Yadda, Yadda, Yadda, Heard It All Before
by Thomas A. Droleskey
The lords of naturalism are as predictable as are their comrades in the counterfeit church of conciliarism.
As most people are busy with their own lives and tend to forget the details of what has happened in the past, current events that are not really "new" at all appear so to them. Looking for hope where none is to be found, good, well-meaning people, steeped in one naturalist lie after another without realizing it, keep looking to politics and elections as the means to "save" the nation in times of crisis.
Alas, the belief in secular salvation is illusory. There is no such thing.
Yet it is that many Catholics that they can "save" the nation at the ballot box or, at the very least, retard various evils from advancing, heedless of the simple fact that the evils we face are the direct consequence, proximately speaker, of the very false, anti-Incarnational, religiously indifferentist, naturalistic and semi-Pelagian principles upon which the modern state, including the United States of America, is founded. The United States of America has, you see, has had a "Debt Clock" to God that began ticking on July 4, 1776. The crises we face are not being ":resolved" by the mere controlling of Federal expenditures, as important a goal as that certainly is. No, there can be no resolution of the economic woes besetting Western nations, including the United States of America, when God is mocked daily in the name of "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press" and "freedom of religion" and as sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance are protected under cover of the civil law and promoted freely in every nook and cranny of what passes for "popular culture."
Very few people, including most of those, perhaps, who bother to actually read these articles, have yet to read or to accept the truth of the following words as written by Silvio Cardinal Antoniano in the Sixteenth Century:
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.)
Very few people, including most of those, perhaps, who bother to actually read these articles, have yet to read or to accept the truth of the following words as written by Pope Saint Pius X 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. The new Sillonists cannot pretend that they are merely working on “the ground of practical realities” where differences of belief do not matter.
Their leader is so conscious of the influence which the convictions of
the mind have upon the result of the action, that he invites them, whatever religion they may belong to, “to provide on the ground of
practical realities, the proof of the excellence of their personal
convictions.” And with good reason: indeed, all practical
results reflect the nature of one’s religious convictions, just as the
limbs of a man down to his finger-tips, owe their very shape to the
principle of life that dwells in his body. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)
It is certainly the case that United States Representative Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin), who is former Commonwealth of Massachusetts Governor Willard Mitt Romney's selection to be his vice presidential running mate on the Republican Party national ticket to be nominated formally in Tampa, Florida, on Wednesday, August 29, 2012, has never read either of these statements of Catholic truth. Paul Ryan is an earnest, articulate and highly intelligent young man. He is, however, a total creature of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, having been born on January 29, 1970, the Feast of Saint Frances de Sales, and looks, obviously, to Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, the false "pontiff," for "guidance" about the "global economy:"
Ryan cites Light of the World, a book-length interview of Pope Benedict XVI, as an example of how the Catholic Church takes the global debt problem seriously. “We are living at the expense of future generations,” the
pope says. “In this respect, it is plain that we are living in untruth.”
Ryan takes those words seriously. “The pope was really clear,” he says. (Ryan Shrugged.)
Representative Ryan, although he is not the intellectual lightweight who is guided by viscera as was then Alaska Governor Sarah Heath Palin four years ago, is clearly confused about what constitutes Catholic teaching, including the Natural Law principle of subsidiarity that he believes is reflected in his proposed overhaul of the Federal budget, which has come under unjust attacks from Catholics in the conciliar structures who cleave to the false opposite of the naturalist "left (see Dialectical Americanism). As important as his proposal is, which has been caricatured in savage ways by the reigning caesar and his apologists, Representative Ryan does not understand what that the principle of subsidiarity means as he views it through the lens of the condemned Sillonist principle of "solidarity" that was advanced by Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II and is being advanced by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI:
Ryan mentions the Catholic principle of subsidiarity as an influence on
his thinking. He believes that the best government is a government
closest to the people. He is a strong believer in the power of civil
society, not the federal government, to solve problems. Community
leaders and churches, he says, can often do more for the poor than a
federal bureaucrat who scribbles their names on a check, sustaining
Ryan’s goal, with his budget and future projects, will be to “combine
the virtues and principles of solidarity,” which stresses the benefits
of the common good, with subsidiarity. The debt crisis, he says, demands
an effective solution, but that doesn’t directly correlate with
enlarging the federal government or raising taxes. He doesn’t want to
cede that argument to liberals, especially those within his own faith
community. “To me, those two principles are interconnected,” he says. “I
think a lot of folks have been selective in advocating some parts of
the teaching.” (Ryan Shrugged.)
Subsidiarity has nothing to do with which level of government addresses social problems. It has everything to do with who has responsibility for addressing them, starting with the institution that is closest to the person in need, the family itself, and then the parish, the diocese and, if necessary, the level of government that is closest to them. The principle of subsidiarity works equally as well in a Unitary, Federal or Confederal system of national/sub-national government division of powers. It is meant to stress that those in need are meant to rely first and foremost upon their relatives and friends when circumstances arise wherein they cannot care for themselves as those relatives and friends perform the Corporal works of Mercy.
Furthermore, Representative Ryan does not understand that the common temporal good must be pursued in light of man's Last End, the possession of the glory of the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost for all eternity in Heaven, something that Pope Saint Pius X, reiterating the constant teaching of the Catholic Church, made very clear in Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906:
That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any
religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to
God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and
preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him,
therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to
honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the
supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of
public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate
object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on
the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is
man's eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its
course. But as the present order of things is temporary and
subordinated to the conquest of man's supreme and absolute welfare, it
follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way
of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it. (Pope Saint Pius X, Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906.)
Mind you, this is not to "beat up" on Representative Paul Davis Ryan, who was once influenced in his younger days by the atheist Ayn Rand's writings. It is simply to point out that the lies of Modernity and Modernism that have created the world in which we was formed produce confusion and error as a matter of routine. My own eyes were opened over a quarter of a century now when I was told that I had to read the encyclical letters of Popes Gregory XVI, Pius XI, Leo XIII, Saint Pius X an Pius XI. I said "Oops!" after doing so, although it took around ten more years or so thereafter to become fully divested of the belief that we were going to make "progress" politically as the debt this nation owed to God for its sins continued to snowball into the avalanche that is upon us at this time.
Although an analysis of the political realities represented by Willard Mitt Romney's selection of Paul Davis Ryan and of the latter's "maiden" campaign speech yesterday, Saturday, August 11, 2012, Our Lady's Saturday and the Commemoration of Saints Tiburtius and Susanna and the Commemoration of Saint Philomena the Wonderworker, will be provided near the end of this article, that analysis needs to be "framed" by taking you down memory lane so that you can see that the enthusiasm, although certainly understandable in natural terms, is nothing new. Yadda, yadda, yadda, heard it all before. Many times. Many, many times.
Our Problems Have Not Occurred Overnight and Have Their Origin in Protestantism and Judeo-Masonic Naturalism
Truth be told, however, our circumstances today did not just happen. The Church Militant on earth has been living through her mystical Passion, Death and Burial for a long time now, meaning that the advance of adversary and his minions in a world shaped by the aftermath of the Protestant Revolution and the rise of all of the mixture of the interrelated forces of naturalism associated with the phrase Judeo-Masonry (see
Not A Mention of Christ the King). We just not "get here," whether "here" is the situation in the world of that facing the true Church today, overnight.
One of the ways that the devil has been advancing his agenda in the midst of the world-at-large is by raising up minions who subscribe to a particularly aggressive form of naturalism that scares, and sometimes quite rightly so, those who adhere to a supposedly "milder" form of naturalism. This is how so many believing Catholics who are opposed to the various moral evils that are protected by the civil law and advanced very boldly in all aspects of our popular culture are willing to accept increasingly higher doses of evil as "necessary" in order to oppose the supposedly "greater" evil without noticing that the more they accept the "necessity" of an increasingly higher dose of the so-called "lesser evil" is the more that the devil is emboldened to institutionalize greater and greater evils in the recognition that he can raise up false opponents of those greater evils who appear far better than others.
Thus it is that the failed policies of the "conservative" statist (see
Y2K's Lesser Evil Has Brought Us Great Evils,
Socialism, Straight From Your "Pro-Life" Conservative, and
Blame George Walker Bush), George Walker Bush, made possible the election of Barack Hussein Obama, whose own policy failures and general ineptitude and arrogance made possible the election of loads of Republican careerists in 2010 who are not all concerned about restoring full legal protection to the innocent preborn or opposing the advances made by those steeped in perverse acts against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments. Indeed, there was been a general "hush" two years ago among these establishment Republican careerists to the news that the man who served as Bush the Lesser's 2004 campaign manager and then as the Chairman of the Republican National Committee from January 19, 2005, to December 31, 2006, is a practitioner of moral perversity (see News Analysis - Gay Bush Aide? No Bombshell in Age of Fiscal Cares). In a world of naturalism, my good and very few readers, money always trumps moral truths as the measure of what constitutes
national greatness, something that was noted very well by Orestes Brownson in The Brownson Quarterly (January 1846). Brownson's observations of one hundred sixty-six years ago were correct when applied to the situation in his own day they are correct when applied to our own situation today. Naturalism begets materialism as the lowest common denominator in society, something, quite sadly, that was reflected in Representative Ryan's speech in Norfolk, Virginia, yesterday.
Our world is naturalism is such that it makes little substantive difference whether the naturalist in the White House is a Republican or a Democrat. It is usually, although not quite always, the case that the policy failures of an adherent of one false naturalist opposite makes possible the election of an adherent of the other false naturalist opposite. A few examples from the past forty-two years will demonstrate this point.
The domestic and foreign policy failures of President Lyndon Baines Johnson made possible the election of the then former Vice President of the United States of America, Richard Milhous, Nixon, on November 5, 1968. Although the contest between the two top vote-getters in the national popular vote, Nixon and then Vice President Huber Horatio Humphrey, was relatively close (Nixon won the national popular vote total over Humphrey by a margin of 510,946 votes), another nine million voters voted for the former segregationist Governor of Alabama, George Corley Wallace, the presidential nominee of the American Independent Party, as a way to protest what Wallace called "the tweedle-dum, tweedle-dee" nature of both major political parties. Most of those who voted for George Wallace were not racist or supporters of racial segregation. They were upset with Lyndon Johnson's profligate spending on domestic policies and his Vietnam War policies that were prosecuted without a Declaration of War from the United States Congress and without any policy to win.
President Richard Milhous Nixon's well-documented problems as the massive web known by the shorthand notation as the "Watergate" cover-up, which involved misuse of the Central Intelligence Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation as well as the botched burglary (and subsequent cover-up it engendered to keep the other misuse of power from becoming public) of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in the Watergate Hotel in Washington, on Saturday evening, June 17, 1972, and his resignation from the presidency effective at noon, Eastern time, on Friday, August 9, 1974, and the pardon given him by the first non-elected President of the United States of America, Gerald Rudolph Ford, Jr., on Sunday, September 8, 1974, made possible the election of loads upon loads of Democrats to both houses of the United States Congress and to statewide and local offices all across the United States of America. The mess created by Nixon's self-absorption (see
Poster Boys Of Modernity) made possible the election of a southern-fried version of the Soviet appeaser and apologist, former United States Senator George Stephen McGovern, who had lost forty-nine states to Nixon on Tuesday, November 7, 1972, as President Ford went down to defeat by former Governor of Georgia James Earl Carter, Jr., on Tuesday, November 2, 1976. And Jimmy Carter proved to be, at least on a level of pure naturalism, perhaps the worst President of the United States of America prior to election of Caesar Barackus Obamus Ignoramus on Tuesday, November 3, 2008.
Jimmy Carter's domestic and foreign policy failures have been well-documented on this site. He continued the Nixon-Ford policies of unilaterally disarming the United States of America, policies that were not reversed until the administration of President Ronald Wilson Reagan from January 20, 1981, to January 20, 1989. He was appeaser of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics until the time of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan on December 27, 1979. Jimmy Carter had a naively irresponsible view of world Communism (see his infamous May 22, 1977, commencement address at the University of Notre Dame). He was an enabler of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in early-1979 and was helpless when the man who was termed as a "saint" by his representative at the United Nations, Ambassador Andrew Young, tweaked his nose and degraded the United States of America by supporting the so-called "student militants" who took fifty-two citizens of this country hostage on Sunday, November 4, 1979. Jimmy Carter and his band of appeasers enabled the Sandinista Communists in Nicaragua when there were other alternatives to the corrupt rule of the brutal dictator Anastasio Somoza, and this same crew was very sympathetic to the Communist rebels in El Salvador and very hostile to those seeking to overthrow the Communist regime in Angola.
You want more? Sure, go check out the following articles: Ever the Appeaser and
Ever Anxious To Give Us His Malaise. Don't get me started on Jimmy Carter. Although I had another seven years to go before I would be chastised publicly at a political science conference for my rather uncritical acceptance of the compatibility of the American founding with Catholic doctrine on the proper relationship between Church and State, a chastisement that led me to read the papal encyclical letters become responsible for my recognizing the errors of my Americanist ways and for being able eighteen years later to recognize that the man I thought at the time to be "Pope" Benedict XVI was a direct and full-throated apologist of Americanism, which is the foundation of the conciliar world view (see
From The Potomac to the Tiber and Back), I was loaded for bear in April of 1980 when I delivered a speech at a mock Republican convention at Lehigh University, which was near the institution where I was teaching at the time, the then-named Allentown College of Saint Francis de Sales. I ripped Carter but good, listing all of his policy failures, foreign and domestic. The presentation earned me a job offer from a member of Congress who was present at that convention, something that I turned down because he supported baby-killing. Jimmy Carter and his southern-fried statism and McGovern-style appeasement of international Communism certainly got my naturalistic blood to boil, that's for sure.
Carter, of course, who turns eighty-eight years of age on October 1, 2012, has been intent on "redeeming" himself in the "eyes of the world" following his disastrous presidency, which made possible the election of former California Governor Ronald Wilson Reagan on Tuesday, November 4, 1980, something that was quite remarkable as Reagan, who came within one hundred eighteen delegate votes of defeating then President Gerald Rudolph Ford, Jr., at the Republican National Convention in Kansas City, Missouri, on Wednesday, August 18, 1976, would have been deemed as "too conservative" by many voters to have defeated Carter in the 1976 general election. Jimmy Carter made Ronald Reagan's election possible.
Angered and embittered by his embarrassingly large defeat to Reagan, Jimmy Carter has been globe-trotting ever since, playing the role of Jesse Jackson, Sr., in seeking the release of various Americans (as happened yesterday in Communist North Korea) and in seeking to assure us of the "peaceful" intentions of the Communist regime in Pyongyang, North Korea. Carter, server as an "observer," also wept openly when his close friend, the Communist dictator (and the current president) of Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega, was soundly defeated on February 25, 1990, by Violetta Barrios de Chamorro. And for all of this, of course, the appeaser was awarded with the Nobel Prize for Peace in 2002. Why should we be surprised that the old appeaser is still up to his tricks?
Carter also made possible the election of William Jefferson Blythe Clinton on Tuesday, November 3, 1992? How so? Quite elementary. Ronald Reagan was convinced by "moderate" Republicans in 1980 that he needed to have a "less conservative" running mate in order to make himself more palatable to voters. Reagan's choice? His closest rival for the 1980 Republican presidential nomination, former United States Representative, former United States Ambassador to the United Nations, former Untied States Trade Representative to Red China and the former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, George Herbert Walker Bush, the son of the late Prescott Sheldon Bush, who was a United States Senator from Connecticut from November 5, 1952, to January 2, 1963. Many within the Reagan inner camp, including his own national campaign chairman, then United States Senator Paul Laxalt (R-Nevada), who many "conservatives" wanted selected as Reagan's vice presidential running mate, were livid with Reagan for selecting the hapless, inarticulate, mercurial George Herbert Walker Bush. Many of Bush's closest aides, including his own campaign manager and close friend, James Addison Baker III, took prominent roles in the 1980 Reagan campaign and then the Reagan administration. Baker served as both White House Chief of Staff (from January 20, 1981, to February 3, 1985) and as Secretary of the Treasury (February 4, 1985, to August 17, 1988) in the Reagan administration (serving also as Bush the Elder's Secretary of State from January 20, 1989, to August 23, 1992).
Bush the Elder simply bided his time during the Reagan years as many "conservatives" projected into his empty Skull and Bones mind their own fondest hopes that he would continue the naturalistic policies of Ronald Wilson Reagan himself, which is how he, Bush the Elder, secured the Republican presidential nomination in 1988 in a slash and burn campaign against his principal rival, the hapless, mercurial and inarticulate thirty-third degree Mason named Robert Joseph Dole (R-Kansas), then the Minority Leader of the United States Senate, who had been the vice presidential running mate of his Masonic lodge brother, Gerald Rudolph Ford, Jr., in 1976. Bush stood for nothing except what he openly and rather brazenly called the "New World Order" after the end of Persian Gulf War on February 28, 1991, at which point he had an eighty-nine approval rating in the public opinion polls. He proved himself to be incapable of articulating anything about the Persian Gulf War and was seen to be weak in his handling of the economy, which permitted an opening for the scoundrel from Hope, Arkansas, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, to sell his snake-oil to the American public in such a convincing way that Bush the Elder actually looked at his watch twice during the televised "town hall" debate he had with Clinton and Henry Ross Perot in Richmond, Virginia, on October 15, 1992.
Clinton fatigue, however, made possible the election of Bush the Lesser on Tuesday, November 7, 2000, although the outcome was not decided until the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the second Bush v. Gore case, December 12, 2000. Bush the Lesser probably would have won the popular vote, which he lost to the then Vice Scoundrel of the United States of America, Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., had not a Gore operative discovered and then circulated the report of Bush the Lesser's arrest in Kennebunkport, Maine, on July 6, 1976 (it turns out that Bush's running mate, former White House Chief of Staff and former United States Secretary of Defense Richard B. Cheney, was arrested twice in Wyoming for drunk driving; see
Dick Cheney). And, as noted above, Bush the Lesser made possible the election of the currently reigning caesar, Barack Hussein Obama. And on and on and on it must go in a world of naturalism where even believing Catholics think that they are "getting ahead" when the cause of Christ the King and Mary our Immaculate are far from the minds of the secular messiahs in whom they place their trust and into whose skulls they project their fondest wishes for the temporal good of the nation.
The Political Reality of the Selection of Paul Davis Ryan
Willard Mitt Romney's selection of United States Representative Paul Davis Ryan to be his vice presidential running mate came after months of his being pummeled by the merciless, "Chicago Way" knife and guns street fighter named Barry Soetero/Barack Hussein Obama. Although Obama and the "super" political action committees ("Super PACS), entities he once denounced sanctimoniously but has employed with a special relish and thorough delight, have demonized and caricatured Romney, who belongs to false religion that teaches that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and the adversary are "spirit brothers," I have felt no sympathy for the hapless flip-flopping Mormon as he did precisely the same thing to Herman Cain, Newton Leroy Gingrich and Richard John Santorum. It is, however, after the pummeling he has taken from Obama these past few months, a time in which Romney reacted with relative indifference to the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America on Thursday, June 28, 2012, in the combined cases of National Federation of Independent Business, et al. v. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. and Department of Health and Human Services, et al. v. Florida, et al. and was pretty mute when the reigning caesar announced his support for "marriage" between persons of the same gender, that Romney decided to go "bold" and select Ryan as opposed to the "safer" choices of United States Senator Robert Jones Portman (R-Ohio) or former State of Minnesota Governor Timothy James Pawlenty.
A few salient points should be made about the selection itself.
First, yes, the selection of United States Representative Paul Davis Ryan is the proverbial "game changer." As noted earlier in this commentary, Ryan is bright and articulate. He has won election seven times in a Congressional district in southern Wisconsin near the Illinois border that is predominantly Democratic, doing so by comfortable margins each time, yes, even in 2008 when United States Senator Barack Hussein Obama (D-Illinois) carried his district by four percentage points of the popular vote over United States Senator John Sidney McCain III (R-Arizona). He makes his points clearly and lucidly, and bested the man who is lost in debate without his TelePrompTer, Barack Hussein Obama, when the two sparred in February of 2010 during a session that caesar deigned to have with the "peasants" (members of the United States Senate and United States House of Representatives Republican Party caucuses).
Second, President Barack Hussein Obama and Vice President Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., and their cronies may be salivating publicly over the opportunity to treat Paul Davis Ryan the way they have Willard Mitt Romney. Ryan is not Romney, though. He can fight back with conviction and logic. He is not Sarah Heath Palin talking about having foreign policy "experience" because her State of Alaska borders the Russian Federation on the Bering Sea and that Putin had fly over Alaska now and again. Paul Davis Ryan will not make vapid comments such as that. He will fight back on the economic issues and the caricaturing of his position on them by Team Obama-Biden.
Third, Willard Mitt Romney has now blunted efforts on the part of conservatives who have been disgruntled with his campaign thus far to disrupt the proceedings at the Republican National Convention that starts two weeks from tomorrow, that is, on Monday, August 27, 2012.
Fourth, the vultures (Jeb Bush, Richard John Santorum, Rand Paul, Michael Huckabee, James Richard Perry, Sarah Health Palin), sensing that the political carcass of Willard Mitt Romney will be ripe for the picking after Tuesday, November 6, 2012, who have been swooping over Iowa and other early caucus/primary states in recent weeks and months to plant the seeds for the madness of the 2016 version of the Circus of Midget Naturalists have been trumped. Paul Davis Ryan now moves up to the head the "Class of 2016" if the Romney-Ryan ticket goes down to defeat in eighty-six days from now.
Fourth, depending upon the kind of "bounce" that the naturalists of the organized crime family of the "right" get from their convention in Tampa, Florida, from Monday, August 27, 2012, through Thursday August 30, 2012, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetero may very well "stay the course" with his fellow demagogue and attack dog, the pro-abortion, pro-perversity "Catholic" named Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. After nearly forty years in public life, dating back to her work as a legislative aide to the majority on the United States House of Representatives' Committee on the Judiciary during the impeachment proceedings against then President Richard Milhous Nixon, United States Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-Illinois/Arkansas/New York) may very well want the break from public life for a brief time before gearing up for the 2016 presidential campaign even if she is asked to replace Biden as Obama's "one-up" on Romney's choice of Paul Ryan. There may be no September Surprises after all.
Now, all of this having been noted, it is time for the "contrarian" part of this commentary that will displease so many readers who believe that Paul Davis Ryan represents a mortal threat to the political lifespan of the administration of Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetero and Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.
First, Willard Mitt Romney's selection of Paul Davis Ryan does nothing to change the simple political reality that Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetero is going to win the following states handily: Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Vermont, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, Illinois, California, Washington, Oregon, California and Hawaii. Anyone who thinks that his vote in one of these states is going to help end the current caesar's reign of terror is, to be quite charitable, not thinking with clarity.
Second, Willard Mitt Romney's selection of Paul Davis Ryan does nothing to change the simple political reality that Willard Mitt Romney is going to win the following states handily: South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, Indiana, Tennessee, West Virginia, Arkansas, Kansas, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, Wyoming, Idaho, Alaska and, in all likelihood, Montana. Anyone who thinks that his vote in one of these states is helping to end the current caesar's reign of terror is, to be quite charitable, not thinking with clarity.
Third, Willard Mitt Romney's selection of Paul Davis Ryan might make a difference in the outcome of the elections in the following "swing" states: Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Missouri. Less likely, however, is that the selection will make a difference in such "swing" states as Minnesota, Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada. New Hampshire could go either way for a variety of reasons having nothing to do with Paul Davis Ryan.
Yes, this is a "choice" election, something that Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetero believes is to his advantage.
Yadda, yadda, yadda. Heard it all before.
At What Price "Choice"?
Then again, my good and few readers, the "choice" that is posed in this election revolves around the money, money, money. To be "excited" about the selection of Paul Davis Ryan is to ignore the following cold, hard facts that we can confront through the supernatural eyes of the Holy Faith.
First, Paul Davis Ryan is, as noted in my home page update for yesterday, Saturday, August 11, 2012, a complete supporter of the "global war on terror," a man who believes that the unjust and immoral American invasion and occupation of Iraq was justified and produced good results (please see, among many other articles on this site, Go Tell Iraq's Catholics--and American Babies--About The "Lesser of Two Evils", As Blind Now As He As Always Been, Longer Than World War II. and More Catholic Blood Flows from the "Religion of Peace").
Second, Paul Davis Ryan believes that President Barack Hussein Obama's decision to withdraw troops from the corrupt, murderous quagmire of Afghanistan into which they should never had been sent and thus had to risk their lives to prop up the Bag Man in a Karakul Hat).
Third, Paul Davis Ryan believes that "America has no better friend in the Middle East than the State of Israel, whose leaders control much of this country's policies in that region of the world (see, for example, Synagogue Rising by Mr. Hugh Akins).
How do I know these things?
Well, I read a lot about these "things." Paul Davis Ryan has laid it all out on his Congressional website:
On October 21, 2011, President Obama announced the withdrawal of all
U.S. troops and trainers from Iraq to be completed in 2011. Since
January 1, 2012, the United States has maintained normalized relations
with Iraq, and will continue to assist in the training of Iraqi forces,
encouraging regional security, peace and respect for Iraqi sovereignty. I
am encouraged by the progress that has been made in Iraq, and we must
remain vigilant to ensure that the hard-won gains in Iraq do not slip
away now that America’s combat participation has ended.
Following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the United
States made a commitment to defeat those responsible for the horrific
attack. As part of the broader war on terror, the U.S. military has
effectively engaged our enemies in Afghanistan and employed
counter-insurgency tactics to combat current threats to our national
security. This military strategy necessitates enough troops on the
ground to clear and secure areas, move onto subsequent locations while
maintaining a level of operable safety. Commanders requested 33,000
soldiers, totaling deployment to 100,000, and the President initially
complied with this request. However, on June 22, 2011, the President
announced a withdrawal of the same number of troops timed to conclude
just before the 2012 elections.
The withdrawal has the potential to pose security threats to soldiers
continuing shorthanded counter-insurgency operations, as well as to
compromise the larger mission in Afghanistan. Further, the Afghan
citizens currently working with our troops to quell violence may view the withdrawal as a signal
that our forces are no longer committed to the mission, which will serve
to debilitate the long-term diplomatic, development and reconstruction
efforts in the area.
I believe that the engagement in Afghanistan is necessary, and
demands careful considerations for the safety of both our Armed Forces
and citizens. Our own security at home depends on denying Al Qaeda and
other terrorists a safe haven to operate from abroad such as
Afghanistan. I continue to support providing our soldiers with the best
possible equipment so they are able to complete their mission safely,
effectively and on time so they can return to their families as soon as
America has no better friend in the Middle East than the nation of
Israel. Not only is Israel the region’s only fully functioning
democracy, with a government based on popular consent and the rule of
law, but it is also a valuable ally against Islamic extremism and
terrorism. Our shared democratic values and national interests are
supported by maintaining a close friendship with Israel. Americans also
have a strong interest in Israel achieving a lasting peace with its
neighbors – including the Palestinians.
Reasonable people – including those who live in the Middle East –
differ about how the conflict between Israel and Palestine can be
resolved. However, I believe at least one thing is clear: we cannot
advocate for a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that
jeopardizes Israel’s safety or legitimizes terrorism. Hamas, which is
one of the two major Palestinian political factions, is an Islamist
terrorist group whose charter calls for Israel’s destruction, refuses to
recognize Israel’s existence, and calls Osama Bin Laden a “martyr.”
While I do not have a role in the diplomatic discussions over the
resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, America should not
pressure Israel to agree to a peace deal that is unlikely to result in
peace and security. Real peace will require Palestinians to recognize
that Israel has a right to exist, even as it will require two states for
the two peoples. Introduced by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor on May
13, 2011, H. Res. 268 reaffirms the United States’ commitment to a
negotiated settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through direct
negotiations. I co-sponsored this legislation, and it passed the House
on July 7, 2011 by a vote of 407-13. I was also a cosponsor of H.R.
4133, the United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act, also
introduced by Majority Leader Eric Cantor, which passed the House on May
9, 2012 by a vote of 411-2. H.R. 4133 states that it is United States
policy to reaffirm the commitment to Israel’s security as a state,
provide Israel with the military capabilities to defend itself, expand
military and civilian cooperation, assist in a negotiated settlement of
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and encourage Israel’s neighbors to
recognize its right to exist.
Yes, even though Paul Davis Ryan is a critic of the profligate domestic Federal expenditures in the administration of former President George Walker Bush an Vice President Richard Bruce Cheney, he continues to support the needless, unjust and immoral wars that helped to catapult this nation in its current economic throes and that helped to put the Manchurian Candidate himself in the White House.
Fourth, Paul Davis Ryan, although he has a one hundred percent "pro-life" voting record as scored by the National Not-So-Right-Life Committee, which, of course, the direct, intentional killing of the innocent preborn in cases where it alleged that a mother's life is endangered, and has indeed co-sponsored a piece of legislation to bestow the legal status of personhood upon all persons from the moment of fertilization and calls himself as "pro life" as a person "can get," there is not one word about the issue on the pages of his Congressional website that I reviewed last evening.
Furthermore, while he did indeed take Governor of Indiana Mitchell Daniels to task in 2010 for calling for a "true" on the "social issues," Paul Davis also said the following two months ago now when referring the pro-abortion former United States Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice:
"Oh, yeah, I love Condi," noted Ryan. "I think she's fantastic. I think
she's somebody who is absolutely worthy of consideration." (Sarah Palin, Paul Ryan Say Condi Rice Would Make a Good VP.)
Query? How does one reconcile his "pro-life" position with supporting an open pro-abortion who helped to prepare the way and then defended a war that resulted in the death of scores of thousands of innocent human beings in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan?
Answer: One cannot do do so.
Fifth, despite saying that he is "as pro life" as one "can get," Paul Davis Ryan does indeed support the direct, intentional killing of innocent preborn children in their mothers' wombs in cases where it is alleged that a mother's life is endangered as a matter of principle, not as a matter of political or legislative expediency. In other words, he is not "pro-life," simply less pro-abortion than those who support the killing of innocent human beings in other so-called "exceptions" and than those who support the unrestricted killing of the innocent preborn.
Sixth, Paul Davis Ryan supported the Stupak Amendment to ObamaCare, which was sponsored by former United States Representative Bart Stupak (D-Michigan), which was simply a chimerical ruse that would have stopped no surgical abortions whatsoever from being funded by ObamaCare dollars. This is what Mrs. Judie Brown, the founder and president of the American Life League, who is otherwise pleased with Representative Ryan and his cosponsorship of the personhood bill, wrote about the Stupak Amendment in 2010:
Congressman Bart Stupak, a Michigan Democrat and the
darling of many American pro-life organizations, recently wrote a
commentary for the New York Times that literally took my breath away.
Entitled “What My Amendment Won’t Do,” Stupak panders to the abortion culture while attempting to defend his
ethically deficient health care reform amendment. Regardless of public
statements to the contrary, his amendment would not ban taxpayer
dollars for all abortions. If the preborn child is scheduled for
execution for reasons of rape, incest or life of the mother, that’s
fine, according to the Stupak language. And that’s not the worst of it.
In his editorial, Stupak provides public assurances to those who argue
that health care reform proposals must include preborn child murder
because such programs must protect every aspect of women’s so-called
reproductive health choices.
Disgusting as Stupak's remarks are, I must share a portion of them in order to make my point perfectly clear:
Under our amendment, women who receive federal subsidies will be prohibited from using them to pay for insurance policies that cover abortion. The amendment does not prevent private
plans from offering abortion services and it does not prohibit women
from purchasing abortion coverage with their own money. The amendment
specifically states that even those who receive federal subsidies can
purchase a supplemental policy with private money to cover abortions.
If you were to read this
paragraph with a proper understanding of the fact that abortion is an
act of killing, rather than a simple surgical procedure similar to a
nose piercing, you would have to admit that Stupak’s political posturing
is anything but pro-life. Here is how that paragraph should read, if
Stupak were honest about it:
Under our amendment, women who receive
federal subsidies will be prohibited from using such funds to pay for
insurance policies that cover any act that would result in the death of
their baby prior to birth. The amendment does not prevent private plans
from offering surgical, medical or chemical killing services, and it
does not prohibit women from purchasing insurance coverage that would
pay for the killing as long as they pay for such coverage with their own
money. The amendment specifically states that even those who receive
federal subsidies can purchase a supplemental policy with private money
to pay those who would perform acts that would result in the death of
their child or children prior to birth.
Some opponents of the amendment have tried to
argue that it would effectively end health insurance coverage of
abortion in both the private and public sectors. This argument is
nothing more than a scare tactic.
The language in our amendment is completely consistent with the Hyde
Amendment, which in the 33 years since its passage has done nothing to
inhibit private health insurers from offering abortion coverage. There
is no reason to believe that a continuation of this policy would
suddenly create undue hardship for the insurance industry—or for those
who wish to use their private insurance to pay for an abortion.
Reading such deluded jabber
sickens me beyond belief. But it also reminds me of the biblical story
of 1 Kings: 3, in which two women who lived together had a devastating
experience because one of them lied. To reprise the story, each of them
bore a child within three days of each other. As it turned out, one of
them apparently inadvertently rolled over onto her baby, who was consequently suffocated to death. This woman
proceeded to sneak into the other mother’s room in the middle of the
night, place the dead baby on her bosom and take that mother’s child.
She subsequently claimed the living child was her own, and the two women
wound up in King Solomon’s court, begging him to resolve the conflict. (STUPAK REDUX: POLITICAL LIES AND MANIPULATION.)
As I noted at the time twenty-nine months ago now, it is never any kind of victory for the cause of fundamental justice founded in the splendor of Truth Incarnate to concede as a matter of principle that a particular course of legislative action is justified because it
will not interfere with the ability of people to engage in evil acts
under cover of the civil law that are illicit of their very nature.
The Stupak-Pitts Amendment was an attempt from its
very beginning to make ObamaCare palatable to left-leaning Catholics and
the left-leaning conciliar "bishops" as its sponsors sought to justify a
limitation on the use of Federal taxpayer dollars for the surgical
assassination of babies on an elective basis on the basis that women
would still be able to kill their babies with the private monies of
insurance companies. The Stupak-Pitts Amendment was simply a means to
provide cover for "pro-life" Democrats to vote for ObamaCare, and the
fact that Representative Stupak surrendered the votes he controlled,
which would have been enough to sink the statist monstrosity from being
passed in the United States House of Representatives on Passion Sunday,
March 21, 2010, on the promise of a legally worthless Executive Order
that does not annul the baby-killing provisions in ObamaCare is proof
that the Michigan representative had no intention to stake his career on
a principled defense of the absolute inviolability of innocent preborn
Finally, Paul Davis Ryan, sticking to the script of Willard Mitt Romney's "money, money, money" campaign did not mention any of the "social issues" in his speech in Norfolk, Virginia, yesterday, mentioning only that our "rights" come from "nature and God," which is itself a little confused as it is God Who created nature and that it is impossible to respect the legitimate rights that inhere in the nature He created when we do not subordinate the pursuit of the common temporal good to man's Last End.
Pope Leo XIII put it this way in Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900:
The world has heard enough of the so-called "rights of man." Let it hear something of the rights of God.
That the time is suitable is proved by the very general revival of
religious feeling already referred to, and especially that devotion
towards Our Saviour of which there are so many indications, and which,
please God, we shall hand on to the New Century as a pledge of happier
times to come. But as this consummation cannot be hoped for except by
the aid of divine grace, let us strive in prayer, with united heart and
voice, to incline Almighty God unto mercy, that He would not suffer
those to perish whom He had redeemed by His Blood. May He look down in
mercy upon this world, which has indeed sinned much, but which has also
suffered much in expiation! And, embracing in His loving-kindness all
races and classes of mankind, may He remember His own words: "I, if I be
lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to Myself" (John xii.,
32). (Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900.)
I know. I know. I hear many of you saying something along the lines of, "Just wait until Romney and Ryan get elected. They'll be able to address the social issues once they get the economy fixed. No, they will not do so. See my comment from thirty years ago that I referenced earlier in this article. Yadda, yadda, yadda. Heard it all before. It is Christ the King and His Most Blessed Mother's Holy Rosary and her Fatima Message that we need, not more foolish, stupid talk about the when the "money starts flowing the naturalists will give us 'anything' we want."
Yes, there is always the "next" election after 2012. A Romney-Ryan administration would be careful not to upset "swing" or "independent" voters in order maintain control of whichever or both houses of Congress have a majority of Republicans after this year's elections. And then, of course, there's the "next" "most important election the country has ever known," the 2016 election, which will likely feature another Clinton as the nominee of the organized crime family of the naturalist "left."
There's always some excuse not to please God, not to recognize that the true God of Divine Revelation will never permit a nation that kills around four thousand innocent babies a day by surgical means and thousands more by means of chemical abortifacients and whose leaders believe that they must be silent for the sake of "votes" on the daily shedding of such innocent blood, which have helped to create the economic woes facing us at this time, and that they must be silent about the latest evil to become institutionalized in the national consciousness and in the laws of several states, the perverse concept of "marriage" for those engaged in perverse acts in violation of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments.
Does this mean that I am "rooting" for Barack Hussein Obama and Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. to be re-elected?
Come on, grow up. Read what I have written on this site about these reprehensible human beings for whose conversion we must pray daily.
Do what you want. Get as excited as you want. Act as you want. Vote as many times as you want (it's the "Chicago Way," after all, right?).
I am simply here as the penniless Catholic curmudgeon (that's another hint, by the way, as the post office box has been almost entirely empty for three straight months now) to remind you that we must think and act and speak as Catholics at all times and that the realities facing us at this time require Catholics in public life to remember these words contained in Pope Leo XIII's Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890:
The chief elements of this duty consist in
professing openly and unflinchingly the Catholic doctrine, and in
propagating it to the utmost of our power. For, as is often said, with
the greatest truth, there is nothing so hurtful to Christian wisdom as
that it should not be known, since it possesses, when loyally received,
inherent power to drive away error. So soon as Catholic truth is
apprehended by a simple and unprejudiced soul, reason yields assent. (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890.)
There has never been any way to "vote" ourselves out of a chastisement. We are living through a major chastisement now. More chastisements are to come, especially if the State of Israel has some "September surprises" of its own by launching an attack upon nuclear reactors under construction in the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The only thing that matters is that God, Who sees clearly the intentions of all hearts and the circumstances of all lives, will have mercy on our poor souls, stained with so many sins that have been washed as white as wool in the Most. Precious Blood of Jesus if we have them Absolved by a true priest in the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, at the moment of our deaths as we cling to Our Lady's motherly intercession until we draw our last breath. And what better way to cling to Our Lady's mother intercession by making sure we use the shield of her Brown Scapular that she gave to Saint Simon Stock and the weapon of her Most Holy Rosary that she gave to Saint Dominic de Guzman, the founder of the Order of Preachers?
May Saint Clare of Assisi, that courageous follower of Saint Francis of Assisi who held aloft Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in His Real Presence to ward off marauders who threatened to invade Assisi, help us to embrace the Franciscan spirit of holy poverty so that we will be detached from the materialism of our land of naturalism and thus be better able to prepare ourselves and our country for the spiritual riches that are meant to inform the lives of individuals and thus direct the course of nations.
Having recourse, as always, to
Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart and by the supplications we
give unto her each day through her Most Holy Rosary, we know that she
stands ready to accept from us as the
consecrated slaves of her Divine Son through that same Immaculate
Heart all of our own prayers and sufferings and sacrifices
and penances and humiliations during this time of betrayal and
in ways that will only be made manifest to us in eternity, please God
persist by the graces that flow to us through her loving hands in
states of Sanctifying Grace to the point of our dying breaths. There
no need for despair. She will have the Triumph of her Sorrowful and
Immaculate Heart. All we must do is to be faithful until the end as we
pray as many Rosaries as our states-in-life permit, fleeing from
everything to do with conciliarism and any acknowledgment of the
"legitimacy" of its false shepherds.
These words of Pope Pius XI, written in Quas Primas,
should once again inspire us to fight zealously for the Faith, never
fearing to call error by its proper name as we seek to do penance for
our own sins and those of the whole world as the sons and daughters of
Mary our Immaculate Queen:
That these blessings may be abundant and lasting in
Christian society, it is necessary that the kingship of our Savior
should be as widely as possible recognized and understood, and to the
end nothing would serve better than the institution of a special feast
in honor of the Kingship of Christ. For people are instructed in the
truths of faith, and brought to appreciate the inner joys of religion
far more effectually by the annual celebration of our sacred mysteries
than by any official pronouncement of the teaching of the Church. Such
pronouncements usually reach only a few and the more learned among the
faithful; feasts reach them all; the former speak but once, the latter
speak every year -- in fact, forever. The church's teaching affects the
mind primarily; her feasts affect both mind and heart, and have a
salutary effect upon the whole of man's nature. Man is composed of body
and soul, and he needs these external festivities so that the sacred
rites, in all their beauty and variety, may stimulate him to drink more
deeply of the fountain of God's teaching, that he may make it a part of
himself, and use it with profit for his spiritual life.
History, in fact, tells us that in the course of
ages these festivals have been instituted one after another according as
the needs or the advantage of the people of Christ seemed to demand: as
when they needed strength to face a common danger, when they were
attacked by insidious heresies, when they needed to be urged to the
pious consideration of some mystery of faith or of some divine blessing.
Thus in the earliest days of the Christian era, when the people of
Christ were suffering cruel persecution, the cult of the martyrs was
begun in order, says St. Augustine, "that the feasts of the martyrs
might incite men to martyrdom." The liturgical honors paid to
confessors, virgins and widows produced wonderful results in an
increased zest for virtue, necessary even in times of peace. But more
fruitful still were the feasts instituted in honor of the Blessed
Virgin. As a result of these men grew not only in their devotion to the
Mother of God as an ever-present advocate, but also in their love of her
as a mother bequeathed to them by their Redeemer. Not least among the
blessings which have resulted from the public and legitimate honor paid
to the Blessed Virgin and the saints is the perfect and perpetual
immunity of the Church from error and heresy. We may well admire in
this the admirable wisdom of the Providence of God, who, ever bringing
good out of evil, has from time to time suffered the faith and piety of
men to grow weak, and allowed Catholic truth to be attacked by false
doctrines, but always with the result that truth has afterwards shone
out with greater splendor, and that men's faith, aroused from its
lethargy, has shown itself more vigorous than before.. . .
It would be the duty of Catholics to do all
they can to bring about this happy result [that is, the Triumph of
Christ the King]. Many of these, however, have neither the station in
society nor the authority which should belong to those who bear the
torch of truth. This state of things may perhaps be attributed to a
certain slowness and timidity in good people, who are reluctant to
engage in conflict or oppose but a weak resistance; thus the enemies of
the Church become bolder in their attacks. But if the faithful were
generally to understand that it behooves them ever to fight
courageously under the banner of Christ their King, then, fired with
apostolic zeal, they would strive to win over to their Lord those
hearts that are bitter and estranged from him, and would valiantly
defend his rights. (Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas, December 11, 1925.)
Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!
Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.
Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.
Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.
Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.
Saint Clare of Assisi, pray for us.
See also: A Litany of Saints