Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
September 25, 2012


Those "Bumps In The Road" Will Get You Every Time

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Those "bumps in the road" will get you every time. Just ask anyone who has ever driven on the roadways that are land mines of potholes in the Boroughs of Brooklyn, Queens and The Bronx in the City of New York, New York, especially those who have had their vehicle's tires blown or have had to get wheel alignments as a result of hitting one of those monstrous craters, and they will tell you that those "bumps in the road" will get you every time.

You can also ask the reigning caesar, President Barack Hussein Obama/ Barry Soetero, if you don't believe those drivers in the City of New York:

Kroft: Have the events that took place in the Middle East, the recent events in the Middle East given you any pause about your support for the governments that have come to power following the Arab Spring?

Obama: Well, I'd said even at the time that this is going to be a rocky path. The question presumes that somehow we could have stopped this wave of change. I think it was absolutely the right thing for us to do to align ourselves with democracy, universal rights, a notion that people have to be able to participate in their own governance. But I was pretty certain and continue to be pretty certain that there are going to be bumps in the road because, you know, in a lot of these places, the one organizing principle has been Islam. The one part of society that hasn't been controlled completely by the government. There are strains of extremism, and anti-Americanism, and anti-Western sentiment. And, you know, can be tapped into by demagogues. There will probably be some times where we bump up against some of these countries and have strong disagreements, but I do think that over the long term we are more likely to get a Middle East and North Africa that is more peaceful, more prosperous and more aligned with our interests. (Transcript of 60 Minutes interview, September 23, 2012, page nine.)

Yes, those "bumps in the road" will get you every time.

The "bumps" that Obama/Soetero was referring to, however, involved, among other things, a planned attack on the consulate of the United States of America in Benghazi, Libya, that he is in still insisting started off as a "spontaneous demonstration" to protest an obscure video documentary that Mohammedans found offensive to their false "prophet," Mohammed, who was no exactly of the "peace, love and brotherhood" sort that the forty-fourth president imagines him to have been, that killed the American ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens, and there other Americans. "Bumps in the road"? Those are quite some "bumps."

In this instance, however, Caesar Barackus Obamus Ignoramus was, whether or not he realized it at the time he taped his interview with Steve Kroft, the man whose sympathetic 60 Minutes interview after "Super Bowl XXVI on Sunday, January 27, 1992, with Arkansas Governor William Jefferson Blythe Clinton and his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, shortly after Gennifer Flowers went public with her allegations of Clinton's philandering, helped to make Der Schlickmeister the "comeback kid," simply repeating a variation of what his predecessor had said on May 5, 2003, when he stated on board the U.S.S. Lincoln that the American invasion to "liberate" Iraq had accomplished its objectives in order to bring "democracy" to the region even if there were likely to be a few "difficult times" in the "transition" (occupation) process:

Today, we have the greater power to free a nation by breaking a dangerous and aggressive regime. With new tactics and precision weapons, we can achieve military objectives without directing violence against civilians. No device of man can remove the tragedy from war; yet it is a great moral advance when the guilty have far more to fear from war than the innocent. (Applause.)

In the images of celebrating Iraqis, we have also seen the ageless appeal of human freedom. Decades of lies and intimidation could not make the Iraqi people love their oppressors or desire their own enslavement. Men and women in every culture need liberty like they need food and water and air. Everywhere that freedom arrives, humanity rejoices; and everywhere that freedom stirs, let tyrants fear. (Applause.)

We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We're pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We've begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. We're helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people. (Applause.)

The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. Then we will leave, and we will leave behind a free Iraq. (Applause.)

The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men -- the shock troops of a hateful ideology -- gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the "beginning of the end of America." By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed. (Applause.)

In the battle of Afghanistan, we destroyed the Taliban, many terrorists, and the camps where they trained. We continue to help the Afghan people lay roads, restore hospitals, and educate all of their children. Yet we also have dangerous work to complete. As I speak, a Special Operations task force, led by the 82nd Airborne, is on the trail of the terrorists and those who seek to undermine the free government of Afghanistan. America and our coalition will finish what we have begun. (Applause.)

From Pakistan to the Philippines to the Horn of Africa, we are hunting down al Qaeda killers. Nineteen months ago, I pledged that the terrorists would not escape the patient justice of the United States. And as of tonight, nearly one-half of al Qaeda's senior operatives have been captured or killed. (Applause.)

The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more. (Applause.) (End of Major Combat in Iraq.)

The only difference between George Walker Bush and Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetero is that they believe in different means by which "the people" of "backward" nations whose "bad" leaders have prevented "progress" can realize the ultimate end of all human existence insofar as they are concerned, "democracy," the path to "freedom" and "prosperity" for peoples around the world. Bush the Lesser believes in the false "gospel" of American "exceptionalism" and that thus believed he had a "mission" from God Himself to bring "democracy" to Iraq (we can see how well that has worked out, obviously). Obama/Soetero, on the other hand, believes that it is the duty of the American government to assist "the people" when they rise up and take to the streets to seek "democracy" on their own.

Bush the Lesser believed that the government of the United States of America had to take the "lead" to uproot old regimes and build new and "democratic" ones in the Middle East. Obama/Soetero believes that the government of the United States of America must wait until "the people" demonstrate their desire for "peaceful" "regime change." No matter the differences, both Bush "43" and Obama/Soetero believe that the peoples of the world are "better off" with "democracy" than they would be under any other form of government.

Ah, "democracy" for those in countries such as Iraq and Egypt, however, is not the same type imagined by the statist, relativist Obama/Soetero or that imagined by the "free market" Bush the Lesser. No, Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, who is the head of the "Muslim Brotherhood," reminded Obama/Soetero a few days ago that the American concept of "freedom" and "democracy" is not that of the Egyptians as they "transition" to Mohammedan rule:

CAIRO — On the eve of his first trip to the United States as Egypt’s new Islamist president, Mohammad Morsi said the United States needed to fundamentally change its approach to the Arab world, showing greater respect for its values and helping build a Palestinian state, if it hoped to overcome decades of pent-up anger.

A former leader of the Muslim Brotherhood and Egypt’s first democratically elected president, Mr. Morsi sought in a 90-minute interview with The New York Times to introduce himself to the American public and to revise the terms of relations between his country and the United States after the ouster of Hosni Mubarak, an autocratic but reliable ally.

He said it was up to Washington to repair relations with the Arab world and to revitalize the alliance with Egypt, long a cornerstone of regional stability.

If Washington is asking Egypt to honor its treaty with Israel, he said, Washington should also live up to its own Camp David commitment to Palestinian self-rule. He said the United States must respect the Arab world’s history and culture, even when that conflicts with Western values.

And he dismissed criticism from the White House that he did not move fast enough to condemn protesters who recently climbed over the United States Embassy wall and burned the American flag in anger over a video that mocked the Prophet Muhammad.

“We took our time” in responding to avoid an explosive backlash, he said, but then dealt “decisively” with the small, violent element among the demonstrators.

“We can never condone this kind of violence, but we need to deal with the situation wisely,” he said, noting that the embassy employees were never in danger.

Mr. Morsi, who will travel to New York on Sunday for a meeting of the United Nations General Assembly, arrives at a delicate moment. He faces political pressure at home to prove his independence, but demands from the West for reassurance that Egypt under Islamist rule will remain a stable partner.

Mr. Morsi, 61, whose office was still adorned with nautical paintings that Mr. Mubarak left behind, said the United States should not expect Egypt to live by its rules.

If you want to judge the performance of the Egyptian people by the standards of German or Chinese or American culture, then there is no room for judgment,” he said. “When the Egyptians decide something, probably it is not appropriate for the U.S. When the Americans decide something, this, of course, is not appropriate for Egypt.”

He suggested that Egypt would not be hostile to the West, but would not be as compliant as Mr. Mubarak either.

“Successive American administrations essentially purchased with American taxpayer money the dislike, if not the hatred, of the peoples of the region,” he said, by backing dictatorial governments over popular opposition and supporting Israel over the Palestinians. (Egyptian Leader Mohamed Morsi Spells Out Terms for U.S.-Arab Ties.)

For all of George Walker Bush's "American exceptionalism" and Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetro's "globalism," you see, neither man understands other parts of the world. Bush the Lesser believes that the United States of America is the "model" that all other nations must follow while Obama/Soetero believes that all "repressed peoples" on the globe look to him for assent and approval as they seek to acquire political power. Both Bush the Lesser and Obama/Soetero are, believe it or not, American-centric in their view of the world.

Indeed, the blindness of American leaders to the cultures of other parts of the world was noted thirty-four years ago now by the late Dr. Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn in his famous commencement address at Harvard University:

There is the concept of the Third World: thus, we already have three worlds. Undoubtedly, however, the number is even greater; we are just too far away to see. Any ancient deeply rooted autonomous culture, especially if it is spread on a wide part of the earth's surface, constitutes an autonomous world, full of riddles and surprises to Western thinking. As a minimum, we must include in this category China, India, the Muslim world and Africa, if indeed we accept the approximation of viewing the latter two as compact units. For one thousand years Russia has belonged to such a category, although Western thinking systematically committed the mistake of denying its autonomous character and therefore never understood it, just as today the West does not understand Russia in communist captivity. It may be that in the past years Japan has increasingly become a distant part of the West, I am no judge here; but as to Israel, for instance, it seems to me that it stands apart from the Western world in that its state system is fundamentally linked to religion.

How short a time ago, relatively, the small new European world was easily seizing colonies everywhere, not only without anticipating any real resistance, but also usually despising any possible values in the conquered peoples' approach to life. On the face of it, it was an overwhelming success, there were no geographic frontiers to it. Western society expanded in a triumph of human independence and power. And all of a sudden in the twentieth century came the discovery of its fragility and friability. We now see that the conquests proved to be short lived and precarious, and this in turn points to defects in the Western view of the world which led to these conquests. Relations with the former colonial world now have turned into their opposite and the Western world often goes to extremes of obsequiousness, but it is difficult yet to estimate the total size of the bill which former colonial countries will present to the West, and it is difficult to predict whether the surrender not only of its last colonies, but of everything it owns will be sufficient for the West to foot the bill.

But the blindness of superiority continues in spite of all and upholds the belief that vast regions everywhere on our planet should develop and mature to the level of present day Western systems which in theory are the best and in practice the most attractive. There is this belief that all those other worlds are only being temporarily prevented by wicked governments or by heavy crises or by their own barbarity or incomprehension from taking the way of Western pluralistic democracy and from adopting the Western way of life. Countries are judged on the merit of their progress in this direction. However, it is a conception which developed out of Western incomprehension of the essence of other worlds, out of the mistake of measuring them all with a Western yardstick. The real picture of our planet's development is quite different. (Dr. Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, A World Split Apart. June 8, 1978.)


Bush, whose American "exceptionalist" shoes this year are being filled by Willard Mitt Romney, who is eight months, three days Bush's junior in age, an his successor, Obama/Soetero, are utterly blind to the fact that the United States of America is hated by many believing Mohammedans precisely because of the "freedom" that he believes they need to realize "progress" and "true development." Mohammedans in the Middle East despise American music, American television, American culture and American immorality. Believing Mohammedans do not want American styles of "dress" (or, perhaps more appropriately, "undress"). They want to be "free" to live according to Mohammedan law as they believe that their false religion is the center of their personal lives and of the very laws that govern them and the culture in which they live. How sad it is that Mohammedans are more committed to their false religion than most Catholics are to the true religion as they seek to "compartmentalize" "private belief" from public action.

Similarly, Bush does not understand that American support for the policies of the State of Israel is responsible of the hostility in the Arab world toward the United States of America. Obama, for his part, believes that the "cure" for this anger is to seek to look the other way  as Mohammedans express it with in acts of violence. Bush was not willing to even admit to himself that a a great deal of the anger about Mohammedans in the Middle East revolves around the role that the this country has played as enabler to the crimes of the State of Israel against the Palestinians. Obama, for his part, would never even entertain the notion that some of those "spontaneous demonstrations" in north Africa and the Arabia peninsula in the past two weeks might have been fueled by agents provocateurs associated with a certain government's spy agency, which is one of the many reasons he must cleave to the fantasy that Mohammedans reacted "spontaneously" to a film that most of them have never seen.

George Walker Bush and Barack Hussein Obama/ Barry Soetero believe in fantasies about the world that have been fueled by their respective ideologies. Neither man realizes that the only path to peace and hence true order in the Middle East and everywhere else in the world runs through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary and her Fatima Peace Plan. Willard Mitt Romney, the Mormon who believes that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and the devil are "spirit brothers" (see Bombast From A Literal High Priest of the Devil), will be, if elected in forty-two days, a continuation of Bush 41 and Bush 43 while Obama/Soetero will continue to give us his very best impression of James Earl Carter, Jr. if he is re-elected. Whoever gets elected, of course, will get a "blessing" from Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who believes that conciliarism's embrace of "religious liberty" is what is need everywhere in the world for "peace," including the Middle East (see Two Figures Of Antichrist In Search Of "Moderate" Musselmen).

Yes, to reject the sweet yoke of the Social Reign of Christ the King is to live under the iron rule of men whose minds are not conformed to the Sacred Deposit of Faith that Our King has entrusted exclusively to His Catholic Church for Its infallible explication and eternal safekeeping.

To reject the sweet yoke of the Social Reign of Christ the King is to live under the iron rule of men whose hearts are not consecrated to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

To reject the sweet yoke of the Social Reign of Christ the King is to live under the iron rule of men who believe that they can "plan" or "will" "solutions" to domestic and international difficulties, convincing us that they need more and more of our money to do so.

To reject the sweet yoke of the Social Reign of Christ the King is to live under the iron rule of men who wind up having no regard even for the constitutions and just civil laws that they have sworn to uphold (see He Swore to Uphold the Constitution, Not the United Nations).

To reject the sweet yoke of the Social Reign of Christ the King is to live under the iron rule of men who are mad, men who never want to admit that their schemes for prosperity at home and for peace in the world are doomed to miserable failure time after time after time (see All Caesars Go Mad.)

Remember these words of Pope Pius XI, contained in his first encyclical letter, Ubi Arcano Consilio, December 23, 1922:

There exists an institution able to safeguard the sanctity of the law of nations. This institution is a part of every nation; at the same time it is above all nations. She enjoys, too, the highest authority, the fullness of the teaching power of the Apostles. Such an institution is the Church of Christ. She alone is adapted to do this great work, for she is not only divinely commissioned to lead mankind, but moreover, because of her very make-up and the constitution which she possesses, by reason of her age-old traditions and her great prestige, which has not been lessened but has been greatly increased since the close of the War, cannot but succeed in such a venture where others assuredly will fail.

It is apparent from these considerations that true peace, the peace of Christ, is impossible unless we are willing and ready to accept the fundamental principles of Christianity, unless we are willing to observe the teachings and obey the law of Christ, both in public and private life. If this were done, then society being placed at last on a sound foundation, the Church would be able, in the exercise of its divinely given ministry and by means of the teaching authority which results therefrom, to protect all the rights of God over men and nations.

It is possible to sum up all We have said in one word, "the Kingdom of Christ." For Jesus Christ reigns over the minds of individuals by His teachings, in their hearts by His love, in each one's life by the living according to His law and the imitating of His example. Jesus reigns over the family when it, modeled after the holy ideals of the sacrament of matrimony instituted by Christ, maintains unspotted its true character of sanctuary. In such a sanctuary of love, parental authority is fashioned after the authority of God, the Father, from Whom, as a matter of fact, it originates and after which even it is named. (Ephesians iii, 15) The obedience of the children imitates that of the Divine Child of Nazareth, and the whole family life is inspired by the sacred ideals of the Holy Family. Finally, Jesus Christ reigns over society when men recognize and reverence the sovereignty of Christ, when they accept the divine origin and control over all social forces, a recognition which is the basis of the right to command for those in authority and of the duty to obey for those who are subjects, a duty which cannot but ennoble all who live up to its demands. Christ reigns where the position in society which He Himself has assigned to His Church is recognized, for He bestowed on the Church the status and the constitution of a society which, by reason of the perfect ends which it is called upon to attain, must be held to be supreme in its own sphere; He also made her the depository and interpreter of His divine teachings, and, by consequence, the teacher and guide of every other society whatsoever, not of course in the sense that she should abstract in the least from their authority, each in its own sphere supreme, but that she should really perfect their authority, just as divine grace perfects human nature, and should give to them the assistance necessary for men to attain their true final end, eternal happiness, and by that very fact make them the more deserving and certain promoters of their happiness here below.

It is, therefore, a fact which cannot be questioned that the true peace of Christ can only exist in the Kingdom of Christ -- "the peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ." It is no less unquestionable that, in doing all we can to bring about the re-establishment of Christ's kingdom, we will be working most effectively toward a lasting world peace. (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.)

We must, therefore, bear the cross with joy and gratitude in this time of chastisement, recognizing that the errors of Modernity in the world and those of Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism are intertwined with each other as but similar manifestations of the errors of Russia (see Conversion of Russia Update). We have much to suffer for our own sins. We must suffer well as we place not our trust in the princes of naturalism in this world or the princes of false "reconciliation" and "dialogue" with false religions in the counterfeit church of conciliarism. We must place our trust in the Immaculate Heart of Mary as we give this heart, out which the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus was formed, all of the sufferings of the present moment so that she can present whatever merit we earn from patiently and lovingly enduring them to the Throne of the Most Blessed Trinity.


Catholicism is the one and only foundation of social order. You have heard this before? You will keep hearing until the day I die or the day that I am unable to continue work on this site as a result of physical and/or mental infirmity, whichever shall first occur (and I realize that some of you believe that the latter condition obtains at the present time). Catholicism is the only and only foundation of personal and social order. Period. It is Catholicism alone that men and their nations are reconciled to Christ the King through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary our Queen, who has given us Heaven's Peace Plan, her Fatima Message, as the means by which the errors of Russia, which are the the errors of Modernity in the world and of Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

We must, therefore, enfold ourselves into the love of the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary and the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus as we make reparation for our own many sins, which are so responsible for the worsening of the state of the Church Militant on earth and of the world-at-large, as we seek to restore all things in Christ the King and Mary our Immaculate Queen, praying as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits.

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?


Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

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.

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

See also: A Litany of Saints


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