March Of The Tooth Fairies
Thomas A. Droleskey
One of the first articles that I wrote in the year 2000 election cycle was one that appeared in The Wanderer and in the printed pages of the old Christ or Chaos journal that existed between September of 1996 and June of 2003. That article was entitled "Believing in the Tooth Fairy" and it dealt with the delusional belief that the then Governor of Texas, George Walker Bush, who had been anointed by most "mainstream" pro-life activists as the "Bob Dole of 2000" (that is, the "electable" candidate), was a staunch "pro-life" champion when he was nothing of the sort. I wrote article after article to hammer this theme home in 1999 and 2000, something that did not win me many friends (my work has never been about popularity or currying favor with prevailing sentiment) and did indeed earn me the scorn and the wrath of a lot of people across the nation.
I continued the use of facts and logic once that George Walker Bush was sworn in as President of the United States of America on Saturday, January 20, 2001, writing the following in the printed pages of Christ or Chaos on the very day of that inauguration:
More than 4,000 children are butchered alive in their mothers’ womb each day in this country under the cover of law. Each of those children has an immortal soul made in the image and likeness of the Blessed Trinity. Each of those children has done no wrong. Their only “crime” has been to be conceived as the natural fruit of human conjugal relations. Our religiously indifferentist, culturally relativistic, and legally positivistic society, however, sees fit to misuse language as a means of denying the humanity of those slaughtered innocents, content to anesthetize the evil done to them by enticing us with the empty show of bread and circuses. Even pro-life Catholics have learned to live with the evil in our midst in order to convince themselves that it is neither wise nor prudent to talk in plain terms about it. That is largely for fear of alienating careerist politicians who do not understand the necessity of risking political capital by using the forums provided them to subordinate human law to the binding, immutable precepts of the Divine positive law and the natural law.
Sadly, the events leading up to the inauguration of President George Walker Bush on January 20 proved the analysis offered in my newsletter, Christ or Chaos, for the past two years to be only too correct. I take no satisfaction whatsoever in that. But what is truly heartbreaking is the extent to which good, honest, decent people are willing to suspend rational thought in order to place something approaching religious faith in a man who has betrayed the pro-life cause over and over and over again — a shallow, hollow man who does not wake up each morning thinking about the carnage American civil law permits to take place in abortuaries and hospitals from one coast to the other, from north to south. Thus, although I have recited endlessly the facts about the new president’s cynical strategy of appeasing pro-lifers with empty slogans (and actions on the margins of the issue that are designed to do just enough to keep pro-life Indians on the reservation), it is important for the sake of the permanent record to calmly and dispassionately use the light of cold reason to try once more to dispel that misplaced religious faith with facts.
Words Have Meanings
Words have meanings. It is becoming increasingly clear that many pro-life Americans stand ready to spin for George W. Bush and his administration the way that the Left spun for former President Clinton and his administration of criminals. To do that, however, is to continue one of the most pernicious aspects of Clinton’s sordid legacy: his unremitting warfare against truth in every quarter of his speech and his actions. Truth is what it is. It cannot be sugar-coated. The ends never justify the means. To pretend that something is what it is not is of the Devil, not of our Blessed Lord and Savior. It is critical, therefore, to know what President George W. Bush is, not what pro-life Americans wish him to be.
President Bush is not a man of the mind. He does not read. Indeed, he partied pretty heartily until around the time he was 40. He spent two hours of his day as governor of Texas playing video golf to “relax” after going for his daily run (or exercising on the treadmill in a gym if inclement weather kept him inside). He has surrounded himself with fellow careerists, men and women who have expertise in the business of acquiring and retaining political power, but who want to avoid any issues that might offend voters, especially the life issue. That is why Bush, having been assured of tacit support from the so-called National Right to Life Committee and the Christian Coalition, did not even talk much about the issue of abortion until after he lost the New Hampshire primary last year to Arizona Senator John McCain. Bush became a born-again religious conservative in order to win the South Carolina primary, using empty slogans and promises to secure the support of voters only too eager to follow the political path charted for them by Bush’s apologists in the pro-life and “conservative” religious establishments. Bush paid attention to the life issue only intermittently after that, with now-presidential counselor Karl Rove saying quite publicly on several occasions that Bush would not be discussing it much during the campaign. Never mind that, however; pro-life voters wanted to believe in Bush with the sort of wishful thinking that led young Natalie Wood’s character in the original Miracle on 34th Street to wish herself into believing in Santa Claus.
Anyone (Howard Phillips, Judie Brown, Patrick Buchanan, yours truly) who spoke during the campaign about Bush’s actual record on the life issue was dismissed as an irritant. We were accused of wanting to elect Al Gore. We were accused of not being realistic and pragmatic in the face of the evils posed by Gore. My personal retort was rather simple: the more that we enable the so-called lesser of two evils, the higher and higher the dose of the so-called lesser evil becomes with each passing election.
Indeed, I have been contending for years that the more we enabled career politicians to appease us with empty slogans and hollow gestures, the less visible the life issue would become on the radar screen of electoral politics. Most pro-life Americans fear the evil far more than they love the good, far more than they trust in the power of the graces won for us by the shedding of our Lord’s Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross on Calvary to overcome the evils we face by our proclamation of the truth in love but without compromise. The Americanist mindset has such a hold on good people that we believe that silence on the most pressing moral issue of the day is actually a virtue, that such silence will help to promote the retardation of the culture of death incrementally. What has actually happened, though, has been the incremental institutionalization of the acceptance of the evils of contraception and abortion — and the concomitant rise of the belief that it is deleterious even to speak about those issues openly. As I have said repeatedly over the past six years or so, we have come to believe that someone who is conditionally, partially opposed to a certain form of child-killing in the later stages of pregnancy — but who actually reaffirms women’s “constitutionally protected right” to butcher their unborn child — must be hailed as a pro-life hero. We have lost our grip on reality, ladies and gentlemen.
Last month’s lead commentary in Christ or Chaos, “A Long Four Years,” noted the new president’s penchant for avoiding issues deemed to be divisive, especially if addressing such issues might be costly to him electorally. Bush has the same penchant as his father for wanting to appear above partisan politics, above those things that could divide Americans. That attitude is nothing other than an expression of Protestant religious indifferentism and American sentimentality and emotionalism writ large. It is sometimes necessary to challenge a citizenry on issues of fundamental justice founded in truth precisely to plant the seeds that might force them to reassess their uncritical acceptance of the premises upon which our culture of death is founded. Indeed, the host of an overnight radio program on KMOX Radio in St. Louis, Missouri, said that a guest he interviewed over the telephone prompted two hours of discussion of how to think and speak about abortion after the guest’s own interview had been concluded. The host said that the person interviewed “got people to thinking about abortion” rather than emoting about the issue, one way or the other. George W. Bush is not interested in doing any of that whatsoever.
The reality is, quite sadly, that President Bush is doing just the opposite of what one who has been entrusted with the mantle of leadership is expected by the dictates of the natural law to do. He said in an interview televised by CBS News just hours before his inauguration, “What my agenda will be is to try to reduce abortions, is to work on partial birth, banning partial birth abortion, or to work on helping states with parental notification laws. That’s a practical approach. There’s going to be abortion in America and the fundamental question is are they going to be safe, will they be numerous or not.” How is that significantly different from Bill Clinton’s slogan that abortions should be “safe, legal, and rare”? Each abortion kills a child dead. It is deadly for each child. And it is inherently unsafe of its very nature for a woman. It is never possible to make an evil act “safe” and free from all of its natural consequences, both physical and spiritual. Does not that tell you something about how hollow George W. Bush is? He believes it is important that abortions be “safe.” Words mean things.
(It is important to leave aside the issue of partial-birth abortion, which, as I have demonstrated in the past, would not save a single, solitary child from extermination; there remain two other methods of child-killing in the later stages of pregnancy that would be perfectly legal to use if the ban on partial-birth abortions should be passed by Congress and then upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, which is a problematic proposition in and of itself. Moreover, the life-of-the-mother exception in the bill is a loophole through which the proverbial Mack truck can be driven. For all of the good intentions of those who have sponsored the bill and have attempted to illustrate the horror of this particular form of child-killing, it is likely that the bill as currently written would not stop this method of child-killing from being employed. It has become an emotional red-herring to be used by phony pro-life politicians to curry favor with voters who have lost their grip on reality. Furthermore, we have come to believe — falsely — that killing a child by means of partial-birth abortion is somehow more morally heinous than killing a child by means of suction abortion or saline-solution abortion in the earlier stages of pregnancy. It is not. The deliberate execution of an innocent human is the same crime morally no matter what means are employed to effect the execution.)
Tactics of the Bush Clan
Enter Laura Bush, the new first lady of the United States. On January 19, she told Katie Couric on NBC’s Today program that she did not believe that Roe v. Wade should be reversed. She did not say that it could not be reversed, or that it was not possible for it to be reversed at this time, as her husband contended in his CBS interview that aired on the morning of his inauguration. She said that the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that sanctioned the killing of innocent unborn children in their mothers’ wombs under cover of law as a constitutionally protected “right” should not be reversed. All of that is an old trick of the Bush clan that needs to be examined briefly.
There was a time during the administration of President George Herbert Walker Bush when the entire Bush clan was gathered for a July Fourth picnic in the family compound at Kennebunkport, Maine. White House Press Secretary Marlin Fitzwater made it a point to reveal to the media that during the picnic the Bushes had quite a heated discussion about abortion. The men were said to be pro-life, the women were said to be “pro-choice.” It was all quite carefully orchestrated as a means of portraying the Bushes as being just like any other American family: torn apart by this “divisive” issue. However, it also helped complete the portrait that Bush the elder wanted to paint of trying to be all things to all people. The Bush women “understood” how abortion was a “difficult” issue for women. The Bush men were the defenders of traditional “family values,” but more than willing to consider the “opinions” of those who struggled with the issue. I filed that one away in the old cerebral website. Thus, Laura Bush’s proclamation that Roe v. Wade should not be reversed is really not news at all. It is merely a cynical effort to try to let the pro-aborts of America know they have a first lady who, though married to a man who says he is pro-life, understands their point of view and does not want “settled” law unsettled.
Remember, Barbara Bush, the mother of the newly inaugurated president, made a a point of saying that she was “pro-choice,” taking issue with her husband. (Taking that stand, by the way, is evidently a prerequisite for a Republican first lady: Betty Ford and Nancy Reagan were also pro-abortion.) Barbara Bush partly blamed the issue of abortion for the defeat of her husband by Bill Clinton in 1992. And she actually boasted last year about how her husband had appointed pro-abort David Souter to the Supreme Court in 1990, implying that her son would be as open to such a nominee as her husband had been — which, of course, her son had already proved during his time as governor of Texas, appointing pro-aborts to the Texas Supreme Court and to various judicial vacancies in lower courts, most notably the pro-abortion, pro-homosexual Martha Hill Jamison to a district court in Houston.
Laura Bush did not speak on her own authority. She is a shrewd political wife. The new president and his advisors want to cultivate the image that the Bush family is as torn by the abortion issue as many other families are. Her public disagreement with her husband, who says different things about reversing Roe v. Wade at different times, is meant to show her to be an independent thinker, her own woman, not a slave to the way her husband thinks. Her position, however, solidifies the position of women who do indeed believe they have a right to kill the fruit of their wombs, that Roe v. Wade was decided rightly. Words matter. Words have meaning. The things we say influence others, for better or for worse.
Demonstrating his utter shamelessness, George W. Bush said in the CBS interview that while he disagreed with his wife, it was not possible to reverse Roe v. Wade. Well, guess what? It will continue to get less and less possible to reverse it if those in positions of leadership and civil authority refuse to use their bully pulpits to try to change hearts and minds — and to try to make it clear that we do not wait until the last mind has been changed before attempting to conform civil law to the binding precepts of the Divine positive law and the natural law. It is a convenient and cynical surrender to the supposed hopelessness of our current cultural situation to say that it is not possible to do those things that are difficult and painful, things that could imperil one’s own electoral survival and popularity. Even the Founding Fathers of this nation, with whom I have outlined a series of profound disagreements, expected that individuals who ran for elected office would be possessed of their own convictions and would be willing to articulate those convictions without fear of electoral reprisal.
An NBC interview with the new president aired at about the same time as the CBS interview. Amazingly, Bush stated that he was pro-life, that he disagreed with his wife, that he would appoint “strict constructionists” to the Court (notwithstanding the fact that his record in Texas belies a commitment to strict constructionism). Bush wanted to appear in that interview as being the pro-life champion. No mention there of keeping abortions “safe and less numerous.” Will the real George W. Bush please stand up? Actually, the real George W. Bush has stood up: he is a man who is inconsistent in his core, does not understand issues of fundamental justice founded in truth, says different things at different times, and wants to be all things to all people. He wants people to read into his statements exactly what he hopes they will, knowing full well that a little bit of wishful thinking on the part of Clinton’s supporters has kept Clinton’s popularity quite high, yes, even after he reached a plea agreement with independent counsel Robert Ray on January 19. As I noted last year, Bush is Clinton with a Texas twang.
Obviously, even the phrase “pro-life” has lost its meaning. Those who support abortion in certain instances — rape, incest, alleged threats to the life of the mother — are deemed to be pro-life, when they are in fact just less pro-abortion than others. Additionally, a person who is truly pro-life understands that no one who supports even one abortion as a matter of principle is qualified to hold any public office, whether elected or appointed, not to mention the highest offices in the Executive Branch of the federal government of the United States.
Look at the bevy of pro-aborts President George W. Bush has appointed to his new administration: White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card; advisors Karl Rove and Mary Matalin; White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, the subject of an article in last month’s issue of Christ or Chaos; National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice; Secretary of State Colin Powell; Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, a member of the pro-population control Council for Foreign Relations; and Environmental Protection Agency administrator Christine Todd Whitman. Those people will have important voices in the new president’s administration, seeming to demonstrate once again that good, competent public servants can pursue the common good even though they are committed to an evil that is fundamentally destructive of that common good.
For example, many commentators, including Rush Limbaugh, have been dismissive of the importance of Christine Todd Whitman’s appointment as EPA administrator. After all, it has been argued, what harm can she do there? What does her support for abortion have to do with her new job? Actually, quite a lot. For a person who does not recognize that a human being is the zenith of God’s creative work — and who does not recognize that God Himself chose to be knit in His Sacred Humanity in His Blessed Mother’s womb — will not understand the proper relationship of the human being to the environment. We are not here for the environment. The environment is here for us. Yes, we must be proper stewards of the Earth. But God created the Earth for human beings to populate, master, and subdue. A person who believes that the life of even one innocent unborn child is negotiable will have no problem with the current EPA policy that subjects the bodies of aborted babies to all manner of texts to determine the impact on the human body of various toxins found in the environment. It actually matters quite a lot that Christine Todd Whitman has been appointed to run the EPA. Of course, it doesn’t matter at all if abortion is just an issue about which “good” people can disagree, right?
What About Tommy Thompson?
Secretary of Health and Human Services-designate Tommy Thompson is one of the scores of politicians who have traded for years on an undeserved reputation for being pro-life. As is the case with most supposedly pro-life politicians, he supports the killing of innocent unborn children in certain cases and should not be called pro-life. However, the National Right to Life Committee and its various state affiliates have spun reality so utterly that the average pro-lifer has been convinced that it is permissible to kill the innocent unborn in certain circumstances. Thompson is not pro-life. If anyone doubts that flat statement, consider the proof offered below.
Thompson supports embryonic stem-cell research and transplantation. He has called it vital work and has arbitrarily characterized it as moral and ethical. As most of you know, stem-cell research involves the removal of cells from living embryos for various research and transplantation purposes. The embryos, little human beings, many of whom are conceived artificially in test tubes, are then killed when the cells are removed. That is a monstrous Hitlerian nightmare. However, “pro-life” Tommy Thompson supports that monstrous, barbaric practice. Bush is on record in opposition to federal funding for stem-cell research. However, it is quite telling that he appointed a man who believes in such research as vital and ethical to be secretary of health and human services.
Thompson has also caused a furor over the French abortion pill, the human pesticide, RU-486, which the Food and Drug Administration, an agency within HHS, authorized for marketing in September during the presidential campaign. Speaking during his Senate confirmation hearings on January 19, Thompson promised a review of the “safety” of RU-486. As The New York Times reported on January 20:
“I do not intend to roll back anything unless it is proven to be unsafe,” Mr. Thompson said in response to a question from Hillary Rodham Clinton, the new Democratic senator from New York. But he quickly added, “Safety concerns are something that’s in question.” The Food and Drug Administration, a unit of the Department of Health and Human Services, has determined that RU-486 is safe and effective in inducing abortion. But Mr. Thompson, an opponent of abortion, said that the approval of the drug “was contentious, was controversial.” After the hearing, Mr. Thompson was asked about the safety of the drug RU-486. “It should be reviewed, and that’s what I will do,” he told reporters. He was asked to describe the safety concerns. “I don’t know the specifics,” he said. “People have told me there are some safety concerns. If there are, we want to review them.” Excuse me? “Safety concerns”? Sure, the human pesticide is unsafe for women. That’s been proven over and over again. However, it is more than unsafe for a preborn human being; it is deadly. Why is it so difficult to speak about the actual reality of what abortion does: namely, to kill a human being, whether by surgical dismemberment or chemical poisoning? And I don’t want to hear that a nominee won’t get confirmed if he speaks about such nasty little realities. People listen to confirmation hearings. And those who are steeped in cultural relativism need to have their consciences disturbed by articulate, cogent defenses of the standards of objective justice founded in truth. The reason that a pro-lifer is opposed to RU-486 is that it is a means to kill a human being, a handiwork of God’s love, in his mother’s womb. Moreover, as noted earlier, it is never possible to immunize women from the physical, emotional, and spiritual consequences of killing their unborn children, no matter what procedure or chemical is used to do so.
And What About John Ashcroft?
What about John Ashcroft? Yes, what about John Ashcroft? His story is truly, truly tragic.
As I noted in a sidebar in last month’s issue of Christ or Chaos, the attorney general-designate, though rhetorically pro-life, did a number of things as a senator to contradict his rhetoric. He was no different from 99 percent of other allegedly pro-life legislators, to be sure. Remember, only three (count them: three) senators voted against pro-abort Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1993: New Hampshire’s Bob Smith, North Carolina’s Jesse Helms, and Oklahoma’s Don Nickles. Ashcroft was not in the Senate then. However, once there, he did vote to confirm a number of Clinton’s pro-abortion judicial nominees to the U.S. District Courts and U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal. And therein lies a very interesting tale.
Ashcroft is partly responsible for the vicious attacks leveled against him by pro-abortion former Senate colleagues. That is, Ashcroft and other “pro-life” senators repeatedly rolled over for Bill Clinton, confirming almost all of his nominees to serve in the Executive Branch and on the federal judiciary. If those senatorial “pro-lifers” had half the zeal and commitment to their position as the pro-aborts had, we might have been spared the likes of Janet Reno and Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer and Donna Shalala. But, no, Republicans are ever eager to appear “fair-minded,” “open-minded,” “cooperative.” Never mind the fact that their strategy of callow appeasement to Clinton got them nowhere with the 42nd president or with the media. It got them nowhere with pro-abortion constituency groups. Clinton knew they would cave in to him over and over and over again. He spat in their eye and denounced them repeatedly for failing to cooperate with him, when the truth of the matter was that they cooperated with him all too willingly and all too frequently, as Howard Phillips has demonstrated with thorough documentation in his Howard Phillips Issues and Strategy Bulletin.
Consequently, the fact that Ashcroft was subject to vicious attacks should have surprised no one. Leftists have been given a free ride by hapless, careerist Republicans. Leftists have an agenda they want to pursue with a perverse kind of apostolic zeal and evangelical fervor. They want to prevent anyone who disagrees with them from getting into positions of governmental power. But the way to deal with those modern-day fascists is not to spin the reality of one’s own positions to cater to their own perversity and positivism. Ashcroft, though a decent man whose record was distorted and whose character was demonized relentlessly in the weeks leading up to his Senate confirmation hearing, did not acquit himself well during the hearings.
To wit, Ashcroft called abortion a “constitutionally protected health service.” It is nothing of the sort. As predicted in last month’s issue of my newsletter, he said that he would enforce the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, which has imposed federal prison terms and huge fines upon pro-life Americans who have engaged in nonviolent acts of civil disobedience in front of abortuaries, which civil disobedience is arbitrarily called “violence against women” by the pro-abortionists. One can disagree philosophically with the concept of Operation Rescue. However, those who had the courage to put their lives and liberty on the line to express their solidarity with the defenseless unborn and their mothers should not be subjected to tyrannical federal laws. They were willing to face whatever penalties a state or locality wanted to impose upon them. The fact that it is now a federal offense to engage in an act of civil disobedience is itself a crime against the State, as an unjust law is no law at all. What is truly tragic is that FACE passed in 1994 with the help of Republican legislators in both houses of Congress.
Ashcroft said that Roe v. Wade was settled law and that the Bush administration would not seek to reverse it. Bush himself had used such language during the campaign, albeit in his own typically inconsistent style, saying one thing one day and the exact opposite the next day. Settled law. Words matter. Words matter. Words matter. Civil laws that codify evil acts have to be unsettled. Do you believe that Roe v. Wade is “settled law,” and that we have to “settle” for a situation where abortions are “safe and less numerous,” as the new president said in the aforementioned CBS interview airing opposite his somewhat contradictory NBC interview on the morning of the inauguration?
“But Ashcroft might not get confirmed if he didn’t say these things,” someone might protest. Well, what good will he be as attorney general if he is going to take the view that Roe v. Wade is settled law and that Bush is right to have no litmus test for Federal judges? What good will he be if he enforces FACE and keeps in place the FBI task force that investigates “clinic violence”? And if he makes a distinction between his own personal beliefs and his duty to enforce the laws on the books? How is that last point any different from the position taken by the likes of Mario Cuomo or Edward Moore Kennedy or Joseph Biden? A public servant has the duty to pursue justice and to work to change laws that contravene the binding precepts of the Divine positive law and the natural law.
A word about that FBI task force. In 1995, during Attorney General Janet Reno’s watch, two FBI agents assigned to the task force visited a woman in Toledo, Ohio, to warn her that a letter she had written to an abortionist could be interpreted as an act of terrorism against the abortionist. The woman had simply written that she was praying for the abortionist’s conversion. The story was reported in The Wanderer at the time. (I met the parents of this woman, who is married with children, when I gave a talk in Toledo in July 1995.)
Surely, Ashcroft came under fire from the despicable Edward Moore Kennedy, who should have been excommunicated in the 1970s, along with all of the other Catholic pro-aborts in public life. Indeed, we would not have a new generation of Republican Catholic pro-aborts (George Pataki, Susan Collins, Susan Molinari, Rick Lazio, Tom Ridge, Rudolph Giuliani, Richard Riordan) if our bishops had excommunicated the Democratic Catholic pro-aborts when the first one of them switched from being pro-life to being pro-death. But the way to handle the likes of Kennedy is to remind him of his own former pro-life stance. Go back at him. He wasn’t going to vote for Ashcroft in any case, was he? Why do our own people believe that they have to use the language of the culture of death to convince pro-aborts that their pro-life rhetoric is simply that, rhetoric, with no relationship to the actual formulation and implementation of public policy?
Some might protest that Ashcroft was being as clever as a serpent and as innocent as a dove. Think again, friends, think again. It is not being as innocent as a dove to call abortion a “constitutionally protected health service.” And he wasn’t fooling anybody, was he? His pathetic attempt to turn himself into a man who could segregate his private views from his public actions was called by its proper name by California Senator Dianne Feinstein. Feinstein is a militant pro-abort, a senator who once refused to help a refugee from Red China who was about to be deported and forced to have an abortion in her own country. But she saw through what Ashcroft was trying to do. Ashcroft would have done better to speak his mind and let the chips fall where they might, trusting in the Providence of God to bring the result that was most pleasing to Him and for His greater honor and glory.
Consider, for example, a message which was sent to me by attorney, who is the husband of a former student of mine from Saint John's University in Jamaica, New York, during the 1984-1985 academic year:
I’m not a bit surprised at Ashcroft’s cave-in during his confirmation hearings. I pity him. When the alluring power and prestige of the office of U.S. Attorney General was dangled before Senator Ashcroft’s eyes, he lost sight of Truth and Justice. “For all that is in the world, is the concupiscence of the flesh, and the concupiscence of the eyes, and the pride of life, which is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the concupiscence thereof: but he that doth the will of God, abideth forever” (1 John 2:16–17). He could have defended the unborn and the sanctity of human life. I wish he did, for his sake. We have immortal souls. We take our personal earthly histories into eternity with us. The way I see it, he was offered an opportunity on a golden platter to give public witness and glory to God and he declined that opportunity! He was given the opportunity to atone for sins against life through his own suffering. In short, he was tempted by Satan, and fell. I pray for him, for our brother Catholic Tommy Thompson, the Bushes (who are de facto pro-abortion by saying that Roe v. Wade should stand) and all of our leaders. We need heroes for Christ. (I’d better practice what I preach, and I beg God for the grace to do so, and specifically for the grace of martyrdom.)
This wonderful young Catholic [who, it should be noted yet again in 2010, has not been a partisan of my work since I began supporting independent priests such as the late Father Frederick Schell in 2002, no less having become a sedevacantist] has a grip on the reality of the Social Reign of Christ the King and Mary our Immaculate Queen over us men and our civil societies. He gets it. Most others do not, however.
Although I have assessed the horrific anti-life record of the presidency of George Walker Bush a great deal in my writing between 2001 and 2009, it might be wise to review the facts (yes, just the facts ma'am) once again), leaving aside, of course, the fact that thousands of innocent Iraqis have been killed, wounded or displaced from their country as a result of the "pro-life" president's attempt at regime change there to replace one set of corrupt thugs with another set of corrupt thugs who have the respectable "cover" provided them by having been elected (sort of sounds like the United States of America, doesn't it):
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 support "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
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.
Enter Laura Bush Yet Again
Providing a bookend to her interview given on January 20, 2001, former First Lady Laura Bush has once again reaffirmed her own support for killing babies and for the "right" of those engaged in perverted acts in violation of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments to "marry." This is the shallowness of the emotionalism wrought by the Protestantism and its overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King as naturalism has produced maudlin sentimentality as the basis by which so many people, including so many Catholics who are imbued with the ethos of concilairism and drink it in day after day and week and after week in the hideous Novus Ordo service, make moral judgments that are in defiance of the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law and thus harmful to the temporal good of men and their civil societies and to the eternal good of the souls of those steeped, objectively speaking in unrepentant Mortal Sins:
When it comes to gay marriage and abortion rights, Laura Bush says she and former President George W. Bush have simply agreed to disagree. She's for both, he's against them.
The former first lady said on "Larry King Live" Tuesday she "totally" understands "what George thinks and what other people think about marriage being between a man and a woman. . . . But I also know that, you know, when couples are committed to each other and love each other that they ought to have, I think, the same sort of rights that everyone has."
"You think [legalization of same sex marriage] is coming?" King asked.
Citing a "generational" shift in opinion on the issue, she replied, "Yeah, that will come, I think."
Mrs. Bush also said she believes abortion should remain legal -- and has held that view for years -- and she recalled telling an interviewer on the day her husband took office in 2001 that she did not think Roe v. Wade should be overturned.
"This was the very morning my husband was about to be inaugurated," she explained to King. "And I thought, do I really want to start my husband's presidency, you know, suggesting that a Supreme Court rule being overturned? And I said no."
But she said abortion is "important for medical reasons, and other reasons."
Laura Bush, who is promoting her book "Spoken From the Heart," acknowledged that gay marriage was a key social issue in her husband's 2004 reelection campaign. After gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts, the president endorsed a constitutional amendment that would prohibit it. "I understand his viewpoint," she said. "And he understands mine." (Laura Bush Backs Gay Marriage, Abortion Rights .)
Just a "difficult" issue about which people may disagree legitimately? Even spouses can just agree to disagree? No big deal.
Awash in the flood of Protestant and Judaeo-Masonic errors that have swept over once Catholic Texas and produced one "mega-church" of error and deceit and fraud and false worship after another, a tidal wave of error that has washed over some members of my own family, Laura Bush does not recognize that God's love for us is an act of His Divine Will, the ultimate expression of which is the salvation of our immortal souls as members of the Catholic Church who persist until our dying breaths in a state of Sanctifying Grace.
We must have the same love for others that God has for us, meaning that the only kind of true love for others is that which wills their good. We must do or say nothing that might interfere with the salvation of another person's immortal soul as a member of the Catholic Church.
We cannot reaffirm others who are steeped in lives of unrepentant Mortal Sin.
We cannot applaud others who are steeped steeped in lives of unrepentant Mortal Sin.
We do not "love" others if we persist in sin with them or lead them into sin in any way.
True love consists in helping ourselves and those around us get home to Heaven as members of the Catholic Church
Baby-billing is evil. It is in violation of Fifth Commandment's binding prohibition against the direct, intentional taking of any innocent human life under any conditions or circumstances whatsoever.
Perverse sins against nature are evil. They are in violation of the binding precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments.
Alas, what does this matter to a Methodist who is steeped in the errors of an utterly false, diabolical religion that is itself an offshoot of false, diabolical religion of Anglicanism, which was created by a lustful king who desired to justify marrying his mistress? Nothing. Nothing at all.
It's not as though the slaughter of over fifty million babies by surgical means alone in the United States of America in the past forty-five years, to say nothing of the hundreds of millions more killed by means of abortifacient contraceptives, is offensive to God or can bring down His wrath upon men and their nations, right?
Contraception and abortion are not responsible for any of our social or economic problems today, right?
The destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah because of perverse sins against nature was merely "allegorical," right? God has changed, right? He is no longer displeased by these sins, right.
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 Hoyers and so many others. 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.
We are praying for the celebration of Pentecost Sunday in but eight days. May we use this time of patient expectation in fervent prayer, remembering to pray the
Novena to God the Holy Ghost with great devotion as we need the help of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity 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 participate in the march of the tooth fairies, those who project into the thoughts of career politicians and their spouses our own deepest beliefs and/or discount their promotion of various evils as "no big deal" simply because they are "nice" and "meant" 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!
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.
Saint John Baptist de la Salle, pray for us.
See also: A Litany of Saints