorized needless bureaucracies whose officials issued burdensome regulations. Yes, yes, yes. It is also the case that baby-killing, pornography and sins of perversity were permitted openly, to say nothing of the killing of over thirteen million Catholics between the time of Nero in 67 A.D. and the Edict of Milan in 313 A.D.
We have reached such a state of affairs in this country at the present time that a supposed Catholic, Vice President Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., an open supporter of chemical and surgical baby-killing who has maintained his "good standing" in the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, can speak in the following manner about providing "marital" status to those engaged in perverse sins against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments:
Vice President Joe Biden predicted Friday the evolution in thinking that will permit gays to soon serve openly in the military eventually will bring about a national consensus for same-sex marriage.
Changes in attitudes by military leaders, those in the service and the public allowed the repeal by Congress of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, Biden noted in a nationally broadcast interview on Christmas eve.
"I think the country's evolving," he said on ABC's "Good Morning America.:" And I think you're going to see, you know, the next effort is probably going to be to deal with so-called DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act). He said he agreed with Obama that his position in gay marriage is "evolving."
Gay marriage is legal in only a handful of states, mostly in the Northeast, and in Iowa. President Barack Obama recently said his feelings on the gay marriage issue were in a state of transition. But he also said he still believes in allowing strong civil unions that provide certain protections and legal rights that married couples have.
Obama said he is still wrestling with whether gay couples should have the right to marry, now that the change in the law will allow them to serve openly in combat.
Presidents in recent years have struggled with this issue. President Bill Clinton developed the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for the military, and Obama promised repeatedly in his 2008 campaign for the presidency that his administration would have a more supportive attitude toward gays. But gay rights groups also have said frequently they have been disappointed with the administration's performance on this issue.
The question about same-sex marriage came at Obama's news conference Wednesday, just hours after he signed landmark legislation repealing the ban on gays serving openly in the military. The law ends the 17-year-old "don't ask, don't tell" policy that forced gays to hide their sexual orientation or face dismissal. Before that, there was an outright ban on service by gays in the military.
But in letters to the troops after the new bill was signed into law, the four military service chiefs warned that the ban was still in place, and that implementing the policy change in full was still months away.
Recommendations to put the new policy into place were outlined in a report last month, and now these steps must be written into concrete regulations governing the military. Defense officials say that they still don't know how long it will take before the Pentagon completes its implementation plan and certifies the change will not damage combat readiness. Once certified, the implementation would begin 60 days later.
In his interview with ABC newsman George Stephanopoulos, Biden brought up the Defense of Marriage Act, a law that Congress passed in 1996 that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
Obama has repeatedly said he would like to see the law repealed, but the Justice Department has defended its constitutionality, which the agency is required to do.
As recently as October, the department defended DOMA, appealing two rulings in Massachusetts by a judge who called the law unconstitutional for denying federal benefits to gay marriage couples.
In two separate cases, U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro in July ruled that DOMA is unconstitutional because it interferes with a state's right to define marriage and denies gay couples an array of federal benefits to heterosexual married couples, including the ability to file joint tax returns. (Biden: Gay Marriage 'Inevitable'.)
Pope Saint Pius V spoke in blunt terms about the fate of cities who promote this sin against nature:
That horrible crime, on account of which corrupt and obscene cities were destroyed by fire through divine condemnation, causes us most bitter sorrow and shocks our mind, impelling us to repress such a crime with the greatest possible zeal.
(Pope Saint Pius V, Horrendum illud scelus, August 30, 1568.)
Yes, indeed, a day of reckoning will come for any country, including the United States of America, that pursues a course of such reckless disregard for the laws of God and nature as it seeks to imprison its people in such a way that they come to believe that they are nothing other than mere creatures of the civil state.
The solution to this does not rest in the "next election" as President Obama remains fairly popular despite all of this (and perhaps because of all of this). As Michael Barone, the co-editor of The Almanac of American Politics, noted in a very perceptive article,
Assessing Obama's 2012 Prospects:
Several factors will likely work less strongly against Obama in 2012 than against the Obama Democrats in 2010. Turnout will be different, for one thing. We may see again the record turnout of blacks we saw in 2008. Young people who pretty much shunned the polls in the midterms may turn out and vote--though the 34-point margin they gave to Obama was halved to 17 points for congressional Democrats in 2010.
The balance of enthusiasm favored Republicans and conservatives in 2010, as it had favored Democrats in 2006 and 2008. It could conceivably shift and favor the Democrats once again.
Another factor is that polls show that most Americans have favorable personal feelings toward the president. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush both happened to have personal characteristics that people on the other side of the cultural divide absolutely loathed. Obama doesn't.
His reliance on his teleprompter, his secret smoking, his irritability when not adored -- these are pretty minor failings. People like his family and his obvious devotion to them. They don't mind that he likes to get away and play golf or shoot hoops from time to time. (Assessing Obama's 2012 Prospects.)
Mr. Barone observed that Obama is in political difficulty and that most Americans want ObamaCare repealed. I do believe, though, that his assessment is fairly accurate (see my own
More Committed to Error Than We Are to Truth). Naturalism of the "right" almost always yields to the force of the naturalism of the "left."
As Pope Gregory XVI observed in Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832, social decay must occur in a country founded on false principles, including those of religious indifferentism and concepts of "liberty" that pervert true human liberty and make possible the ruin of men and their nations:
This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error," as Augustine was wont to say. When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly "the bottomless pit" is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws -- in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty. (Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)
Thus stand condemned the false beliefs of the lords of Modernity and their Modernist counterparts in the counterfeit church of conciliarism.
The solution? Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary and her Fatima Message. Use the Rosary well as we seek to make reparation for our sins and those of the whole world. Fulfill Our Lady's Fatima Message as far as we can in our own lives, spreading devotion to the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary and her requests that we honor her on five first Saturdays. Protect ourselves with the shield that is the Brown Scapular. Spread devotion to the wearing of Our Lady's Miraculous Medal.
The Newborn Christ the King, whose Kingship was a threat to King Herod the Great, has given us so great a Blessed Mother to help us weather the storms of the present day. May her prayers help all men to realize that neither the ceasars of today or the "people" are sovereign, only Christ the King, and no one else.
And don't be "hush, hush!" for a moment as
we proclaim anew what Protestants and conciliarists alike reject: The Social Reign of Christ the King!
Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now ?
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us, pray for us!