Watch the Midget Naturalists Mud Wrestle
Thomas A. Droleskey
Americans love their bread and circuses. They just don't have to go to the circus to get amused any longer. Amusement is brought to them in their homes on wide-screen televisions, the internet and a wide variety of forms on home computers, digital video disc players and other such "home entertainment' equipment that seem to be a staple of those homes where a lot of readily disposable income in is available to make the purchase of these items possible.
Partisan politics, however, was a spectator sport long before the advent of radio and television and the internet.
Although the rhetoric of most American politicians in the Nineteenth
Century was pure naturalistic hogwash and just outright bombast, city
folk and townsfolk would turn out for a political stem-winder that might last up to three hours. Such naturalistic
hogwash and bombast was a form of "entertainment," if you will, prior to
the days of silent films and radio and television itself. Americans in
the Nineteenth Century had the attention span to listen to those three
hour stem winders. Lots of ordinary citizens came out, replete with their torchlights if the event was held at night, and, not all too frequently, lots of liquor to "enjoy" the festivities as a musical band or two might play before and after the speech.
Well, we don't have to go out to the local town square to get jollies from listening to naturalists. All one needs to do is to spend his entire life listening to talk radio and/or watching the twenty-four hour-a-day news channels and surfing the internet to get their fill of absolute political junk food that has plenty of calories, so to speak, but no real spiritual or intellectual nutritional value whatsoever.
Indeed. the adversary has used all of obsession with the minutest details of what has become an industry of endless campaigning for elected office to stir up
emotions as our naturalists vie with each other for
votes in the biennial or quadrennial farces called elections, starting, of course, with primary season. Grave
sounding naturalists who fill the airwaves and the internet with their
self-promoting, self-important naturalistic hogwash and bombast that
"this is the most important election of our lifetime." Why is it that
every election is called the "most important election of our lifetime"?
Does anyone recognize this to be hyperbole and bombast of the highest
Permit me a chance to try to prove this point.
For those of who who are New Yorkers and who are old
enough to remember the 1962 elections, can any of you remember a single,
solitary issue during the gubernatorial that year between incumbent
Governor William Averell Harriman and his challenger, the tycoon named
Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller?
This question is for any of you in the country who
are old enough to remember the 1962 elections: What were the big issues
dividing Republicans and Democrats in the off-year Congressional
elections in 1962? Come one, tell me one. Just one (without looking up
on the internet, that is).
What were the really big issues that divided
Republicans and Democrats in the 1978, 1982, and 1990 off-year
Sure, there are exceptions to this. Most anyone old
enough to remember the 1974 elections can remember that the Democrats
won handily around the nation because of the resignation of President
Richard Milhous Nixon. The 1994 elections are remembered by many people
for the Republicans issuing their "Contract With America." What about
1998 and 2002 and 2006??
It has been thus, at least for them most part, in the realm of partisan politics here in the United States of America.
Many of those who are younger don't realize this. They get all caught up in the emotions and the excitement of a given moment. Although one is not very old as he approaches sixty in one hundred two days, this writer is old enough to have learned, solely by the graces won for us by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ on the wood of the Holy Cross as He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood to redeem us that He sends to us through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces, that American electoral politics is a farce. A farce.
Check back in about ten or twenty or fifty years,
however, if we have that long, that is, and see if my analysis of how
evil has been advancing and institutionalizing itself in civil society
as a result of the compromises that we have made with our naturalistic
Judeo-Masonic system has not been correct all along, that elections in the United
States of America have been naturalist sideshows from the beginning, as
Orestes Brownson pointed out in National Greatness in 1846. Little has changed since then, as I think a dispassionate
reading of Mr. Brownson's essay, part of which is excerpted here, will
As of the individual, so of the nation. In like manner as
justice and sanctity constitute the greatness of the individual,
so do they constitute the greatness of the nation. "Justice
exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people." The
great nation is the holy nation, rich in true obedience, and
carried away by a divine passion for God and all holy things.
Suppose your nation does increase in wealth, in luxury, in
refinement; suppose it does fell the primeval forest and
enlarge its borders, multiply its manufactures, extend its
commerce, and make all climes pour their riches into its lap;
what then? Does it follow that such a nation is great, is
glorious, and has reason to applaud herself for her achievements and to exult over the poor and simple? "Blessed is
the nation whose God is the Lord." Where is it written,
Blessed is the nation whose God is Mammon, and whose
worship is thrift? Where are the nations who forgot the
Lord, who put their trust in their ships, their traffic, their
wealth, and luxuries? Where is that ancient Tyre, "whose
merchants were princes, and her traders the nobles of the
earth"? Where are all the nations of the old world, once
renowned for their extended commerce, the richness of their
stuffs, and the variety of their manufactures? They have
passed away like the morning vapor, and a few solitary ruins
alone remain to point the traveller to the seats of their
Taking the principles we have established, we can easily
answer the question, whether we are or are not a great people, whether the path we are pursuing leads to true nation
al greatness, or whether it leads from it. Are we as a
people intent on gaining the end for which our Maker de
signed us? Are we remarkable for our humble observance
of the precepts of the Gospel? Are we diligent to yield
that obedience to which is promised eternal life? Far, very
far, from it. We are a proud, loud-boasting and vain-boasting people. Our god is mammon, and our righteousness is
thrift. Is it not so? To what do we point as proofs of our
greatness? Is it not to our industrial achievements, our
railroads, canals, steamboats, commerce, manufactures, material wealth and splendor? But where are our moral
achievements, the monuments of our enlightened zeal for
God, and humble devotion to his will? Religion we have
in name, in form, in many forms and many strange forms;
but where is the deep, all-pervading, all-active conviction
that this world is not our home, that it is but an inn in which
we may lodge for a night, but in which we may not, must
not, dwell? Alas! the dominant passion of our country is
worldly wealth and worldly distinction. We see it in the
general pursuits of the people; we hear it in the almost universal tone of conversation; and we see it distinctly in the
general scramble for wealth, in our demoralizing political
contentions, and the all-devouring greediness for place and
If we look at the great
political questions which agitate
the public mind, we shall perceive that they are all questions
concerning wealth, the means of facilitating its acquisition, of making
it pass, or preventing it from passing, from
the few to the many, or from the many to the few. Such
are your bank questions, your tariff questions, your land-distribution
questions. If you go beyond these, they are
questions of the honors and emoluments of office. Not a
pert upstart among us who has made his maiden caucus
speech, but regards himself as qualified for any office in the
gift of the people, from that of village constable up to that
of president of the United States, and feels that he suffers
great wrong, and adds another striking example of neglected
merit, if not rewarded for his disinterested and patriotic exertions
by some snug place with a fat salary. Scarcely a
man seems contented to remain in private life, to live in
obscurity, unheeded by his countrymen, in all humility and
fidelity laboring to discharge his duty to his God, and to
win the prize of eternal glory. We love the praise of men
more than the praise of God; the low and transitory goods
of time more than the high and permanent goods of eternity.
If we are poor, we are discontented, we regard ourselves as
most miserable, and rail against Providence, who permits
inequalities to obtain among brethren. No one is contented
with his lot in life. We are all ill-at-ease. We would all
be what we are not,- and have what we have not. And yet,
with admirable simplicity, we ask, Are we not a great people?
Nearly all the action of the American people, collectively
or individually, has reference solely to the affairs of, time.
Government sinks with us into a joint-stock concern for the
practice of thrift. It has no divine authority, no high and
solemn moral mission. In education even, the same low
and earthly view obtains. We educate for time. We seek
to fit our children for getting on, as we call it, in the world,
-to make them sharp, bold, enterprising and successful
business men. We teach them, indeed, that knowledge is
power,-but power to outstrip their fellows in the pursuit of
worldly goods. We teach them, indeed, that sloth is a
mortal sin,-but sloth in the affairs of time and sense, not
sloth in regard to our spiritual duties. We teach them to
respect public opinion, to strive to be respectable, to be
honored among men; rarely, and almost always ineffectually,
to respect the law of God, to see the honor of God, and to
despise that of men. Hence, they grow up timid time-servers, trimmers, moral cowards, afraid to say their souls
are their own, to avow their honest convictions, if their convictions chance to be unpopular, or to follow God in the
faith and worship he has ordained, if not held in repute, or
if embraced only by the poor, the simple, of whom the
world makes no account. To make a sacrifice for Christ, to
give up all, houses, lands, wife, and children, for God, that
we may have treasure in heaven, strikes us as something
wholly uncalled for, as folly, as madness, worthy only of the
dark ages of monkish ignorance and barbarity. To a worldly
end conspire all our education, science, literature, and art.
Whatever cannot be pressed into the service of man as a
creature of time and sense is by the immense majority of us
condemned as useless and mischievous.
That we measure all things by the standard of this life
and this world is evinced by the judgments we pass on
other nations. In judging others, we always judge ourselves. Tell us what nation you place highest in the scale
of nations, and you tell us what are your own views of what
constitutes true national greatness. We, as a people, very
generally count highest in the scale of contemporary nations
those in which the national energy displays itself most
exclusively in an industrial direction, and which are most
successful in multiplying wealth and luxury. Since the
great events in the sixteenth century, which out of courtesy
we must call the reformation, although it was any thing but
a reformation, there has sprung up a new social order, not
known in the middle ages, and not yet universally adopted
in Catholic countries. The whole tendency of this order is
in an industrial direction. It places this world before the
other, time before eternity, the body before the soul, the
praise of men before the praise of God. It esteems the
riches of this world more than the riches of divine grace,
and bids us strive to live, not in the order of grace, but in
the order of nature. Under this order the great aim is to
be rich, independent, well off in time; to be distinguished,
held in high repute one by another. We reverse the maxim
of the Gospel, and say, Be not anxious for the soul, take no
need to the worship of God, nor to obedience to his laws;
but seek first to get on well in this world, look to the main
chance, get rich, honestly, of course, if you can, but get rich, be
distinguished, and then the kingdom of God and his justice will be added
unto you unto you;--or if not, it will be no great matter.
Orestes Brownson wrote this in the year 1846. You
tell me how any of this has changed? You tell me how the intervening
presidential elections of 1848, 1852, 1856, 1864, 1868, 1872, 1876,
1880, 1884, 1888, 1892, 1896, 1900, 1904, 1908, 1912, 1916, 1920,
1924,1928, 1932, 1936, 1940, 1944, 1948, 1952, 1956, 1960, 1964, 1968,
1972, 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008 have changed
just one little bit of Orestes Brownson's description of American
national life 162 years ago? We have changed for the worse, not the
better, as the residual influences of Catholicism have waned--and as the
counterfeit church of conciliarism made its own evil "reconciliation"
not only with the principles of 1789 but also with those of 1776 and
1787. Indeed, conciliarism's view of the world and Church-State
relations is premised upon the very Americanism that has convinced
Catholics to believe that it is through interdenominational and/or
nondenominational efforts at the ballot box that "change" is effected in
society. The one, conciliarism, could not have occurred with the other,
Americanism, as will be noted in the book length manuscript that I am now in the process of writing.
Ours has been been a system of "greater" evils from the very
beginning, starting with the contention that men do not need the
authority of the Catholic Church to direct them, either personally or
socially, and that they can be virtuous on their own without belief in,
access to and cooperation with Sanctifying Grace.
Read those passages from Orestes Brownson's "National
Greatness" again and judge for yourself if our "electoral process" has
changed anything substantively for the "better" other than convincing Catholics to surrender their
Faith to the exigencies of career politicians who believe in multiple
errors that offend Our Blessed and Saviour Jesus Christ, the very Second
Person of the Blessed Trinity Who became Man in Our Lady's Virginal and
Immaculate Womb by the power of God the Holy Ghost, and are thus
harmful, yes, even unto eternity, of the salvation of the souls for whom
He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the
Memories fade over the course of time. Those who
think naturalistically and who do not understand that the entire
structure of the modern civil state is built on the house of sand
constructed by the evils of the Protestant Revolution and the rise of
Judeo-Masonry will have a veritable "Pavlov's Reaction" to the sound of
the "election bell," responding to fund-raising appeals and to petition
drives that wind up empowering the naturalists more and more.
Thus it is that next year's 2012 national elections are said to be (drum roll, please), the "most important election of our lifetime."
Adherents of the false opposite of the naturalist "left" will seek to "energize" their political base support by threatening the apathetic among their number with what will be termed the ugly spectre of a presidency and both houses of Congress in the control of their ever-hapless false opposites of the naturalist "right."
"Control of the Supreme Court of the United States of America," is at stake, some of these lefties will argue. "Antonin Scalia is seventy-five now. His weight has ballooned up so much that he might fit into some of the clothing of the late Orson Welles or the equally dead Marlon Brando. He could go at any time. You don't want another Scalia getting on the Court, do you?"
Other adherents of the false opposite of the naturalist "left" will argue that Barack Hussein Obama's vision for a "more just" America have been stymied by the "Tea Party fanatics who have captured the Republican Party," an argument, from what I have read, that seems to be gaining some traction among so-called "independent" voters. Why not? Demagoguery works more often than not.
The hapless band of in-fighters who belong to the naturalist "right" will, are arguing that Obama and ObamaCare must go, that his profligate spending programs have bankrupted the country for generations as the "mainstream media" will argue that it was the war mongering and tax cuts of the not-so-pro-life George Walker Bush that made Obama's spending programs necessary. And on and on and on the circus will go.
Several things are guaranteed from the results of the 2012 elections:
1) A naturalist will win the presidency.
2) A naturalist will continue be used, unwittingly to him or her, by God as a means to further chastise the United States of America.
3) Innocent preborn children will continue to slaughtered by chemical and surgical means.
4) The size, the scope and the power of the Federal government of the United States of America will increase, either at a fast rate or at a slower rate than is occurring at this time.
5) The State of Israel will continue to control a good deal of American foreign policy.
6) Economic and social problems and international crises will worsen; leading to--
7) The hysteria over the 2014 off-year national elections and the 2016 presidential elections, which will begin in earnest for the naturalists of "left" no matter who wins enough electoral votes on Tuesday, November 6, 2012, as a defeated Barack Hussein Obama will start his own Oprah Winfrey style television program or as a re-elected Barack Hussein Obama enters into his second term of office, being unable to succeed himself. It is my own contention that a re-elected Caesar Barackus Obamus Ignoramus might seek to start the process of repealing the Twenty-second Amendment, making it possible for him to become a modern day Franklin Delano Roosevelt or yet another contemporary worthy of Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez.
The current hysteria was on display two nights ago in Ames, Iowa, as eight of the nine declared candidates for the 2012 Republican Party presidential nomination "debated" each other.
The "debate" was hardly that. It was what some have called the spectacle of staged "joint appearances" as midget naturalists mud wrestled with each other and the journalists asking questions, many of them with "inside baseball" questions dealing with the theater of running for the presidency, in a scattershot manner than gave none of the poor midget naturalist mud wrestlers an opportunity to discourse for more than a minute, although some went over their allotted times.
There were the following spectacles two nights ago:
1) Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, a Catholic apostate turned Protestant, ripped into United States Representative Michele Bachmann, who returned fire with glee.
2) Former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, who served as Barack Hussein Obama's ambassador to Red China from August 11, 2009, to April 30, 2011, distinguished himself for two things: (a) looking as though he came straight out of a tanning salon; and (b) displaying the "courage of his convictions" to reiterate his support for "civil unions" for those engaged in both natural and unnatural vice in violation of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments (it is nothing other than stupefying to consider that pro-aborts, pro-lavender agenda Rudolph William Giuliani has some kind of "path" to the Republican nomination after turning in a performance in 2008 that Huntsman is seeking to emulate).
3) Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney answered not a single question directly, sticking to talking points in order to maintain his front-runner status, taking special delight in the mud that his fellow midgets Bachmann and Pawlenty were throwing at each other.
4) Former Speaker of the House of Representative Leroy Newton Gingrich wagged his finger at questioner Chris Wallace, the son of the now retired Mike Wallace of 60 Minutes fame, when asked about losing most of his campaign staff a few months, answering policy questions in a manner that appealed to the talking heads but displayed a lack of comprehension of the root causes of the problems he thinks that he can "resolve."
5) The former chief executive officer of Godfather Pizza, Herman Cain, struggled to keep his balance when asked difficult questions. His "best days" on the campaign trail are behind him as he is baffled and equivocates when asked questions that he is not prepared to answer.
6) Former United States Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pennsylvania) was emphatic, if not eloquent, in his opposition to the "exception" for the legal inviolability of a preborn baby in the event of his having been conceived as a result of a violent assault upon his mother. Very nice. He also supports the "global war on terror" that has killed thousands upon thousands of innocent human beings and helped to bankrupt the national treasury, such as it is, composed of worthless pieces of paper that only have value because our caesars tell us that this is the case.
7) United States Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas) remains his libertarian self, fully supportive of "states' rights" concerning the social issues, including surgical abortion and "gay marriage" if it is the "will of the people" in those states as expressed by popular referenda and/or by state legislatures, correctly denouncing the "global war on terrorism" and dismissing the threat posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran, patting himself on the back for having pointed out the unjust behemoth of the Federal Reserve System long before it became fashionable to do so. Remember this and remember it well: Dr. Ron Paul admitted that he has prescribed "the pill" to women who were his patients in his years as a practicing obstetrician/gynecologist. The birth control pill is an abortifacient no matter how many times Dr. Paul asserts that this is not the case. He is thus responsible for the deaths of countless numbers of babies who had been conceived with a complete genetic code of their very own. (See The Pill Kills - 2011 - How The Pill Kills.)
One candidate who wasn't at the debate was Texas Governor Rick Perry, who will try to steal some thunder from his brother midget naturalists by announcing his candidacy formally today in South Carolina at an event he has organized. And then there is former Alaska Governor Sarah Heath Palin, who just happened to show up at the Iowa State Fair in Des Moines, Iowa yesterday, Friday, August 12, 2011, the Feast of Saint Clare, reminding everyone that "Sarah Barracuda," another Catholic apostate, might yet put on her mud wrestling clothes to join her fellow midget naturalists of the false opposite of the "right." (Yes, there are two other pee wee midget naturalists who aren't in Iowa now seeking the Republican Party presidential nomination, former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson and former Louisiana Governor Buddy Roemer. They are nonentities even in terms of raw naturalism, leaving aside all supernatural considerations.)
Not to be ignored in this farce is the role played by so-called political "experts."
It was laughable to review the comments of some of the "experts" from the false opposite of the naturalist "left"who said that the only winner of the debate held on Thursday evening, August 11, 2011, was Barack Hussein Obama, who, they say, benefited from the Republican in-fighting.
What about the late United States Senator Paul Tsongas (D-Massachusetts) calling hen Arkansas Governor William Jefferson Blythe Clinton "the pander bear" in 1992?
What about Clinton's going ballistic against the not-so-reverend Jesse Louis Jackson when he had learned, erroneously, that Jackson had endorsed one of Clinton's 1992 rivals for the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party, the pro-abortion "Catholic" United States Senator Thomas Harkin (D-Iowa)?
What about the past and current Governor of California, G. Edmund "Jerry" Brown, Jr., talking about Whitewater (well before all of the investigations associated with that scandal) in a debate with Clinton in 1992, prompting Clinton to strike back at him saying, "Pat Caddell [James Earl Carter, Jr.'s, political pollster and strategist] told me what you, redefining yourself every four years."
Do any of these bright lefty talking heads remember the contest between Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., and Bill Bradley in 2000 or the John Edwards-John Kerry ruckus four years later?
Better yet, what about the knock down, drag out street battle between Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2008?
And these "experts" get paid lots of money for spinning this stuff while some of us (see below) can't even those who support our work and who have the means to help to send along a five dollar bill in times of need. I guess that it's great work if you can get it. (And this is not even to mention the battle between Jimmy Carter and Edward Moore Kennedy in 1980 and the one between Walter Mondale and Gary Hart in 1984. Midget naturalists of the "right" have company in the mud wrestling league with the midget naturalists of the "left.")
As always, the loser in all of this is Christ the King, and if He loses, my few and most penurious readers (just because I haven't updated the donations page as I plan to doesn't mean that the post office box is overflowing with mail; we are getting by right now as a result of two non-tax-deductible financial gifts that made it possible to pay utility bills and groceries while other bills need to be paid), everyone loses. Men lose. Their nations lose.
Remember, what unites the false opposites of the naturalist "right" and the naturalist "left" is the complete and total rejection of the basic truth that Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order. Each, including the Catholics (Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich) in the race, would be aghast at any challenge to accept the truths stated in the following quotations:
The more closely the temporal power of a nation aligns itself with the
spiritual, and the more it fosters and promotes the latter, by so much
the more it contributes to the conservation of the commonwealth. For it
is the aim of the ecclesiastical authority by the use of spiritual
means, to form good Christians in accordance with its own particular end
and object; and in doing this it helps at the same time to form good
citizens, and prepares them to meet their obligations as members of a
civil society. This follows of necessity because in the City of God, the
Holy Roman Catholic Church, a good citizen and an upright man are
absolutely one and the same thing. How grave therefore is the error of
those who separate things so closely united, and who think that they can
produce good citizens by ways and methods other than those which make
for the formation of good Christians. For, let human prudence
say what it likes and reason as it pleases, it is impossible to produce
true temporal peace and tranquillity by things repugnant or opposed to
the peace and happiness of eternity. (Silvio Cardinal Antoniano, quoted by Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.)
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.)
The social reign of the Heart of Jesus is God in His
place in the reason, in the conscience, in the heart and in the public
life of man; the social reign of Satan, is God excluded from religion,
from the conscience, from the heart and from the public life of man; it
is humanity laicized and adoring itself.
"There is no middle ground; one must
choose. The liberals, the liberals who say to themselves that they are
and believe themselves to be Catholic, do not want to choose; they
repudiate the social reign of the Heart of Jesus, they accept the social
reign of Satan. Despite their verbal protestations, their work is
founded on Freemasonry; they are of the party of Satan against the Heart
of Jesus" (Canon Gaudeau, La Maison actuelle de Sainte Marguerite Marie, p. 25, de St. Just, pg. 201.) [Selected Writings of Cardinal Pie of Poitiers, Catholic Action Resource Center, Orlando, Florida, October, 2007, pp. 5-8.]
"If Jesus Christ," proclaims Msgr. Pie in a magnificent pastoral instruction, "if
Jesus Christ Who is our light whereby we are drawn out of the seat of
darkness and from the shadow of death, and Who has given to the world
the treasure of truth and grace, if He has not enriched the world, I
mean to say the social and political world itself, from the great evils
which prevail in the heart of paganism, then it is to say that the work
of Jesus Christ is not a divine work. Even more so: if the
Gospel which would save men is incapable of procuring the actual
progress of peoples, if the revealed light which is profitable to
individuals is detrimental to society at large, if the scepter of
Christ, sweet and beneficial to souls, and perhaps to families, is
harmful and unacceptable for cities and empires; in other words,
if Jesus Christ to whom the Prophets had promised and to Whom His
Father had given the nations as a heritage, is not able to exercise His
authority over them for it would be to their detriment and temporal
disadvantage, it would have to be concluded that Jesus Christ is not God". . . .
"To say Jesus
Christ is the God of individuals and of families, but not the God of
peoples and of societies, is to say that He is not God. To say that
Christianity is the law of individual man and is not the law of
collective man, is to say that Christianity is not divine. To say that
the Church is the judge of private morality, but has nothing to do with
public and political morality, is to say that the Church is not divine."
In fine, Cardinal Pie insists:
"Christianity would not be divine if it were to have existence within individuals but not with regard to societies."
Fr. de St. Just asks, in conclusion:
"Could it be proven in clearer terms that social atheism conduces to individualistic atheism? ("Selected Writings of Cardinal Pie of Poitiers, Catholic Action Resource Center, Orlando, Florida, October, 2007, p 22.]
If you like good political theater, well, then, be my guest. Electoral politics is nothing other than a complete farce as the devil mocks true social order by raising up all manner of "secular saviors" to promise us a better world by means of human self-redemption as they use the name of God in a Judeo-Masonic sense devoid of all understanding of His Sacred Deposit of Faith. (Please review March of the Midget Naturalists.)
If you do not think that the American electoral system is one of complete farce, consider the fact, if you will be so kind to do so, that in 2007 only 14,302 people paid the thirty dollar entrance fee to the Republican Part of Iowa for the "privilege" of casting their votes. That's right, the fate of the midget naturalists who specialize in mud wrestling and any true in-depth discussion of the actual root causes of social problems depends upon an almost invisible fraction of the 131,000,000 people who showed up at the polls nationwide on November 4, 2008. This is farce. A staged fund-raising event held for the Republican Party of Iowa that is held in Ames, Iowa, in the August preceding a presidential election being contested by various midget naturalists of the false opposite of the "right" can eliminate candidates for national consideration?
Sure, it's great theater, especially to those who like the "excitement" of campaigns, which do indeed generate their own hysteria. However, it only that, theater, a veritable naturalist theater of the absurd featuring midget mud wrestlers who live in a perpetual "cone of silence" demonstrating that they know far less than even Sergeant Hans Schultz.
We must be champions of Christ
the King and Mary our Immaculate Queen, champions of the Catholic
Church in this time of apostasy and betrayal, champions of the truth
that Catholicism is the and only foundation of personal and social
order. Those who disagree do so at the peril to the nation they say they
love but for which they have a false sense of nationalistic pride that
impedes her conversion to the true Faith, which is what Our Lord Himself
mandates for each nation on the face of this earth.
We must not be distracted by the side shows of naturalism or conciliarism. We must serve as champions of Christ the King through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, especially by praying as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits, refusing to march along in the parade of the midget naturalists.
We can only stand tall, that is, to stand above the midgets of naturalism, if we stand uncompromisingly with Christ the King as the consecrated slaves of Mary our Immaculate Queen.
Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!
Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us!
Saint Joseph, Patron of Departing Souls, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.
Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.
Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.
Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.
Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.
Saints Pontian and Cassian, pray for us.
See also: A Litany of Saints