Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us

                  December 20, 2012


Lining Up to be the Next Bob Dole

by Thomas A. Droleskey

One of the roles that this much-hated, aging former professor of political science seeks to fill with these articles is to serve something of an "institutional memory" for readers, most of whom are busy with their own lives and thus easily forget the details of that which they have read in the past, to provide them with something of an historical framework in which to judge contemporary events. That is the goal of this brief article.

There is very little in the world of naturalism (or even that of conciliarism) that is new. Very little. Noting a few exceptions now and again, practically everything in the world of naturalism is just a variation on the old naturalist themes.

To wit, the man who played an instrument role in defeating President Ronald Wilson Reagan's nomination of United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Judge Robert Huron Bork, who died yesterday, December 19, 2012, Ember Wednesday in Advent, to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States of America, then United States Senator Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. (D-Delaware), twenty-five years ago now now is still around, still supporting baby-killing under cover of the civil law and serving as a pioneer in behalf of "gay marriage."

Biden, now the Vice President of the United States of America, is being tasked now by President Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro with the responsibility to leading an effort to ban the weaponry that was used at Sandy Hook Elementary School in the Town of Newtown, Connecticut, on Friday, December 14, 2012, in order to "protect the children." This thoroughly predictable response on the part of professional demagogues, whose utter hypocrisy was noted with a bit of directness three days ago now in On Full Display: Every Americanist Error Imaginable, is nothing new, of course. It is what the naturalists of the "left" always do when massacres such as the one that took place six days ago now in our former home community even while the daily slaughter of the preborn by chemical and surgical means continues unabated.

Also thoroughly predictable--and I did predict it, repeatedly and to the point of utter exhaustion--is the effort of the members of the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist "right" to look more and more like Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro and Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., in order to win back disaffected women voters who have been convinced that Republicans represented a "threat" to contraceptive "rights."

Before explaining the newest effort in this regard, readers should recall that the man who lost the actual election for President of the United States of America on Monday, December 17, 2012, as the electors who had been elected on Tuesday, November 6, 2012, cast their votes in their respective state capitals, the hapless Willard Mitt Romney, the former Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, went to great lengths to prove that he would not as any threat to "reproductive rights" if he won the presidential election. He particularly stressed his long and vigorous support in behalf of contraception, something that he noted during the Republican Party primary process eleven months ago and that he emphasized during his pathetic excuse of a presidential campaign, the results of which were pretty much a foregone conclusion.

This is what Willard Mitt Romney said at Hofstra University in Hempstead, Long Island, New York, on Tuesday, October 16, 2012, during his "town hall" debate with Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro:


Romney: I'd just note that I don't believe that bureaucrats in Washington should tell someone whether they can use contraceptives or not. And I don't believe employers should tell someone whether they could have contraceptive care of not. Every woman in America should have access to contraceptives. And -- and the -- and the president's statement of my policy is completely and totally wrong. (Transcript of Second Debate Between the Mormon Willard Mitt Romney and the Marxist Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, Tuesday, October 16, 2012, the Feast of Saint Hedwig, Hoftsra University, Hempstead, Long Island, New York.)

Romney was not, of course, just a whistlin' Dixie. To amplify this point, you see, his campaign ran an advertisement highlighting his support for contraception, most of which kills preborn babies, and for the surgical execution of the innocent preborn in certain "hard cases:"


Mitt Romney’s campaign, in an effort to appeal to women who hold more moderate views on reproductive issues, is releasing a new commercial that highlights his support for contraception and abortion in limited circumstances.

“You know, those ads say Mitt Romney would ban all abortions and contraception seemed a bit extreme, so I looked into it,” says a woman identified as Sarah Minto, who is shown on camera searching on Google for “Romney on abortion.”

Ms. Minto adds: “It turns out Romney doesn’t oppose contraception at all. In fact, he thinks abortion should be an option in cases of rape, incest or to save a mother’s life.”

The ad is Mr. Romney’s most aggressive attempt to rebut attempts by the Obama campaign to paint him as extreme on women’s rights.

Mr. Romney has long struggled with women. All year polls have shown President Obama with a sizeable advantage. But as the race tightens in the final three weeks before the election – and one major poll showing this week that the Republican nominee is significantly narrowing the gender gap – the Romney campaign is moving dramatically to showcase its more moderate positions.

This strategy is not without risk. Many socially conservative Republicans have long been wary of Mr. Romney, who as a candidate for United States Senate said that abortion should be “safe and legal” and touted his pro-gay rights positions.

Reproductive rights have continued to bedevil Mr. Romney over the course of this election. Just last week he raised eyebrows when he denied to the editorial board of The Des Moines Register that he would pursue anti-abortion legislation. “There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda,” he said.

Mr. Romney’s advisers have long said that they believed the election would turn on the economy, and that is where Ms. Minto ends her statement in the ad.

“I’m more concerned about the debt our children will be left with,” she says as she looks into the camera. “I voted for President Obama last time. We just can’t afford 4 more years.” (Romney Ad Touts Moderate Views on Abortion).

Seems to me that I have been trying to convince the "vast" readership of this site that supposedly "pro-life" voters who enable the supposedly "lesser evil" in the context of election campaigns and then overlook and/or excuse the evil that they do once in office wind up convincing the supposedly "lesser evil" that he can get away with almost anything and still keep their votes.

The naturalists of the false opposite of the "right" know that this is so, which is why those who are lining up to be the next "Bob Dole," that is, the next "inevitable" Republican presidential nominee who will wind up losing to his opponent in the Democratic Party, are falling all over themselves to explain that Republicans should just make their "peace" with "birth control."

This is what one of those Bob Dole wannabes, Louisiana  Governor Bobby Jindal, a Catholic, did last week in a very telling "op-ed" editorial he wrote in The Wall Street Journal:

As an unapologetic pro-life Republican, I also believe that every adult (18 years old and over) who wants contraception should be able to purchase it. But anyone who has a religious objection to contraception should not be forced by government health-care edicts to purchase it for others. And parents who believe, as I do, that their teenage children shouldn't be involved with sex at all do not deserve ridicule.

Let's ask the question: Why do women have to go see a doctor before they buy birth control? There are two answers. First, because big government says they should, even though requiring a doctor visit to get a drug that research shows is safe helps drive up health-care costs. Second, because big pharmaceutical companies benefit from it. They know that prices would be driven down if the companies had to compete in the marketplace once their contraceptives were sold over the counter.

So at present we have an odd situation. Thanks to President Obama and the pro-choice lobby, women can buy the morning-after pill over the counter without a prescription, but women cannot buy oral contraceptives over the counter unless they have a prescription. Contraception is a personal matter—the government shouldn't be in the business of banning it or requiring a woman's employer to keep tabs on her use of it. If an insurance company or those purchasing insurance want to cover birth control, they should be free to do so. If a consumer wants to buy birth control on her own, she should be free to do so. (The End of Birth-Control Politics, December 13, 1980.)


Every woman should be able to purchase contraception?

Contraception is a personal matter?

No, Governor Jindal, no one has a right to frustrate the primary end of that which is proper to the married state.

No one, Governor Jindal, means no one.

At any time.

For any reason.

No one.

No right, Governor Jindal, has "right" to choose to violate the binding precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments.

Personal sin, Governor Jindal, has social consequences.

Permit me to introduce you, Governor Jindal, to something that no "bishop" in the counterfeit church of conciliarism to which you belong has ever taught you. It is found in Pope Pius XI's encyclical letter condemning all use of contraception without exception, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930:


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.)

It does not get any clearer, Governor Jindal. There are more important things in life than the farce of elections, starting with obeying the law of God. And the law of God as it pertains to His immutable sovereignty over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage was outlined very clearly by Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii and by Pope Pius XII in his Address to Italian Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession, November 29, 1951:


Since, however, We have spoken fully elsewhere on the Christian education of youth,[18] let Us sum it all up by quoting once more the words of St. Augustine: "As regards the offspring it is provided that they should be begotten lovingly and educated religiously,"[19] - and this is also expressed succinctly in the Code of Canon Law - "The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children."[20]  (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)

53. And now, Venerable Brethren, we shall explain in detail the evils opposed to each of the benefits of matrimony. First consideration is due to the offspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people not through virtuous continence (which Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent) but by frustrating the marriage act. Some justify* this criminal abuse on the ground that they are weary of children and wish to gratify their desires without their consequent burden. Others say that they cannot on the one hand remain continent nor on the other can they have children because of the difficulties whether on the part of the mother or on the part of family circumstances .

54. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.

55. Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, "Intercourse even with one's legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it."[45]

56. Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)

Our Predecessor, Pius XI, of happy memory, in his Encyclical Casti Connubii, of December 31, 1930, once again solemnly proclaimed the fundamental law of the conjugal act and conjugal relations: that every attempt of either husband or wife in the performance of the conjugal act or in the development of its natural consequences which aims at depriving it of its inherent force and hinders the procreation of new life is immoral; and that no "indication" or need can convert an act which is intrinsically immoral into a moral and lawful one. . . .

Now, the truth is that matrimony, as an institution of nature, in virtue of the Creator's will, has not as a primary and intimate end the personal perfection of the married couple but the procreation and upbringing of a new life. The other ends, inasmuch as they are intended by nature, are not equally primary, much less superior to the primary end, but are essentially subordinated to it. This is true of every marriage, even if no offspring result, just as of every eye it can be said that it is destined and formed to see, even if, in abnormal cases arising from special internal or external conditions, it will never be possible to achieve visual perception.

It was precisely to end the uncertainties and deviations which threatened to diffuse errors regarding the scale of values of the purposes of matrimony and of their reciprocal relations, that a few years ago (March 10, 1944), We Ourselves drew up a declaration on the order of those ends, pointing out what the very internal structure of the natural disposition reveals. We showed what has been handed down by Christian tradition, what the Supreme Pontiffs have repeatedly taught, and what was then in due measure promulgated by the Code of Canon Law. Not long afterwards, to correct opposing opinions, the Holy See, by a public decree, proclaimed that it could not admit the opinion of some recent authors who denied that the primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of the offspring, or teach that the secondary ends are not essentially subordinated to the primary end, but are on an equal footing and independent of it. (Pope Pius XII, Address to Italian Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession, October 29, 1951.)

Would you like to rewrite your "op-ed" commentary, Governor Jindal? Or do you aspire to be the next Bob Dole? Is that what all of this is about, the catering to the "people."

Sadly, however, one of the reasons that I was not enthusiastic about the nomination of Judge Bork twenty-five years ago was that he believed that matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments were to be "determined" by the elected representatives of "the people" at the state and local level as it was his contention that the Constitution neither permitted nor prohibited contraception or abortion, meaning that the states were free to act these areas. This is also the view of Associate Justice Antonin Scalia. This view is, I believe as one trained in constitutional law, arguable as I can make a strong case that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States of America prohibit abortion, thus preempting any action at the state level, leaving aside the fact that no institution of human governance has any authority found in the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law to permit the chemical and/or surgical assassination of innocent children.

Bork expressed his constitutional viewpoint in 1982 when he served on the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia:


One of his opinions, in Dronenburg v. Zech in 1984, dealt with the Navy’s power to fire a veteran for consensual homosexual activity. Judge Bork not only granted the Navy that power, but he also took the opportunity to make clear that a right of privacy did not exist in the Constitution. “If the revolution in sexual mores that appellant proclaims is in fact ever to arrive,” he wrote, “we think it must arrive through the moral choices of the people and their elected representatives, not through the ukase of this court.” (Robert H. Bork, Conservative Jurist, Dies at 85, page 3. The word "ukase," by the way, means an "order" or a "decree.")


Sure, Bork would have voted to overturn the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973. Many, however, have forgotten three simple facts if that had happened.

First, the surgical killing of babies on demand in a number of states would remain perfectly legal and such killing in one or more of the "hard" cases would be permitted in the rest of the states.

Second, it was in seven states that the restrictive "permission" for killing babies in certain "hard" cases was "liberalized" in the six year period prior to the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton were rendered.

Third, as noted just above, no one has any authority, whether acting individually or collectively in the institutions of civil governance, to make "permissible" that which is prohibited by God.

Bobby Jindal, you see, is just propagating a variation of the same false notion as was held by Bork, who would, if he had been confirmed twenty-five years ago and had not resigned prior to now, have been replaced by a pro-abort (such is the insanity of our naturalist system, where nothing is stable, nothing is "decided" or "settled" until it is "settled" to the satisfaction of the "left"). The only exception is that Jindal just wants to accept "birth control" as something that is irreversible and then be done with it in electoral politics.

In doing this, of course, Jindal is throwing an elbow at another of those who might be lining up to be the next Bob Dole, former United States Senator Richard John Santorum (R-Pennsylvania). Yes, the insane games that naturalists play.

The truth of the matter is that contraception is integral to the whole anti-life, anti-family, anti-God agenda of the feminists and the population control crowd, which has convinced many Catholics that it is "better" for them to "postpone" having children by "natural" means if they do not want to use their preferred methods of limiting the species (see Always Trying To Find A Way).

Feminism, for its, part, has also convinced women that it is a "virtue" to postpone childbearing in order to fulfill their career desires and/or to place newborn children into day-care programs soon after birth so that they can return to the work place and "fulfill" themselves while others care for their children.

Feminism, which is exalted in almost every elementary and secondary school in the United States of America, including most, although not all, of the schools under the control of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, brainwashes young girls from their tenderest years that they must have "careers" in the world. Oh, if they "choose" to be wives and mother, that's all well and good. However, the "career" must come first in order for them to fulfill themselves (and/or have the "extra money" to buy loads and loads and loads of material things or to have "second" house" or a luxury boat or take exotic vacations) and to break the various "barriers" of the "glass ceiling."

Many of the economic problems, including those faced by the Federal government of the United States of America at this time. facing us today have been caused as a direct result of the planned, Judeo-Masonic assault upon the integrity and structure of the family that has caused young women to eschew marriage and child-bearing and child-rearing for "careers." Men, who should be the principal breadwinners of their families, have thus found it more difficult to obtain jobs and then to secure promotions because of competition in the work force that did not exist until around forty-five years ago or so.

This has forced many women who want to stay at home to raise their children to find some kind of employment in cases where their husbands have been forced out of their own jobs and unable to find a new position because of the presence of increased competition from women, who are given special preferences in accordance with the reverse discrimination program known as "affirmative action." And this is so say nothing of the reality that God does not mean for men and women who are unrelated to each other to work in close proximity to each other, thereby exposing the married and unmarried alike to the near occasions of sin that have resulted in so many instances in the breakup of families, the abandonment of spouses and children, the feminization of poverty, increasing reliance upon social programs administered by the civil state, latch-key children, day-care centers, pre-school and after-school programs. God alone knows the number of children who have been been killed by chemical and surgical means as a result of the actual sins caused by the near occasions of sin represented by the working situation found in the perverse, anti-Incarnational world of Modernity that has been celebrated so much by the conciliar "pontiffs and their "bishops."

Moreover, contraception has led to an epidemic of marital infidelity and divorce, thus destabilizing marriage and helping to pave the way for abortion in the event that contraceptives would "fail," a point noted by the man who actually wound up in the Supreme Court seat for which Robert H. Bork was rejected by the United States Senate, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, in the case of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Robert Casey, June 29, 1992:


Although Roe has engendered opposition, it has in no sense proven unworkable, representing as it does a simple limitation beyond which a state law is unenforceable. P. 835.

(e) The Roe rule's limitation on state power could not be repudiated without serious inequity to people who, for two decades of economic and social developments, have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail. The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives. The Constitution serves human values, and while the effect of reliance on Roe cannot be exactly measured, neither can the certain costs of overruling Roe for people who have ordered their thinking and living around that case be dismissed. Pp. 855-856. (Text of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey.)

Behold the results! And Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal wants to "liberalize" this madness even more in order to take the matter out of politics and thus out of the realm of ObamaCare and its health insurance mandates that raise the cost of "birth control" artificially"?

The goal is wrong.

The method is wrong.

Contraception is evil in se.

All Bobby Jindal is concerned about is elections. Nothing else.

I do wonder, however, if any conciliar "bishop," eager to get rid of the "mandate" problem, might express tentative support for Jindal's trial balloon. This is not out of the realm of possibility.

Alas, none of this is new.

It was a Republican president, Richard Milhous Nixon, who got the United States of America into funding "population control" internationally back in 1969:


It is my view that no American woman should be denied access to family planning assistance because of her economic condition. I believe, therefore, that we should establish as a national goal the provision of adequate family planning services within the next five years to all those who want them but cannot afford them. This we have the capacity to do.

Clearly, in no circumstances will the activities associated with our pursuit of this goal be allowed to infringe upon the religious convictions or personal wishes and freedom of any individual, nor will they be allowed to impair the absolute right of all individuals to have such matters of conscience respected by public authorities.

In order to achieve this national goal, we will have to increase the amount we are spending on population and family planning. But success in this endeavor will not result from higher expenditures alone. Because the life circumstances and family planning wishes of those who receive services vary considerably, an effective program must be more flexible in its design than are many present efforts. In addition, programs should be better coordinated and more effectively administered. Under current legislation, a comprehensive State or local project must assemble a patchwork of funds from many different sources--a time-consuming and confusing process. Moreover, under existing legislation, requests for funds for family planning services must often compete with requests for other deserving health endeavors. (Special Message to Congress on the Problems of Population Growth. For the rest of Nixon's anti-life record, please see the appendix below.)

The Limited civil government Bobby Jindal is trying to accomplish is only possible in the properly ordered Catholic state, where citizens would be possessed of the sensus Catholicus and would not look to "government" for the "solutions" to problems that have their remote cause in Original Sin and their proximate causes in our own Actual Sins. Individual issues that arise would be examined by Catholics in light of First and Last Things as they made honest efforts to apply the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law in the concrete circumstances in which they find themselves. Catholics can disagree about the application of principles. They are not free to disagree about the fact that the Faith governs all of our actions, both personal and social, at all times.

People can look for their "king" or "secular saviour" in this or that election. They will never find any "solution" to the problems caused by Original Sin and our own Actual Sins.

A nation whose people who are quite sanguine about the daily slaughter of the preborn by surgical and chemical means will never be able to rest secure that their health or even their very lives will be "safe" in the hands of a health-care network managed and financed by any government.

A people content to spend their lives, objectively speaking, in states of Mortal Sin, oblivious to the harm that they have caused their immortal souls or the imminent peril to which they may have exposed themselves of losing those souls for all eternity. will focus inordinately on the health of the body.

A people unused to making reparation for their own sins and those of the whole world in a joyful embrace of Our Lady's Fatima Message will want anything painful and that demands the least bit of sacrifice from them to be taken away, anesthetized or indemnified by some government agency or program.

A people used to viewing the world naturalistically will continue to recoil from First and Last Things until and unless they are exhorted to quit their sins and to convert to the true Faith, seeing in it the only measure of true health, their spiritual health now and for all eternity:

For what man knoweth the things of a man, but the spirit of a man that is in him? So the things also that are of God no man knoweth, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of this world, but the Spirit that is of God; that we may know the things that are given us from God. Which things also we speak, not in the learned words of human wisdom; but in the doctrine of the Spirit, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the sensual man perceiveth not these things that are of the Spirit of God; for it is foolishness to him, and he cannot understand, because it is spiritually examined. But the spiritual man judgeth all things; and he himself is judged of no man. (1 Cor. 2: 11-15.)


We need a King, we need THE King, Christ the King, to lead us out of the darkness of the forests of naturalism so that we will be able to see the world clearly through the eyes of the true Faith and will not be in histrionics every four or eight years as this or that "worst ever" boogeyman and his "hold your nose" opponent view for power in our Judeo-Masonic system of falsehoods that continues to degenerate right before our very eyes. There is no other solution. None. And all I have to do to illustrate this point is to note once again that the millions who were histrionics twelve years ago about the "worst ever" monster that year, Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., had to contend eight years thereafter with two horrific terms of the "conservative" socialist and war monger, George Walker Bush, who almost single-handedly made the Marxist nonentity named Barack Hussein Obama electable. (See: Y2K's Lesser Evil Has Brought Us Great Evils.) It will be no different in the year 2016 as the Bob Dole wannabes line up to try to be Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro Lite.


Christ the King must reign in our minds, not naturalism of the "left" or naturalism of the "right."

The Rome of the pagan emperors was not converted at the ballot box. It was converted by the missionary activity of the Apostles and those who followed them, over thirteen million of whom shed their blood in defense of the Holy Faith. Why do we think the conversion of the modern civil state will take any less than that? Why do we think that we are exempt from suffering for the Faith? Why do we even think that we deserve some respite from the inexorable growth of the size and power of the modern civil state that is has arisen in the wake of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King?

Yes, of course, we beseech Our Lord's Most Sacred Heart through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary for mercy for ourselves and for our fellow citizens. Of course. God did, however, send the Black Death as a punishment for sins in the Fourteenth Century. We ought to reckon with the fact that while, yes, God is indeed merciful, He is also most just. Naturalism in and of itself is indeed a chastisement that leaves so many people in the darkness of a forest with seemingly no escape, a chastisement compounded with the counterfeit church of conciliarism's "reconciliation" with the very revolutionary principles of 1787 and 1789 about which Pope Leo XIII warned us as follows in Custodi Di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892:


Everyone should avoid familiarity or friendship with anyone suspected of belonging to masonry or to affiliated groups. Know them by their fruits and avoid them. Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions, and the craving to reconcile the maxims of the Gospel with those of the revolution. These men seek to reconcile Christ and Belial, the Church of God and the state without God. (Pope Leo XIII, Custodi di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892.)

This is why we must fulfill that part of Our Lady's Fatima Message that we are able to fulfill, praying as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit to make reparation for our sins and those of the whole world, being willing to suffer gladly anything and everything that we are asked to suffer for the restoration of the Church Militant on earth and for the restoration of Christendom in the world. Our Lady wants to protect us in the folds of her mantle in these troubling times. Will we let her? Will we run to her as we renew daily our total consecration to her Divine Son through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart?

These words of Pope Leo XIII, contained in Sapientiae Christianae and quoted above, should give us cause before we continue to rush into the insanity of listening the naturalist babblers babble on and on about "issues" that they do not understand clearly or fully because they believe in one naturalist falsehood after another:

Nor can such misgivings be removed by any mere human effort, especially as a vast number of men, having rejected the Christian faith, are on that account justly incurring the penalty of their pride, since blinded by their passions they search in vain for truth, laying hold on the false for the true, and thinking themselves wise when they call "evil good, and good evil," and "put darkness in the place of light, and light in the place of darkness." It is therefore necessary that God come to the rescue, and that, mindful of His mercy, He turn an eye of compassion on human society. (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890.)


What can be a better description of the Judeo-Masonic electoral system in the United States of America? What can be a better description of the insanity of the naturalism of the "left" and the naturalism of the "right" now on fully display in the histrionics of the 2012 presidential campaign?

With full confidence in Our Lady's Immaculate Heart, may we rise above the histrionics, the silliness, the emotionalism and the apoplexy engendered by naturalism to pray and to work for the restoration of the Catholic City as the fruit of the triumph of that same Immaculate Heart.  We may not see the results with our own earthly eyes. Please God and by the intercession of Our Lady, especially by means of her Most Holy Rosary, that we die in states of Sanctifying Grace, may it be our privilege to see the results from eternity, where those who have won the only election that matters, God's favor for all eternity, will praise and glorify Christ the King forever in Heaven.

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us!

Saint Joseph, Patron of Departing Souls, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saint Thomas the Apostle, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints


Richard Nixon's Anti-Family, Anti-Life Record

In other words, Nixon did not want the government to force religiously run institutions to adopt policies to their beliefs. He only wanted every American taxpayer, regardless of religious convictions, to fund the evil of "family planning."

Nixon's second Secretary of State, Dr. Heinz Alfred Kissinger, who served succeeded William Pierce Rogers on September 3, 1973, was a thorough supporter of abortion and contraception. Kissinger

Kissinger, a former aide to the arch supporter of contraception and abortion, the late adulterous former Governor of New York and Vice President of the United States, Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller, and Nixon sought to issue a National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM-200) in 1974 which would have encouraging countries to impose a one-child-per family policy in order to receive American foreign aid. The Nixon Administration authorized the writing of National Security Study Memorandum 200 in 1974 that was designed to implement a variety of the “population control” measures that had been recommended by the Rockefeller Commission, a panel appointed by President Nixon in 1969 following his own Special Message to Congress on July 18, 1969, on the “necessity” of controlling population growth.

This particular Memorandum, which was the brainchild of Nixon and Henry Kissinger and presidential counselor Donald D. Rumsfeld, included such draconian measures as encouraging countries to develop a one child per family policy and to regulate the control of food to developing nations. As a result of pressure brought by several Catholic cardinals in the United States, this NSSM was classified until 1989, at which point its terms were released.

It still amazes my friends, that the Nixon administration, whose officials believed in the abject immorality of the whole panoply of “population control” measures recommended in NSSM 200, including encouraging parents to have “one child per family,” can be praised and defended by any Catholic to this very day. Have we no love for God? Have we no regard for the horror of sin and  how it is an evil thing to promote sin under cover of law?

Nixon, ever the practitioner of amorality, was favorably inclined to the surgical dismemberment of children in their mothers' wombs under "some conditions," stating clearly during the presidential election of 1992 that it was time to get the issue of abortion out of electoral politics, that other issues were more important. Nixon also believed in eugenic abortions, especially in cases of interracial marriages.

Oblivious to the fact that a statement of his about abortion on April 3, 1971, made it appear as though he was opposed to abortion as a means of "population control" without mentioning his support of abortion for eugenic reasons. Nixon's stand was hideous and reprehensible. It would be interesting to hear how those who defend the nonexistent"right" of a woman to "choose" to kill her baby explain

HISTORICALLY, laws regulating abortion in the United States have been the province of States, not the Federal Government. That remains the situation today, as one State after another takes up this question, debates it, and decides it. That is where the decisions should be made.

Partly for that reason, I have directed that the policy on abortions at American military bases in the United States be made to correspond with the laws of the States where those bases are located. If the laws in a particular State restrict abortions, the rules at the military base hospitals are to correspond to that law.

The effect of this directive is to reverse service regulations issued last summer, which had liberalized the rules on abortions at military hospitals. The new ruling supersedes this--and has been put into effect by the Secretary of Defense.

But while this matter is being debated in State capitals and weighed by various courts, the country has a right to know my personal views.

From personal and religious beliefs I consider abortion an unacceptable form of population control. Further, unrestricted abortion policies, or abortion on demand, I cannot square with my personal belief in the sanctity of human life--including the life of the yet unborn. For, surely, the unborn have rights also, recognized in law, recognized even in principles expounded by the United Nations.

Ours is a nation with a Judeo-Christian heritage. It is also a nation with serious social problems--problems of malnutrition, of broken homes, of poverty, and of delinquency. But none of these problems justifies such a solution.

A good and generous people will not opt, in my view, for this kind of alternative to its social dilemmas. Rather, it will open its hearts and homes to the unwanted children of its own, as it has done for the unwanted millions of other lands. (Nixon Statement on Abortion, April 3, 1971.)


Such confusion, starting with the fact that there is no such thing as a "Judeo-Christian" heritage. Truth can never be mixed in with error. Catholicism is the sole means of personal and social order. Nothing else. Not Talmudic Judaism Not the thousands of permutations of Protestantism, each of which is founded on a rejection of the Deposit of Faith that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has revealed exclusively to His true Church that He founded upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope.

Then President Nixon told the nation in 1971 that he considered surgical baby-killing to be "an unacceptable form of population control" and that he opposed "abortion on demand" at the same time he permitted babies to be slaughtered by surgical means on the ground of American military bases in those states that permitted abortion-on-demand. Nixon was oblivious as to the simple truth that no human institution of civil governance has any authority to dispense with the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law so as to permit any direct, intentional taking of an innocent human life from the first moment of conception through all subsequent stages until the day of natural death under cover of the civil law. Nixon was saying, in effect, "I am personally opposed to abortion-on-demand, but I will permit surgeons in the employ of the government of the United States of America on American military bases to kill babies in those states that permit abortion-on-demand. Perhaps Nixon was prophetically anticipating Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict's XVI logically absurd and dogmatically condemned "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity" that stands the the principle of non-contradiction on its head.

Richard Nixon, who, as will be noted below, accepted the abject moral evil of contraception in order to advance the goals of "population control," reiterated his confused views about abortion following the release of the report on population control that was issued by a commission headed by John D. Rockefeller III, the brother of the then Governor of the State of New York, the pro-abortion Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller, and the father of the junior United States senator from West Virginia, John D. "Jay" Rockefeller IV, that supported abortion-on-demand:

While I do not plan to comment extensively on the contents and recommendations of the report, I do feel that it is important that the public know my views on some of the issues raised.

In particular, I want to reaffirm and reemphasize that I do not support unrestricted abortion policies. As I stated on April 3, 1971, when I revised abortion policies in military hospitals, I consider abortion an unacceptable form of population control. In my judgment, unrestricted abortion policies would demean human life. I also want to make it clear that I do not support the unrestricted distribution of family planning services and devices to minors. Such measures would do nothing to preserve and strengthen close family relationships.

I have a basic faith that the American people themselves will make sound judgments regarding family size and frequency of births, judgments that are conducive both to the public interest and to personal family goals--and I believe in the right of married couples to make these judgments for themselves.

While disagreeing with the general thrust of some of the Commission's recommendations, I wish to extend my thanks to the members of the Commission for their work and for having assembled much valuable information.

The findings and conclusions of the Commission should be of great value in assisting governments at all levels to formulate policy. At the Federal level, through our recent reorganization of the Executive Office of the President, we have the means through the Domestic Council and the Office of Management and Budget to follow up on the Commission's report. The recommendations of the Commission will be taken into account as we formulate our national growth and population research policies, and our agency budgets through these processes for the years ahead.

Many of the questions raised by the report cannot be answered purely on the basis of fact, but rather involve moral judgments about which reasonable men will disagree. I hope that the discussions ahead will be informed ones, so that we all will be better able to face these questions relating to population in full knowledge of the consequences of our decisions. (Statement About the Report of the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future.)


The confusion inherent in this statement is as mind-boggling as anything contained in Ratzinger's Principles of Catholic Theology.

Nixon believed in "the right of married couples to make these judgments for themselves" when, of course, no human being has any right to use contraceptive pills or devices at any time for any reason as to do so is to violate the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage. Although most contraceptives abort and abort most of the time, contraception is in and of itself a violation of the immutable laws of God that bind the consciences of all human beings at all times in all places and under all circumstances without any exception, reservation or qualification whatsoever. One who supports "family planning" as a matter of principle does not believe in God as He has revealed Himself through His true Church and is thus incapable of serving as a agent in behalf of the common temporal good undertaken as it must be in light of man's Last End.

Moreover, "reasonable men" are not free to disagree about the binding nature of the immutable laws of God. Contingent beings who did not create themselves and whose bodies are destined one day for the corruption of the grave until the General Resurrection on the Last Day must obey God as He has revealed Himself through His true Church. This is not  subject to debate or "legitimate" disagreement. Richard Nixon's belief that men could disagree about moral judgments concerning "population control" was very similar to the canards mouth by one of his successors as President of the United States of America, George Walker Bush, who said constantly in 1999 and 2000 during his campaign for the Republican Party presidential nomination and in the general election against then Vice President Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., that abortion was "a difficult" issue about which "good people" may disagree legitimately. Wrong. No one has any "right" to "disagree" with the laws of their Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier.

Other Republicans, most notably Nixon acolyte Robert Joseph Dole, Jr. and John Sidney McCain III among them, have mouthed the same inanity about the slaughter of innocent babes being a "difficult" issue about which people of "good will" could disagree legitimately. This is an approach taken by none other than Barack Hussein Obama, who said the following at the University of Notre Dame du Lac on Sunday, May 17, 2009:

After I read the doctor's letter, I wrote back to him and thanked him. I didn't change my position, but I did tell my staff to change the words on my website. And I said a prayer that night that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me. Because when we do that - when we open our hearts and our minds to those who may not think like we do or believe what we do - that's when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.

That's when we begin to say, "Maybe we won't agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions.

So let's work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term. Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women."

Understand - I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. No matter how much we may want to fudge it - indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory - the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature. (Text of Obama Speech at the University of Notre Dame.)


There is no "common ground" between truth and error, between good and evil. The precepts of the Fifth Commandment make it clear that it is never permissible to directly intend to kill an innocent human being as the first end of a moral act.

An expectant mother has no "decision" to make when she discovers that she is carrying a child in her womb. She has a baby to nurture unto birth and then to bring to the Baptismal font to be made a spiritual child by adoption of the Most Blessed Trinity, Whose very inner life is flooded into that baby's soul as the Original Sin and that soul's captivity to the devil is flooded out of it. There is no "decision" to be made. There is no "choice" to be made. There is God's Holy Will to fulfill with love and with perfection, made possible by the supernatural helps won for us by the shedding of every single drop of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross and that flow into human hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces.


© Copyright 2012, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.