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

                  November 17, 2009

Rational Thought Need Not Apply

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Rational thought is not found in ready supply in world that has been shaped by the Protestant Revolution's overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King and the triumph, albeit temporary, of the "Reign of Man" that has been heralded by the scions of Judeo-Masonry and their fellow travelers in the empty, demonic world of naturalism.

Pope Gregory XVI (1831-1846) and his immediate successor, Pope Pius IX (1846-1878), condemned the insanity of naturalism in no uncertain terms:

This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error," as Augustine was wont to say. When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly "the bottomless pit" is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws -- in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty.

Here We must include that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people, which some dare to demand and promote with so great a clamor. We are horrified to see what monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors are disseminated far and wide in countless books, pamphlets, and other writings which, though small in weight, are very great in malice. We are in tears at the abuse which proceeds from them over the face of the earth. Some are so carried away that they contentiously assert that the flock of errors arising from them is sufficiently compensated by the publication of some book which defends religion and truth. Every law condemns deliberately doing evil simply because there is some hope that good may result. Is there any sane man who would say poison ought to be distributed, sold publicly, stored, and even drunk because some antidote is available and those who use it may be snatched from death again and again? (Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)

But, although we have not omitted often to proscribe and reprobate the chief errors of this kind, yet the cause of the Catholic Church, and the salvation of souls entrusted to us by God, and the welfare of human society itself, altogether demand that we again stir up your pastoral solicitude to exterminate other evil opinions, which spring forth from the said errors as from a fountain. Which false and perverse opinions are on that ground the more to be detested, because they chiefly tend to this, that that salutary influence be impeded and (even) removed, which the Catholic Church, according to the institution and command of her Divine Author, should freely exercise even to the end of the world -- not only over private individuals, but over nations, peoples, and their sovereign princes; and (tend also) to take away that mutual fellowship and concord of counsels between Church and State which has ever proved itself propitious and salutary, both for religious and civil interests.

For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of "naturalism," as they call it, dare to teach that "the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones." And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that "that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require." From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity," viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;" and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling."

And, since where religion has been removed from civil society, and the doctrine and authority of divine revelation repudiated, the genuine notion itself of justice and human right is darkened and lost, and the place of true justice and legitimate right is supplied by material force, thence it appears why it is that some, utterly neglecting and disregarding the surest principles of sound reason, dare to proclaim that "the people's will, manifested by what is called public opinion or in some other way, constitutes a supreme law, free from all divine and human control; and that in the political order accomplished facts, from the very circumstance that they are accomplished, have the force of right." But who, does not see and clearly perceive that human society, when set loose from the bonds of religion and true justice, can have, in truth, no other end than the purpose of obtaining and amassing wealth, and that (society under such circumstances) follows no other law in its actions, except the unchastened desire of ministering to its own pleasure and interests? (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864.)


Behold the insanity of the injurious babbling that continues to be exhibited for the former Governor of Alaska, Sarah Heath Palin's, as she starts a "book tour" to promote a book that she did not write. No one who speaks in the incoherency that characterizes Sarah Heath Palin's unscripted remarks is capable of writing a book. Clear speaking is a sign of clear thinking, and those who cannot speak clearly cannot write coherently. It is that simple.

Witness for the prosecution in this regard: a report in The New York Times about Mrs. Palin's with the Queen of Naturalism and Sentimentality, Oprah Winfrey:

There were no questions about the Bush doctrine, but Sarah Palin’s appearance Monday on “The Oprah Winfrey Show” to promote her memoir looked less like a celebratory comeback than a redo of the presidential campaign.

For all her aplomb and telegenic charm, Ms. Palin still had the hunted look and defensive crouch she wore in television interviews with Katie Couric and Charles Gibson last year. And it would seem that the pain of those tongue-tied encounters was not exorcised by writing “Going Rogue: An American Life,” a tell-all book that blamed the McCain staff for the way it “handled” her on the trail.

When Ms. Winfrey pressed Ms. Palin about why she would not mention the names of newspapers or magazines she read when Ms. Couric asked her to, Ms. Palin said she found the CBS anchor’s persistence “annoying.” Still looking annoyed, she recalled how she left a rally “pumped up” and aglow, only to pull back the curtain and discover Ms. Couric waiting with camera and crew, or as she put it sourly, “There’s the perky one again.”

Ms. Winfrey, who didn’t hide her surprise at Ms. Palin’s impolitic wording, came to Ms. Couric’s defense, noting, “You’re pretty perky too.”

It was a surprisingly unsmooth performance for a politician-celebrity who insists that the McCain campaign stifled her spirit and smothered her natural talent for communication. But there were reasons for Ms. Palin to be wary: Ms. Winfrey was one of President Obama’s most prominent supporters during the campaign.

On the show Ms. Winfrey treated Ms. Palin the way she handled former child star and self-described incest victim Mackenzie Phillips — with guarded civility and thinly veiled skepticism.

Questions about her decision to quit her job as governor of Alaska, her handling of the infamous Couric interview and tabloid coverage of her family seemed to unnerve Ms. Palin. When Ms. Winfrey asked about her daughter’s ex-boyfriend, Levi Johnston, who has been saying unflattering things about Ms. Palin and may be shopping a book of his own, Ms. Palin tried, and failed, to stay on message. She began by saying that “national television is not the place” to air grievances against the father of her first grandchild, then proceeded to call him “Ricky Hollywood”. . . .

When Ms. Winfrey asked if she would invite Mr. Johnston to Thanksgiving, Ms. Palin gave one of her trademark wandering answers.

“You know, that’s a great question,” Ms. Palin said. “And it’s lovely to think that he would ever even consider such a thing.”

She added: “He is a part of the family, and you want to bring him in the fold and kind of under your wing. And he needs that too, Oprah.”

There was more: “I think he needs to know that he is loved, and he has the most beautiful child, and this can all work out for good. It really can. We don’t have to keep going down this road of controversy and drama all the time. We’re not really into the drama. We don’t really like that.”

Finally Ms. Winfrey cut to the chase, asking, “Does that mean yes, he is coming, or no, he is not?” (Pressed, Ms. Palin said she would extend the invitation.)

Ms. Palin is obviously hurt and angry about the way Mr. Johnston has exploited his connections to convert fame into fortune, but there are other reasons for resentment. In the age of balloon dads and transformative reality television Ms. Palin has emerged as quintessentially American, in terms of the America of the moment. Her career gyrations, life and family continue to feed a spotlight-hungry media carnival. In some ways her almost son-in-law’s quick and callous cashing-in looks like a junior version of her own quickie book campaign.

The title of Ms. Palin’s book is “Going Rogue,” but her appearance on “The Oprah Winfrey Show” mostly showed a politician-celebrity going for broke. (Palin Onstage, Still Moving Off Message.)


Yes, this is the woman who some of my former colleagues in the Catholic media believed justified a "hold your nose" vote for United States Senator John Sidney McCain III, a woman is was called "one of the most promising politicians" to come along in a long time. I did not hold my contempt for this lack of discernment among my former colleagues, calling their assessment of the dunderhead from Alaska to be insanity, which is precisely what it remain. Sarah Heath Palin knows nothing about anything except how to ramble interminably as she contradicts herself in a style worthy of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. Sarah Heath Palin lives in a world of what could be called the "hermeneutic of instant discontinuity from any continuity with rational thought."

One of the truly sad aspects of all of this is that Sarah Heath Palin is absolutely clueless about her own incoherency. She thinks that she is pretty brilliant. She cannot see that she is a dunderhead who speaks in a stream of consciousness that is shrouded in a fog of naturalistic confusion wrought by the effects of the Protestant Revolution and the rise of Judeo-Masonry. So do many of her fellow Americans, for that matter, which is why she will get around six to twelve percent of the vote in the initial Republican Party presidential caucuses and primaries in 2012 if she decides to take her "rogue" road show in that direction.

Here's a little refresher of how former Governor Palin's "hermeneutic of instant discontinuity from any continuity with rational thought" worked in her now famous interview with Columbia News Broadcasting System's anchorette Katie Couric on the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Roe v. Wade, January 22, 1973:

Couric Why, in your view, is Roe v. Wade a bad decision?

Sarah Palin: I think it should be a states' issue not a federal government-mandated, mandating yes or no on such an important issue. I'm, in that sense, a federalist, where I believe that states should have more say in the laws of their lands and individual areas. Now, foundationally, also, though, it's no secret that I'm pro-life that I believe in a culture of life is very important for this country. Personally that's what I would like to see, um, further embraced by America.

Couric: Do you think there's an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution?

Palin: I do. Yeah, I do.

Couric: The cornerstone of Roe v. Wade.

Palin: I do. And I believe that individual states can best handle what the people within the different constituencies in the 50 states would like to see their will ushered in an issue like that.

Couric: What other Supreme Court decisions do you disagree with?

Palin: Well, let's see. There's, of course in the great history of America there have been rulings, that's never going to be absolute consensus by every American. And there are those issues, again, like Roe v. Wade, where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So you know, going through the history of America, there would be others but …

Couric: Can you think of any?

Palin: Well, I could think of … any again, that could be best dealt with on a more local level. Maybe I would take issue with. But, you know, as mayor, and then as governor and even as a vice president, if I'm so privileged to serve, wouldn't be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today.


This is what I noted thirteen months ago when assessing this incredible display of incoherency and contradiction:

There is nothing of logic or rationality, no less of factual accuracy, contained in Governor Sarah Heath Palin's answers, showing her to be, as so many of us have contended ever since she was selected by United States Senator John Sidney McCain III, R-Arizona, on August 29, 2008, to be his vice presidential running mate, far from a "promising politician" but a vapid and unprepared demagogue who is able to give a good speech to whip up a crowd into a frenzy but who knows nothing of logic and rationality, no less of First and Last Things as they have been entrusted by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ exclusively to the Catholic Church for their eternal safekeeping and infallible explication.

To Mrs. Palin's first answer:

Sarah Palin: I think it should be a states' issue not a federal government-mandated, mandating yes or no on such an important issue. I'm, in that sense, a federalist, where I believe that states should have more say in the laws of their lands and individual areas. Now, foundationally, also, though, it's no secret that I'm pro-life that I believe in a culture of life is very important for this country. Personally that's what I would like to see, um, further embraced by America.


Like her running mate, Senator McCain, Mrs. Palin is at odds with the platform on which she is supposedly running, a platform, we have been assured by certain omniscient folks, that makes it acceptable to vote for the McCain-Palin ticket, a patently absurd conclusion as I demonstrated in Facts Are Troublesome Things that the Republican Party's national platform has long called for a no-exceptions amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America to protect the inviolability of all innocent human beings. Neither McCain or Palin support their party's call for such an amendment, making that platform plank completely worthless in point of fact as a matter of policy-making should they win the election on November 4, 2008, and absurd as a debating point in behalf of the "acceptability" of the McCain-Palin ticket.

As mentioned in Fallacies Galore four days ago now, human beings do not have, whether acting individually or collectively with others in the institutions of civil governance, any "right" to permit the execution of preborn children under cover of law according to the "will" of the people in a particular state or other political jurisdiction:

No, Senator McCain, decisions concerning the inviolability of innocent human life at any stage from the moment of fertilization through all subsequent stages until natural death do not belong to "the states." No human institution of civil governance has any authority from God to enact positive legislation or to render judicial decisions contrary to the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law. This means, Senator McCain, that the Fifth Commandment is non-negotiable. Human institutions of civil governance may determine the penalties to be imposed upon those adjudged guilty after due process of law of violating the Fifth Commandment's absolute prohibition against any and all attacks on innocent human life. Such institutions of civil governance do not have any authority to permit the taking of such life. This is not a matter of states' rights, Senator McCain. This is a matter of God's immutable and eternal Law from which no human being may legitimately dissent at any time for any reason.


What applies to John Sidney McCain III applies to his running mate, Sarah Heath Palin, equally. It is absurd and incongruent to claim that one is "pro-life" when one supports the slicing and dicing of innocent preborn babies in even one instance, no less to assert falsely that state legislatures have the "right" to legislate in such a matter as to "permit" any kind of direct, intentional killing of innocent human beings under the cover of the civil law. It is impossible to create a "culture of life" and it is reprehensible to call oneself "pro-life" when one supports any exceptions to the inviolability of innocent preborn life and when one believes that institutions of civil governance can "permit" baby-killing, whether by chemical and/or surgical means, under cover of law.

Then we have Sarah Heath Palin the constitutional scholar:

Couric: Do you think there's an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution?

Palin: I do. Yeah, I do.

Couric: The cornerstone of Roe v. Wade.

Palin: I do. And I believe that individual states can best handle what the people within the different constituencies in the 50 states would like to see their will ushered in an issue like that.


Please put your hand on your hip and say with me, "Man, this is deep, really deep, isn't it?"

Sarah Heath Palin, far from being a "promising politician," is an ignoramus who gives answers to legitimate questions that would embarrass some of the worst students that I taught in American national government and constitutional law courses over the case of the thirty years of my college teaching, including a student who failed a constitutional law class that I taught at Illinois State University in Normal, Illinois, thirty years ago this semester, a student who had the nerve thereafter to ask for a letter of recommendation from me for his law school application! Even he wouldn't have given such a stupid, dense and uninformed answer as Governor Palin, who shows herself to be absolutely oblivious to the the multiple ways in which she contradicts herself and the allegedly "pro-life" position she claims that she holds.

Right to privacy? Where? (Don't worry, the plagiarist Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., is about to be taken to the cyberspace woodshed on this one as well.) Where is this "right to privacy that protects a "right" to "reproductive freedom"? Sarah Heath Palin cannot tell us. She does not know. It's just kind of "there." One of the supreme ironies of this is that she agrees with Joseph Robinette, Biden, Jr., whose commitment to the nonexistent "right to privacy" still causes him to boast of how he was in the vanguard of opposition to the confirmation in 1987 of Judge Robert H. Bork, serving at the time on the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Distinct of Columbia, to succeed Associate Justice Lewis Powell on the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Palin and Biden are in agreement, therefore, that Robert H. Bork was wrong to assert that there is no "right to privacy" found in the Constitution of the United States of America.

Given her inability to identify any Supreme Court decisions other than Roe v. Wade, Sarah Heath Palin does not know that the nonexistent "right to privacy" was invented by a seven to two vote of the justices on the Court in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut, June 7, 1965. Associate Justice William O. Douglas wrote the Court's majority opinion, joined by Associate Justice Arthur Goldberg in a concurring opinion that argued the entirety of the Bill of Rights, proposed and ratified to limit the power of the Federal government of the United States of America, applied to state governments through the Fourteenth Amendment's "liberty" and "due process of law clauses." (The Griswold case is one of a long line of Supreme Court cases that sought to "incorporate" various provisions of the Bill of Rights to state governments, starting with the case of Gitlow v. New York in 1925.)

The Griswold case involved a long unenforced Connecticut statute, on the books since 1879, that forbade the use of any drug designed to prevent conception. In other words, the Griswold case struck down all state laws that forbade the sale of contraceptives of any kind to married couples. Justice Douglas, a thirty-third degree Mason and one of the most liberal members in the history of the Supreme Court, argued that the Bill of Rights contained "penumbras" or emanations that flowed from its provisions. The "right to privacy" was "found" in one of this "penumbras" (This is sort of like the counterfeit church of conciliarism's "discovery" of condemned propositions, such as religious liberty, as being compatible with the Catholic Faith.) A subsequent case, Eisenstadt v. Baird, March 22, 1972, struck down all state laws forbidding the sale of contraceptives to unmarried persons.

Associate Justice Hugo Black, whose nomination by then President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to the Supreme Court of the United States of America in 1935 engendered controversy because Black, then a United States Senator from Alabama, had been a member of the Ku Klux Klan, was no friend of the Catholic Faith. Black was, in addition to being a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, a thirty-third degree Mason whose opinion in the Supreme Court case of Everson v. Board of Education of Totowa, New Jersey, 1947, cited Thomas Jefferson's dictum of a "high wall of separation between Church and State" as he "applied" the First Amendment's "establishment clause" to state governments. Black did, however, understand that the majority in the Griswold case was inventing a "right" that was not to be found in the words of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Black made it clear in his dissenting opinion that he found the Connecticut statute every bit as "offensive" as his brother Justices John Marshall Harlan II, Byron White and Arthur Goldberg. He pointed out, however, that the constitutionality of a law does not depend upon whether he, an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, "liked" it. He was concerned as to whether the Constitution of the United States of America prohibited the enactment of a statute, a prohibition he could not find in the words of the Constitution:

The Court talks about a constitutional 'right of privacy' as though there is some constitutional provision or provisions forbidding any law ever to be passed which might abridge the 'privacy' of individuals. But there is not. There are, of course, guarantees in certain specific constitutional provisions which are designed in part to protect privacy at certain times and places with respect to certain activities. Such, for example, is the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against 'unreasonable searches and seizures.' But I think it belittles that Amendment to talk about it as though it protects nothing but 'privacy.' To treat it that way is to give it a niggardly interpretation, not the kind of liberal reading I think any Bill of Rights provision should be given. The average man would very likely not have his feelings soothed any more by having his property seized openly than by having it seized privately and by stealth. He simply wants his property left alone. And a person can be just as much, if not more, irritated, annoyed and injured by an unceremonious public arrest by a policeman as he is by a seizure in the privacy of his office or home.

One of the most effective ways of diluting or expanding a constitutionally guaranteed right is to substitute for the crucial word or words of a constitutional guarantee another word or words, more or less flexible and more or less restricted in meaning. This fact is well illustrated by the use of the term 'right of privacy' as a comprehensive substitute for the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against 'unreasonable searches and seizures.' 'Privacy' is a broad, abstract and ambiguous concept which can easily be shrunken in meaning but which can also, on the other hand, easily be interpreted as a constitutional ban against many things other than searches and seizures. I have expressed the view many times that First Amendment freedoms, for example, have suffered from a failure of the courts to stick to the simple language of the First Amendment in construing it, instead of invoking multitudes of words substituted for those the Framers used. See, e.g., New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 293, 84 S.Ct. 710, 733, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (concurring opinion); cases collected in City of El Paso v. Simmons, 379 U.S. 497, 517, n. 1, 85 S.Ct. 577, 588, 13 L.Ed.2d 446 (dissenting opinion); Black, The Bill of Rights, 35 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 865. For these reasons I get nowhere in this case by talk about a constitutional 'right or privacy' as an emanation from one or more constitutional provisions.[1] I like my privacy as well as the next one, but I am nevertheless compelled to admit that government has a right to invade it unless prohibited by some specific constitutional provision. For these reasons I cannot agree with the Court's judgment and the reasons it gives for holding this Connecticut law unconstitutional.. . .

I repeat so as not to be misunderstood that this Court does have power, which it should exercise, to hold laws unconstitutional where they are forbidden by the Federal Constitution. My point is that there is no provision of the Constitution which either expressly or impliedly vests power in this Court to sit as a supervisory agency over acts of duly constituted legislative bodies and set aside their laws because of the Court's belief that the legislative policies adopted are unreasonable, unwise, arbitrary, capricious or irrational. The adoption of such a loose, flexible, uncontrolled standard for holding laws unconstitutional, if ever it is finally achieved, will amount to a great unconstitutional shift of power to the courts which I believe and am constrained to say will be bad for the courts and worse for the country. Subjecting federal and state laws to such an unrestrained and unrestrainable judicial control as to the wisdom of legislative enactments would, I fear, jeopardize the separation of governmental powers that the Framers set up and at the same time threaten to take away much of the power of States to govern themselves which the Constitution plainly intended them to have.[16]

I realize that many good and able men have eloquently spoken and written, sometimes in rhapsodical strains, about the duty of this Court to keep the Constitution in tune with the times. The idea is that the Constitution must be changed from time to time and that this Court is charged with a duty to make those changes. For myself, I must with all deference reject that philosophy. The Constitution makers knew the need for change and provided for it. Amendments suggested by the people's elected representatives can be submitted to the people or their selected agents for ratification. That method of change was good for our Fathers, and being somewhat oldfashioned I must add it is good enough for me. And so, I cannot rely on the Due Process Clause or the Ninth Amendment or any mysterious and uncertain natural law concept as a reason for striking down this state law. The Due Process Clause with an 'arbitrary and capricious' or 'shocking to the conscience' formula was liberally used by this Court to strike down economic legislation in the early decades of this century, threatening, many people thought, the tranquility and stability of the Nation. See, e.g., Lochner v. State of New York, 198 U.S. 45, 25 S.Ct. 539, 49 L.Ed. 937. That formula, based on subjective considerations of 'natural justice,' is no less dangerous when used to enforce this Court's views about personal rights than those about economic rights. I had thought that we had laid that formula, as a means for striking down state legislation, to rest once and for all in cases like West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379, 57 S.Ct. 578, 81 L.Ed. 703; Olsen v. State of Nebraska ex rel. Western Reference & Bond Assn., 313 U.S. 236, 61 S.Ct. 862, 85 L.Ed. 1305, and many other opinions.[17] See also Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45, 74, 25 S.Ct. 539, 551 (Holmes, J., dissenting). (Associate Justice Hugo Black, Dissenting Opinion, Griswold v. Connecticut,  June 7, 1965.)


Sarah Heath Palin, it is clear, has never read Justice Black's dissenting opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut, whose majority opinions provided the "theoretical" foundation for the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973. Her inchoate sense of a "right to privacy" has no constitutional foundation to it whatsoever. It is merely a "feeling" based on her own support for the evil of contraception that denies the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of Holy Matrimony.

Some might protest that a putative Vice President of the United States of America doesn't have to know these things. Well, it doesn't hurt to know them, now does it? Have we reached such a state of anti-intellectualism in American discourse, such as it is, that it is considered be utterly unimportant to know something about constitutional history? More to the point, however, what should concern believing Catholics is that Mrs. Palin is called "pro-life" and a "promising politician" even though she supports the very nonexistent "right" that is at the foundation of the Griswold, Roe and Doe cases and as she supports the slicing and dicing of innocent preborn human beings under cover of law when it is alleged that a mother's life is endangered. She is an ignoramus, albeit one who can whip up a crowd into a frenzy with her disconnected set of feelings, some of which have kernels of truth while others are nothing other than undisguised viscera.


Barack Hussein Obama, who has bowed to the Emperor of Japan and has, in the style of Ratzinger/Benedict, taken off his shoes to enter a Mohammedan mosque and is generally apologizing for the fact that the United States of America exists, might be electorally vulnerable in the year 2012 if the economy continues to teeter and if the plan of his leftist Attorney General, Eric "Give Marc Rich a Pass" Holder, to try one of the masterminds of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, in a civilian court in the City of New York results in an acquittal or incites more terrorist attacks. Obama is a naturalistic dunderhead in own right, incapable of much in the way of rational thought without the TelePrompTer (see TelePrompTer: Weapon of Mass Disinformation). Leave it to the Republicans, however, to nominate someone who will hand Obama a second term without much in the way of a contest (see Bob Dole, part trois and Pinning The Tail On The Next Bob Dole).

No, my good and extremely few readers, most of the naturalists who on the public stage are incapable of much in the way of rational thought and intellectual consistency precisely because they do not see the world and everything in it through the eyes of the true Faith, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there is little in the way of true social order.

We need to pray for the conversion of those in public life who are steeped in the naturalistic, anti-Incarnational, religiously indifferentist, and semi-Pelagian errors of Modernity and/or Modernism as we make reparation for our own sins by praying as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit. Holy Mother Church has survived the petty tyrants of the past. She will survive the crises of the present moment, yes, even the crises of the abuse of clerical authority in the underground church that are almost identical in their nature to those that have occurred in the conciliar structures. We simply need to be about the business of defending the Faith as we make reparation to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary for our own many sins.

It is so very important to resist the interrelated, interdependent ways of Modernity and Modernism. If we recognize that the present moment in salvation history is indeed a Chastisement from God for our sins, then we will resolve to be less worried about the "insights" of naturalists as events in the civil realm spiral down the road to totalitarianism. We will, after spending time in fervent prayer before Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament, prepared for Heaven the more that we seek the world and everything in it through the eyes of the true Faith. For it is only the true Faith that give us the means, Catholicism, to retard naturalism and all of its evils.

The Immaculate Heart of Mary will triumph when Our Lady's Fatima Message is fulfilled. We simply need to keep praying as many Rosaries each day as our states in life permit so that we, despite our own sins and failings, plant a few sees for the glories of a restored Church Militant on earth and of Christendom in the world.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon! Rescue us from the insanity of the moment!

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and at the after of our death.

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 Gregory Thaumaturgus, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints



© Copyright 2009, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.