Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
August 28, 2010

Prepare Ye The Way For Antichrist

Part Three

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Although attempting to chug along without all of the cylinders working as others who are older than I am and dealing with chronically debilitating conditions put me to complete and utter shame by their working assiduously day and day out without a word of complaint or without missing a beat in their daily routine, efforts are being made to keep up with the work of this site, although the articles are shorter and less numerous than they have been in the past. Thus it is that this article will be very short, something that will not take up too much of your time on this glorious feast of Saint Augustine, a model of true contrition and conversion for each of us who have from time to time wandered off the straight and narrow path of our sanctification and salvation as members of the Catholic Church.

Figures of Antichrist, Figures of Antichrist Applauding Each Other, and Enter Lord of the World? are just three of the articles written in the past two years discussing how figures in the naturalistic, anti-Incarnational and semi-Pelagian world of Modernity are serving as the precursors of Antichrist in their own wretched manner, complementing quite nicely the preparations being made for the coming of Antichrist by the the "hierarchy" of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, starting with the man, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who has personally esteemed the symbols of false religions and termed their places of false worship as "sacred," thereby blaspheming God just as surely as when he states that "it was necessary to learn" that dogmatic pronouncements of the past could be understood in different ways given the historical circumstances in which those pronouncements were made (cf. Christmas greetings to the Members of the Roman Curia and Prelature, December 22, 2005). There are those who see these signs clearly. There are others who do not.

Truth be told, however, our circumstances today did not just happen. The Church Militant on earth has been living through her mystical Passion, Death and Burial for a long time now, meaning that the advance of adversary and his minions in a world shaped by the aftermath of the Protestant Revolution and the rise of all of the mixture of the interrelated forces of naturalism associated with the phrase Judeo-Masonry (see Not A Mention of Christ the King). We just not "get here," whether "here" is the situation in the world of that facing the true Church today, overnight.

One of the ways that the devil has been advancing his agenda in the midst of the world-at-large is by raising up minions who subscribe to a particularly aggressive form of naturalism that scares, and sometimes quite rightly so, those who adhere to a supposedly "milder" form of naturalism. This is how so many believing Catholics who are opposed to the various moral evils that are protected by the civil law and advanced very boldly in all aspects of our popular culture are willing to accept increasingly higher doses of evil as "necessary" in order to oppose the supposedly "greater" evil without noticing that the more they accept the "necessity" of an increasingly higher dose of the so-called "lesser evil" is the more that the devil is emboldened to institutionalize greater and greater evils in the recognition that he can raise up false opponents of those greater evils who appear far better than others.

Thus it is that the failed policies of the "conservative" statist (see Y2K's Lesser Evil Has Brought Us Great Evils, Socialism, Straight From Your "Pro-Life" Conservative, and Blame George Walker Bush), George Walker Bush, made possible the election of Barack Hussein Obama, whose own policy failures and general ineptitude will make more possible the election of loads of Republican careerists who are not all concerned about restoring full legal protection to the innocent preborn or opposing the advances made by those steeped in perverse acts against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments. Indeed, there has been a general "hush" among these establishment Republican careerists to the news that the man who served as Bush the Lesser's 2004 campaign manager and then as the Chairman of the Republican National Committee from January 19, 2005, to December 31, 2006, is a practitioner of moral perversity (see News Analysis - Gay Bush Aide? No Bombshell in Age of Fiscal Cares). In a world of naturalism, my good and very few readers, money always trumps moral truths as the measure of what constitutes national greatness, something that was noted very well by Orestes Brownson in The Brownson Quarterly (January 1846). Brownson's observations of one hundred sixty-four years ago were correct when applied to the situation in his own day they are correct when applied to our own situation today. Naturalism begets materialism as the lowest common denominator in society.

Our world is naturalism is such that it makes little difference whether the naturalist in the White House is a Republican or a Democrat. It is usually, although not quite always, the case that the policy failures of an adherent of one false naturalist opposite makes possible the election of an adherent of the other false naturalist opposite. A few examples from the past forty-two years will demonstrate this point.

The domestic and foreign policy failures of President Lyndon Baines Johnson made possible the election of the then former Vice President of the United States of America, Richard Milhous, Nixon, on November 5, 1968. Although the contest between the two top vote-getters in the national popular vote, Nixon and then Vice President Huber Horatio Humphrey, was relatively close (Nixon won the national popular vote total over Humphrey by a margin of 510,946 votes), another nine million voters voted for the former segregationist Governor of Alabama, George Corley Wallace, the presidential nominee of the American Independent Party, as a way to protest what Wallace called "the tweedle-dum, tweedle-dee" nature of both major political parties. Most of those who voted for George Wallace were not racist or supporters of racial segregation. They were upset with Lyndon Johnson's profligate spending on domestic policies and his Vietnam War policies that were prosecuted without a Declaration of War from the United States Congress and without any policy to win.

President Richard Milhous Nixon's well-documented problems as the massive web known by the shorthand notation as the "Watergate" cover-up, which involved misuse of the Central Intelligence Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation as well as the botched burglary (and subsequent cover-up it engendered to keep the other misuse of power from becoming public) of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in the Watergate Hotel in Washington, on Saturday evening, June 17, 1972, and his resignation from the presidency effective at noon, Eastern time, on Friday, August 9, 1974, and the pardon given him by the first non-elected President of the United States of America, Gerald Rudolph Ford, Jr., on Sunday, September 8, 1974, made possible the election of loads upon loads of Democrats to both houses of the United States Congress and to statewide and local offices all across the United States of America. The mess created by Nixon's self-absorption (see Poster Boys Of Modernity) made possible the election of  a southern-fried version of the Soviet appeaser and apologist, former United States Senator George Stephen McGovern, who had lost forty-nine states to Nixon on Tuesday, November 7, 1972, as President Ford when down to defeat by former Governor of Georgia James Earl Carter, Jr., on Tuesday, November 2, 1976. And Jimmy Carter proved to be, at least on a level of pure naturalism, perhaps the worst President of the United States of America prior to election of Caesar Barackus Obamus Ignoramus on Tuesday, November 3, 2008.

Jimmy Carter's domestic and foreign policy failures have been well-documented on this site. He continued the Nixon-Ford policies of unilaterally disarming the United States of America, policies that were not reversed until the administration of President Ronald Wilson Reagan from January 20, 1981, to January 20, 1989. He was appeaser of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics until the time of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan on December 27, 1979. Jimmy Carter had a naively irresponsible view of world Communism (see his infamous May 22, 1977, commencement address at the University of Notre Dame). He was an enabler of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in early-1979 and was helpless when the man who was termed as a "saint" by his representative at the United Nations, Ambassador Andrew Young, tweaked his nose and degraded the United States of America by supporting the so-called "student militants" who took fifty-two citizens of this country hostage on Sunday, November 4, 1979. Jimmy Carter and his band of appeasers enabled the Sandinista Communists in Nicaragua when there were other alternatives to the corrupt rule of the brutal dictator Anastasio Somoza, and this same crew was very sympathetic to the Communist rebels in El Salvador and very hostile to those seeking to overthrow the Communist regime in Angola.

You want more? Sure, go check out the following articles: Ever the Appeaser and Ever Anxious To Give Us His Malaise. Don't get me started on Jimmy Carter. Although I had another seven years to go before I would be chastised publicly at a political science conference for my rather uncritical acceptance of the compatibility of the American founding with Catholic doctrine on the proper relationship between Church and State, a chastisement that led me to read the papal encyclical letters become responsible for my recognizing the errors of my Americanist ways and for being able eighteen years later to recognize that the man I thought at the time to be "Pope" Benedict XVI was a direct and full-throated apologist of Americanism, which is the foundation of the conciliar world view (see From The Potomac to the Tiber and Back), I was loaded for bear in April of 1980 when I delivered a speech at a mock Republican convention at Lehigh University, which was near the institution where I was teaching at the time, the then-named Allentown College of Saint Francis de Sales. I ripped Carter but good, listing all of his policy failures, foreign and domestic. The presentation earned me a job offer from a member of Congress who was present at that convention, something that I turned down because he supported baby-killing. Jimmy Carter and his southern-fried statism and McGovern-style appeasement of international Communism certainly got my naturalistic blood to boil, that's for sure.

Carter, of course, who turns eighty-six years of age on October 1, 2010, has been intent on "redeeming" himself in the "eyes of the world" following his disastrous presidency, which made possible the election of former California Governor Ronald Wilson Reagan on Tuesday, November 4, 1980, something that was quite remarkable as Reagan, who came within one hundred eighteen delegate votes of defeating then President Gerald Rudolph Ford, Jr., at the Republican National Convention in Kansas City, Missouri, on Wednesday, August 18, 1976, would have been deemed as "too conservative" by many voters to have defeated Carter in the 1976 general election. Jimmy Carter made Ronald Reagan's election possible.

Angered and embittered by his embarrassingly large defeat to Reagan, Jimmy Carter has been globetrotting ever since, playing the role of Jesse Jackson, Sr., in seeking the release of various Americans (as happened yesterday in Communist North Korea) and in seeking to assure us of the "peaceful" intentions of the Communist regime in Pyongyang, North Korea. Carter, server as an "observer," also wept openly when his close friend, the Communist dictator (and the current president) of Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega, was soundly defeated on February 25, 1990, by Violetta Barrios de Chamorro. And for all of this, of course, the appeaser was awarded with the Nobel Prize for Peace in 2002. Why should we be surprised that the old appeaser is still up to his tricks?

Carter also made possible the election of William Jefferson Blythe Clinton on Tuesday, November 3, 1992? How so? Quite elementary. Ronald Reagan was convinced by "moderate" Republicans in 1980 that he needed to have a "less conservative" running mate in order to make himself more palatable to voters. Reagan's choice? His closest rival for the 1980 Republican presidential nomination, former United States Representative, former United States Ambassador to the United Nations, former Untied States Trade Representative to Red China, former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, George Herbert Walker Bush, the son of the late Prescott Sheldon Bush, who was a United States Senator from Connecticut from November 5, 1952, to January 2, 1963. Many within the Reagan inner camp, including his own national campaign chairman, then United States Senator Paul Laxalt (R-Nevada), who many "conservatives" wanted selected as Reagan's vice presidential running mate, were livid with Reagan for selecting the hapless, inarticulate, mercurial George Herbert Walker Bush. Many of Bush's closest aides, including his own campaign manager and close friend, James Addison Baker III, took prominent roles in the 1980 Reagan campaign and then the Reagan administration. Baker served as both White House Chief of Staff (from January 20, 1981, to February 3, 1985) and as Secretary of the Treasury (February 4, 1985, to August 17, 1988) in the Reagan administration (serving also as Bush the Elder's Secretary of State from January 20, 1989, to August 23, 1992).

Bush the Elder simply bided his time during the Reagan years as many "conservatives" projected into his empty Skull and Bones mind their own fondest hopes that he would continue the naturalistic policies of Ronald Wilson Reagan himself, which is how he, Bush the Elder, secured the Republican presidential nomination in 1988 in a slash and burn campaign against his principal rival, the hapless, mercurial and inarticulate thirty-third degree Mason named Robert Joseph Dole (R-Kansas), then the Minority Leader of the United States Senate, who had been the vice presidential running mate of his Masonic lodge brother, Gerald Rudolph Ford, Jr., in 1976. Bush stood for nothing except what he openly and rather brazenly called the "New World Order" after the end of Persian Gulf War on February 28, 1991, at which point he had an eighty-nine approval rating in the public opinion polls. He proved himself to be incapable of articulating anything about the Persian Gulf War and was seen to be weak in his handling of the economy, which permitted an opening for the scoundrel from Hope, Arkansas, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, to sell his snake-oil to the American public in such a convincing way that Bush the Elder actually looked at his watch twice during the televised "town hall" debate he had with Clinton and Henry Ross Perot in Richmond, Virginia, on October 15, 1992.

Clinton fatigue, however, made possible the election of Bush the Lesser on Tuesday, November 7, 2000, although the outcome was not decided until the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the second Bush v. Gore case, December 12, 2000. Bush the Lesser probably would have won the popular vote, which he lost to the then Vice Scoundrel of the United States of America, Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., had not a Gore operative discovered and then circulated the report of Bush the Lesser's arrest in Kennebunkport, Maine, on July 6, 1976 (it turns out that Bush's running mate, former White House Chief of Staff and former United States Secretary of Defense Richard B. Cheney, was arrested twice in Wyoming for drunk driving; see Dick Cheney). And, as noted above, Bush the Lesser made possible the election of the currently reigning caesar, Barack Hussein Obama. And on and on and on it must go in a world of naturalism where even believing Catholics think that they are "getting ahead" when the cause of Christ the King and Mary our Immaculate are far from the minds of the secular messiahs in whom they place their trust and into whose skulls they project their fondest wishes for the temporal good of the nation.

Oh, have I told you lately that Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order? Don't think that there are any shortcuts. There are none. Everything else is just an illusion by the adversary to get us to spin our wheels and to believe in the political equivalent of the tooth fairy as the way is prepared for the coming of the man who will mesmerize and deceive many, Antichrist himself. (For a review of the some of the anti-life policies of Republican presidential administrations, please see the appendices below.)

What should we do? The hour is late. I am way past my own self-imposed curfew.

We should continue to participate in Bishop McKenna's Rosary Crusade, meditating today on the Fifth Sorrowful Mystery, the Crucifixion of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, as we pray to have the virtue of Love of our Enemies that is so vital to the interior life of the soul.

We must pray for the conversion of those who hate us, of those who persecute us, of those who belittle us or who demean our work or the positions we take on the state of the Church and the world.

We must pray for the eternal good of all of those from whom we are estranged in this passing, mortal vale of tears--whether this estrangement be caused by our own faults or the faults of others or the sorry state of the world and of the state of apostasy that has been visited upon Catholics by the figures of Antichrist in the counterfeit church of conciliarism. Nothing anyone ever does to us or says to us or causes us to suffer is the equal of what one of our least Venial Sins caused Our Lord to suffer in His Sacred Humanity during His Passion and Death and that caused Our Lady to suffer as those Seven Swords of Sorrow were plunged through and through her Immaculate Heart.

Who are we to hold onto or nurse grudges?

Who do we think we are to be obsessed with "proving" ourselves to others?

Why can't we accept humiliation and castigation with joy and gratitude, saying with Saint Francis of Assisi whenever he was insulted or robbed of his alms or beaten upon or spat upon by passersby or rejected with cruelty for a time by his own father, Pietro di Bernadone, "Deo gratias"? Why do we cling to injuries? Why? Are we better than Our Lord and/or His Most Blessed Mother?

The only thing that matters is that God, Who sees clearly the intentions of all hearts and the circumstances of all lives, will have mercy on our poor souls, stained with so many sins that have been washed as white as wool in the Most. Precious Blood of Jesus if we have them Absolved by a true priest in the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, at the moment of our deaths as we cling to Our Lady's motherly intercession until we draw our last breath. And what better way to cling to Our Lady's mother intercession by making sure we use the shield of her Brown Scapular that she gave to Saint Simon Stock and the weapon of her Most Holy Rosary that she gave to Saint Dominic de Guzman, the founder of the Order of Preachers?

May Saint Augustine, whose miraculous conversion was wrought by the prayers and tears of his saintly mother, Saint Monica, help us to die to self that we may be so interiorly converted to the merciful spirit of Christ the King that we will pray fervently for our political leaders and the leaders of the counterfeit church or conciliarism so that they might know what we want to realize for ourselves: the blessedness of beholding the very vision of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost for all eternity in Heaven with the Blessed Mother, Saint Joseph, her Most Chaste Spouse, our Guardian Angels and patron saints and all of the angels and saints, including all those who have died in a state of Sanctifying Grace as members of the Catholic Church and whose victory over the adversary in their own lives will be made known only in eternity.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.


Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!


Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, 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.

Saint Augustine, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints

Appendix A

The Years of Ronald Wilson Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush: Not-So-Pro-Life

Each Republican administration has pursued anti-life policies, including that of President Ronald Wilson Reagan, who signed into law legislation funding the chemical assassination of children by means of domestic and international "family planning" programs, and who in 1981 appointed Sandra Day O'Connor to succeed Associate Justice Potter Stewart on the Supreme Court of the United States of America despite fact that Conservative Caucus Foundation Chairman Howard Phillips and American Life League founder and President Judie Brown testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that O'Connor supported baby-killing under cover of law when she was the Majority Leader of the Arizona State Senate. This is part of the testimony given by Howard Phillips in 1981:

As an Arizona State Senator, she voted twice for abortion on demand through the ninth month of pregnancy; she co-sponsored a proposal to permit abortion without parental consent; she promoted ERA; she opposed the Human Life Amendment; and she failed to oppose abortions at a taxpayer-funded facility. (Howard Phillips on Sandra Day O'Connor.)


What did this matter to the "pro-life" Republicans in the United States Senate at the time. Not a blessed thing. She was confirmed without objection by these "pro-life" Republican senators, most of whom voted to support the Reagan-Bush administration's funding of domestic and international "family programs" that made possible the chemical execution of innocent preborn children under cover of the civil law with our own taxpayer dollars.

Moreover, although President Reagan gave the issue of abortion rhetorical attention in his annual State of the Union addresses while embracing the flawed Hatch Amendment (which would have inserted language into the Constitution of the United States of America that state legislatures had the right to permit or restrict or abortion as they saw fit; no institution of civil governance has any right to permit the taking of innocent human life under cover of civil law), the issue was never paramount for him.

A friend of mine from Saint John's University said in early-1982 when I complained that Reagan was squandering the opportunity provided him by what appeared to be a "pro-life" United States Senate, "Tom, they'll give him anything he wants if he gets the economy going again." And John "Cardinal" O'Connor noted to me in a private meeting in October of 1986 when I was running for lieutenant governor of New York, "We could have gotten somewhere if the President had moved on the abortion issue as strong as he has moved in support of the Contras in Nicaragua." (This is also the point of a piece published in 2007, Selective Use of Executive Power, which discusses how the George Walker Bush administration used executive power to assert nonexistent presidential prerogatives to prosecute the Global War Against Terror, which is supported by "conservative" "patriots" no matter the moral outrages that take place in its prosecution to make the world safe for America's "only ally" in the Middle East, the State of Israel, which pursues all manner of murderous policies of its very own. See Worthy Successors of Herod the Great, Moral Monsters, and Just One Hail Mary.)

President George Herbert Walker Bush, whose support for contraception when he was a member of the United States House of Representatives from the State of Texas from 1967 to 1971 earned him an unprintable nickname, remains to this very day a supporter of "exceptions" to the inviolability of innocent human life despite the language of the Republican Party Platform in 1988 and 1992. Although he appointed Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court of the United States of America to replace Associate Justice Thurgood Marshall, his first appointee to the Court was David Souter, whose support for elective abortions when he served on the Board of Directors of a hospital in Concord, New Hampshire, that Howard Phillips documented in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 18, 1990:

In considering David Souter’s suitability to cast what, in many cases, will be the deciding opinion on the Supreme Court of the United States, it is necessary to go beyond Mr. Souter’s intellectual capacity and his stated opinions, and to assess his character and moral courage in their relationship to the responsibilities of a Supreme Court Justice.

DAVID SOUTER His pro-abortion record was there for those who wanted to know the truth. One moment of truth for Mr. Souter came in February, 1973 when, as a member of the board of trustees of Concord Hospital, he participated in a unanimous decision that abortions be performed at the hospital.

Advocacy of, or even acquiescence in, such a decision is morally distinguishable from the judicial conclusion, profoundly incorrect in my view, that women have a constitutional right to destroy their unborn children.

It is also distinguishable from and far more troubling than the political argument by politicians who maintain that they are “personally opposed” to abortion, even as they advocate its decriminalization.

It is one thing to intellectually rationalize the case for permitting legal abortions, while still opposing the exercise of such legal authority. It is quite another - something far more invidious, morally - to actually join in a real world decision to cause abortions to be performed, routinely, at a particular hospital.

Those abortions whose performance was authorized by David Souter were not mandated by law or court opinion. In fact, laws have remained to this day on the books in New Hampshire which provide criminal penalties for any “attempt to procure miscarriage” or “intent to destroy quick child.” Indeed, section 585:14 of the New Hampshire Criminal Code establishes the charge of second degree murder for the death of a pregnant woman in consequence of an attempted abortion. Nor were those abortions which Mr. Souter authorized performed merely to save the life of the mother, nor were they limited to cases of rape or incest.

If the unborn child is human, and if innocent human life is to be defended and safeguarded, why did Mr. Souter acquiesce in those abortions? Why did he not speak out against them? Why did he, through twelve years on the Concord Hospital board, in a position of responsibility, help cause those abortions to be performed, and invest his personal reputation in clearly implied approval of those abortions?

The overarching moral issue in the political life of the United States in the last third of the 20th Century is, in my opinion, the question of abortion. Is the unborn child a human person, entitled to the protections pledged to each of us by the Founders of our Nation?

The issue is much more than one of legal or judicial philosophy. There are men and women in the legal profession, in elected office, and on the bench who acknowledge abortion to be morally repugnant, but who assert that, in present circumstances, it cannot be constitutionally prohibited.

Whatever Mr. Souter’s legal and judicial philosophy may be - and, on the record, it seems to be one which rejects the higher law theories implicit in the Declaration of Independence - it is a chilling fact which the Senate must consider that Judge Souter has personally participated in decisions resulting in the performance of abortions, where such abortions were in no way mandated or required by law or court decision.

By his own account, Mr. Souter served as a member of the board of trustees for the Concord Hospital from 1971 until 1985. Following service as board secretary, he was president of the board from 1978 to 1984.

In 1973, shortly after the Supreme Court’s January 22 Roe v. Wade decision, the Concord Hospital trustees voted to initiate a policy of performing abortions at Concord Hospital.

Similarly, Dartmouth Hitchcock Hospital, which is associated with the Dartmouth Medical School, of which Judge Souter has been an overseer, has performed abortion up to the end of the second trimester.

During the period of Mr. Souter’s tenure as a decision-maker of these two institutions, many hundreds of abortions were performed under his authority, with no indication that he ever objected to or protested the performance of these abortions. Even though the Roe v. Wade decision did, in fact, authorize abortions through the ninth month of pregnancy, nothing in the Supreme Court’s decision required or obliged any hospital to conduct abortions, whether in the ninth month, the sixth month, or even in the first month of pregnancy.

If Judge Souter is confirmed as a Justice of the Supreme Court, he will, in all likelihood, be given the opportunity to address not only the issue of Roe v. Wade, but broader issues involving the sanctity of innocent human life.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in the 1986 Thornburgh case, “there is a fundamental and well-recognized difference between a fetus and a human being. Indeed, if there is not such a difference, the permissibility of terminating the life of a fetus could scarcely be left to the will of the State legislatures.”

Justice Stevens was wrong in a very deadly way. If an unborn child is not human, I would ask Justice Stevens, what is he, what is she? But as least Mr. Stevens was logical in defending his support for the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court said that, “If the personhood of the unborn child is established, the pro-abortion case collapses, for the fetus’s right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the Fourteenth Amendment.”

As Notre Dame law professor Charles Rice has pointed out, “This is so, because the common law does not permit a person to kill an innocent non-aggressor, even to save his own life.”

Does David Souter believe that the unborn child - the fetus in the mother’s womb - is a human person, deserving of all the protections which are guaranteed to human beings after the moment of birth?

Seemingly, Mr. Souter’s answer is an unequivocal “no.” by agreeing that abortions be performed at institutions under his authority, Mr. Souter established clearly that he did not recognize the personhood of the unborn child. For surely, if he did acknowledge the unborn child to be a human person, Mr. Souter would not have agreed to authorize the extinguishment of so many precious lives at medical facilities for which he bore responsibility.

One must conclude that either Mr. Souter accepts the view that the life of the unborn child is of less value than the convenience and profit of those who collaborate in the killing of that child, or that, despite his recognition of the fact that each unborn child is human, a handiwork of God’s creation, he lacked the moral courage or discernment to help prevent the destruction of so many innocent human lives when he had the authority, indeed, the responsibility, to do so.

Either way, in such circumstances, unless there are mitigating factors or extenuating considerations which have not yet been brought to public attention, it is difficult to regard Mr. Souter as one suitable for participation in judicial decisions at the highest level of our Nation.

If, during his years of responsibility at Concord Hospital and Dartmouth Hitchcock Hospital, Mr. Souter believed each fetus to be a human person, and failed to act against the performance of abortion, he was morally delinquent.

If, on the other hand, he justified himself by denying the human qualities of the unborn child, then he placed himself in the ambit of those who have argued against the very philosophy which his sponsor, President George Bush, purported to embrace during his 1988 presidential campaign.

On the basis of the information now available, Mr. Souter, in my opinion, should not be confirmed. (Testimony of Howard Phillips)


Did any of this matter to "pro-life" Republicans in the United States Senate? No. Souter was confirmed by the United States Senate on October 3, 1990, by a vote of ninety to nine. The nine senators who voted against David Souter were Democrats. Not a single "pro-life" Republican senator cared one whit about the incontrovertible evidence that Howard Phillips had presented concerning the fact that David Souter had the blood of the innocent preborn dripping on his hands.

Appendix B

Bush the Lesser: Deja Vu All Over Again

(From "We Don't Want to Learn Anything," November 11, 2008)

Let the hysteria begin! Yes, the very same people who have been willfully deaf, dumb, and blind in the past eight years as one anti-life policy after another has been pursued by the administration of the alleged "pro-life" "conservative," George Walker Bush, are screaming loud and long over the openly pro-abortion policies that will be pursued by the incoming administration of Barack Hussein Obama and Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.

Get over the hysteria, please. The Obama-Biden administration will simply do what the administration of William Jefferson Blythe Clinton and Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., did as soon as it took office of January 20, 1993, namely, reverse the few Executive Orders and policies that had been issued during the administrations of Ronald Wilson Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush and George Herbert Walker Bush and James Danforth Quayle from January 20, 1981 to January 20, 1993. Then President Clinton used several strokes of a pen to reverse various policies of the Reagan-Bush and Bush-Quayle administrations that sought, we were told, to restrict Federal funding for international family planning organizations involved in promoting abortion and to limit the Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

One of the Executive Orders issued by President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton on January 22, 1993, authorized the Food and Drug Administration to conduct experiments to determine whether to market the human pesticide, RU-486, the French abortion pill. Clinical trials of this chemical abortifacient were conducted, and an article The New York Times in 1995 indicated that women were getting pregnant deliberately in order to try to kill their children by means of these clinical trials of RU-486, which were being conducted at the time by the Population Council. The United States Food and Drug Administration approved the marketing of RU-486 on September 28, 2000.

Then Texas Governor George Walker Bush was asked just five days later, during his first debate with then Vice President Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., whether he would reverse the Food and Drug Administration's decision to market the human pesticide. Here is the transcript of the responses that Bush and Gore made to moderator Jim Lehrer of the Public Broadcasting System:

MODERATOR: New question, new subject. Governor Bush. If elected president, would you try to overturn the FDA's approval last week of the abortion pill RU-486?

BUSH: I don't think a president can do that. I was disappointed in the ruling because I think abortions ought to be more rare in America, and I'm worried that that pill will create more abortions and cause more people to have abortions. This is a very important topic and it's a very sensitive topic, because a lot of good people disagree on the issue. I think what the next president ought to do is to promote a culture of life in America. Life of the elderly and life of those women all across the country. Life of the unborn. As a matter of fact, I think a noble goal for this country is that every child, born or unborn, need to be protected by law and welcomed to life. I know we need to change a lot of minds before we get there in America. What I do believe is that we can find good, common ground on issues of parental consent or parental notification. I know we need to ban partial birth abortions. This is a place where my opponent and I have strong disagreement. I believe banning partial birth abortions would be a positive step to reducing the number of abortions in America. It is an issue that will require a new attitude. We've been battling over abortion for a long period of time. Surely this nation can come together to promote the value of life. Surely we can fight off these laws that will encourage doctors to -- to allow doctors to take the lives of our seniors. Surely we can work together to create a cultural life so some of these youngsters who feel like they can take a neighbor's life with a gun will understand that that's not the way America is meant to be. Surely we can find common ground to reduce the number of abortions in America. As to the drug itself, I mentioned I was disappointed. I hope the FDA took its time to make sure that American women will be safe who use this drug.

MODERATOR: Vice President Gore?

GORE: Well, Jim, the FDA took 12 years, and I do support that decision. They determined it was medically safe for the women who use that drug. This is indeed a very important issue. First of all on the issue of partial birth or so-called late-term abortion, I would sign a law banning that procedure, provided that doctors have the ability to save a woman's life or to act if her health is severely at risk. That's not the main issue. The main issue is whether or not the Roe v. Wade decision is going to be overturned. I support a woman's right to choose. My opponent does not. It is important because the next president is going to appoint three and maybe even four justices of the Supreme Court. And Governor Bush has declared to the anti-choice group that he will appoint justices in the mold of Scalia and Clarence Thomas, who are known for being the most vigorous opponents of a woman's right to choose. Here is the difference. He trusts the government to order a woman to do what it thinks she ought to do. I trust women to make the decisions that affect their lives, their destinies and their bodies. And I think a woman's right to choose ought to be protected and defended.

MODERATOR: Governor, we'll go to the Supreme Court question in a moment, but make sure I understand your position on RU-486. If you're elected president, you won't support legislation to overturn this?

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)


I very rarely write sentences consisting of capitalized words to make a point emphatically. The English language permits us to choose words without having to resort to capitalized words and multiple exclamation points at the end of sentences. I will make an exception in this instance, however: THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA HAS FULL POWER TO DIRECT HIS SUBORDINATES TO REVERSE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS MADE BY A PREDECESSOR'S ADMINISTRATION.

George Walker Bush decided NOT to reverse the decision announced by the Food and Drug Administration on September 28, 2000, because he did not want to run the risk of electoral rejection for doing so. To assert that the President of the United States of America is powerless to reverse an administrative decision demonstrates a woeful ignorance of the Constitution of the United States of America or a deliberate effort to wash one's hands of a decision that one prefers to see stand as it was made.

As I demonstrated one year ago this month in Selective Use of Executive Power, President George Herbert Walker Bush and President George Walker Bush both pushed the limits of executive power to accomplish those things that truly mattered to them in their respective administrations. The younger President Bush was reported by a Republican member of the House of Representatives to have said that the Constitution is just a (expletive deleted) piece of paper when he, Bush, was questioned about the constitutionality of his administration's warrantless wiretapping and surveillance of American citizens residing in the United States of America. Bush never cared about constitutional limits, issuing all manner of orders to approve the use of "enhanced interrogation" (torture) on suspects held by third-party contractors in foreign countries.

It is beneath contempt for anyone to assert that George Walker Bush is "pro-life" when he has had nearly eight years to reverse the marketing of the human pesticide, RU-486. Eight years. Eight years. All it would have taken for George Walker Bush to reverse the marketing of RU-486 is to direct the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, which is a division of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, to reverse the marketing decision. It is that simple. Bush has chosen NOT to do this.

Don't fault the fully pro-abortion Barack Hussein Obama for having the integrity to use his absolute commitment to abject evil as the basis for the executive orders that he will issue within the first days of his presidency come January 20, 2009. He is pro-death. He is consistently pro-death. He will act with consistency in his commitment to advancing his pro-death decision. He does not pretend to be one thing while acting in a way that contradicts his stated positions, at least not on the issue of taking the lives of innocent children by chemical or surgical means.

George Walker Bush, quite to the contrary, has said he is "pro-life" while refusing even to take a simple measure as directing the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration to reverse the marketing of RU-486. How many Catholics, no matter where they fall across the ecclesiastical divide, have held him accountable for this refusal to his executive power to reverse RU-486? This is one simple measure that could have been taken to reverse a little bit of the legacy of William Jefferson Blythe Clinton and Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. One simple measure. It was not taken.

Indeed, one can see in Bush's meandering, rambling response to Jim Lehrer ninety-seven months, eight days ago today all of the incoherency of his alleged "pro-life" position, including his absurd contention that "good people" can "disagree" on this issue, something Bush would never say about racism or anti-Semitism. God has given us the Fifth Commandment, which admits of no exceptions. It is that simple.

One of the first duties of those in civil power is to stop the shedding of innocent blood. Bush, who believes that innocent preborn children can be sliced and diced (or burned or vacuumed) in their mothers' wombs in certain "hard" cases, could have stopped the shedding of the blood of some babies if he directed a reversal of the Food and Drug Administration decision to market RU-486, choosing not to do and stating in the October 3, 2000, debate that the did not think he could do so as long as the pesticide was deemed "safe" for women? Not only is RU-486 unsafe for women, many of whom have died from the drug, it is deadly for babies.

Barack Hussein Obama is going to the executive powers of the office of the President of the United States of America to advance his policies of evil. George Walker Bush has refused to use those executive powers for the good. Indeed, the Food and Drug Administration under his own presidential watch made the following decision on August 24, 2006, approving over-the-counter sales to women over the age of eighteen for the "Plan B" "emergency contraceptive," which is, all protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, 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 is, 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." And this exculpates one from denouncing Bush? Reprehensible. Absolutely reprehensible.

The hysteria at the moment involves President-elect Barack Hussein Obama's likely lifting of the "gag" order that was imposed by President George Walker Bush on January 22, 2001, that prevents, it is said, international "family planning" agencies such as Planned Parenthood from performing surgical abortions on their premises or for using its own facilities to refer for surgical abortions elsewhere. The "gag" order issued by the current President Bush, however, is a "gag," as in a joke, as I have explained over and over again under the Christ or Chaos banner in the formerly printed journal (1996-2003) and the current website (February, 2004, to the present).

The George Walker Bush version of the "Mexico City" policy, as the "gag" order is called, is 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 permits 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 "Mexico City" policy permits 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 is 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, of course, the domestic and international "family planning" programs that have been funded to the hilt by the administration of George Walker Bush and Richard B. Cheney have 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)

Evil, much evil, has been done by the George Walker Bush administration under the cover of a "pro-life" mask. Barack Hussein Obama, who has no qualms at all about supporting evil quite openly and without any apology whatsoever, is merely going to remove the mask from what has been a cruel joke played on "pro-life" Americans in the past eight years, a joke that almost next-to-none of them want to recognize as such.

Similarly, many are aghast that President-elect Barack Hussein Obama will restore full Federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research on stem-cell lines created after 9:00 p.m. on Thursday, August 9, 2001, the time and date chosen by the current President Bush to forbid Federal funding on embryonic human beings created thereafter. Although draconian researchers continue to decry this preposterous decision to let some babies be killed while protecting others, most "pro-life" Americans overlooked the simple fact that embryonic stem-cell research on embryonic human beings created after 9:00 p.m. on Thursday, August, 9, 2001, has continued by means of private funding. "W" has not sought to end the private funding of such embryonic stem-cell research and has himself continued full Federal funding on embryonic human beings created artificially and frozen before that time and date.

President Bush the younger used his first address to the nation on that Thursday evening on August 9, 2001, to express his support for "in vitro fertilization, an immoral means to create a human being artificially:

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)

President-elect Barack Hussein Obama and his former opponent, United States John Sidney McCain III, R-Arizona, both supported the restoration of full Federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research during their recently concluded campaigns. McCain would have done the same thing that Obama is said to ready to do once he assumes office. Why the hysteria?

I mean, the supposedly "electable" candidate in the Republican presidential primaries and caucuses of 1996, the hapless, inarticulate, ever-mercurial thirty-third degree Mason named Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., was one of the first members of the United States Senate to come out in open support of then President William Jefferson Clinton's executive order restoring Federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research. No one in the "pro-life" "establishment" (National Right to Life Committee, Priests for Life, Christian Coalition) held that against him when they urged voters, however quietly, to support Dole over Patrick Joseph Buchanan.

Why is Obama's support for this evil so terrible while it is apparently no "big deal" that Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., and John Sidney McCain III supported this same evil during their campaigns for the presidency? Blindness? Compromise? Wishful thinking? Utter stupidity? Hypocrisy? Why is it bad for a Democrat to support an evil while it is necessary to be silent when Republicans do so? As far as I know, God created the Catholic Church, not a political party, to be the means of ordering the lives of men and their nations

The outgoing President, George Walker Bush, funded embryonic stem-cell research up to a certain time and date and had not a problem in the world with the private funding of such "research" on human beings created thereafter. Obama is, once again, just removing the mask as he shows his integrity quite openly as a supporter of one evil after another. Bush has pretended to be "pro-life" while pursuing policies that have done much to advance the killing of innocent human beings here and abroad, to say nothing of the thousands upon thousands of Iraqi children who have been wounded and/or born with birth defects as a result of the monstrous use of depleted uranium bombs by the military forces of the United States of America.

Mrs. Judie Brown pointed out the mythology associated with the contention that George Walker Bush "stopped" the Federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research when he did no such thing even when he vetoed bills to "expand" the funding he approved on August 9, 2001:

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.)


We will also hear, of course, that President-elect Obama is going to be appointing a Cabinet full of pro-aborts. This will certainly be the case, and this is terrible. Granted. Tell me, however, who raised their voices in objection to the appointment of pro-aborts such as Colin Powell, Tom Ridge, Andrew Card, Michael Chertoff, Alberto Gonzales, Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Christine Todd Whitman, Michael Mukasey, Mary Matalin, et al., to various positions in the current administration? Who? Who in the clergy has spoken up? Who in the laity has spoken up? Or is it easier to blind one's eyes and cover one's ears in order not to have the moral responsibility to speak up and to state the simple truth that no one who supports a single abortion, whether chemical or surgical, under cover of law, is qualified to hold any office of public trust, whether elected of appointed, at any level of government (state, local, national)?

My friends, why don't we want to learn from the facts of our situation? Why do we get our eyes closed and our mouths shut during the administration of an alleged "pro-life" conservative who has governed as a statist and as a fascist as he has campaign for and with one pro-abort politician in his own political party after another (Rudolph William Giuliani, George Pataki, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Rick Lazio, et al.). Bush even endorsed the fully pro-abortion United States Senator Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, against a partly pro-life/partly pro-abortion challenger, then United States Representative Patrick Toomey in 2004. How can you claim, as Bush does, that you are working for a day when every child "will be welcomed in life and protected by law" when you support the surgical killing of babies in some instances yourself and when help to elect men and women who support abortion, both chemical and surgical, in all instances?

Some will no doubt point out that the pending "Freedom of Choice Act" (FOCA) which is designed to overturn all state restrictions on surgical baby-killing, stands a good chance of passage in the 111th Congress that assembles on January 6, 2009. It must be remembered (and remembering the facts of public policy does not appear to be one of the strengths of those who call themselves "pro-life") that the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE) was approved by the United States Senate by a vote of 69-30 on May 12, 1994, as several "pro-life" Republican senators voted in favor of this bill designed to protect abortuaries from all organized, peaceful efforts to block access to their bloodied doors. Among those "pro-life" Republican senators were Christopher Bond, R-Missouri, David Durenberger, R-Minnesota, John Danforth, R-Missouri, Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, and Hank Brown, R-Colorado, in addition to the then extant Republican pro-aborts in the United States Senate (Arlen Specter, Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, James Jeffords, R (now an independent who caucuses with the Democrats)-Vermont, John Chafee, R-Rhode Island, the egregious Robert Packwood, R-Oregon, and the thirty-third degree Mason Alan Simpson, R-Wyoming. (Roll call vote on S. 636, 00112.) There will be at least two Republicans, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, in the Senate and several in the United States House of Representatives who will vote for FOCA, which is the logical extension of FACE, which was never reversed during the eight years of the administration of President George Walker Bush, now was it?

Although the special Federal Bureau of Investigation task force designed to investigate "clinic violence" under the terms of FACE that was created by then United States Attorney General Janet Reno in 1994 was phased out in the year 2000, its functions are still being handled by the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice, which "guarantees" access to "reproductive health care." The Republican "pro-life" administration has been about the business of "enforcing" FACE. It's the "law of the land" after all, right? And it was this Republican "pro-life" administration that argued before the Supreme Court of the United States of America on December 4, 2002, that Joe Scheidler, a Catholic hero who has saved countless babies and the souls of their mothers from the consequences of child killing, should have had his conviction on the grounds of the Hobbs Act upheld, contending that Scheidler was engaged in the equivalent of banditry by trying to talk women out of killing their children. United States Solicitor General Theodore Olson argued that Scheidler was depriving a legitimate business, an abortuary, from the money that would have been derived from their “clients” had not Scheidler “interfered.” Ah, yes, the administration of George W. Bush wants to save babies. I forgot.

Don't be surprised or outraged that an open pro-abort named Barack Hussein Obama is being faithful to his hideous views. What those who call themselves "pro-life" should be outraged about is that the man they have indemnified for eight years by means of their blissful ignorance or willful silence, George Walker Bush, has been responsible for perpetrating one of the most successful confidence schemes ("con" games, if you will) in the history of American government. This man, for whose conversion we must continue to pray once he leaves office as we have done while he has held the Presidency of the United States of America (and he might very well "convert" to the conciliar structures soon after his departure), has the blood of countless thousands upon thousands of innocent human beings on his hands all the while as he has been hailed as "pro-life" when he has been nothing of the sort whatsoever.

Although some have complained about the repetitive nature of these essays, repetition is, after all, the mother of learning. People forget. They don't want to be reminded of First and Last Things. They don't want their eyes opened to the actual facts of our situation, preferring to believe in various mythologies to convince themselves that a "lesser evil" has done "lesser" amounts of harm than some supposedly "greater" evil. When confronted with the facts as they have been outlined above, however, many pro-life Americans, including, all too sadly, many Catholics don't want to know anything that will disturb their consciences in the slightest as they prepare for the next great exercise of our Judeo-Masonic electoral farce in the year 2012.

Let me repeat once again, therefore, a simple fact of life: Barack Hussein Obama will be more honest in promoting in agenda of evil than the outgoing administration has been as it has masked its evil under the empty slogan of "pro-life" as its efforts have been enabled by intellectually dishonest "leaders" who enjoy their access to the halls of power in the White House when Republicans are in power. That is the only substantial difference between what will happen in the next four years and what has happened in the past eight years, admitting that there will areas where the incoming administration will take full advantage of the opportunity that has been handed to them to further solidify their agenda of evil for the future, knowing full well that what gets passed in a Democrat Party administration will never be reversed in a Republican Party administration. Democrats use their opportunities as they believe in their agenda of evil Republicans squander theirs as they give only empty rhetoric to being "pro-life."

We must remember that we are in a diabolical trap created by the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King by the Protestant Revolt and institutionalized by the ethos of Judeo-Masonry and the vast array of naturalistic ideologies and philosophies and movements allied with it. There is no secular, religiously indifferentist, nondenominational or interdenominational way by which our problems are going to be resolved. And while there is no stopping the next president's executive orders, each of which will be a fait accompli that will have the full support of the majority party in both Houses of the Congress of the United States of America, even efforts, no matter how futile, to stop Congressional passage of FOCA must be based upon right principles of Catholic truth in order to help a few souls find their way out of the trap created by the scions of Modernity and enabled by the lords of the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

There can be no compromise with Modernity or Modernism. None whatsoever. Our goal must be, as ever, to plant the seeds for what Pope Saint Pius X urged us in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910, to restore: the Catholic City:

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.


We help to restore the Catholic City every time we receive Holy Communion worthily in a true offering of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition by a true bishop or a true priest.

We help to restore the Catholic City as we spend time each day in prayer before Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament.

We help to restore the Catholic City with each Rosary we pray.

We help to restore the Catholic City with each good, sincere, humble, integral Confession we make of our sins.

We help to restore the Catholic City with each blessed Green Scapular we pass out to a lost soul who has been abandoned to the ways of the world by the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

We help to restore the Catholic City by consecrating ourselves to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, offering up all of our prayers and penances and sacrifices and mortifications and humiliations to His Most Sacred Heart through her Immaculate Heart.

We help to restore the Catholic City by enthroning our homes to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

We help to restore the Catholic City by fulfilling Our Lady's Fatima Message in our own lives as best we can.

We help to restore the Catholic City by remembering that this is the time that God has ordained from all eternity for us to live in, seeking therefore to cooperate with the graces He won for us by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross and that flows into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, the Mediatrix of All Graces, to persevere to the point of our dying breaths in states of Sanctifying Grace as members of the Catholic Church.

The final triumph belongs to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. We must never despair. We must simply ask her to be valiant, faithful and tireless champions of her Divine Son, Christ the King, at all times and in all circumstances, looking never for "results" in this life, seeking only to remain faithful to Our King through her, Our Queen, until we draw our dying breaths.

Our Lady of Guadalupe, Patroness of the Americas and of the unborn, pray for us.

Appendix C

Columnist Chuck Baldwin, a Protestant "minister," on the George Walker Bush Anti-Life Record (March 10, 2005)

It is time to ask some hard questions about the preponderance of leaders and organizations commonly identified as the Religious Right. Are they gullible, naïve, or willingly ignorant? How can anyone who truly believes that unborn babies deserve the right to life continue to support President George W. Bush? His track record on the life issue screams betrayal! Let's get real: on the subject of protecting the lives of unborn babies, Bush is just so much hot air!

American Life League president Judy Brown, columnist Thomas Droleskey, Howard Phillips, CovenantNews.com web host Jim Rudd, and many others have provided the American people with incontrovertible documentation regarding G.W. Bush's dismally pathetic record on the life issue. They have chronicled facts including:

Practically everyone in Bush's cabinet is pro-abortion. Bush is the first president to authorize stem cell research. In fact, his appointee to directorship of the National Institute of Health, Dr. Elias Zerhouni, is a pioneer in embryonic stem cell research. President Bush even blocked a vote on a congressional amendment that would have banned the patenting of human embryos.

President Bush has done nothing to remove abortifacients such as RU-486 from the shelves. He even supported the National Organization of Women (NOW) in their racketeering suit against Joe Scheidler and other pro-life advocates.

President Bush has approved millions of taxpayer dollars in funding for Planned Parenthood. He has authorized federal funding for abortion providers overseas to levels even higher than those authorized by President Bill Clinton!

Speaking of overseas funding for abortion, President Bush's $15 billion AIDS package provides payments to organizations that provide abortions including the International Planned Parenthood Federation.

President Bush even admitted his opposition to overturning Roe v Wade by stating emphatically, "there will be abortions. That's a reality." Of course, the President's wife Laura has also publicly said she is opposed to overturning Roe v Wade.

President Bush has repeatedly said that he has no litmus test on the life issue when it comes to appointing federal judges. Why does the Religious Right claim he intends to do something he has plainly and repeatedly denied? Again, are they gullible, naïve, or willingly ignorant?

Beyond that, how far will the Religious Right go in their compromise and surrender of the life issue? Indications are there is practically no limit to their sellout.

We are already hearing leaders within the Religious Right say they will support the Republican presidential nominee in 2008 even if that nominee is openly pro-abortion. Such talk is obviously an attempt to begin calming potential concerns among pro-life conservatives if and when the Republican Party nominates a pro- abortion presidential candidate, which appears very likely to happen.

For example, a recent national gathering of Republicans voted Rudy Guiliani and Condi Rice as the top two choices to lead the GOP ticket in 2008. Of course, both Guiliani and Rice are pro- abortion. It will be more than interesting to listen to leaders of the Religious Right postulate on how a pro-abortion Democrat is evil but a pro- abortion Republican is righteous! Again, is the Religious Right gullible, naïve, or willingly ignorant?

Perhaps disgusting is a more appropriate word to describe the behavior of the Religious Right. In order to keep its most favored special interest group status, it has compromised and capitulated just about every cardinal principle, including the life issue.

As a result, Republican presidents and congresses will continue to come and go, the Religious Right will continue to bask in the warm glow of Republican acceptance, and millions of pre-born babies will continue to have their little bodies torn apart by the abortionist's scalpel.

Do not fear, however. At least a Democrat is not in the White House. Obviously, that matters little to the more than 4 million unborn babies who have been slaughtered in the wombs of their mothers since G.W. Bush became President. What does matter, of course, is that the Religious Right is happy to embrace the Republican presidential candidate, his or her commitment to the unborn notwithstanding.

Is the Religious Right gullible, naïve, or willingly ignorant? It really doesn't matter. Whatever the motive or whatever the cause, the Religious Right has ceased to be a credible proponent of protecting the lives of unborn children, which leads to the greater question: who will pick up the mantle as the voice for the unborn?  (Is The Religious Right Gullible, Naïve, or Willingly Ignorant?)






© Copyright 2010, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.