Your "Lesser Evil" of 2008 Says to "Leave" Baby-Killing "Alone"
by Thomas A. Droleskey
Remember your "lesser evil" of 2008, United States Senator John Sidney McCain III (R-Arizona)? Sure, you do. Here is a little reminder out of over one hundred articles that were written about this naturalist in 2007 and 2008: Covering a Multitude of Sins, We Continue to Learn Nothing, Making the Same Tragic Mistakes Again and Again, We Don't Want to Learn Anything, Take A Good Look Around You, Fallacies Galore and one from 2011, Want to Reconsider the Lesser of Two Evils Business, Folks?. That last article dealt with McCain's mad desire to have ground troops of the United States of America placed in Libya in 2011.
Well, the made who made United States Senator Barack Hussein Obama's election a real breeze back on November 4, 2012, is at it again, using his role as yet another in the growing line of the Republican Party's latter day versions of Robert Joseph Dole, Jr. to pontificate about how it was "necessary" to "leave" the issue of the chemical and surgical assassination of children "alone" in order to appeal to more voters and thus win more elections:
WALLACE: We're going to talk about that in the next segment, and I think it is a real issue.
let's talk about the GOP. Republicans -- I don't have to tell you --
had a really rough night on election night. And let's look at the break
down of some of the numbers.
You lost unmarried women by 36 points, Hispanics by 44 points. Young people by 23 points.
your party need to change, especially in its outreach with those
groups, on social issues like same sex marriage, on immigration reform?
MCCAIN: I think we have to have a bigger tent. That's -- no doubt about it. And, obviously, we have to do immigration reform.
is no doubt whatsoever that the demographics are not on our side. And,
we are going to have to give a much more positive agenda. It can't be
just being against the Democrats, and against Harry Reid and against
Obama. You have to be for things, and we have to give them something
like the Contract with America, that we gave them some years ago. We
have to give them something to be for.
And as far as young women
are concerned, absolutely -- I don't think anybody like me, I can state
my position on abortion, but, to -- other than that, leave the issue
alone when we are in the kind of economic situation and, frankly,
national security situation we're in.
WALLACE: When you say leave the issue alone, you would allow, you'd say, freedom of choice?
would allow people to have those opinions and respect those opinions.
I'm proud of my pro-life position and record. But if someone disagrees
with me, I respect your views. (Transcript of Fox News Sunday, November 25, 2012.)
Although I have tried to "reach" you Senator McCain a number of times, I am going to do so yet again: God cares about the chemical and surgical slaughter of the innocent preborn in their mothers' wombs daily under cover of the civil law. God cares, that is, the true God of Divine Revelation, not the concept of Him that was invented by the man, Father Martin Luther, O.S.A., who founded the false religion to which you belong. God cares. And if God cares, Senator John Sidney McCain III, you had better care, especially if you reckon with these words of Pope Pius XI:
Those who hold the reins of government should not forget that it is the
duty of public authority by appropriate laws and sanctions to defend
the lives of the innocent, and this all the more so since those whose
lives are endangered and assailed cannot defend themselves. Among whom
we must mention in the first place infants hidden in the mother's womb. And
if the public magistrates not only do not defend them, but by their
laws and ordinances betray them to death at the hands of doctors or of
others, let them remember that God is the Judge and Avenger of innocent
blood which cried from earth to Heaven. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 30, 1930.)
To paraphrase the old Fram oil filter television advertisement from the 1970 ("You can pay me now, or you can pay me later"), those who treat the daily slaughter of the preborn with such indifference as John Sidney McCain III can pay God now by repenting of their indifference and of their support for such killing in the so-called "hard cases," or they can pay Him later after failing to learn that "God is their Judge and Avenger of innocent blood which cried from earth to Heaven."
Pardon me while I heave a very heavy sigh as I remind you once again that this is nothing new for the very vapid John Sidney McCain III.
To wit, McCain and his wife Cindy played the
same cynical game that was played by Ronald Wilson Reagan and Nancy
Reagan, the cynical game that was played by George Herbert Walker Bush
and Barbara Bush, the cynical game that has been played for the last
eight years by George Walker Bush and Laura Bush.
What is this game?
Republican naturalist who vied for the White House four years ago now continues to protest that he "pro-life" even though he makes
"exceptions" to the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment, while his
wife says that she is in favor of Roe v. Wade.
Consider Mrs. McCain's interview with the Columbia Broadcasting System's Katie Couric on September 3, 2008:
Yesterday during an interview with CBS’s Katie Couric, Cindy McCain said that she does not oppose a woman’s right to an abortion in the case of rape or incest — a
position that differs from the Arizona senator’s running mate, Gov.
Sarah Palin (R-AK). Couric then asked, “Do you believe Roe v. Wade
should be overturned?” Cindy McCain replied, “No.” When Couric noted,
“Your husband does,” Cindy McCain said, “No, I don’t think he does.” Couric had to explain Sen. McCain’s position on abortion and Cindy McCain then agreed:
COURIC: He believes that should be overturned. That’s what he told me, and that it should go to the states.
CINDY McCAIN: Well, in that respect, yes. Yeah, it
is–that–I understand what you’re saying, that is a states issue.
At the end of the interview, Couric said that “we
contacted the McCain campaign to clarify Cindy McCain’s position on
abortion. They told us that, like Laura Bush, Mrs. McCain does not favor
overturning Roe v. Wade, which guarantees the legal right to an
abortion.” (Cindy McCain says Roe v. Wade should not be reversed.)
I had a "moral obligation" in 2008 to vote in support of this cynical game when it was clear to me at the time that John Sidney McCain III did not care about doing anything of substance to retard baby-killing upon demand in the United States of America? I don't think so!
Voters made their choice at the time. They chose Barack Hussein Obama instead of Obama Lite, which is what happened this year as the "Bob Dole of 2012," Willard Mitt Romney lost to Obama on November 6, 2012.
In case you have forgotten, this is how he responded to moderator Bob Schieffer of the Columbia Broadcasting System during his third debate with then United States Senator Barack Hussein Obama (D-Illinois) at Hofstra University, Hempstead, New York, on October 15, 2008, the Feast of Saint Teresa of Avila:
SCHIEFFER: All right. Let's stop there and go to
another question. And this one goes to Senator McCain. Senator McCain,
you believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned. Senator Obama, you believe it shouldn't.
Could either of you ever nominate someone to the Supreme Court who disagrees with you on this issue? Senator McCain?
MCCAIN: I would never and have never in all the
years I've been there imposed a litmus test on any nominee to the court.
That's not appropriate to do.
SCHIEFFER: But you don't want Roe v. Wade to be overturned?
MCCAIN: I thought it was a bad decision. I think
there were a lot of decisions that were bad. I think that decisions
should rest in the hands of the states. I'm a federalist. And I believe
strongly that we should have nominees to the United States Supreme Court
based on their qualifications rather than any litmus test. Now, let me
say that there was a time a few years ago when the United States Senate
was about to blow up. Republicans wanted to have just a majority vote to
confirm a judge and the Democrats were blocking in an unprecedented
We got together seven Republicans, seven Democrats.
You were offered a chance to join. You chose not to because you were
afraid of the appointment of, quote, "conservative judges."
I voted for Justice Breyer and Justice Ginsburg.
Not because I agreed with their ideology, but because I thought they
were qualified and that elections have consequences when presidents are
nominated. This is a very important issue we're talking about.
Senator Obama voted against Justice Breyer and
Justice Roberts on the grounds that they didn't meet his ideological
standards. That's not the way we should judge these nominees. Elections
have consequences. They should be judged on their qualifications. And so
that's what I will do.
I will find the best people in the world -- in the
United States of America who have a history of strict adherence to the
Constitution. And not legislating from the bench.
SCHIEFFER: But even if it was someone -- even someone who had a history of being for abortion rights, you would consider them?
MCCAIN: I would consider anyone in their qualifications. I do not believe that someone who has supported Roe v. Wade that would be part of those qualifications. But I certainly would not impose any litmus test. (The Third McCain-Obama Presidential Debate.)
No litmus test?
This is not so.
John Sidney McCain III would never appoint a blatant racist or a person
reputed to be, whether falsely or not, an anti-Semite to any position
in government, including to a seat on the Supreme Court of the United
States of America. Such a person wouldn't get a litmus test. He would
be deemed unacceptable solely on the basis of hearsay. Not necessarily
so with an out-and-out pro-abort.
Although McCain stated that one who supported the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Roe v. Wade,
January 22, 1973, would not have the qualifications to be nominated by
him for a seat on the High Court, he reiterated that he had no litmus
test. In other words, support for the slicing and dicing of innocent
human beings in their mothers' wombs does not necessarily disqualify
one from holding a seat on the Supreme Court of the United States of
America. Indeed, McCain wanted to select his pro-abortion pal, former
Department of Homeland Security Secretary and Pennsylvania Governor Tom
Ridge, a Catholic, or another pro-abortion pal, United States Senator
Joseph Lieberman, I-Connecticut, who is Jewish, before turning to Alaska
Governor Sarah Heath Palin. (See Bob Dole, part trois.) Those who support abortion are not disqualified from service in government as far as John Sidney McCain III is concerned.
A matter of states' rights, of Federalism?
No, Senator McCain, decisions
concerning the inviolability of innocent human life at any stage from
the moment of fertilization through all subsequent stages until natural
death do not belong to "the states." No human institution of civil
governance has any authority from God to enact positive legislation or
to render judicial decisions contrary to the binding precepts of the
Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law. This means, Senator McCain,
that the Fifth Commandment is non-negotiable. Human institutions of
civil governance may determine the penalties to be imposed upon those
adjudged guilty after due process of law of violating the Fifth
Commandment's absolute prohibition against any and all attacks on
innocent human life. Such institutions of civil governance do not have
any authority to permit the taking of such life. This is not a matter of
states' rights, Senator McCain. This is a matter of God's immutable and
eternal Law from which no human being may legitimately dissent at any
time for any reason.
Senator McCain did not even directly answer the question as to whether Roe v. Wade should
be overturned, saying only that it was a "bad decision, rushing quickly
thereafter to say that "a lot of decisions were bad." His desire,
however, to throw the issue of baby-killing back to the state
legislatures where it began in the 1960s is at odds with the Republican
Party's 2008 platform that was adopted during the convention in Saint
Paul, Minnesota, that nominated him for President of the United States
McCain misspoke when he said
that Barrack Hussein Obama voted against the nomination of Stephen G.
Breyer to the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Breyer,
nominated by then President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton in 1994 to
replace the author of Roe v. Wade, Associate Justice Harry
Blackmun. Barack Hussein Obama was not in the United States Senate at
that time. McCain meant to say that Obama voted on January 31, 2006,
against the nomination of Samuel Alito to replace Associate Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor.
John Sidney McCain III's contention that "elections
have consequences" and that senators of the "out" party are more or less
obligated to vote in favor of "qualified" judicial nominees of a
president who belongs to the "in" party is fallacious. There is no such
obligation whatsoever. How can McCain claim that he is "proudly
pro-life" and that he wants to built a "culture of life" when he has
voted to confirm known out-and-out pro-aborts to the Supreme Court of
the United States of America?
Members of an opposition political party has the obligation to oppose policies
and nominees they believe to be injurious to the common temporal good
of their nation. They are under no obligation to aid and abet policies
and nominees contrary to the common temporal good of their nation. And
one of the sad ironies in all of this is that members of the Democrat
Party demonstrate more integrity in their commitment to protecting the
evils of the day by opposing those policies and nominees they believe
pose a threat to such evils with great vigor and determination. Such
cannot be said of their false opposites in the naturalist camp of the
"right," the hapless Republicans, many of whom fold like a cheap camera
at the slightest hint of bad press.
Oh, some will argue that McCain's vote in favor of
Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer did not matter as they were
going to be confirmed anyway in a United States Senate controlled by the
Democrat Party. After all, why antagonize Jewish groups by voting
against the first two Jewish nominees to the Court since Associate
Justice Abe Fortas was forced off of the Supreme Court on May 14, 1969,
as a result of a conflict-of-interest charges resulting from a retainer
he had taken from crooked financier Louis Wolfson (and setting the stage
for the United States Senate's rejection of two consecutive nominees
sent to it by then President Richard Milhous Nixon, Clement Furman
Haynsworth and G. Harrold Carswell)?
Well, it is like this: each human being answers to
God for his actions at the moment of his Particular Judgment. It is
either a good or a bad thing to vote in favor of someone committed to
the preservation of a nonexistent legal "right" to kill babies. One's
duty is before God, not before one's fellow men. Only three Republicans
(the late United States Senator Jesse Helms, North Carolina, and former
Senators Don Nickles, Oklahoma, and Bob Smith, New Hampshire) voted
against Ginsburg. Nine Republicans voted against Breyer. John Sidney
McCain III took refuge in "elections have consequences," a fallacious
canard that will come back to haunt him if Barack Hussein Obama does
wind up defeating him in nineteen days.
Obviously, the lies that spewed forth from the mouth
of Barack Hussein Obama on the issue of abortion during the debate last
evening at Hofstra University in Hempstead, Long Island, New York, are
to be deplored even though they were to be expected. Obama is indeed a
very calculated liar who plans to ratchet up the police state once he is
elected. There can be no doubt about this. Obama's lies and
misrepresentations of the positions he took against a "born alive"
infants protection bill while a member of the Illinois State Senate show
him once again to be a reprehensible supporter of baby-killing under
cover of law. In addition to the five commentaries written during the
week of the Democrat Party National Convention, Trapped by Apostasy and Desiring to Stay Ignorant have pointed out that Obama cannot say that he is a follower of Our
Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ while supporting Our Lord's
mystical dismemberment in the persons of innocent preborn children in
their mothers' wombs.
Obama's despicable lies and misrepresentations about
abortion being a "difficult issue," a canard that has been used by
Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., and George Walker Bush and John Sidney McCain
III and Sarah Heath Palin (WHAT'S SO DIFFICULT ABOUT KILLING A BABY?),
however, do not indemnify John Sidney McCain's own misrepresentations as
to what it means to be "pro-life." McCain corrected Obama at one point
in the debate when rebutting an Obama campaign advertisement that
claimed that he, McCain, did not support embryonic stem cell research:
MCCAIN: Every other ad -- every other ad was an
attack ad on my health care plan. And any objective observer has said
it's not true. You're running ads right now that say that I oppose
federal funding for stem cell research. I don't. (The First McCain-Obama Presidential Debate.)
No one who has any degree of intellectual honesty can claim that
someone who supports Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research is
"pro-life." Do you want to stand logic and truth on its head? Then
again, I guess it's easy to stand logic and truth on its head in the
realm of the absolute and total farce that is our Judeo-Masonic
electoral system when so many Catholics fail to accept the fact that
Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI himself stands logic and truth on its head
by claiming that dogmatic truths contain "particulars" that can become
obsolete over the course of time.
It is thus no surprise that John Sidney McCain III is joining the Republican chorus calling for the organized crime of the naturalist "right" to focus on the money, the money and the money while leaving the chemical and surgical assassination of innocent preborn babies "alone."
It is no wonder that a poor septuagenarian named John Sidney McCain III and other assorted naturalists do not realize that there can be no temporal peace and tranquility when the civil law endorses things that are repugnant to the peace and happiness and eternity.
When are Catholics, no matter where they fall on the vast expanse of the ecclesiastical divide, going to recognize and accept the truth written over five hundred years ago now and cited by Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929?
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.)
This is only the result of everything I documented so painstakingly five weeks ago now in Without Any Rational Foundation. John Sidney McCain III has simply joined the chorus of naturalists of the organized crime family of the "right" who want to distance themselves once and for all from those "divisive" "social issues" in what is our Judeo-Masonic system of naturalism that was denounced with such great Catholic eloquence by Louis Edouard "Cardinal" Pie, who was the Bishop of Poitiers, France from from May 23, 1849, to the time of his death on May 18, 1880:
Accordingly, the Bishop of Poitiers had always
fought against THE SEPARATION OF Church and State. Moreover, he opposed
all separations, that of reason and faith, of nature and grace, of
natural religion and revealed religion, the separation of the
philosopher and the Christian, of private man and public man. He saw in
all these [separations] a resurgence of Manichean dualism and he had
fought all these with, the supreme argument, the law formed by Christ.
Therefore, it is in all truth, writing to [Minister of the Interior] the
Count of Presigny, that he could render this testimony:
'We have nothing in common with the theorists of
disunion and opposition of two orders, temporal and spiritual, natural
and supernatural. We struggle, on the contrary, with all our strength
against these doctrines of separation which is leading to the denial of
religion itself and of revealed religion.'"
Fr. de St. Just returns at this point and
introduces us to what is perhaps Msgr. Pie's strongest language, with
regard to this entire subject:
"To this doctrine of the Church, which Msgr. Pie
brought to the mind of the rulers of nations, the liberals would oppose
acts favoring separation.
"Certain countries, Belgium and America,
for example, haven't they proclaimed the separation of Church and State,
and doesn't the Church enjoy a more complete liberty under such a
Cardinal Pie responded firmly to this question:
'THE AMERICAN AND BELGIUM SYSTEM, this system of philosophical-political indifference, shall eternally be a bastard system" (pp. 122-124 in Fr. de St. Just's book) (Selected Writings of Selected Writings of Cardinal Pie of Poitiers, Catholic Action Resource Center, Orlando, Florida, October, 2007, pp. 21-23.)