Truth Resistant Strains of Naturalist Bacteria

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Just take a look at a few of the presidential nominees of the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist "right" over the course of the past one hundred years that have taken very good advantage of what can be called "truth resistant strains of naturalist bacteria" that eat away at the sensus Catholics of baptized Catholics and keeps most non-Catholics immersed in a plethora of Protestant and Judeo-Masonic errors.

1912: President William Howard Taft, a thirty-third degree Freemason from Cincinnati, Ohio, was the Governor-General of The Philippines from July 4, 1901, to December 23, 1903, before becoming the United States Secretary of War under his fellow Freemason and good friend, Theodore Roosevelt on February 4, 1904, serving until that capacity until June 30, 2008. Roosevelt hand-picked Taft to succeed him as the Republican presidential nominee in 1908 even though Taft had no ambition to be president, desiring only one thing in life: to be the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Although Taft actually got to serve as Chief Justice from July 11, 1921, until February 3, 1930, just five weeks before his death on March 8, 1930.

What turned out to be Taft's only term as president disappointed his predecessor. Taft was a man who craved human respect, especially that of his friend and fellow Freemason Theodore Roosevelt. It was a bitter shock to him that Roosevelt challenged him for the 1912 Republican presidential nomination, a challenging that was fought off at the Republican National Convention in Chicago, Illinois, from June 18, 1912, to June 22, 1912. Only twelve states held primaries that year. Taft, though not a political organizer, had the support of the party stalwarts, most of whom, along with Taft himself, feared the leftward bent of Theodore Roosevelt's progressivism. Displeased with the outcome of the convention, Roosevelt left and then formed his own Progressive Party, also known as the Bull Moose Party. Roosevelt and Taft split the Republican vote, thereby helping to elect the statist, anti-Catholic Governor of the State of New Jersey, Thomas Woodrow Wilson, whose administration sought to suppress dissent during World War I and gave comfort to the Mexican revolutionaries as Catholics were being persecuted there.

William Howard Taft, who had helped to introduce Protestant sects and Masonic lodges in The Philippines while he was Governor-General there after Pope Leo XIII relented in the face of the inescapable fact that the military forces of the United States of America occupied the country at the time, believed that he was defending "conservative" principles of limited government. Theodore Roosevelt had a vision for a "New Nationalism," which was only a slightly different version of the statism advanced by the then Governor Wilson under the slogan of a "New Freedom."  The results of the 1912 election set the course for further advance of statism and globalism, which would make even further advances after the election of Theodore Roosevelt's fifth cousin, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in 1932, advances that have continued steadily, if not always, evenly, ever since.

Who was your lesser of two evils in 1912? President William Howard Taft, the "conservative" Mason as opposed to the "progressive" Mason, former President Theodore Roosevelt? Neither had any chance of winning as both were dividing the Republican vote (Roosevelt got twenty-seven percent of the popular vote, Taft received twenty-five percent), permitting Thomas Woodrow Wilson to be elected with forty-one percent of the popular vote. Wilson won forty of the then forty-eight states, garnering four hundred thirty-five electoral votes. Roosevelt won six states and eighty-eight electoral votes. Taft only won two states, Utah and Vermont, for six electoral votes. 

This is how the devil works through our electoral system. Naturalism can only produce naturalism. The only difference between one organized crime family and other is in terms of degrees, not of kind. They are both cut from the same anti-Incarnational, religiously indifferentist, naturalistic, semi-Pelagian principles. The election of 1912 was really a case of Woodrow Wilson versus Woodrow Wilson-lite, Theodore Roosevelt, with William Howard Taft merely a supporting player. And thus it must ever be. The devil gets people all agitated even though the the short-term results are about the same and the long-term results have been disastrous as it is impossible to produce peace and tranquility on things are repugnant to God.

1968: One of the few men to be nominated for the presidency by a major political party three times, Richard Milhous Nixon, won the presidency in 1968 in a three-way race against incumbent Vice President Hubert Horatio Humphrey and the former Alabama Governor George Corley Wallace, who ran on the American Independent Party line. Nixon won three hundred one electoral votes, carrying thirty-two states despite winning only only 43.4% of the popular vote. Humphrey won thirteen states and the District of Columbia for one hundred ninety-one electoral votes, finishing only seven tenths of a percentage point behind Nixon. Wallace got 13.5% of the popular vote and forty-six electoral votes in five southern states. 

The 1968 election was not as close in terms of the popular vote as had been the 1960 election between Nixon, who had been Vice President of the United States of America from January 20, 1953, to January 20, 1961, and United States Senator John Fitzgerald Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) on Tuesday, November 8, 1960. The 1960 election was closer than the one in 1968 both in terms of the difference in the popular vote garnered by Kennedy and Nixon (Kennedy had, most references tell us, 112,827 more votes than Nixon, although this is mistaken as Kennedy's name did not appear on the ballot in the State of Alabama and the voters there voted merely for a slate of electors on the Democratic Party line there) and in terms of the percentages represented by those popular vote totals (49.7% for Kennedy as opposed to 49.5% for Nixon). Nixon, however, won the 1968 election and it is arguably the case that, as pollster Louis Harris himself suggested at the time, he would have won most the votes that went to Wallace if the latter had not been in the race.

Once again, though, President Richard Milhous Nixon might as well have been Hubert Horatio Humphrey, just as George Walker Bush might as well have been Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., thirty-two years later in the year 2000.

Nixon, for example, embarked on an aggressive campaign of "population control." His first Secretary of State, William Pierce Rogers, who had been the Attorney General of the United States of America from October 13, 1957, to January 20, 1961, was responsible for implementing President Richard Milhous Nixon's July 18, 1969, Special Message to Congress on the Problems of Population Growth. Nixon's special message contained the following passage that should send shivers up the spine of any believing Catholic who loves God as He has revealed Himself to men exclusively through the Catholic Church as a very clear indication of the extent to which the leaders of both organized crime families of naturalism in the United States of America, have been committed to anti-life and anti-family policies that mock God and lead to social and international chaos:

It is my view that no American woman should be denied access to family planning assistance because of her economic condition. I believe, therefore, that we should establish as a national goal the provision of adequate family planning services within the next five years to all those who want them but cannot afford them. This we have the capacity to do.

Clearly, in no circumstances will the activities associated with our pursuit of this goal be allowed to infringe upon the religious convictions or personal wishes and freedom of any individual, nor will they be allowed to impair the absolute right of all individuals to have such matters of conscience respected by public authorities.

In order to achieve this national goal, we will have to increase the amount we are spending on population and family planning. But success in this endeavor will not result from higher expenditures alone. Because the life circumstances and family planning wishes of those who receive services vary considerably, an effective program must be more flexible in its design than are many present efforts. In addition, programs should be better coordinated and more effectively administered. Under current legislation, a comprehensive State or local project must assemble a patchwork of funds from many different sources--a time-consuming and confusing process. Moreover, under existing legislation, requests for funds for family planning services must often compete with requests for other deserving health endeavors. (Special Message to Congress on the Problems of Population Growth.)

 

In other words, Nixon did not want the government to force religiously run institutions to adopt policies to their beliefs. He only wanted every American taxpayer, regardless of religious convictions, to fund the evil of "family planning."

Nixon's second Secretary of State, Dr. Heinz Alfred Kissinger, who served succeeded William Pierce Rogers on September 3, 1973, was a thorough supporter of abortion and contraception. Kissinger

Kissinger, a former aide to the arch supporter of contraception and abortion, the late adulterous former Governor of New York and Vice President of the United States, Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller, and Nixon sought to issue a National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM-200) in 1974 which would have encouraging countries to impose a one-child-per family policy in order to receive American foreign aid. The Nixon Administration authorized the writing of National Security Study Memorandum 200 in 1974 that was designed to implement a variety of the “population control” measures that had been recommended by the Rockefeller Commission, a panel appointed by President Nixon in 1969 following his own Special Message to Congress on July 18, 1969, on the “necessity” of controlling population growth.

This particular Memorandum, which was the brainchild of Nixon and Henry Kissinger and presidential counselor Donald D. Rumsfeld, included such draconian measures as encouraging countries to develop a one child per family policy and to regulate the control of food to developing nations. As a result of pressure brought by several Catholic cardinals in the United States, this NSSM was classified until 1989, at which point its terms were released.

It still amazes my friends, that the Nixon administration, whose officials believed in the abject immorality of the whole panoply of “population control” measures recommended in NSSM 200, including encouraging parents to have “one child per family,” can be praised and defended by any Catholic to this very day. Have we no love for God? Have we no regard for the horror of sin and  how it is an evil thing to promote sin under cover of law?

Nixon, ever the practitioner of amorality, was favorably inclined to the surgical dismemberment of children in their mothers' wombs under "some conditions," stating clearly during the presidential election of 1992 that it was time to get the issue of abortion out of electoral politics, that other issues were more important. Nixon also believed in eugenic abortions, especially in cases of interracial marriages.

Oblivious to the fact that a statement of his about abortion on April 3, 1971, made it appear as though he was opposed to abortion as a means of "population control" without mentioning his support of abortion for eugenic reasons. Nixon's stand was hideous and reprehensible. It would be interesting to hear how those who defend the nonexistent"right" of a woman to "choose" to kill her baby explain

HISTORICALLY, laws regulating abortion in the United States have been the province of States, not the Federal Government. That remains the situation today, as one State after another takes up this question, debates it, and decides it. That is where the decisions should be made.

Partly for that reason, I have directed that the policy on abortions at American military bases in the United States be made to correspond with the laws of the States where those bases are located. If the laws in a particular State restrict abortions, the rules at the military base hospitals are to correspond to that law.

The effect of this directive is to reverse service regulations issued last summer, which had liberalized the rules on abortions at military hospitals. The new ruling supersedes this--and has been put into effect by the Secretary of Defense.

But while this matter is being debated in State capitals and weighed by various courts, the country has a right to know my personal views.

From personal and religious beliefs I consider abortion an unacceptable form of population control. Further, unrestricted abortion policies, or abortion on demand, I cannot square with my personal belief in the sanctity of human life--including the life of the yet unborn. For, surely, the unborn have rights also, recognized in law, recognized even in principles expounded by the United Nations.

Ours is a nation with a Judeo-Christian heritage. It is also a nation with serious social problems--problems of malnutrition, of broken homes, of poverty, and of delinquency. But none of these problems justifies such a solution.

A good and generous people will not opt, in my view, for this kind of alternative to its social dilemmas. Rather, it will open its hearts and homes to the unwanted children of its own, as it has done for the unwanted millions of other lands. (Nixon Statement on Abortion, April 3, 1971.)

 

Such confusion, starting with the fact that there is no such thing as a "Judeo-Christian" heritage. Truth can never be mixed in with error. Catholicism is the sole means of personal and social order. Nothing else. Not Talmudic Judaism Not the thousands of permutations of Protestantism, each of which is founded on a rejection of the Deposit of Faith that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has revealed exclusively to His true Church that He founded upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope.

Then President Nixon told the nation in 1971 that he considered surgical baby-killing to be "an unacceptable form of population control" and that he opposed "abortion on demand" at the same time he permitted babies to be slaughtered by surgical means on the ground of American military bases in those states that permitted abortion-on-demand. Nixon was oblivious as to the simple truth that no human institution of civil governance has any authority to dispense with the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law so as to permit any direct, intentional taking of an innocent human life from the first moment of conception through all subsequent stages until the day of natural death under cover of the civil law. Nixon was saying, in effect, "I am personally opposed to abortion-on-demand, but I will permit surgeons in the employ of the government of the United States of America on American military bases to kill babies in those states that permit abortion-on-demand. Perhaps Nixon was prophetically anticipating Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict's XVI logically absurd and dogmatically condemned "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity" that stands the the principle of non-contradiction on its head.

Richard Nixon, who, as will be noted below, accepted the abject moral evil of contraception in order to advance the goals of "population control," reiterated his confused views about abortion following the release of the report on population control that was issued by a commission headed by John D. Rockefeller III, the brother of the then Governor of the State of New York, the pro-abortion Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller, and the father of the junior United States senator from West Virginia, John D. "Jay" Rockefeller IV, that supported abortion-on-demand:

While I do not plan to comment extensively on the contents and recommendations of the report, I do feel that it is important that the public know my views on some of the issues raised.

In particular, I want to reaffirm and reemphasize that I do not support unrestricted abortion policies. As I stated on April 3, 1971, when I revised abortion policies in military hospitals, I consider abortion an unacceptable form of population control. In my judgment, unrestricted abortion policies would demean human life. I also want to make it clear that I do not support the unrestricted distribution of family planning services and devices to minors. Such measures would do nothing to preserve and strengthen close family relationships.

I have a basic faith that the American people themselves will make sound judgments regarding family size and frequency of births, judgments that are conducive both to the public interest and to personal family goals--and I believe in the right of married couples to make these judgments for themselves.

While disagreeing with the general thrust of some of the Commission's recommendations, I wish to extend my thanks to the members of the Commission for their work and for having assembled much valuable information.

The findings and conclusions of the Commission should be of great value in assisting governments at all levels to formulate policy. At the Federal level, through our recent reorganization of the Executive Office of the President, we have the means through the Domestic Council and the Office of Management and Budget to follow up on the Commission's report. The recommendations of the Commission will be taken into account as we formulate our national growth and population research policies, and our agency budgets through these processes for the years ahead.

Many of the questions raised by the report cannot be answered purely on the basis of fact, but rather involve moral judgments about which reasonable men will disagree. I hope that the discussions ahead will be informed ones, so that we all will be better able to face these questions relating to population in full knowledge of the consequences of our decisions. (Statement About the Report of the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future.)

 

The confusion inherent in this statement is as mind-boggling as anything contained in Ratzinger's Principles of Catholic Theology.

Nixon believed in "the right of married couples to make these judgments for themselves" when, of course, no human being has any right to use contraceptive pills or devices at any time for any reason as to do so is to violate the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage. Although most contraceptives abort and abort most of the time, contraception is in and of itself a violation of the immutable laws of God that bind the consciences of all human beings at all times in all places and under all circumstances without any exception, reservation or qualification whatsoever. One who supports "family planning" as a matter of principle does not believe in God as He has revealed Himself through His true Church and is thus incapable of serving as a agent in behalf of the common temporal good undertaken as it must be in light of man's Last End.

Moreover, "reasonable men" are not free to disagree about the binding nature of the immutable laws of God. Contingent beings who did not create themselves and whose bodies are destined one day for the corruption of the grave until the General Resurrection on the Last Day must obey God as He has revealed Himself through His true Church. This is not  subject to debate or "legitimate" disagreement. Richard Nixon's belief that men could disagree about moral judgments concerning "population control" was very similar to the canards mouth by one of his successors as President of the United States of America, George Walker Bush, who said constantly in 1999 and 2000 during his campaign for the Republican Party presidential nomination and in the general election against then Vice President Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., that abortion was "a difficult" issue about which "good people" may disagree legitimately. Wrong. No one has any "right" to "disagree" with the laws of their Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier.

Other Republicans, most notably Nixon acolyte Robert Joseph Dole, Jr. and John Sidney McCain III among them, have mouthed the same inanity about the slaughter of innocent babes being a "difficult" issue about which people of "good will" could disagree legitimately. This is an approach taken by none other than Barack Hussein Obama, who said the following at the University of Notre Dame du Lac on Sunday, May 17, 2009:

After I read the doctor's letter, I wrote back to him and thanked him. I didn't change my position, but I did tell my staff to change the words on my website. And I said a prayer that night that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me. Because when we do that - when we open our hearts and our minds to those who may not think like we do or believe what we do - that's when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.

That's when we begin to say, "Maybe we won't agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions.

So let's work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term. Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women."

Understand - I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. No matter how much we may want to fudge it - indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory - the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature. (Text of Obama Speech at the University of Notre Dame.)

 

There is no "common ground" between truth and error, between good and evil. The precepts of the Fifth Commandment make it clear that it is never permissible to directly intend to kill an innocent human being as the first end of a moral act.

An expectant mother has no "decision" to make when she discovers that she is carrying a child in her womb. She has a baby to nurture unto birth and then to bring to the Baptismal font to be made a spiritual child by adoption of the Most Blessed Trinity, Whose very inner life is flooded into that baby's soul as the Original Sin and that soul's captivity to the devil is flooded out of it. There is no "decision" to be made. There is no "choice" to be made. There is God's Holy Will to fulfill with love and with perfection, made possible by the supernatural helps won for us by the shedding of every single drop of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross and that flow into human hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces.

The winner of the 1968 presidential election had a position on the surgical dismemberment of preborn children that was only slightly less pro-death than that of the winner of the 2008 presidential election, Barack Hussein Obama (aka Barry Soetero). Nixon also shared pretty similar views with Obama on the chemical assassination of children by means of abortifacient contraceptives.

Even President Ronald Reagan, despite all of his rhetorical flourishes, did little to effectively oppose surgical baby-killing in this country and the little that he did do by means of Executive Orders, most of which had various loopholes, was reversed by several strokes of the pen of President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton on January 22, 1993, two days after the latter's inauguration as President of the United States of America. Indeed, John "Cardinal" O'Connor, the conciliar "archbishop" of New York from March 19, 1984, to May 3, 2000, told me the following in a private meeting in his residence in October of 1986 when I was running for lieutenant governor of the State of New York on the Right to Life Party line:

 

“Tom, if the President had pushed as hard for life as he has for aid to the Contras in Nicaragua, we might have gotten somewhere.” 

Please remember also that President Ronald Wilson Reagan's first nominee to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America was none other than Sandra Day O'Connor, who had a notoriously pro-abortion record as the Majority Leader of the Arizona State Senate, something that was known at the time and attested to at the time by Conservative Caucus Foundation president Howard Phillips and American Life League founder and president Mrs. Judie Brown in testimony they gave to the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States Senate in 1981. This did not matter to Reagan, and it did not matter to the "pro-life" senators who voted to confirm her. How did that one turn out for the cause of fundamental justice founded in truth? (For a fuller review of the Reagan administration's record and more complete history of the Republican Party's sellout on the issue of abortion, please see We Have Learned Nothing, 2004.)

George Walker Bush? Please, don't make me laugh. As a service to newer readers, let me append my oft-repeated litany of this man's anti-life record between January 20, 2001, and January 20, 2009.

Willard Mitt Romney? His anti-life record as Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has been reviewed at least five times on this site in recent months. The second appendix will serve as a little reminder to those who have missed the facts about Romney's record. And as is the case with most "mainstream" Republicans, Willard Mitt Romney has absolutely no problem hobnobbing with those who support baby-killing and/or manufacture baby killing potions such as the "Plan B" "emergency contraceptive," also known as the "morning after pill:"

 

MIAMI, FLORIDA, May 17, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney scheduled a $50,000-a-plate fundraiser at the home of Phil Frost, the executive of the company that makes the Morning After Pill, on Wednesday night. Plan B One-Step is produced by Teva Pharmaceuticals, Frost’s company.

The pharmaceutical executive’s residence was one of several stops scheduled to increase Romney’s war chest during a two-day swing through Florida.

“It’s a huge disappointment,” Brian Camenker, director of the Massachusetts-based pro-family organization MassResistance told LifeSiteNews.com. “You wouldn’t see someone who was really pro-life doing a fundraiser with somebody who helped the abortion industry.”

Brian Burch, president of CatholicVote.org, didn’t seem troubled by the fundraiser saying, “What matters is whether a President Romney will end all taxpayer support for abortion-inducing drugs, repeal unconstitutional mandates that force private institutions to cover such drugs, and whether he will make progress in building a culture of life.”

Despite repeated media denials that Plan B is an abortion-inducing drug, the manufacturer’s website admits Plan B “may inhibit implantation” of an embryo after conception “by altering the endometrium.” Federal health officials have made the same determination. Studies have linked its use to increased STDs and ectopic pregnancies.

Concerned Women for America CEO Penny Nance told The Daily Caller she hoped Romney would return the money. The event made her “question if Gov. Romney has a clear understanding of what it means to be pro-life.”

Romney campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul did not respond to a request from Bloomberg News about the visit. (Mitt Romney holds fundraiser with manufacturer of the Morning After Pill.)

What disappointment? This is par for the course in the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist "right:"

Indeed, George Walker Bush sought the election in 2002 of one Lewis Eisenberg, the founder of the Republican Leadership Council, a pro-abortion organization, to serve as the chairman of the Republican National Committee's finance committee: Blood money? Who cares?

 

The Republican National Committee, at the urging of President Bush and his political advisers, is on the threshold of a decision that could only be interpreted by pro-life Americans as insulting and contemptuous of all that we, and our Party’s platform stand for. A Washington Times column by Ralph Hallow on Tuesday, January 16, reported that President Bush wants the Committee, meeting this weekend in Austin, Texas, to install Lewis Eisenberg as RNC Finance Chairman. Eisenberg is a liberal, pro-abortion activist millionaire investment banker who raised millions of dollars for George W. Bush’s presidential campaign. He is a close associate of former Governor of New Jersey, Christine Todd Whitman, who is currently chairman of the Environmental Protection Agency in the Bush administration and whose pro-abortion views are well known. Eisenberg, together with Whitman, organized the Republican Leadership Council and the Committee for Responsible Government, to raise large sums of money for pro-abortion candidates in Republican primaries. They are committed to removing the pro-life plank from the Republican National Platform. Lew Eisenberg appears to be even-handed in his support of pro-abortion politicians. While he has supported Republicans in the recent past, he has also contributed to liberal Democrats Walter Mondale, Dick Gephardt, Tim Wirth, Chris Dodd, Bruce Babbitt and Joe Biden, among others. In the early 90's Lew Eisenberg lost his job at Goldman Sachs due to a sexual harassment lawsuit brought against him by a young woman named Kathy Abraham with whom he had a 7-year affair. Eisenberg is married with 3 children. Ms. Abraham accused Eisenberg of making sexual demands of her in order to keep her job. "Eisenberg even suggested that she have sex with other Goldman Sachs partners," according to The Times. Now, on the eve of the 29th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, as pro-life Americans sadly commemorate the 48 million or more babies who have been killed through abortion, will the Republican Party deliver to us the incredible insult of installing this man in a high Party position? One wonders what the Bush leadership can be thinking. After all, if they want a great fund raiser who is a pro-abortion liberal with a sleazy reputation concerning women, Bill Clinton is available! Surely there are numerous Republicans who are capable of raising money for the Party. According to the Times story, Ralph Reed, former executive director of Christian Coalition and now a professional political consultant and chairman of the Georgia Republican Party, plans to nominate Eisenberg for for the position, "a move intended to make his election more acceptable to the right." To the contrary, a move like this will only serve to alienate more pro-life conservatives from the Party and swell the ranks of those who did not vote in the 2000 election.

We have learned that many members of the Republican National Committee were not aware that they would be asked to vote for Lew Eisenberg this weekend. Indeed, many have never heard of him and know nothing about him. Those who have learned of this scheme deeply resent the tactics being used. People are supposed to run for Party positions and be duly elected. Not anointed from above and rubber-stamped. (See: SPECIAL ALERT - OF THE UTMOST IMPORTANCE - January 17, 2002.)

Just by the way, of course, who was one of United States Senator John Sidney McCain's chief fund-raising "bundlers" four years ago in 2008. You got it. Lewis Eisenberg.

Why so shocked about Willard Mitt Romney?

As I keep telling you, Romney will lose to Obama this year, especially since, as noted in several earlier articles, there is what what political analyst calls a blue wall that has emerged as a result of changing demographics, including the dying off of older voters who may have been more prone to vote for a supposedly "conservative" candidate than many voters today. Another analyst and statistician, Sean Trende, suggests that Obama's blue may not be that solid, although even he recognizes that Romney's path to victory in the electoral college is exceedingly narrow, which is why the Mormon is campaigning solely on the money issues when, even absent the "difficult" "social issues," Obama's statist policies are without any foundation in a proper reading of the text of the Constitution of the United States of America. (Then again, of course, a document that admits of no higher authority than the text of its own words is as malleable in the hands of "interpreters" as is Sacred Scripture in the hands of Protestants and modernist Catholics.)

The arithmetic does not lie.

Republican candidates for the office of President of the United States of America have received in excess of fifty percent of the popular vote in precisely one election since 1988 (when then Vice President George Herbert Walker Bush received fifty-three percent against then Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis's forty seven percent. Bush the elder won only thirty-seven percent of the popular vote to Arkansas Governor William Jefferson Blythe Clinton's forty-two percent as Henry Ross Perot received eighteen percent of the popular vote.

Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., received 40.7% of the popular vote to Clinton's 49.2% in 1996 as Perot could only hoodwink eight percent that year to "look under the hood" with him to "solve" the nation's problems.

Bush the lesser actually got fewer popular votes than did Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., in 2000, winning the presidency because he received the State of Florida's infamously contested twenty-five electoral votes, which he won because the slate of electors committed to him in the Sunshine State had received a plurality of votes, albeit it a narrow one. Bush won 47.87% of the popular vote, Gore won 48.38% of the popular vote and Green Party nominee Ralph Nader got 2.73% of it.

The only election since 1988 in which a Republican has received a majority of popular vote was in 2004 when George Walker Bush won 50.% to United States Senator John Frederick Kerry's 48.27%. John Sidney McCain III only got forty-five percent of the vote in 2008.

Yes, the reverse is also true. Presidential nominees of the Democratic Party have received a majority of the popular votes precisely once, coming four years ago when Barack Hussein Obama won 52.87%.

What this means is that the farce known as presidential elections is decided what the naturalists believe is "the middle," which is why they spend so much time, money and effort to woo the so-called "moderate" or "independent" voters in the "swing states" (see Step By Step Yet Again). Willard Mitt Romney wants to raise hundreds of millions of dollars to match Obama, who has raised over one billion dollars already. What's the big deal about taking blood money from baby-killers to do so?

The state of things in this country is such that those voters whose votes "matter" to the candidates are so bereft of even any core convictions of the level of pure naturalism that they can be swayed by effective advertising campaigns and/or by the reigning caesar's masterful use of TelePromTer-erd demagoguery. There is no rational means by which to explain the reason why Caesar Barackus Obamus Ignoramus's public approval ratings are hovering near fifty percent and that most of the popular opinion polls now show him leading the hapless Romney, Obama-lite. Have these people purchased gasoline lately?

Emotionalism works in a land of naturalism. Most people are so diverted by the bread and circuses offered by what passes for "entertainment" that they pay little attention to politics and public policy, less yet to First and Last Things as taught by Holy Mother Church. This is, of course, a ready recipe for the eventual triumph of totalitarianism as a preparation for the arrival of Antichrist, who has figures aplenty walking amongst us in the halls of Modernity in the world and of Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

Alas, this farce is just part of the chastisement that we deserve for pretending to be a "civilized nation."

A civilized nation? The butchery of the preborn? The promotion of pornography and usury and contraception and wretched motion pictures and television programming and "music" in the name of freedom of speech and of the press? The unjust, immoral invasion of Catholic countries and the introduction of Protestant "churches" and Masonic lodges therein as a result? The support the government of the United States of America gave to the Masonic revolutionaries in Mexico as they were killing nearly a quarter of a million Catholics in the first decades of the Twentieth Century? The use of methods of torture upon suspected terrorists as a regular tool of American jurisprudence? A civilized nation? Not really. There can be no true civilization without the true Faith, as Pope Saint Pius X noted in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910:

Here we have, founded by Catholics, an inter-denominational association that is to work for the reform of civilization, an undertaking which is above all religious in character; for there is no true civilization without a moral civilization, and no true moral civilization without the true religion: it is a proven truth, a historical fact. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

 

Care to argue with Pope Saint Pius X? Americanists of all denominations, including that of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, do. I do not, thank you very much. A nation cannot be truly "civilized" unless it is converted to the Catholic Faith and submits itself to the sweet yoke of the Social Reign of Christ the King as It must be exercised by His true Church. We must not resist this truth. We must embrace it as we lift high the banner of Christ the King!

We must, as always, therefore, have recourse to Mary Immaculate, who was preserved from all stain of Original and Actual Sin at the moment of her Immaculate Conception in the womb of her mother, Good Saint Anne. Our Lady is the patroness of the United States of America under the title of her Immaculate Conception. May we, never ceasing to use whatever time we can given the duties of our states-in-life to pray as many Rosaries as we can each day, ask her to help us to be so detached from sin and to be ever more ready to make reparation for our sins and those of the whole world so that the seeds we attempt to plant for the restoration of the Social Reign of her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, whom she conceived in her Virginal and Immaculate Womb by the power of God the Holy Ghost, will bear much fruit. That fruit might be manifest only in the hearts and the homes of those who are consecrated to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart. Nevertheless, you see, the conversion of nations starts with the conversion of just one soul.

Concentrating first and foremost on our own souls and getting ourselves to Sacrament of Penance on a weekly basis, if possible, may we call upon Our Lady, Mary Immaculate, to recover by penance what we have lost by sin, seeking freely to lift high the Cross, which is the one and only standard of true human liberty, inviting all men to keep her company at the unbloody re-presentation of the Sacrifice of that same Cross in the Immemorial Mass of Tradition offered by true bishops and true priests in the Catholic catacombs where no concessions are made to conciliarism or to the nonexistent legitimacy of its false shepherds who have made their "reconciliation" with the false principles of 1787 and 1789.

Viva Cristo Rey!

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

 

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!

 

Our Lady of Fatima, 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

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

Saint Gregory Naziaznen, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints

Appendix A

A Reprise of Just Some, Some, Mind You, of the Anti-Life Record of the "Pro-Life" Sham Artist Named George Walker Bush

1) George Walker Bush was proud of the fact that his administration increased the amount of money being spent by our tax dollars on domestic and international "family planning" programs, which, of course, dispatched innocent preborn babies to death by chemical means. Here is a letter sent in behalf of then President Bush to United States Representatives Carolyn Maloney (D-New York) on May 25, 2006:

 

 

The Honorable Carolyn B. Maloney
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Ms. Maloney:

Thank you for your letter to President Bush to request his views on access to birth control. The President has asked that I respond on his behalf. This Administration supports the availability of safe and effective products and services to assist responsible adults in making decisions about preventing or delaying conception.

The Department of Health and Human Services faithfully executes laws establishing Federal programs to provide contraception and family planning services. The Title X Family Planning Program and Medicaid are each significant providers of family planning services.

Additionally, this Administration strongly supports teaching abstinence to young people as the only 100 percent effective means of preventing pregnancy, HIV, and sexually transmitted infections (STIs).

I will provide this response to the other signatories of your letter.
Sincerely yours, John O. Agwunobi, Assistant Secretary for Health (Bush Supports Contraception Letter)

 

Contraception, of course, of its very evil nature, over and above the fact that most contraceptives serve as abortifacients that kill babies chemically or act to expel fertilized human beings from implanting in the uterus, is denial of the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage.

2) George Walker Bush made announced at 9:00 p.m. on Thursday, August 9, 2001, that he was going to permitted the use of Federal taxpayer dollars to fund embryonic stem cell research on embryonic human beings whose "lines" were created before the time of his announcement. In so doing, of course, Bush authorized the death of those human beings and at the same time justify the immoral, evil practice of in vitro fertilization while doing nothing to stop the privately funded death and destruction of such embryonic human beings on those "lines" created after the date and time of his announcement:

 

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)

 

Mrs. Judie Brown, the president and founder of the American Life League, wrote a retrospective on Caesar Georgii Bushus Ignoramus's stem cell decision some years later:

 

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.)

 

7) The George Walker Bush version of the "Mexico City" policy, as the "gag" order that prohibited international family planning organizations from killing babies on an "elective" basis on their premises or referring women to abortuaries was called, was 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 permitted 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 "Bush 43" "Mexico City" policy permitted 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 was 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, as noted above, the domestic and international "family planning" programs that were funded to the hilt by the administration of George Walker Bush and Richard N. Cheney 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)

 

3) George Walker Bush's Food and Drug Administration not only did not reverse the Clinton Food and Drug and Administration to market RU-496, the French abortion pill, the human pesticide. The Bush administration fully funded the use of RU-486 in both domestic and international "family planning" programs. Moreover, George Walker Bush's Food and Drug Administration approved over-the-counter sales of the so-called "Plan B" "emergency contraceptive" that is, of course, 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 was, 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. Obama is doing worse now " And this is supposed to exculpate one from not have denounced Bush at the time did did these terrible things? Reprehensible. Absolutely reprehensible.

4) The partial, conditional ban on partial-birth abortions remains little more than a political ruse designed to convince "pro-life" voters that something substantive was being done to stop the killing of babies. There is a needless "life of the mother" exception in the ban, meaning that babies are still being killed by this method if it can be claimed that a mother's life is endangered. Moreover, killing a baby by which is termed medically by the euphemism of "intact dilation and extraction" is no more morally heinous than killing a baby by any other method at any other age. Killing a baby by means of a suction abortion or by a saline solution abortion or by a dilation and evacuation abortion (where the baby is carved up by a butcher inside of the birth canal) is no less morally heinous than partial-birth abortion. Each is the same crime before God: willful murder, one of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance.

Also, as I have pointed out repeatedly since this issue came to forefront of public debate over fifteen years ago, there are two methods--the hysterotomy and dilation and evacuation--by which babies may be killed in the later stages of pregnancy. These methods can still be used to kill babies in the later stages of pregnancy with complete legal impunity. Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy specifically referred to these two methods when upholding the constitutionality of the partial-birth abortion ban in Gonzales v. Carhart:

 

 

D&E and intact D&E are not the only second-trimester abortion methods. Doctors also may abort a fetus through medical induction. The doctor medicates the woman to induce labor, and contractions occur to deliver the fetus. Induction, which unlike D&E should occur in a hospital, can last as little as 6 hours but can take longer than 48. It accounts for about five percent of second-trimester abortions before 20 weeks of gestation and 15 percent of those after 20 weeks. Doctors turn to two other methods of second-trimester abortion, hysterotomy and hysterectomy, only in emergency situations because they carry increased risk of complications. In a hysterotomy, as in a cesarean section, the doctor removes the fetus by making an incision through the abdomen and uterine wall to gain access to the uterine cavity. A hysterectomy requires the removal of the entire uterus. These two procedures represent about .07% of second-trimester abortions. Nat. Abortion Federation, 330 F. Supp. 2d, at 467; Planned Parenthood, supra, at 962-963. (Text of the Court's Opinion; see also An Illusion of a Victory.)

 

5) George Walker Bush's first Solicitor General of the United States of America, Theodore Olson, submitted the following brief to the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Joseph Scheidler v. National Organization for Women to argue that the sidewalk counseling activities of pro-life champion Joseph Scheidler, the founder of the Pro-Life Action Network, constituted "banditry" under terms of the Hobbs Act of 1946 as he was depriving legitimate business, abortuaries, of their income. Can anyone say "pro-life fraud," thank you very much?

 

"It is irrelevant under the Hobbs Act whether the defendant is motivated by an economic purpose, as the lower courts that have addressed the issue have correctly recognized. The text of the Hobbs Act contains no requirement of an economic motive. As explained, when a person uses force or threats to compel a business to cede control over what goods or services the business will offer, the defendant obtains the victim's property by acquiring the power to decide how the business will be conducted. That conclusion holds true whether or not the defendant has a profit-making objective.

"A contrary conclusion would allow a defendant to hijack legitimate businesses by wrongful acts of violence, threats, or fear simply because the defendant had a non-economic objective. That result would defeat the government's strong interest in protecting interstate commerce under the Hobbs Act by prosecuting extortionists who are motivated by causes other than financial gain. For instance, an economic motive requirement would immunize a defendant from prosecution under the Hobbs Act even though the defendant threatened acts of murder against a bank that loaned money to foreign nations whose policies the defendant opposed, against a retail store that sold products to which the defendant objected, or against any other business that used its land or other valuable property for a purpose that the defendant found unpalatable.

"Those acts have deleterious effects on interstate commerce, whether or not the defendant directs the use of such property for his own financial gain. To exempt such conduct from the Hobbs Act would retreat from the Act's purpose to 'protect the right of citizens of this country to market their products without any interference from lawless bandits.' In sum, when the defendant uses wrongful force or threats to wrest control over the victim's business decisions, the defendant obtains that property interest." (Brief of United States Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson in the case of Joseph Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, December 4, 2002.)

 

This could go on interminably. Although wearying, I have compiled this list yet again because I know that people forget and need to be reminded of basic facts that are always fresh in my mind as this my area of study and of active personal involvement for a long time. It is important to keep these facts in mind, especially to realize that Theodore Olson, who is now helping clients to reverse California Proposition 8 (see Meathead Meets Meathead), believed that saving babies from death was akin to stealing money from baby-killers in violation of interstate commerce! He made this argument in behalf of the "pro-life" administration of President George Walker Bush and Vice President Richard Bruce Cheney.

The fact that the current completely pro-abortion team of President Barack Hussein Obama and Vice President Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., are doing more terrible things should not make us pine for the "good old days" of Bush-Cheney. Those days were not so "good" for preborn babies in the United States of America and elsewhere in the world, to say nothing for innocent lives in Iraq and Afghanistan who were subject to indiscriminate American bombing or other military action and/or who have suffered from the destabilization of their countries by the American presence there.

 

Appendix B

Willard Mitt Romney's Anti-Life Record

Take a look at this "staunch defender of the principle that every human being should be welcomed in life and protected by law from conception to natural death" as he debated then United States Senator Edward Moore Kennedy (D-Massachusetts, see Another Victim of Americanism; Behold The Free Rein Given to Error; Behold The Free Rein Given to Error; Unfortunate Enough to Be A Baby; Unfortunate Enough to Be A Baby; Beacon of Social Justice?; Spotlight On The Ordinary; What's Good For Teddy Is Good For Benny; Sean O'Malley: Coward and Hypocrite: More Rationalizations and Distortions):

Q. Mr. Romney, you personally oppose abortion and as a church leader have advised women not to have an abortion. Given that, how could you in good conscience support a law that enables women to have an abortion, and even lets the Government pay for it? If abortion is morally wrong, aren't you responsible for discouraging it?

ROMNEY One of the great things about our nation, Sally [ Sally Jacobs of The Boston Globe ] , is that we're each entitled to have strong personal beliefs, and we encourage other people to do the same. But as a nation we recognize the right of all people to believe as they want, and not to impose our beliefs on other people. I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country; I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate.

I believe that Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years, that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice. And my personal beliefs, like the personal beliefs of other people, should not be brought into a political campaign. Too much has been written about religion in this race. I'm proud of my religious heritage; I am proud of the values that it's taught me. But if you want to know my position on issues, ask me and I'll tell you. I think the low point of this race was when my opponent and their family decided to make religion an issue in this campaign -- brought it out, attacked me for it. I think that's a mistake. I think the time has passed for that. John Kennedy was the one who fought that battle; let that battle live for all of us of all faiths.

KENNEDY I would agree with Mr. Romney that religion has no place in this campaign. And the best way to make sure that it doesn't is not to talk any further about it, and I don't intend to do so.

On the question of the choice issue, I have supported Roe v. Wade. I am pro-choice; my opponent is multiple choice.

I have not only introduced the freedom-of-choice legislation but I have fought -- wrote and saw successfully passed -- the clinic access bill that will permit women to be able to practice their constitutional rights in selection of abortion. And I have also led the fight against judges in the Supreme Court of the United States that refuse to permit a woman's right to choose. (THE 1994 CAMPAIGN; Excerpt From Debate By Kennedy And Romney; The Real Romney, a video clip of this exchange.)

Take a look also at comments Romney made eight years later when running for Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

How did this "man of principle" this " staunch defender of the inviolability of innocent human life under cover of the civil law," arrive at his pro-death position in 1994 and 2002? By pure political expediency, that's how:

 

In 1993, Mitt Romney was a successful businessman with an urge to enter public life and a plan to challenge Ted Kennedy for a Senate seat from Massachusetts.

Romney was also a high-ranking official in the Mormon church -- in charge of all church affairs in the Boston area -- with a dilemma over abortion. Romney was personally pro-life, and the church was pro-life, but a majority of the Massachusetts electorate was decidedly pro-choice.

How Romney handled that dilemma is described in a new book, "Mitt Romney: An Inside Look at the Man and His Politics," by Boston journalist Ronald Scott. A Mormon who admires Romney but has had his share of disagreements with him, Scott knew Romney from local church matters in the late 1980s.

Scott had worked for Time Inc., and in the fall of 1993, he says, Romney asked him for advice on how to handle various issues the media might pursue in a Senate campaign. Scott gave his advice in a couple of phone conversations and a memo. In the course of the conversations, Scott says, Romney outlined his views on the abortion problem.

According to Scott, Romney revealed that polling from Richard Wirthlin, Ronald Reagan's former pollster whom Romney had hired for the '94 campaign, showed it would be impossible for a pro-life candidate to win statewide office in Massachusetts. In light of that, Romney decided to run as a pro-choice candidate, pledging to support Roe v. Wade, while remaining personally pro-life.

In November 1993, according to Scott, Romney said he and Wirthlin, a Mormon whose brother and father were high-ranking church officials, traveled to Salt Lake City to meet with church elders. Gathering in the Church Administration Building, Romney, in Scott's words, "laid out for church leaders ... what his public position would be on abortion -- personally opposed but willing to let others decide for themselves."

By Scott's account, Romney wasn't seeking approval or permission; he was telling the officials what he was going to do. Scott quotes a "senior church leader" saying Romney "didn't ask what his position should be, nor did he ask the brethren to endorse his position. He came to explain, and his explanation was consistent with church teachings and policies."

According to Scott, some of the leaders were unhappy with Romney's plan and let him know it. "I may not have burned bridges, but a few of them were singed and smoking," Romney told Scott in a phone conversation.

In Scott's account, Romney displayed plenty of independence from church influence. But why did he feel the need to brief church leaders in the first place? The Romney campaign declined to comment on that or any other aspect of Scott's book. A Mormon church spokesman said only, "I do not know of the meeting, but it is our policy not to comment on private meetings anyway."

Scott has his own view. "[Romney] was not obliged to brief them," Scott said in an interview. "He probably was obliged to let them know as a matter of courtesy before he would take some stands on various issues that would raise eyebrows, because he was a fairly important officer of the church."

In any event, the episode points to a brief period in Romney's life in which his role as a church official and as an emerging political figure overlapped. (Romney declared his candidacy for the Senate on Feb. 2, 1994, and stepped down as a Mormon leader on March 20.)

Romney went on to lose in a campaign that featured Kennedy attacking Romney's religion. Romney pointed out the irony of Kennedy -- whose brother John F. Kennedy faced attacks on his Catholicism in the 1960 presidential campaign -- launching religion-based attacks, but to no avail.

If Romney is the 2012 Republican nominee, he will surely face similar stuff. Much of it will undoubtedly be ugly and unjustified. But there will also be simple questions about Romney's role as a church official at the start of his political career. (Mitt Romney Used Polls to Determine Campaign Position on Abortion.)

This "staunch defender" of the inviolability of innocent human life under cover of the civil law has boasted that he vetoed a bill passed by the Massachusetts General Court, the state legislature, that would have permitted the sale of the so-called Plan B emergency abortifacient to minor girls. That is not the whole story, nor does it say anything about his RomneyCare prototype of ObamaCare specifically included a provision for the appointment of a representative from Planned Parenthood on the state panel overseeing implementation of Romney's version of socialized medicine that has skyrocketed medical and insurance costs in the Bay State:

You should be quite familiar by now with the fact that Mitt Romney gave $150.00 to Planned Parenthood in 1994 when claiming he had always been pro-abortion.

You should also know that in 2004, Mitt Romney says he personally converted to the pro-life position. In fact, according to ABC News on June 14, 2007, “Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has long cited a November 2004 meeting with a Harvard stem-cell researcher as the moment that changed his long-held stance of supporting abortion rights to his current ‘pro-life’ position opposing legal abortion. But several actions Romney took mere months after that meeting call into question how deep-seated his conversion truly was.”

What was one of those actions?

Two months after his pro-life conversion, Mitt Romney appointed Matthew Nestor to the bench in Massachusetts. Romney seeming bowed to political pressure making Nestor a judge even after Nestor, according to the Boston Globe as far back as 1994, had campaigned for political office championing his pro-abortion views.

One year after his pro-life conversion, in July of 2005, Mitt Romney vetoed legislation that would expand the use of the morning after pill arguing that it would contribute to abortions. But just three months later Mitt Romney slid back and signed a bill that expanded state subsidized access to the morning after pill.

Writing in the Boston Globe on October 15, 2005, Stephanie Ebbert noted:

 

Governor Mitt Romney has signed a bill that could expand the number of people who get family-planning services, including the morning-after pill, confusing some abortion and contraception foes who had been heartened by his earlier veto of an emergency contraception bill. … The services include the distribution of condoms, abortion counseling, and the distribution of emergency contraception, or morning after pills, by prescription …

But that’s nothing. Two whole years after the pro-life view had settled into Mitt Romney’s conscience and a year after Mitt Romney had vetoed legislation expanding access to the morning after pill, he expanded access to abortion and gave Planned Parenthood new rights under state law. Yes, that Planned Parenthood.

Mitt Romney is really proud of Romneycare. He champions it as a great healthcare reform for Massachusetts. At one point he claimed it could be a model for the nation, though he now denies that.

According to States News Service on October 2, 2006,

 

“The following information was released by the Massachusetts Office of the Governor: Governor Mitt Romney today officially launched Commonwealth Care, an innovative health insurance product that will allow thousands of uninsured Massachusetts residents to purchase private health insurance products at affordable rates. Commonwealth Care is a key component of the state’s landmark healthcare reform law approved by the Governor in April. ‘We are now on the road to getting everyone health insurance in Massachusetts,’ said Governor Romney. … ‘Today, we celebrate a great beginning.’

 

Romney loves to take credit for it.

The law, in addition to providing healthcare coverage for the uninsured and forcing everyone to have insurance, expanded abortion services in the State of Massachusetts. It also required that one member of the MassHealth Payment Policy Board be appointed by Planned Parenthood of Massachusetts.

From Chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006:

SECTION 3. Chapter 6A of the General Laws is hereby amended by inserting after section 16I the following 6 sections: . . . Section 16M. (a) There shall be a MassHealth payment policy advisory board. The board shall consist of the secretary of health and human services or his designee, who shall serve as chair, the commissioner of health care financing and policy, and 12 other members: … 1 member appointed by Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts … (Massachusetts General Court Website, www.mass.gov, Accessed 2/5/07)

 

In 2007, Mitt Romney was still denying his healthcare plan did this.

 

 

 

 

QUESTION: “I noticed some of the conservative groups back in Massachusetts, they complain about there’s a Planned Parenthood rep mandate to be on the planning board for the health care plan. Is that something you just had to deal with in negotiating with the legislature?”

ROMNEY: “It’s certainly not something that was in my bill.”

(Eric Krol, “Full Text Of Romney Interview,” [Arlington Heights, IL] Daily Herald, 6/17/07)

Except it was. Apparently, like with Obamacare, you had to pass the bill to find out what was in it, but once passed, Romney never read it. (Mitt Romney Not Only Gave Money to Planned Parenthood, He Gave It Power; for a very comprehensive review of Willard Mitt Romney's supposed "conversion" on the issue on abortion, please see How Pro-Life Is Mitt Romney?)