January 22, 2003 was the 30th anniversary of that Day of Infamy that will be America's unfortunate boast in history. No it is not Pearl Harbor Day as you can surmise from the date. President Roosevelt called the attack on Pearl Harbor the day of infamy as if he was surprised as well as suffering for our nation, even though we now know he may have had prior knowledge but did nothing in order to serve his own agenda.

No the Day of Infamy is the day the US Supreme Court dared to overturn the natural law and Divine law in its hubris of issuing preferential policy from the bench in contradiction to the purpose of the Court, which is safeguarding and interpreting the law, not making it!

This article was scheduled to appear on the 30th anniversary but I was so overcome with grief when I surveyed the cultural landscape via the popular media that I could not stop weeping long enough to think in the way one must in order to write. So it appears now.

One could say that January 22, 2003 was also a day of infamy when one heard all the rhetoric issuing forth from the likes of Planned Parenthood, NARAL, the left in general, all the Democratic candidates for President specifically, the phony message [1] from President George Bush and even some of the so-called pro-lifers or those purporting to represent them or Republican party interests. To hear them was to weep, not only for all the babies about to be slaughtered but for the dead souls of these "leaders" of ours. Never before have we seen death so enshrined in our nation.

And of course the media, that is, most of it, did its liberal, shameful best to skew as much as it could to help the cause of murder most foul and its stench permeating, suffocating America.

If it had not been for EWTN, C-Span [somewhat] and Buchanan and Press on MSNBC and an attempt at a realistic report by Candy Crowley of CNN one would not have known how truly horrific abortion is and the toll it has taken on the soul of America. And even this little was a struggle at that and that includes the evening edition of the report on EWTN. [2]

The first sign that despite the weakening support for abortion on demand by all credible polls, the media is intent on perpetuating the myth that abortion will be the rule of the land no matter what was the repeated fact of the announcement that the pro-lifers were 50,000 strong in the Washington March for Life despite the frigid temperature, while the NARAL group's number was not cited. By definition this means that number had to be substantially less or else the media would have been drooling to report it. They did not have the guts to cite the real number of pro-abortion supporters in the anti-life Washington demonstration. So it must have been paltry indeed to not be able to compare it to 50,000 favorably when compared unfavorably with the Million Man March of another time and issue. Knowing the media would go to this length to hide the truth did not portend anything good happening by way of truth being vindicated.

And the second was, of course, that most tiresome, irksome "little thing" called psychological positioning: the use of the term "pro-choice" euphemism to hide the fact that these folks are rabidly pro-abortion even when it is coerced [a la China and elsewhere] and anti-abortion for the pro-lifers. Meaning, one is for something in a positive fashion-----murder which is  a "right" and the other is against that same something, which makes it seem like a negative. Talk about contrariness and getting things backward. When one pro-lifer, not that staunch herself, asked for the correct nomenclature all she elicited from the leftist gal talking head, was "Okay", with no attempt to actually change it. The tone in the Okay was dead itself. She merely changed the subject as the whole thing was forgotten or so she thinks. The complaint will be back and back until they get it right. We will not ride in the back of the bus anymore!

Over and over again I witnessed many a so-called pro-lifer state the willingness to accept exceptions for abortion, which means it is okay to kill some innocent babies if the stakes are high enough, which means they surrender the principle in the first place and in the last place pro-life will always be found because the enemy sees the weakness in this kind of argument from those claiming to be pro-life and exploits it savagely to further its own aims.

Only some of the commentators on EWTN and Judie Brown and Bay Buchanan [too intent on viability to be that effective in the end] on MSNBC ever got it right, most especially Judie Brown, God bless her! She called abortion murder, period, much to the chagrin and faked distress of Bill Press. He wanted her to say murder as if to portray her as extreme as against those who actually favor murder. And to think he says he is a Catholic! Press pressed her until she said murder, which she should say because that is the truth, even though she served to serve his agenda ploy. The gauntlet pro-lifers have to undergo just to gain a spot in the media: What a martyrdom, and I am not overstating things!

Over half of the American people polled favor some abortion and only a minority favor no abortion so we appear to favor abortion. Some abortion always means lots of it as long as people, some people, women only, have "a choice." There is no way to limit the choice in law if the latest ruling on partial birth abortion is any indication. Not because there is no way in of itself, but because this nation is so morally bankrupt that our rulers have no stomach for what it would take to make murder of innocent babies living in the womb once more what it is-----savage, cold-blooded murder!

Psychologically we have bought into the myth that before the second trimester a baby is well, not a baby, even though we really know better, especially since those advanced sonogram pictures of babies in the womb have been so prevalent in commercials for technology companies.

Ironically the missing woman in California story that is the rage in the media highlights our wanting it both ways:

Every commentator, legal and otherwise, all or most of them probably pro-abort since they are so part of the mainstream media, have mentioned the pregnant woman's "baby", not once was he referred to as a "fetus." Very telling, yet she is not due until February 10, plenty of time for a late-term abortion if she had wanted one. Very very telling, indeed!

No, there is no way we can claim innocence before God's almighty, dreadful judgment. We know better!

Pray for the conversion of these poor, sorry creatures called America's ruling elite. And for ourselves who have not the courage to vote what should be our conscience. We, too, are in danger of losing our souls, for each one of us, that day, if it comes, will be also be a day of infamy!

1. George Bush never appears at the March for Life in person, only a delivered taped speech that says very little of substance that will be realized. 2003 was no different. He conveniently was out of town on an economic speech date, but even more conveniently flew back that afternoon, just time enough not to have to make an actual appearance. When will Catholics stop being such pushovers? Saying that he is the best we can get promises us that he will always be the best we can get because the enemy knows they can count on us to waste our vote by pretending that is what we are not doing. God does not ask us to win, just be true. So until we do, we will always lose. The enemy is ever so much more skillful in these matters. But the truth can conquer all in time, if we ever gave it a chance.

2. The head of the Knights of Columbus was a bit too glib in his hope for the future and not so credible when one realized either he is not aware or does not care enough if he is aware, that so many Knights' local organizations admit pro-abortion pols as members and do so knowingly. The Knights have lost their gallantry and their luster as knights as in true knighthood for me. Helen Alvarez, Columbus law professor, was more honest about the challenge. But no one had any plan to offer.