More Committed to Error Than We Are to Truth
Thomas A. Droleskey
A lot of commentators in the lucrative world of naturalist "talking heads," people who get paid very well as they blather and blather and blather about how little they know concerning First and Last Things, are astounded, it would seem from a perusal of internet reports, that our now vacationing (excuse me, "traveling") caesar, Barack Hussein Obama, and the petty little caeserette who turns over the gavel as Speaker of the United States House of Representatives on January 3, 2011, Nancy Patricia D'Alesandro Pelosi, are standing firm in their efforts to prevent any repeal of ObamaCare and other measures that cost over sixty Democrats their seats in the House and saw Republicans gain six seats in the United States Senate. Obama and Pelosi are not going to change course, something that has surprised a lot of veteran observers of the Washington scene, including some who are of the "leftist" bent.
Why the surprise? Barack Hussein Obama and Nancy Patricia D'Alesandro Pelosi are absolutely committed to their pro-abortion, statist agenda. They believe that they are correct. They do not want to listen to the voice of the "people" any more than their false opposites in the other organized crime family of naturalism, the Republican Party, want to listen to the voice of "people" except when it is convenient for them to do so. It is, however, interesting to note that the naturalists of the "left" are usually, although not always, more committed to defying what is considered to be the will of the "people" than are the Republicans, who are desperate, at least in most cases, to appeal to "the people" are election time even though they may not have any well-defined programs other than being the handy instruments by which the "people" may enable their careers while registering a protest vote against a particular president's policies. In both cases, however, no one among these naturalists is listening the voice of God as He has may It abundantly clearly through His Catholic Church.
If people are willing to scratch below the surface and avoid superficial conclusions about events in a world that has been thrown upside down by the mutually reinforcing errors of Modernity and Modernism, they would find that the naturalists of the "left" have taken true concepts and inverted them for their own nefarious purposes.
That is, most of the naturalists of the "left" believe that their ideology must be accepted without question. Those who serve as administrators of universities and colleges or as judges or as legislators or as elected executives or political appointees (such as the approximately 3700 people who serve in a president's Cabinet or in the White House) or career bureaucrats (civil servants) believe that in their policies dogmatically. Most of these naturalists believe that "the government" is true secular "church," outside of which no one is free to govern his own life. They believe that those who dissent from their political dogmas are, in essence, "heretics," if you will, who must be burned at the stake, figuratively speaking. Most of these people believe that the citizens are indeed the "mere creatures of the state" who must obey them, who have been given the necessity tools to order social and economic life to achieve what they consider to be "justice."
Although it is considered incendiary to call such people Marxists, this is indeed what they all. They admire the likes of Fidel Castro in Communist Cuba and Hugo Chavez's authoritarian regime in Venezuela. Some of them were open admirers of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua and the El Salvadoran rebels during the 1980s. (The Sandinistas are, of course, back in power in Nicaragua, having won at polls on November 5, 2006,what they lost there on February 25, 1990, after ten and one-half years of brutal, murderous Communist rule in this central American country. Ah, yes, the voice of the "people." President Daniel Ortega, who ordered the slaughter of the Mesquite Indians in Nicaragua and who repressed political opposition from 1979 to 2000, was congratulated on his victory by two of his strongest supporters, James Earl Carter, Jr., who wept openly at Ortega's loss to Violetta Chamorro in 1990, and one Fidel Castro.) Our "leftists" believe in all of the shibboleths of egalitarianism, except, of course, that they believe themselves to be more "equal" than anyone else, and feminism and environmentalism and evolutionism and redistributionism. They believe that they have the right to dictate to the citizens how much of their money they can keep, what they can do with it, what they should eat, at what temperatures they may heat or cool their houses. Some would like to control how much gasoline that the "people" could purchase in a given money to "save" the environment.
Such people are not prone to compromise. They believe in their false dogmas with religious fervor. Some of them truly hate anyone who dares to disagree with them, whether that disagreement stem from an objective presentation of facts on the merely natural level attesting to their lies and misrepresentations or from those who user deeper, supernatural arguments to demonstrate that they, the leftists, are enemies of Christ the King and thus of all legitimate social order. The naturalists of the false opposite of the "left" will cling tenaciously, yes, even to the point of their political deaths, to whatever policy gains they have achieved by their fraudulent assertions and/or the use of raw political power.
This is why the soon-to-be House Minority Leader, Nancy Patricia D'Alesandro Pelosi (D-California), and the re-elected and reinvigorated Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid (D-Nevada), will thwart any effort on the part of House Republicans to overturn ObamaCare en toto or even to try to "de-fund" its implementation. They are not going to give up what they were able to obtain in the past two years. United States Senator Thomas Harkin, an egregious Catholic pro-abort from the State of Iowa, made it clear that he has no intention of backing down on any part of ObamaCare, including striking down its funding of surgical baby-killing (the chemical assassination of children is funded in many existing private insurance plans as well as by the Federal government itself by means of domestic and international "family planning" programs):
Anticipating the Republican assault, White House officials said Mr. Obama would emphasize how the law protects consumers and gives them more control of their insurance. Administration officials are working with Senate Democrats to arrange hearings at which consumers would explain how they have already benefited from the law.
One of the president’s strongest allies is Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, an architect of the law. Mr. Harkin said he would “fight any attempt to defund the law or repeal its consumer protections.” He is well placed to lead such resistance. He is chairman of the Senate’s health committee and of its Appropriations subcommittee responsible for health programs.
The number and variety of restrictions Congress can impose in spending bills is almost unlimited. A bill passed by the House last year, for example, stipulated that no federal money could be used to buy light bulbs unless they met certain energy efficiency standards. The same bill said, “No funds appropriated in this act may be used for the transportation of students or teachers in order to overcome racial imbalance in any school.”
House Republicans could easily pass similar provisos stating that no federal money could be used to carry out specific sections of the new health care law.
By attaching the restrictions to appropriations bills, House Republicans can force negotiations with the Senate. The Hyde amendment, restricting the use of federal money to pay for abortion, began as such a rider more than 30 years ago. (G.O.P. Plans to Use Purse Strings to Fight Health Law.)
Senate Democrats will hold firm in their support for ObamaCare and other statist evils. Little that is passed by the United States House of Representatives will be passed by the United States Senate, although House votes will force various appropriations bills to go into the "reconciliation" process (as noted in The New York Times story above). Moreover, our pouting caesar, President Barack Hussein Obama, who has now admitted, albeit grudgingly, that he may have strayed from his 2008 promises to "change the tone" in Washington, District of Columbia (see Obama Says Vote Turned on Economy), has a number of creative "bookkeeping" ways to allot monies to blunt at least a few Republican efforts to de-fund the implementation of ObamaCare. It's a game.
Yes, the "left" is committed to statism.
The "left" is committed to surgical abortion-on-demand without any restrictions whatsoever.
The "right," on the other hand, is committed to one thing: getting elected for the sake of getting elected. Period. The most pressing moral issue of our day, the daily slaughter of the innocent preborn, has disappeared from the agenda of the "right" because the "people" are concerned about King Money. Republican careerists and even some of the Tax Enough Already Party members who were elected to Congress on November 2, 2012, are concerned only about the "money," oblivious to the fact that that God is never going to allow a nation that kills over four thousand innocent babies a day by surgical means, not even counting the thousands more who are killed by means of chemical abortifacients, under cover of the civil law to know long term economic prosperity. Look at those candidates' websites. Most of them did not mention abortion whatsoever. Some, like the much vaunted Senator-elect Marco Rubio from Florida, wouldn't even address the issue when debating his chief opponent, the slimy chameleon known by the name of Charlie Christ, the outgoing Governor of Florida.
This is progress? What about truth? What about planting seeds to change hearts and minds? If one believes there is some utility in running for office, one must speak to the truth as there is not one blessed example that can be cited of a candidate who kept his mouth shut on the "social issues" in order to win an office becoming an outspoken advocate of those issues once elected. Compromise once to get elected, compromise again and again and again to stay elected and then to get elected to some "better" office. It's a farce from beginning to end as it is all based in naturalism and not in pleasing the true God of Divine Revelation as He has revealed Himself to us through His true Church.
Babies are being killed at more or less the same rate now as they were after the elections of 1974, 1976, 1978, 1980, 1982, 1984, 1986, 1988, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2008. No naturalistic farce called an election has ever saved a single, solitary baby from execution under cover of the civil law. When are we going to learn? When?
There is no support in the exit polling data that a majority of voters were voting against the Obama administration. They were concerned about King Money:
Surveys of voters at polling places showed that 37 percent said last Tuesday they were casting their votes to express opposition to Mr. Obama’s policies, while 24 percent said they were supporting his policies. The rest said he was not the impetus for their vote. Those numbers are almost identical to those in 2006 when voters cast judgment on President George W. Bush’s policies and Democrats seized control of Congress in a mid-term election they cast as a referendum on the incumbent president. (Obama Says Vote Turned on Economy.)
Come, my few and once again vanishing readers, when are we going to learn? Republicans have repeatedly backed off of the single most important moral issue of the day in order to themselves more "marketable" in the eyes of the "moderates" who are concerned about "King Money," "Queen Money," "Prince Money, "Princess Money," and just plain "Citizen Money." No country is great if it is reduced merely to the level of being concerned about material prosperity. Orestes Brownson pointed this out in
National Greatness in 1845. So did Pope Leo XIII, writing in Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900:
Once the idea of the authority of God as the Judge of right and wrong is forgotten, law must necessarily lose its primary authority and justice must perish: and these are the two most powerful and most necessary bonds of society. Similarly, once the hope and expectation of eternal happiness is taken away, temporal goods will be greedily sought after. Every man will strive to secure the largest share for himself. Hence arise envy, jealousy, hatred. The consequences are conspiracy, anarchy, nihilism. There is neither peace abroad nor security at home. Public life is stained with crime. (Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900.)
Establishment Republicans have used the bogeymen in the Democratic Party to instill so much fear in the minds of "pro-life" voters that they, the voters, will vote for completely open pro-aborts because Republican Party pro-aborts are, they reason, "better" than Democratic Party pro-aborts. Voters in the State of Connecticut were faced with the diabolical choices of pro-abortion candidates for the state's governorship (Republican Thomas Foley, Democrat Daniel Malloy) and open seat in the United States Senate (Republican Linda McMahon, Democrat Richard Blumenthal) in both major political parties. This is progress? And this is to say nothing about the open advances that establishment Republicans have made to court so-called "gay voters." This is not progress. This is madness writ large. Absurdity. Have we lost all sense of what Silvio Cardinal Antoniano wrote in the Sixteenth Century?
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 currently vacationing (I mean, traveling) caesar knows that his enemies (I mean, opponents) in the Republican Party have a lot of internal divisions. It thus quite appropriate to repeat the extrapolation that I made from ceasar's press conference of five days ago, providing you this time with the "hard numbers" that go into caesar's reasoning that he can stiff the Republicans in Congress and still get re-elected by making the appearance of "bi-partisan" gestures:
Permit me to extrapolate yet again, therefore, what the pouting caesar meant to communicate at this press conference five days ago:
All right. My advisers told me to beat up on myself out here, to admit that I've taken a shellacking. It's one that I don't deserve, however. The Republicans were able to close the deal in various House and state legislative races. They couldn't close the deal on some Senate races that were close. This means that I still have a base of support among the people, especially on the coasts, to begin my re-election campaign, and I am not going to anger my liberal base by revisiting ObamaCare. My liberal base is already upset enough with me for not giving them a full-throated, avowedly nationalized system of health care by means of the "public option." I cannot and I will not alienate my liberal base any more by caving to Republicans on an issue that is settled.
Indeed, do you really know what I am going to do: I am going to spend the next two years oozing niceness, inviting Republicans to dinners and luncheons and retreats at Camp David, a place I abhor as I am not a rustic kind of guy. I will give them all kinds of photo ops. And then I will blame them for being absolutely intransigent, for being ideologues who stand in the way of progress whenever I propose compromises that I know for a fact are dead-on-arrival.
I will accuse these right-wing fanatics, these lunatics from the fringe, of slowing down progress every time they issue a subpoena to harass and intimidate me. I will posture and preen before the cameras as I am doing now. And I believe that I have enough core support at this time to win the States of New York (31 electoral votes), New Jersey (14 electoral votes), New Mexico (5 electoral votes, Nevada (5 electoral votes), Minnesota (10 electoral votes), Connecticut (7 electoral votes), Rhode Island (4 electoral votes), Vermont (3 electoral votes), Massachusetts (12 electoral votes), Maryland (10 electoral votes), Delaware (3 electoral votes), Illinois (21 electoral votes), California (55 electoral votes), Oregon (7 electoral votes), Washington (11 votes), Hawaii (4 electoral votes), the District of Columbia (3 electoral votes), and West Virginia (5 electoral votes) without any questions at all. I start my re-election campaign now with a guarantee of at least 210 electoral votes.
I can probably get Pennsylvania's twenty-one electoral votes, but I have to turn out my base in Philadelphia to do that. If so, then I will have 231 electoral votes in my pocket. I will only need thirty-nine more electoral votes to get re-elected. Colorado has nine electoral votes. I think I will win there. Michigan and Wisconsin are winnable in a presidential election. That's an aggregate of twenty-seven more votes. I'm home. I don't need no stinkin' compromise with my enemies, er, I mean my opponents, the Republicans. I don't even need to win Ohio's twenty electoral votes, although it will be a battleground state. So will Missouri, which has eleven electoral votes. I can even win without Florida's twenty-seven electoral votes. Bring it on, Republicans. I dare you to take me down in 2012.
Independent voters may have abandoned the Democratic Party this year. They will come back to me, especially if Republicans nominate another Bob Dole figure or if they wind up nominating Sarah Palin, who I don't think could carry her home State of Alaska at this point.
Any more questions?
If you don't think I know my numbers, folks, well, check back with me in two years. I gave similar analyses about the 2000 election in 1999 and about the 2008 election in 2007 and 2008 (I observed a self-imposed moratorium on election commentary during the 2004 election after the "pro-life" president, George Walker Bush, endorsed the pro-abortion Arlen Specter in his Republican Party primary race in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania against the partly pro-life, partly pro-abortion United States Representative Patrick Toomey, who, as a former member of the United States of Representatives, defeated United States Representative Joseph Sestak on November 2, 2010, for the seat held currently by Specter, who bolted back to the party of his youth, the Democratic Party, in 2009). Those analyses proved correct as each presidential election is a contest for "battleground" states. Anyone who think that a naturalist of the Republican ilk is going to the electoral votes of, say, California, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, Massachusetts, Delaware, Maryland, Illinois, or the District of Columbia anytime soon is not facing reality squarely. (Look at the Exit Polling Data and compare it to the data for the 2008 election. You will see that the coasts are "sewn up" for Obama.)
Those numbers above do not lie. They are the electoral reality of the November 6, 2012, presidential election. And there is are two reasons why those numbers are what they are: 1) Twenty-nine percent of those who voted for Obama in 2008 did not vote on November 2, 2010. That will not be the case in 2012 as Obama fights for his political life. And 2) Catholics who live in the states on the coasts (and in Illinois) know that they can vote with impunity for open pro-aborts without a word of protest from their local conciliar "bishops." Sure, the Catholic vote nationally in the 2012 election cut fifty-five percent for Republican naturalists and forty-five percent for Democrat naturalists. What was this vote in New York, for example.
To wit, what percentage of Catholics voted for the pro-abort, pro-perversity Andrew Cuomo, who has presidential aspirations of his very own (he wants to become the first "Italian-American" president). Where was "Archbishop" Timothy "I aim to be a happy 'bishop'" Dolan? Did he tell Catholics that it is a Mortal Sin, objectively speaking, to vote for Cuomo or for other pro-aborts? No, he was silent. The entire conference of conciliar "bishops," who will hold annual general assembly in Baltimore, Maryland, from November 15-18, 2010 (at which the conciliar "bishops" will vote on a
baptism agreement with "reformed Christians), has "bailed" on speaking out at election time, noting only a few exceptions here and there. Hardly a peep was heard from any of the conciliar "bishops" this time around. Catholics know that they can vote for open pro-aborts and that they can be open pro-aborts with very few words of protest from the conciliar authorities. How many professors in supposedly "Catholic" universities, including priests and presbyters and religious, are openly pro-abortion? Quite a lot. Quite a lot.
The late Joseph "Cardinal" Bernardin's "consistent ethic of life," known colloquially as "the seamless" garment (to be "pro-life" one must be opposed not only to abortion but to the death penalty and one must support various government redistribution programs that are said to aid those who live in material poverty in the name of "economic justice"), has prevailed. Just take a look at the "pastoral guidelines" issued for conciliar pastors to abide by during an election, Do's And Don'ts: Political Responsibility Guidelines to Keep in Mind during Election Season, if you think that I am exaggerating the case here. Indeed, tomorrow's article will be a very slight revision of material in my own book about voting that was published twelve years ago that dealt with the simple fact that the conciliar "bishops," whose validity I accepted at the time of my book's publication, are hiding behind a desire to protect their precious tax-exempt status that is already protected by a proper understanding of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
While the false "pontiff," Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, was in Spain the past two days decrying the loss of the Christian culture that once characterized Europe, he and his bishops speak only about producing some kind of generic Christianity that is simply not good enough for God. Ratzinger/Benedict decried in very strong terms offenses against the family and the inviolability of innocent human life during the "homily" that he gave at the "dedication" of what appears from its exterior to be a absolute monstrosity of a conciliar church, the Basilica of Sagrada Familia in Barcelona, Spain, without exhorting Europe to return to Catholicism.
He, Ratzinger/Benedict refuses to accept the simple truth that Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order.
The false "pontiff" himself rejects what he calls disparagingly the "ecumenism of the return" that true pope after true pope has taught us is the only way to approach those outside of the Catholic Church.
And, quite tellingly, Ratzinger/Benedict refuses to discipline, at least in most cases, those Catholics in public life, including Vice President Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., and Nancy Patricia D'Alesandro Pelosi and United States Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius and newly re-elected United States Senators Patricia Murray and Patrick Leahy and Governor-elect Daniel Malloy of Connecticut, who support one moral evil after another, including the ones he denounced in Barcelona yesterday. Remember, Edward Moore Kennedy? You don't. Here's a review for you: Another Victim of Americanism; Behold The Free Rein Given to Error; Behold The Free Rein Given to Error; Unfortunate Enough to Be A Baby; Unfortunate Enough to Be A Baby; Beacon of Social Justice?; Spotlight On The Ordinary; What's Good For Teddy Is Good For Benny; Sean O'Malley: Coward and Hypocrite: More Rationalizations and Distortions. Is it any wonder that the "left" are more committed to error than most Catholics are committed to truth. The "left" know that their Catholic "enablers" will be able to support them with a perfectly clear conscience.
Those who want to think that we have made "progress" in the past few days will do so. Some of these people were in seventh heaven ten years ago when George Walker Bush won the presidency, forgetting that it was George Walker Bush's statism and overspending on domestic programs and on two needless wars that have cost us much in the blood of our own citizens (and of those of the nations we have invaded) that made the election of Democrats in 2006 and of Obama himself in 2008 possible. This is nothing other than a vicious cycle of naturalism. If the economy gets turned around and jobs start coming back by November 6, 2012, the currently reigning caesar will reign for another four years. It happened with Bill Clinton, didn't it? Why do we think that it will not happen again?
Let me reiterate what I wrote a few days ago: Men, whether acting individually or collectively, deceive themselves if they think that they can make the world a "better" place absent a profound devotion to Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary. Our Lady told us in the Cova da Iria near Fatima, Portugal, ninety-three years ago that we must pray the Rosary to console the good God and to make reparation for our sins as we pray for the conversion of poor sinners and for the faithful fulfillment of her Fatima Message. This is a work of the Mercy of the Divine Redeemer, Who is giving us every chance to repent and convert. Why do men still persist in their obstinate refusal to take Our Lady's Fatima Message seriously and to organize Rosary processions and rallies to counter the naturalism of the day and to serve as valiant champions of Christ the King?
We must not be distracted by the side shows of naturalism or conciliarism. We must serve as champions of Christ the King through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, especially by praying as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits.
What are we waiting for?
Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!
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.
See also: A Litany of Saints