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

                 July 13, 2012


Playing It Safe Is Playing to Lose

by Thomas A. Droleskey

The fraud that is the American political system is as wearying to me as is the madness of the counterfeit church of conciliarism. Indeed, I have just reviewed articles of mine from 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008 that described the haplessness of the presidential candidates of the false opposite of the naturalist "right," men who believed in nothing other than the advancement of their own careers, men who are so tightly wound together by their political strategists and pollsters that they have no basis to speak extemporaneously without their "talking points" for the day. There is nothing "new" that I can add to what I have written in the past.

What I will try to do in this brief article, therefore, is to provide a context for readers who do not remember the details from past farces so that they can understand why Willard Mitt Romney, as tightly wound and programmed a naturalist of the "right" as there has ever been, is going to lose by pretty much the same margin Barack Hussein Obama on Tuesday, November 6, 2012, as did the meandering, moody, sometimes explosively unstable and inconsistent John Sidney McCain III on Tuesday, November 4, 2008. Those who believe in nothing except their own career self-advancement will always be chewed alive by their number amongst the ranks of the false opposite of the naturalist "left," composed, of course, by people who believe that their supposed "moral superiority" entitles them to eviscerate anyone who dares to oppose them by the use of one mechanistic slogan after another.

Here is a bit of what of I wrote after the farce of the election held on Tuesday, November 7, 2000, but before the election was effectively decided when the Supreme Court of the United States of America issued its decision in the case of Bush v. Gore late in the evening of Tuesday, December 12, 2000, the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe, at a time when I still participated in the farce:

The very narrowness of the 2000 presidential election speaks volumes about the fruit of the fallacious nature of this country’s founding. Bad ideas lead to bad consequences. The idea that it is possible for men of differing beliefs to pursue the common good without reference to the authority of the Catholic Church as the ultimate arbiter of the Natural Law is false. Ironically, that idea is what is common to the Calvinists who landed at Plymouth Rock and the Freemasons of the lodges of the eighteenth century. As Pope Leo XIII noted in Immortale Dei, religious indifferentism leads to the triumph of atheism in every aspect of a nation’s life. And a country that relies upon a written document as the sole basis of governmental legitimacy and the propriety of public policy will travel all too naturally down the path of social chaos, expedited by the forces of positivism and deconstructionism. That is why the United States of America is so divided at present.

It is divided into many different camps. Essentially, however, it is afflicted by those who have been catechized and evangelized by the spirit of religious indifferentism, cultural pluralism, legal positivism, moral relativism, and the whole gamut of statist policies into believing that we are the masters of our own destiny. The majoritarianism of John Locke and the “general will” of Jean-Jacques Rousseau have created an atmosphere in which the average person has come to believe that morality is determined at the ballot box or by those who serve in the institutions of civil governance. The very people who reject uncritically even the possibility of the infallibility of the Successor of Saint Peter accept with total faith whatever it is the scions of our popular culture propose to be preached by the ethos of political correctness. The very people who say they do not believe in creedal religion accept secularism as the civil religion of our day, coming to resent anyone and everyone who dares to speak in denominational terms. Thus, the promoters of contraception and abortion and sodomy and state control of education and all manner of statist and redistributionist programs are seen as the defenders of truth. Those who represent any threat to that state of things, no matter how shallow or insincere the threat may be, are seen as enemies of the people.

That is what accounts for the fact that Albert Arnold Gore Jr. won the national popular vote on Tuesday, November 7. Indeed, he would have won the presidency outright in the Electoral College (the allegedly disputed popular votes in Florida notwithstanding) had Ralph Nader not been in the race as the Green Party’s presidential nominee. Gore’s national total would have eclipsed Texas Governor George W. Bush’s by more than a million votes, at least. This is a far different nation than it was in 1980 when former California Governor Ronald Reagan defeated President Jimmy Carter. Millions of young people have grown up knowing nothing other than legalized baby-killing and a veritable panoply of state-sponsored and administered goodies. Those young people, many of whom are living as the barbarians of yore, are voting. And they are not voting for anyone who appears to be a threat to the lifestyle they have been convinced that they have the right and moral duty to pursue and to uphold.

Added to that mix is the fact that many Catholics continue to support the pro-abortion Democratic Party most reflexively. Viewing the Church as an illegitimate interloper in matters of public policy and electoral politics, many Catholics see nothing wrong with voting for candidates who promote the mystical destruction of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the womb under cover of law. They incant all manner of slogans designed to put an end to rational thought. Permitting sentimentality and emotion to triumph over rational thought and the truths of the Holy Faith, such Catholics are frequently reaffirmed in their attachment to a pro-abortion political party by their pastors, men who themselves are at war with the Church, both doctrinally and liturgically. It is a matter of great urgency for all believing Catholics, both priests and laity alike, to catechize those people, which is one of the principal reasons I wrote Christ in the Voting Booth, a book that I continue to believe can be of service in helping pro-abortion Catholics understand the faith and act in concert with the truths Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ revealed to the Apostles and entrusted through them to the care of His Church under the guidance of the Holy Ghost.

Unfortunately, however, a great many pro-life Catholics also suspend rational thought in order to place their trust in electoral politics. Rejecting the belief that the faith can be used in our civil discourse, those good people believe that in the voting booth they must prefer anyone who is said to be a “lesser evil” than some other candidate, while eschewing all candidates of conscience as actual obstacles to the advancement of the culture of life. What they fail to realize is that their misplaced (and constantly betrayed) trust in careerist politicians continues to retard — not advance — the very goals they think can be promoted by their belief in so-called pragmatism and incrementalism. Moreover, whenever someone presents facts showing how bad a particular candidate they support actually is, they respond with statements of unjustified “faith” that the candidate will change over the course of time (and for the better), all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. Indeed, many pro-life voters simply scoffed at Bush’s firm pro-abortion record in public life. They are unwilling to accept the fact that a person who supports even one abortion as a matter of principle is not pro-life and therefore should not be called a “pro-life” politician. That permits a certain mythology to triumph — the mythology crafted to advance the career of professional politicians who believe that we exist to enable them to win office. Such pols will say just enough during campaigns to convince voters who fear the evil more than they love the good to stay in the Republican camp, and if elected they will do just enough on the margin to demonstrate their bona fides. And just as pro-abortion Catholics are enabled by pastors who are of a like mind politically, many good pro-life Catholics are enabled in their reflexive attachment to the Republican Party by priests who believe that the current embodiment of “electability” will carry the day at the polls and will do at least a few things to promote the culture of life.

Pragmatism and incrementalism have produced disastrous results for the cause of fundamental justice founded in truth. Weak candidates who do not understand the life issue (Bob Dole, George W. Bush) are certified as electable. Candidates who do understand the issue — and who can articulate it eloquently (Patrick Buchanan, Howard Phillips, Alan Keyes, Gary Bauer) — never receive the backing of the establishment pro-life community. Nor do they win the backing of certain priests who trade on their reputations as spiritual guides to lead Catholics who do not regularly follow the details of politics into accepting what is represented as received truth from the hand of God Himself. Like lemmings, pro-life Catholics unhesitatingly follow the advice they are given by the pro-abortion National Right to Life Committee and by Father Frank Pavone, who has bought into the committee’s political agenda. Candidates of conscience are viewed with disdain as the instrumentalities by which the supposedly “greater evil” might be elected (by draining votes away from the “lesser evil”), not as the means by which truth itself might be given a forum in the realm of electoral politics — and not as the means by which the voiceless unborn might be given voice in the course of public policy debate.

Although the realities of our current political structure militate against the viability of third parties, those who run as candidates of conscience nevertheless do help keep the life issue alive. They do not succumb to the pressures of political expediency. Such candidates understand that they will be opposed vigorously by those who worship at the altar of pragmatism, which never brings the practical political “success” that it is supposed to produce. And professional politicians do read the results of elections quite closely. The extent to which voters support third parties is a barometer that pols can use to measure how far they can drift in one direction or another; a significant shift of voter support to a third party tells establishment pols that they’d better respond in some way. Those who contend that votes do not carry a symbolic weight are very much mistaken. They do. And while it remains my belief that the current political structure is closed to the sort of “electoral success” promised us by the pragmatists and incrementalists, we nevertheless must be tireless in raising our voices as Catholics in the realm of civil discourse, no matter how much opprobrium we bring upon our heads as a result.

The political analysis I have been providing over the course of the past few years in Christ or Chaos has proven to be right on the money. I expressed my doubt that George W. Bush could win the White House, in light of his intellectual shallowness and in light of the cultural factors facing our nation described earlier in this essay. As noted, Bush lost the popular vote, a loss that would have been exponentially greater had Nader not been in the race.

Furthermore, I indicated in the most recent issue of Christ or Chaos that certain states — New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont — were bound to fall into the Gore camp. Although I believed a vote of conscience was always the right vote to cast as a matter of principle, people in those states had a veritable “free throw” to cast for Buchanan or Phillips. We elect the president through the Electoral College; the national popular vote total is irrelevant. What matters is the popular vote total in the individual states. Anyone who knows anything about practical politics — and it’s amazing to me how unrealistic the so-called pragmatists actually are when they make their supposedly clever judgments about how to vote in particular elections — knows that the states listed above have tended toward the Democratic Party in national elections. The same people who used national polling data to browbeat supporters of Buchanan and Phillips into voting for Bush simply refused to believe the state-by-state polling data that showed Bush the sure loser in the ten states I’ve listed.

To wit, Mrs. Joanne McOsker, president of Catholics for Life in Rhode Island, came under fierce attack by an auxiliary bishop of the Diocese of Providence, as well as by priests, for her steadfastness in support of Buchanan. Mrs. McOsker was called all manner of names and was denounced as a person who was helping to elect Al Gore. How is a person in a state certain to be won by Gore helping to elect Gore by voting for Buchanan? Indeed, Gore won Rhode Island by a ratio of 58 percent to 37 percent. He won my home state of New York 60 percent to 36 percent. Yet pro-lifers would not believe Right to Life Party Chairman Kenneth Diem when he told them what the results would be. They wanted to be on the “winning side.” They dismissed Father Paul Driscoll’s brilliant pamphlet outlining the rationale for casting a vote of conscience, not even bothering to read it. Those who attacked Mrs. McOsker and Ken Diem were wrong. Imagine what a message could have been sent if pro-life voters voted for a genuine pro-life candidate in a state that was very safe for the pro-abort Albert Arnold Gore.

Contrary to the conventional wisdom, which maintains that the November 7 election should have been Gore’s to win as a result of the vibrant economy, Bush should have won it handily. If Bush had understood the prophetic nature of the life issue, for example, he could have hammered Gore for his support of baby-killing-on-demand under cover of law as a constitutional right. Careerist politicians believe that the life issue is a losing issue. (That’s the subject of my analysis of the Hillary Clinton-Rick Lazio U.S. Senate race in New York.) Because that is so, you see, there has never been a candidate for president from a major party who made the life issue the centerpiece of his campaign, including Reagan. Gore was given a free pass on the issue of abortion, especially when it came to the issue of RU-486, the French abortion pill, when it was raised during the first Bush-Gore debate on October 3 in Boston.

Gore was also vulnerable for being a complete and total pathological liar. However, a full-scale frontal assault on Gore’s character was never mounted. It is arguably the case that many voters would have found such an assault too offensive. Still others would have had no problem with Gore’s repeated lies, to say nothing of his demagoguery. After all, Bill Clinton remains very popular, and those who have indemnified Clinton for his behavior are prone to do the same with Gore. Nevertheless, Bush could have tried to make it a central theme of his campaign. He did not, speaking only in general terms about character and trust without reminding people consistently of the specifics of the Clinton-Gore record.

Very importantly, though, Bush’s adoption of his “compassionate conservatism” slogan yielded ground to Gore on the existence and growth of the statist, redistributionist, and collectivist policies that have helped to create a culture of dependency in this country. That is nothing new, obviously. Congressional Republicans talked big about their “Contract with America” in 1994. However, all Clinton had to do in 1995 was to blame them for the “government shutdown” he manufactured, and Republicans in Congress caved like the proverbial house of cards. The meltdown has become so bad over the years that on October 25, in a budget agreement with Clinton, congressional Republicans restored American funding of “family planning” agencies to kill babies overseas. While talking about less government out of one side of his mouth, Bush talked the statist game out of the other, appealing to the culture of dependency. Ironically but naturally enough, the statist part of his pitch rang hollow with statists. Why should voters support a “compassionate conservative” when they could have a real, full-blown Democrat?

Although more competent than the ever hapless and mercurial Dole, Bush is not a serious man of the mind. Anyone who can say that the issue of baby-killing is a matter of “opinion” (something he would never say about racism or anti-Semitism) betrays a terrible lack of depth as a thinker. Anyone who does not see the inconsistency in saying that he will welcome every child (a phrase trumpeted by the National Right to Life Committee) while supporting the destruction of certain children in certain cases is bereft of a solid philosophical core. A man who claims he would be powerless to reverse an administrative decision by an agency of the executive branch he seeks to head demonstrates a woeful ignorance of the powers of the office to which he aspires. And a person who campaigns actively with pro-abortion politicians (New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman, New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge, retired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell, and New York Governor George Pataki) tells us that he simply cannot be taken seriously as a defender of life. Could you imagine George W. Bush campaigning with someone who supported racism, for example? But those who support the slicing and dicing of little babies are qualified to hold office and are held up as veritable role models for young people who desire a career in politics themselves.

Thus, there were few things more irksome in the final days of the campaign than listening to well-meaning pro-life Catholics tell me how they were going to vote for “life.” A vote for Bush was not a vote for life. It was an understandable vote to keep Al Gore out of the White House. However, as will be demonstrated in the next section of this essay, a Bush administration would do next to nothing to advance the culture of life. For those who campaign with caution to get elected will govern with caution to get re-elected, and that’s even more the case this year given the fact that even if Bush turns out to have won Florida’s twenty-five electoral votes and manages to take office, he still will have lost the popular vote. (See Justice Will Lose No Matter Who Wins.)


Although the analysis below was not entirely accurate in some areas, it was pretty close to what actually happened during the eight years of the administration of George Walker Bush and Richard Bruce Cheney that paved the way for the election of Barack Hussein Obama and Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., on Tuesday, November 4, 2008:

Here is what we can expect if George W. Bush is sworn in as the forty-third president of the United States on January 20, 2001:

1) Bush will appoint pro-aborts throughout his administration, starting with the pro-abortion, pro-contraception Colin Powell as his secretary of state. Powell will be in charge of population policy. And you can be sure that Powell, a firm supporter of the United Nations program of population control, will pursue policies almost identical to Clinton’s on matters of “population and development.”

2) Pro-aborts will populate the Bush White House. To be sure, we will see a smattering of pro-lifers in certain positions. The various constituency groups must be thrown a few crumbs, after all. However, most of the Bush White House will be populated by very pragmatic careerists who consider their service in the White House to be a reward for their years of service to Bush personally and/or to the Republican Party generally.

3) Forget about the Supreme Court and the other courts in the federal judiciary. Bush will be very careful to nominate only those candidates who he believes are “confirmable” (a variation of “electable,” eh?). That is, the last thing in the world a President George W. Bush will want is for Roe v. Wade to be overturned during his first term. He does not want to give Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, his likely opponent in 2004 — her protestations to the contrary notwithstanding — or some other Democrat that particular issue with which to defeat him for reelection. Thus, Bush will nominate “moderates” in the mold of Sandra Day O’Connor and David Souter. It is even possible that he might elevate one of the pro-aborts he appointed to the Texas State Supreme Court.

For in addition to wanting to avoid a reversal of Roe during his first term, Bush will point to the fact that there is no longer a “pro-life” majority in the Senate. There are five fully pro-abortion Republican senators (Susan Collins and Olympia Snow of Maine, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, and Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas) who could bolt Bush on a judicial nominee if that nominee were deemed to be a threat to Roe. Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska could be thrown into that mix as well, although it is unlikely he would bolt from Bush on one of his appointments.

Additionally, there are the vacancies that occur from time to time in the twelve Circuit Courts of Appeal and the eighty-eight U.S. District Courts. Bush will appoint a variety of individuals to fill those vacancies, including pro-aborts, all of whom will be dutifully confirmed by supposedly pro-life senators, yes, the very same people who confirmed almost all of Clinton’s pro-abortion judicial nominees. Bush will play the judicial card very, very cautiously.

4) Partial-birth abortion? Even the needlessly conditional ban that has been thrice passed by Congress (and vetoed by Clinton) might be in some jeopardy in the next Congress. However, as I have demonstrated repeatedly, that issue is moot and symbolic. It is unlikely that the Supreme Court would sustain such a bill. And even if it did, the bill’s life-of-the-mother exception would still make it possible for the procedure to be used. Moreover, there are two other methods of killing a child in the later stages of pregnancy that would remain perfectly legal: hysterotomy, and dilatation and evacuation. If the court struck down the bill (and look for Antonin Scalia to join in such a decision, claiming that the issue was a matter for the states to decide), Bush would shrug his shoulders, express his regrets, and say, “Well, I tried.”

5) Reversal of RU-486 and the so-called Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Bill? Not on the Bush radar screen at all.

6) Look for establishment pro-life leaders (National Right to Life Committee and its state affiliates) to indemnify Bush at every turn. Excuses will be made for his judicial nominees. Those who dare to criticize Bush will be called impatient and ungrateful. The specter of Hillary Rodham Clinton will be raised at every possible turn to convince pro-lifers that they will just have to live with silence and relative inaction on the life issue given the political realities of an evenly divided Senate, a narrowly controlled House, and the fact that Bush is a president who won the electoral vote while losing the national popular vote. We’ll be told that we’ll just have to wait until the congressional elections of 2002 or the 2004 presidential election. And if Bush is reelected we’ll then be told that over the horizon is looming some other Democratic Party monster who must be slain by another Republican savior. (See Justice Will Lose No Matter Who Wins.)


Well, here's how things looked after the 2008 elections:

The entire American regime is built on on a web of Protestant and Judeo-Masonic lies. Catholics have been so uncritically immersed in these naturalistic, anti-Incarnational, religiously indifferentist and semi-Pelagian lies for so long that even the believers among them look at the world in merely naturalistic terms, convincing themselves that there is something short of Catholicism that can serve, at least as a "stopgap measure," as the foundation of personal and social order. Catholics prone to the "leftist" bent of naturalism and those prone to the "rightist" bent of naturalism may disagree about many of the "details" of naturalism. However, both sets of Catholics are united in their quest to find some secular, religiously indifferentist, nondenominational or interdenominational means to create a "better" world, looking to the farce of electoral politics as the focal point in this quest.

This is an illusion. Indeed, this is delusional. It is madness.

A nation that is founded and sustained on a web of naturalistic lies must degenerate over the course of time. This degeneration has been aided by the fact that most Catholics have lost the true sacraments as a result of the conciliar revolution, plunging millions upon millions of them into abject paganism as they have lost any sense of the Faith and behave in a manner befitting their long ago barbarian ancestors in Europe before they were Christianized in the First Millennium of the Church. They want their money and their bread and circuses. The babies? The innocence of their own children? Ah, we must live in the "real" world of endless pleasures and honors.

What I wrote nine months ago in Movements to a Dead End, Now and for All Eternity concerning the source of some future "groundswell" in behalf of some "libertarian" or "conservative" naturalist in the year 2012 or 2016 bears repeating yet again to sober up the dummies out there who continue to believe that the electoral system in the United States of America is anything other than a diabolical trap from the devil to convince us that the "people," not Christ the King, have the ultimate authority over the direction of nations and the world:




From whence is such a groundswell supposed to spring?

From the graduates of America's public schools, where children are indoctrinated in all manner of statist and leftist and relativist and positivist brainwashing?

From the graduates of the educational institutions under the control of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, where children are indoctrinated, with a few exceptions here and there, to be sure, in all manner of statist and leftist and relativist and positivist brainwashing?

From the support of the conciliar "bishops" of the United States of America, many of whose dioceses are involved quite actively in the organizations of the penultimate statist and naturalist, the late Saul Alinsky? The "bishops" who support a brand of "Catholic" social teaching that cleaves to the left and favors lawbreakers who enter the country illegally and who, for the most part, give a free pass to "Catholics" who support the "right" of women to "choose" to kill their babies, whether by chemical or surgical means?

There is no electoral way out of this mess that has been created by the multifaceted, interrelated forces of Modernity and Modernism. Political ecumenism is as incapable of producing social order as theological ecumenism is as incapable of producing a "united" Christianity. There is thus no electoral way for any semblance of Catholic truth to prevail in a pluralistic system that puts a premium on falsehoods as the foundation of everyday living. No way whatsoever, especially when one considers most carefully that the concentration camps known as public "schools" and most of the formerly Catholic schools that are now in conciliar captivity are steeped in one naturalistic lie of the "leftist" bent after another. (See Apostasy Has Consequences.) Obama's broad coalition of electoral support will only increase in the next four years as more detainees from these American concentration camps are "graduated" and can then express their own support for him in the year 2012 (and as older voters die off!). The "votes," my friends, are not to be found for a "restoration" of a mythical "American" order.

When, oh when, I ask, are we ever going to learn that Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order, that the American system is a lie from beginning to end, and that which is a lie can never be the foundation of anything but a ever-escalating cascade of evils under cover of civil law and in every aspect of popular culture?

The willingness of Catholics to participate in this fraud of a system has led to their eagerness to accept an ever-increasingly higher dose of the so-called "lesser evils" as acceptable, if not all but inevitable. This willingness led so many Catholics to be deaf, dumb and blind about the evils that had been done during the eight years of abject misrule, much of it in contradiction even to the terms of the United States Constitution as our legitimate civil liberties were violated grossly, of George Walker Bush. These Catholics, most of whom never bothered to inform themselves of these evils and were not informed about them from their pulpits, went to sleep, deluding themselves into believing that all was "well" when the truth of the matter was and remains that the "lesser evil" from the year 2000, the man who toppled Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in an unjust, unprovoked war, has helped to give the United States of America its own "Hussein," Barack Hussein Obama. Yes, the "lesser of two evils" in the year 2000 is the direct, proximate cause of there being this morning a President-elect Barack Hussein Obama.

President-elect Barack Hussein Obama, who is possessed of a charisma that evokes images of the Antichrist as he charms massive crowds with his empty rhetoric of his own brand of American semi-Pelagianism, has forged together a broad coalition of voters that reflect the natural degeneration of naturalism and conciliarism's own "reconciliation" with those naturalistic principles. This coalition of voters is not going away overnight. The new de facto President-elect of the United States of America has a stage presence that seems to mesmerize his "true believers" as he stands forth boldly in favor of one abject evil after another. He will govern with an overwhelmingly Democrat Party majority in both Houses of the Congress of the United States of America. This governing majority will solidify last night's electoral victories for years to come.

President-elect Barack Hussein Obama had a naturalistic opponent, United States Senator John Sidney McCain III, who waged a campaign that was as incompetent and incoherent as was former United States Senator Robert Joseph Dole, Jr.'s twelve years ago. It didn't take a doctorate in political science to know that McCain was Bob Dole, part trois, a man who had no true intellectual, no less spiritual, core to his being, a man who flew by the seat of his pants to make impulsive decisions based on "gut hunch." Such a man is never any match for a committed ideologue, no less one trained intellectually by a Marxist, the late Frank Marshall Davis, and trained in political organizing by the disciples of the late Saul Alinsky, who was a friend of the late philosopher Jacques Maritain. A naturalist, McCain, who lives by impulse will always be slain by a naturalist driven by a more consistent set of beliefs.

McCain was considered as this year's "lesser of two evils" by about forty-seven percent of Catholics all across the ecclesiastical divide even though he supports the deliberate, intentional killing of the preborn in certain "hard cases" and even though he supports the chemical assassination of the innocent preborn in all instances. McCain was considered the "lesser of two evils" even though he supports the abject lie of American "exceptionalism" that has wrought so much devastation throughout the course of this nation's history, including in recent years in Iraq as thousands upon thousands of innocent human beings have been put to death in the process of "building democracy" and as thousands of Chaldean-rite Catholics have had to flee their own nation as adherents of the "religion of peace" drove them out as American forces did nothing to help them.

When are we going to learn that there really isn't anything as a "lesser of two evils" in a system of one abject evil after another? When? When?

When are we going to learn that no one--whether he is white, black, black, brown, red or turquoise--who supports a single abortion, whether surgical or chemical, is fit to hold any office in the civil government, whether elected or appointed?

When are we going to learn that a nation that has been directly responsible for the taking of million of souls out of the true Church (the Spanish-American War introduced Protestantism and Masonic lodges into The Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Cuba) and by directly aiding the slaughter of thousands upon thousands of Catholics in Mexico has to pay a price to God for its sins?

When are we going to learn that a nation where blasphemies against the Holy Name of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and His Most Blessed Mother and which exports magazines and movies and music and television programs that promote sin throughout the world has to be converted to the true Faith, that there is no political, electoral, constitutional way to retard evils that have been promoted precisely because of the overthrow of Our Lord's Social Reign by means of the Protestant Revolt?

When are we going to stop wasting our time, our energy and our effort by enabling the careers of empty-headed careerists who are steeped in the promotion of various evils in their own right, believing that we can "hold back the floodgates" at the ballot box?

When are we going to learn that apostasy does indeed have consequences, that a large percent of the populace of the United States of America wants big, big, bigger government so that they can enjoy their bread and circuses?

The polls weren't wrong, were they? Anyone who thought that they were keeping "Obama out of the White House" by voting for pro-abortion, pro-contraception, pro-statism, pro-American exceptionalism McCain in New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Maryland, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Delaware, California, and Hawaii was living in a fantasy-land. Obama's election guarantees that these states will stay in the Democrat Party column for generations to come. Speaking purely on the level of pure political science, anyone but anyone who thinks that they are keeping a Democrat naturalist out of the White House by voting for the Republican naturalist for president in any of these states at any point in the future is in need of checking himself into Creedmoor State Hospital on Winchester Boulevard in Queens Village, New York. There is a padded room waiting for you there. (See Figures of Antichrist,   We Don't Want to Learn Anything and Just One And The Same.)


The presidential nominees of the organized crime family of the naturalist "right" in one election after enough in the past twenty-four years "played it safe" in their effort to get elected or re-elected.

Then Vice President George Herbert Walker Bush ran for President of the United States of America in 1988 by giving voters the illusion that his administration would be, in effect, a third term for the policies of President Ronald Wilson Reagan, who used rhetoric effectively in campaigns an State of the Union addresses while governing in a mostly pragmatic basis, concerned principally, of course, about the "money, money, money" as eight years slipped by and the the chemical and surgical assassination of innocent preborn children became more and more institutionalized. Although "Pappy" Bush, who had run a pretty vapid campaign against Reagan for the Republican Party's presidential nomination in 1980, had an attack dog campaign manager, the late Lee Atwater, who did an effective job against the hapless technocrat of the "left," Michael S. Dukakis, he was mostly inarticulate and incoherent during his campaign, which centered around promising to support an amendment to ban the burning of American flags. Asked at one point in the campaign about a question he considered too hot to handle, Bush said, quite famously (and this is a paraphrase), "No, I'm not going to answer that one. Gotta keep the Big Mo going" as he took questions on his campaign bus.

Bush the Elder, ever the patrician, refused to criticize then Arkansas Governor William Jefferson Blythe Clinton as a draft dodger or to expose him as no "moderate Democrat" but a well-trained leftist radical whose health care proposals would bankrupt the United States of America. He played it safe. He lost.

No time need to be spent on the hapless Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., in 1996, as I have done that on this site any number of times--and did so contemporaneously both in The Wanderer and in the printed pages of Christ or Chaos in its few several months of publication. Here are just two of the articles that have made reference to the campaign that the team of thirty-third degree Masons, Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., and Jack French Kemp (see Bob Dole, part trois and Bob Dole's Many Faces, which are just two among many such articles).ran against then President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton and Vice President Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., that year.

What about John Sidney McCain III's "bold, "game changing" choice of then Alaska Governor Sarah Heath Palin four years ago. It was such a "bold" stroke that McCain stuck to his rambling campaign against first-term United States Senator Barry Soetero (aka Barack Hussein Obama) while having to do deal with Palin's frequent gaffes and matters of policy and historical fact (see (See Gradually Accepting Naturalism's False Premises, Absolute Insanity, Facts Are Troublesome Things, It's Still Absolute Insanity and Fratricide in the Lodge.)

Why be surprised that Willard Mitt Romney gets all puffed up and outraged over attacks by the bare-knuckle campaign managers of Barack Hussein Obama? His reputation as a "money man" is all that matters to him. And while "Team Obama" may be more than a little cheeky in suggesting that Romney might have committed a felony when he signed forms submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission for three consecutive years after resigning as the chief executive officer of Bain Capital as their man Barry has admitted to committing felonies by using cocaine and other illegal substances, to say nothing about his made-up "autobiography" (Dreams of My Father), it is not as though Romney is without a credibility problem.

Remember, Romney is the man who criticized former United States Senator Richard John Santorum (R-Pennsylvania) and former Speaker of the United States House of Representatives Newton Leroy Gingrich (R-Georgia) as "career politicians" when he has aspired, mostly unsuccessfully, to be be one himself. The only reason that Romney, who ran in 1992 as an out-an-out pro-abort against the late United States Senator Edward Moore Kennedy (see 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), has not been office continuously for the past twenty years is because he lost to man responsible for the drowning of the late Mary Jo Kopechne on July 18, 1969. Romney is thoroughly capable of dissembling as he supports various evils and as he proved when seeking to demonize the hapless Santorum and the baggage-laden Gingrich during his quest for this year's Republican Party presidential nomination, a prize he lost after waging a bitter campaign with United States Senator John Sidney McCain III (R-Arizona) in 2007 and 2008.

Yes, there are all manner of pots calling kettles black in the farce that is American politics (just as there are all manner of pots calling kettles black in the continuing saga of the Society of Saint Pius X's internal turmoil, which will be examined in the next article on this site).

Romney is outraged by Barack Hussein Obama's attacks on his tenure at Bain Capital and for having overseas bank accounts.

Willard Mitt Romney is not outraged over the fact that Barack Hussein Obama and Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., have presided over a pro-abortion, anti-family administration that exceeds, although not by much, the Clinton-Gore administration, which came to power on Tuesday, November 3, 1992.

Willard Mitt Romney is not outraged over the fact that Barack Hussein Obama has ruled by executive fiat and has blatantly violated various provisions of the Constitution of the United States of America over and over again.

Willard Mitt Romney is not outraged by the support that Obama and Biden have given to "gay marriage," making very muted comments so as not to anger Republicans and "swing" voters who are engaged in unrepentant acts of perversity in violation of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments. (see Illusions Die Hard).

Willard Mitt Romney is not outraged over the use of the troops of the United States of America in Libya and Nigeria and Pakistan and Afghanistan without any legitimate threat to American national security and without a Congressional declaration of war.

Willard Mit Romney is not outraged over Eric Holder's blatantly racist policies and his multifaceted efforts to suppress legitimate voter identification laws that are on the books in various states and to treat true intimidators of voting such as the "New Black Panther Party" with respect and deference by refusing to prosecute rank voter intimidation captured on video.

Willard Mitt Romney is not outraged over Eric Holder's Fast and Furious policy  that has placed untracked weapons into the hands of Mexican drug dealers and resulted in the deaths of many people on both sides of the United States-United Mexican States border, including an American law enforcement agent.

Willard Mitt Romney is not outraged the the stonewalling that Obama and Holder have exhibited to prevent the Congress of the United States of America from exercising its legitimate oversight function in the Fast and Furious scandal as Obama has invoked "executive privilege" to shield his administration's cover-up from the scrutiny that it deserves,

Trapped in corporate speak and directed by his handlers to stick to the "economy," Willard Mitt Romney, is not outraged by Barack Hussein Obama's refusal to protect the border of the United States of America by making sure that hardened criminals are deported immediately upon their discovery in this country.

Willard Mitt Romney was not outraged by Barack Hussein Obama's decision to legislative from the Oval Office of the White House by providing illegal immigrants who came here with their parents as children a "path to citizenship."

Willard Mitt Romney is not outraged by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America on Thursday, June 28, 2012, in the combined cases of National Federation of Independent Business, et al. v. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. and Department of Health and Human Services, et al. v. Florida, et al. , making only a few carefully crafted comments while accepting the court decision that ObamaCare is indeed constitutional, a preposterous and irresponsible claim for one who says he is the "alternative" to Barack Hussein Obama. This is something that even secular commentators have noted and bemoaned:



In the aftermath of the Supreme Court health care ruling, the early conventional wisdom was that an unfavorable health care ruling at the court would be good for Republicans politically, even as it was a serious policy setback for conservatives. But that's not shaping up to be the case. Mitt Romney, after giving a brief statement decrying the decision, has been virtually silent on criticizing the health care law. He's been on vacation and his campaign has been giving off clear signals that it doesn't want to make health care a major part of the election.

His senior adviser, Eric Fehrnstrom, went on MSNBC Monday and ended up agreeing with the Obama campaign's spin that, even though the Supreme Court declared the individual mandate a tax, it really still is a penalty. Significantly, his campaign appears to want to take the most potent argument against the president on the health care subject off the table, likely out of fear the Romney himself is vulnerable when it comes to his health care record. He, after all, supported a mandate as governor of Massachusetts, and doesn't want that to be considered a tax, either.

For an issue that's supposedly potent against Democrats, Romney's campaign is declaring a cease fire. This, even as the law polls unfavorably and it proved to be a motivating force for Republicans and disaffected independents in the 2010 midterms.

It's becoming clear that Romney has decided to focus on the economy at the expense of everything else, even issues that could play to his political benefit. He's avoided criticizing the administration's handling of the botched Fast and Furious operation, even as it threatens to become a serious vulnerability for the president. He's been silent in responding to Obama's immigration executive order, not wanting to offend receptive Hispanics or appear like a flip-flopper. He appears more likely to tap a safe, bland running mate like Ohio Sen. Rob Portman or former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty who won't do him any harm but won't benefit him much either. If the economy continues to sputter, that safe strategy might be enough. If not, his options are limited.

In football, there's a well-worn cliché about the prevent defense (a scheme utilized when a team holds a big lead over its opponent): It prevents teams from winning games. In politics, Mitt Romney is testing that proposition as far as he can. (Romney Campaign Declaring Cease Fire on Health Care; see also Another Reason Why Romney Will Lose.)

Sure, Willard Mitt Romney thinks that he will "handle" Obama the way that he took care of Richard John Santorum and Newton Leroy Gingrich in debates when the going got rough for him after his losses in Iowa to Santorum and in South Carolina to Gingrich earlier this year. Obama is not Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich. Obama has "defined" Willard Mitt Romney in the same way that Lee Atwater "defined" Michael Dukakis in 1992 and that Karl Rove, the "brain" behind President George Walker Bush, "defined" the effete Catholic pro-abort named John Kerry (D-Massachusetts and Rhode Island, well, that's where he keeps one of his yachts for tax purposes).

We have reached such a state of affairs in the farce that is electoral politics in the United States of America that craven selfists such as Willard Mitt Romney, who claims to be "pro-life" even though he tells us "contraception is working very well" and believes that babies can be sliced and diced under cover of the civil law in some "hard" cases," think that they can float trial balloons such as occurred two days ago as the name of a former United States Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, a complete pro-abort (she said in 2000 that she was "regrettably 'pro-choice'"), made its way "out there" as Romney's possible vice presidential running mate. This is exactly what McCain did in 2008 when floating the name of his friend, the pro-abortion United States Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-Connecticut) as a possible running mate. Romney is "testing the waters" to see if there is as much outrage among "conservatives" now as there was four years ago to the possibility of a pro-abort on the national ticket of the supposedly "pro-life" political party.

Although I do not believe that Romney will choose Rice, who has baggage over absurd claim that there were "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq when she served as Bush the Lesser's national security adviser in his first term as the compassionate conservative, many supposedly "pro-life" voters are so desperate to get rid of Obama that a large percentage of them would hold their noses and accept Rice as the vice presidential nominee. And thus things must ever be in the system of supposedly lesser evils.

The fact remains, my good and few readers, that this country is more permanently divided along the false naturalist fault lines of "left" and "right" than ever before. It is truly a statement on the sort of chastisement that we are experiencing at this time to note that Barack Hussein Obama, despite his abuse of power and his outright lies and his many misstatements of fact, policy and history, remains personally popular and that he does not have a job approval rating lower than forty percent. Most Americans remain diverted by their bread and circuses. Moreover, this is what must happen when men are divided needlessly in a country steeped in naturalism and the divisions that it must engender over time, divisions that harden and become intractable as the wages of sin incurred by America's "Debt Clock" that began to tick on July 4, 1776.

Our true popes have told us that it is impossible for men to know true and lasting social order absent a due submission to the Deposit of Faith that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ entrusted exclusively to His Catholic Church for Its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication:

Here we have, founded by Catholics, an inter-denominational association that is to work for the reform of civilization, an undertaking which is above all religious in character; for there is no true civilization without a moral civilization, and no true moral civilization without the true religion: it is a proven truth, a historical fact.

That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man's eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man's supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it. (Pope Saint Pius X, Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906.)

God alone is Life. All other beings partake of life, but are not life. Christ, from all eternity and by His very nature, is "the Life," just as He is the Truth, because He is God of God. From Him, as from its most sacred source, all life pervades and ever will pervade creation. Whatever is, is by Him; whatever lives, lives by Him. For by the Word "all things were made; and without Him was made nothing that was made." This is true of the natural life; but, as We have sufficiently indicated above, we have a much higher and better life, won for us by Christ's mercy, that is to say, "the life of grace," whose happy consummation is "the life of glory," to which all our thoughts and actions ought to be directed. The whole object of Christian doctrine and morality is that "we being dead to sin, should live to justice" (I Peter ii., 24)-that is, to virtue and holiness. In this consists the moral life, with the certain hope of a happy eternity. This justice, in order to be advantageous to salvation, is nourished by Christian faith. "The just man liveth by faith" (Galatians iii., II). "Without faith it is impossible to please God" (Hebrews xi., 6). Consequently Jesus Christ, the creator and preserver of faith, also preserves and nourishes our moral life. This He does chiefly by the ministry of His Church. To Her, in His wise and merciful counsel, He has entrusted certain agencies which engender the supernatural life, protect it, and revive it if it should fail. This generative and conservative power of the virtues that make for salvation is therefore lost, whenever morality is dissociated from divine faith. A system of morality based exclusively on human reason robs man of his highest dignity and lowers him from the supernatural to the merely natural life. Not but that man is able by the right use of reason to know and to obey certain principles of the natural law. But though he should know them all and keep them inviolate through life-and even this is impossible without the aid of the grace of our Redeemer-still it is vain for anyone without faith to promise himself eternal salvation. "If anyone abide not in Me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up and cast him into the fire, and he burneth" john xv., 6). "He that believeth not shall be condemned" (Mark xvi., 16). We have but too much evidence of the value and result of a morality divorced from divine faith. How is it that, in spite of all the zeal for the welfare of the masses, nations are in such straits and even distress, and that the evil is daily on the increase? We are told that society is quite able to help itself; that it can flourish without the assistance of Christianity, and attain its end by its own unaided efforts. Public administrators prefer a purely secular system of government. All traces of the religion of our forefathers are daily disappearing from political life and administration. What blindness! 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.)

This, nevertheless, is what they want to do with human society; they dream of changing its natural and traditional foundations; they dream of a Future City built on different principles, and they dare to proclaim these more fruitful and more beneficial than the principles upon which the present Christian City rests.

No, Venerable Brethren, We must repeat with the utmost energy in these times of social and intellectual anarchy when everyone takes it upon himself to teach as a teacher and lawmaker - the City cannot be built otherwise than as God has built it; society cannot be setup unless the Church lays the foundations and supervises the work; no, civilization is not something yet to be found, nor is the New City to be built on hazy notions; it has been in existence and still is: it is Christian civilization, it is the Catholic City. It has only to be set up and restored continually against the unremitting attacks of insane dreamers, rebels and miscreants. omnia instaurare in Christo. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)


Why be drawn into the hysteria of the moment? It is only that, hysteria, and that comes from one source alone, the adversary.

The American Revolution and the French Revolution and the Mexican Revolution and the Italian Risorgimento and the Kulturkampf of Otto von Bismarck and the Bolshevik Revolution and the Cuban Revolution and the Chinese Revolution and the Sandinista Revolution have all had one thing in common: a thorough rejection of Christ the King and His true Church as paramount in the lives of men and their societies. The differences are only in degrees and methods. The American Revolution has coopted Catholics subtly over course of time while the others used violence and/or state coercion to silence Catholics. No matter the differences in degrees and methods, the results are the same: a world where men believe that they can order themselves, both individually and socially, without even praying that Our Lord Himself reign over them and their nations as He has revealed Himself to them through His Catholic Church.

Our Lady's Fatima Message is the way out of the mess caused by the marriage of Modernity in the world and Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, which is why the devil has worked mightily against by using the conciliar revolutionaries to deconstruct and thus misrepresent it. We must be as faithful as we can to that Fatima Message, praying as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits, embracing the Cross of the Divine Redeemer as we do so, heedless of Its shame before men and their nations. 

Yesterday was, of course, ninety-fifth anniversary of Our Lady's Fatima apparitions in the Cova da Iria near Fatima, Portugal to Jacinta and Francisco Marto and their cousin, Lucia dos Santos. Our Lady showed Hell to the seers, begging to pray and to make sacrifices to convert sinners and thus save them from Hell, which is very real (for a graphic description of Hell and its torments, please read Miss Mary Ann Panevska's The Story of Satan & A Visit to Hell).

Why do you fear Barack Hussein Obama? Why? Is he more powerful than God? Come on, think supernaturally, ladies and gentlemen. Think supernaturally.

We have see the likes of Obama before.

Holy Mother Church survived Nero.

Holy Mother church survived Trajan.

Holy Mother Church survived Valerian.

Holy Mother Church survived Diocletian.

Holy Mother Church survived Julian the Apostate.

Holy Mother Church survived the invasions of Europe by Mohammedan hordes.

Holy Mother Church survived Arianism and other heresies propagated by heretics who did not pretend to sit on the Throne of Saint Peter.

Holy Mother Church survived the Protestant Revolution.

Holy Mother Church survived the French Revolution.

Holy Mother Church survived the Kulturkampf of Otto von Bismarck and the Risorgimento of his fellow Freemasons to his south in Italy.

Holy Mother Church survived the likes of Plutarco Elias Calles in Mexico and the Communists in Spain during the Spanish Revolution.

Holy Mother Church survived the likes of Vladimir Lenin and Josef Stalin and Nikita Khrushchev and Leonid Brezhnev.

Holy Mother Church survived the likes of Mao Tse-Tung and his murderous successors.

Holy Mother Church survived Ho Chi Minh and Fidel Castro and Daniel Ortega.

Holy Mother Church cannot survive Barack Hussein Obama? Come on, think as Catholics.

Barack Hussein Obama and Willard Mitt Romney both represent just chastisements visited upon us for our sins and the prideful lies of men who believe that their nations can know social orders absent Christ the King and the sanctifying and teaching and disciplining offices of Holy Mother Church, that men can ignore, if not blaspheme, the Mother of God and refuse to pay her any public veneration whatsoever.

Worse is yet to come. Much worse.

Can this nation continue to kill innocent babies by chemical and surgical means with impunity forever without knowing the just wrath of God?

Can this nation continue to promote the sin of Sodom without suffering the fate of Sodom and Gomorrha and of Babylon and Rome?

Can this nation continue to be promote impurity of conduct, immodesty of speech and dress, blasphemy, vulgarity and profanity in our discourse and expect to get the "economy going again?"

Nations that defy Christ the King won't even be able to generate "respect" for the documents by which they are supposed to be governed. Look, let's understand reality here: why should anyone have "respect" for the Constitution of the United States of America when most men do not have respect for refuse to submit to the Social Reign of Christ the King?

We must fear sin, the only real evil. We must fear going to Hell, which our sins have so often deserve. That's what we must fear, not the lords of Modernity in the world or the lords of Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

What matters most to us is to gain Heaven by refusing any concessions to the madness of Modernity in the world and Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism. Never lose heart, no, not even if, as I fully expect will be the case, the reigning caesar is re-elected by a comfortable margin and then starts to make noises about having the Twenty-second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America repealed so that he can run for a third, fourth and possibly fifth term. The man is only-fifty-one years of age. He's not going to want to "go gently into that good night" if, as I believe will happen," he wins on November 6, 2012, against the "safe" and "predictable" Willard Mitt Romney.

Saint Bonaventure, whose feast we celebrate today, July 14, 2012, was a firm defender of the Catholic Faith, a contemporary and friend and co-worker of Saint Thomas Aquinas. A son of Saint Francis of Assisi, Saint Bonaventure is, along with Saint Anthony of Padua, the seraphic saint's most brilliant followers, and one of  the most profound defenders of the doctrine of the Most Holy Eucharist. Although exceptionally brilliant and one of Holy Mother Church's most gifted theologians and teachers, Saint Bonaventure was more than anything a champion of humility rooted in a deep love of the Most Blessed Trinity and of the Blessed Virgin Mary. And he was a master of the Scholasticism for which Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and his fellow "new theologians" have such profound contempt.

May we, by imitating Saint Bonaventure's profound Eucharistic piety and tender devotion to Our Lady, storm Heaven by means of our Rosaries so that the darkness of the current crisis will pass sooner rather than later, conscious always of our need to make reparation to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary for our own many sins.

We must proclaim our adherence now and always tot What Protestants and Conciliarists Alike Reject: The Social Reign of Christ the King, praying as many Rosaries each day as we do so.

Viva Cristo Rey!


Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us!


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

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

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

Saint Bonaventure, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?



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