A BITTER PILL:
Abortion and the Syrian Pretext for War
  SEPTEMBER 2, 2013 [LABOR DAY]

The television news was on in the background - I was working and not really tuned in - when I heard Catholic renegade and Secretary of State John Kerry's voice. Actually I should say Secretary of War. He was sounding the drumbeat for war with Syria over the use of sarin gas or chemical weaponry to punish the rebels, who are as anti-Christian and anti-West as the Syrian regime. In this civil conflict there are no "good guys". Murderous thugs are well, murderous thugs. No one with any sense of brotherly love can approve of the use of the deadly gas on women and children, who are but inconveniences for Syria's Assad, and a useful hinge for the Muslim extremists.

What struck me was that before it dawned that it was the crisis in Syria that fueled Kerry's latest passion for outrage, I briefly thought that he must have had a midnight conversion on the matter of the Church and her condemnation of abortion. I distinctly recall Kerry talking about all the babies being killed by chemicals and that it was a moral obscenity, which it surely is. WOW! I thought, the power of prayer and the mercy of the grace of God. This rejoicing was but a moment long for then I heard Syria and all of the rest of his justification for war.

Apart from the horror of war and all its atrocities, especially as it affects women and children who are not combatants, I was stunned by the depth and scope of the irony and how seemingly unaware Kerry and Obama are that they are so two-faced. But then Obama symbolizes paradox itself.

Here we have two obscenities defended by our own regime: war on two fronts: on the one hand war on innocent, helpless babies in the womb, millions, not just a few thousand, who are poisoned to death by chemical warfare - most early abortions are this method, rather than the surgical strike [another war term, more irony]! And on the other the curious but altogether too expected phony pretext for aiding the Islamist rebels who are aided by Saudi Arabia, who fund the Muslim Brotherhood and also by us, I suspect by our gun running to them, which is the real story behind the Benghazi tragedy.

Certainly it cannot in all honesty be the use of chemical weapons on citizens, against the Geneva Convention, for even the UN fails to see that this rises to the level of the brutality of war in such a conflict, because the US has not done this in some time because the reality of war is so weighty that only an immediate threat to the country would justify taking such measures. It is not as if Assad just decided to use sarin gas on an entirely innocent population for the purpose of exterminating them gratuitously. If he is the actual perpetrator, he at least felt threatened, whether he incurred the threat from his own evil deeds or not. Thus there is no moral duty, given the exigencies of modern warfare in that powder keg region of the Middle East, mostly arrayed against Israel, to go after Syria, especially since the potential for making matters worse grows exponentially. And even more deadly than ever - more than a mere possibility. The timing of the Obama administration alone is suspect as is their feigned outrage, given that it fails to recognize or if it does, care two wits about the brutality of the murder of innocent babies residing in the womb, which is supposed to be a place of safety and refuge from all harm.

In all truth unparsed, once again, as in Iraq, we are on the verge of aiding the worst of two evil choices, always in favor of those who are willing to persecute and slaughter Christians, while ousting or attacking the one, whatever evil he instigates, he at least protects Christians! Do not the American people see at last???

In today's war speak all bets are off but one. As in Iraq [the pretext of weapons of mass destruction and Biden's call for the impeachment of Bush], we will only succeed in making that region of the world safer than ever for Islam and its most virulent strains and always less safe, unconsciencely so, for Christians - per Iraq and Egypt.

All bets are off because in his total incompetence as Commander-in-Chief, Obama has already telegraphed ahead our plans to the enemy. Beyond belief or reason!

All in all, any way one looks at the impending peril, it is a bitter pill to swallow, much like a suicidal wish undertaken in foolhardy and reckless obeisance to nihilist ideas in order to shore up a president's vanity and his failing presidency as he gives every strong hint that he is willing to bring the USA toppling down with him in a rush to Armageddon, if he sees the need, no matter what Congress decides or what the moral imperative is!


A TWILIGHT AUTUMN:
The 2012 Election and Beyond

Filed by Pauly Fongemie, September 12, 2012

The labrador retriever [actually original to Newfoundland and not Labrador] is the most popular breed of dog in America trained to recover game that has been shot, that is, mortally wounded. In this task it knows no equal. The retriever also makes a wonderful companion because of its disposition and keen intelligence; the dog has a natural dignity if we can speak of dignity as an attribute of the canine. I have raised various breeds, mostly labs, and found this to be true as matters go. One's friendship with a lab is at heart an adventure, especially on long walks in the crisp autumn. He takes his mistress for the walk, and not the other way around, although he certainly knows she is in command and is content with the arrangement. It is a friendship of trust that is merited and great devotion, including Catholic devotion, always at one's feet for the daily Rosary. No matter where the labrador is in the house at the time, when he hears "Time for the Rosary" he makes haste to be a part of the ritual, gracefully reclining --- he does not sprawl --- and remaining quiet as if in awe. Always. Others have told me of different kinds of dogs they have known who have done this as well. I am sure this is true, but it is the sporting dog, the active dog, that one would least presume to behave this way, without specifically training it to do so. Labs just sort of train themselves to be somewhat human in this regard, as if they had a spiritual nature. They may not have a human intellect and soul, but they are savvy, wiser in their own way than some people I have known.

One cannot always say the same about the Republican Party, at least the moribund establishment that is in control. I was once again painfully reminded about this the other day. One of my heroines, Miss Laura Ingraham, of talk radio, is of the opinion that if the GOP cannot retrieve a victory given the abysmal Obama record and all the ostensible blunders of his, that the Republicans ought to disband and start anew from the beginning. Sarah Palin, never one to back down from the necessary role of rebel [Going Rogue] in the face of the perversity of the inner circle, agreed. Mrs. Palin was decidedly not invited to speak at the Republican Convention, although John McCain was. The powers that be are still smarting from its well-deserved loss in 2008 and like all contrarians, blaming the rout on an innocent person, here, Sarah Palin. She followed the dictates of the GOP handlers, to the loss of our country and somewhat to her reputation. The GOP elites are so blind it is almost astonishing. Meanwhile, our only local talk radio station is no longer airing the Laura Ingraham show unfortunately, so I am dependent on other sources, mainly FOX News, for her awaited appearances.

The occasion the other evening was the O'Reilly Factor, where she was a guest via satellite. He asked Sarah Palin [Ibid] what Romney needed to do to counter the sorry poll numbers [see more about the polls infra], the public perception of him and his platform. When he was asking her this he threw in some hot-button terms, such as socialist. You are probably saying to yourself, well, so what, is this not accurate? How can this be hot-button and or controversial? Oh, but of course it is precisely the right word and by this time ought not be debatable or controversial at all, if things were as they used to be!

Do you not see, reader, that O'Reilly is as contrary in his clouded, conflicted mind as the GOP establishment is? Let me explain. Ever since the 2008 campaign Bill O'Reilly was adamant that Barack Obama was not a socialist, although an ideologue of left-leaning sensibilities, which in the practical sense is essentially the same thing, minus a degree or two, given the nature of the trajectory of liberalism as it truly is. No matter the evidence otherwise clearly marking him as a diehard socialist, the "Factor" refuted the claim as invalid. Now, here he is advocating or suggesting strongly that the term socialist ought to be used. Which is it? Hmmm? This is the sort of thing he does so constantly it is a staple in his arsenal of reputed hard-hitting analysis.

The same broadcast included a look at Caroline Kennedy's apostate address to the Democratic Convention, a disgrace and scandal for someone asserting her Catholicism. He was rightly indignant that she had no moral right to do this, etc. Amen! One of the remarks that he included in his denunciation was that she can't pick and choose here, [life issues] in so many words. Yet, this is Mr. O'Reilly's stance for himself. I have lost track of how many times he has stated that he decides for himself what he will choose to accept  about Church teaching, one of the most flagrant examples being about homosexuality and exceptions to abortion. He even refers to the growing child in the womb as "potential life". Is this not exactly the same thing that Ms. Kennedy does? The only answer comporting with reason is YES!

The clouding of the American mind, cut off from utter dependency on Almighty God as it were, is to be expected, the only reasonable thing under the circumstances. Still today it appears to be the economy, stupid. As a whole we Americans, pundit and non-pundit alike are operating under the premise that the economy is up to us through leadership to fix. But who is to wisely know? Oh, naturally enough Romney is no socialist in comparison to Obama but he, too, is conflicted, without realizing it I am certain. Obama is not so conflicted. The only error he makes is his assessment of the reaction of the people on a common sense level. He is not inept, but aims to do exactly what he does, and in this he is very successful: he has managed to turn a crippled nation into a paralyzed one on life-support. He wants the down sizing; it is in his political and social DNA, inherited from his father's beliefs and some of his mother's and those who influenced him after they were gone. This is what Rush Limbaugh meant when he said he wanted him to fail, fail to install his vision of America. Obama simply does not know anything else and is resistant to the truth. So, accordingly, Romney could not do any more harm and might even help.

But here lies the conundrum. How is one to assess Mitt Romney? After all he has proclaimed himself proudly pro-life, then says he is for exceptions to abortion, which undercuts the pro-life principle. If the baby in the womb is a child, a human person, which he is, and entirely innocent, then how can one permit his murder under the guise of a right in one case and not the other? This is arbitrary at best and heinous at worst and cannot stand rationally and morally. He emphatically says he will repeal Obamacare, then says he wants to retain parts of the bill. Very much in line with the US House which voted to repeal Obamacare, but then its contrarian head, Speaker Boehner, says they might vote to fund it anyway. How's that again!! Which is it exactly? Given Romney's Massachusetts record, more questions remain than answers. And so forth. I know less about Romney today than I did last week and the week before. I am truly confused and mistrustful.

 I cannot vote for the most pro-abortion President in the history of this country, one who favors rewriting the natural law definition of marriage among other atrocities, under any circumstance. But by voting for Romney, will I not be sending a signal to the GOP establishment which always gives us this sort of candidate of late, that I will go along while holding my nose? Again, yes. It is time to stop the partying. We have been too long at the fair. And perhaps the Party also. This leaves me with a write-in under the electoral college rules in Maine where Obama is so far ahead of Romney that my single vote or thousands just like me matter not at all, because our vote is not added to the vote nationwide as it would in the usual form of general election. Essentially the GOP has managed to disenfranchise us. This Independent resents it and will no longer consent to any such thing as the lesser evil. I am voting my conscience. Before I leave this portion of my column, I state for the record that Romney acquitted himself admirably when grilled by the media in re his response to the administration's early inexcusable, deplorable one about the mayhem and planned execution of our ambassador in Libya and the assault on the embassy in Egypt. The press and company did not know that an open mike was nearby, and while waiting for Romney to appear for the press conference, some of them got together and orchestrated their responses to his; blatant bias to paint him in a corner so that whatever he answered he would be depicted in a bad light. I know people who honestly do not believe the major media to be corrupt, but if this does not convince them, nothing will, save a command from God Himself, if at that. Their blindness is self-willed at this point, whatever their motives as individual citizens. Romney came across as a man of conviction and strength, acting more presidential than our President who went to Vegas to campaign of all things absurd, but so Baraccian. However, just when I think I see the man who is Romney, he escapes me supra.

Now for the matter of the polls before I conclude. One of my college majors was in public administration [the other being philosophy]; we had courses in statistics, sampling and polling. The polls are used in two ways. The first is the more traditionally recognized one of sampling the population to discover trends in thought, attitudes and or behavior, and the intensity. If the goal is the outcome of an election there are two ways to sample, likely voters and those registered to vote, not always mutually inclusive. Generally speaking likely voters have more intensity, not unexpected. The sample ought to be representative of the population as much as possible, so that the percentage of Independents, Democrats and Republicans, one example, are proportionate. The other reason for polling is to effect an outcome or create a bandwagon effect, so the poll is rigged in some way, that is deliberately weighting the poll to favor a party, for instance. This is because human psychology tells us without any doubt that most people prefer to be on the winning side and will change their allegiance if they think it is useless to back a candidate who appears to be losing. We know that some of the current pollsters are doing exactly this, over sampling Democrats. Thus, the larger spread in favor of President Obama is suspect. The more honest polls still give Obama a slight edge of a point or two in some battleground states. These are most likely accurate, which brings us back to Laura Ingraham's opinion about the GOP's efforts which include Romney handlers, advisors and his own insider membership which bears influence on his approach. A part of this is political naiveté, despite all his experience. Of course to give him credit, it almost does not matter because the major media, still powerful with all too many Americans, by my own recent internal polling, is in the tank for Obama, period!

But why the clouding of the mind so widespread? People want to talk the economy almost exclusively, the Tea Party wants to talk the  economy almost exclusively. The only one who appears reluctant to do so is Obama, whose record in this matter speaks for itself and does not favor him at all. This is ironic when you think that if it weren't for the spending mistakes of Bush and related economic realities Obama would not have won the election even with all the race baiting on his part and the ineptness of the GOP. Obama took swift advantage of the economic decline. Now he wants us to look the other way, as if to have it both ways.

Almost no one is interested anymore in what God thinks or wants as expressed though the natural law. We have waived any grace we might have merited a generation or more ago. The barbarity, the very enormity of the abortion culture, the millions of slaughtered babies has earned us the anger of God because there was simply no excuse for the endurance of Roe v Wade at all. Because we prefer abortion to the social battle it takes to rid it from our land, God is punishing us through that which we care most about, not the natural law surely, but our wallets. The failures of politics in this regard are merely the proximate means of God's chastisement. Ultimately He is allowing us to continue in our blindness so that no matter what we do, it is too little too late. We are no longer on our knees in obedience to Him as King over every nation, as the Supreme Law-giver. So He is bringing us to our knees our way through the economy. Do you not see, my dear people, that until we once more enshrine the sanctity of life from conception to natural death through the law in recognition of the supremacy of the natural law over all man-made law, will there be an upturn worth the noting for any length of time?

Unfortunately, ever so sadly, most of us no longer want to know this anymore. This is our fault. When people are resistant to the truth, they elect either charlatans who harbor tyrannical schemes in their hearts, or well-intended bunglers and or those who do not have the light of Christ with conviction enough to act upon it and select those who do also to assist him or her. We had our chance with Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum, but the GOP made sure that would not be possible with their behind the scenes finagling in IOWA and elsewhere. And we the people consented. Time for another party .... if this, too, is not too late ....

Obama speaks of the Arab spring; more like the winter of the West, in particular the US.  In the timeline of human events it is past autumn, it is literally the twilight, the eve before the dead of winter. It is not surprising that the infidel Muslim is on the rise; as heretical as he is as an abomination as he is in his blasphemy, he is at least certain in his convictions and is not afraid to act upon them. The Muslim world does not endorse and provide abortion and all its attendant ills, whatever kind of other murder its more radical elements promote and accomplish. So, ironically God is allowing the Muslim ascendancy to be another instrument of our decline and fall ...


THE CHASTISEMENT CONTINUES: DARKNESS OF SOUL AND MIND
The Contrary Spirit of Man Indifferent to the Rights of God
"It would almost seem as though Christ had wished to prove the strength of the foundations He had laid, by thus permitting Hell to direct against the Church a simultaneous assault of all the errors to which the world then was, or ever would become, a prey. Simon the magician, already ensnared by Satan in the nets of the occult sciences, was chosen by the prince of darkness as his lieutenant in the enterprise. Unmasked at Samaria by the Vicar of the Man-God, he had begun against Simon Peter a jealous struggle that would by no means end with the tragic death of the father of heresies, but which in the following century was to be continued more desperately than ever, through disciples formed by him. Saturninus, Basilides, Valentine, all applied the premises of the master, diversifying them, according to the instincts bred at the time, by existing forms of corruption of mind and heart."

Those four evildoers are long since dead, but their malodorous spirit, the seed bed of the cunning which confounds so many---the less wicked and the good alike---is afflicting us once more today, not only in the erroneous "spirit" of Vatican II within the Church, but throughout society. Only this time, it is not Christ "wishing to prove the strength" of the Church, but His chastisement for the principal civil errors of our day: religious indifferentism [essentially the American spirit, which places all religions, including the only true, valid one that actually saves, on the same level and with the same rights as defined by the government and not inalienable after all], the denial of the Social Reign of Christ's Kingship over all matters [a type of blasphemy], not only in Heaven but on earth; the rise of Sodom in all its fury---elevated to possessing inalienable "rights", a sure sign of a nation in supersonic dissolution; and the twin abominations of contraception and abortion on a vast scale never before witnessed in all of history.

This column will be mostly focused on the US Supreme Court, specifically Chief Justice Roberts, a nominal Catholic objectively speaking. When he appeared before the Senate Judiciary committee, I noted in a column, THE NATURAL LAW VANISHED WITHOUT A TRACE, October 5, 2005, that he was on record asserting: "My faith and my religious beliefs do not play a role, 'added Roberts, who is Catholic.' I will be my own man.'' At the very instant he conceived this idea, before he even uttered it, he was no longer his own man, but the possession of the Prince of this world and his principalities which are legion. One characteristic of the plenitude of power that goes by the biblical name of legion---that of the underworld Overlord---is fracturing, the multiplication of evil through the banal and those things that superficially seem trite or unimportant, causing the crass conformity of compromise on that which is not to be touched as their nature is inviolate as designed by God. In other words, the contankerous, clouded, disordered mind of the non serviam save oneself and Mammon. At that time there were no conservative voices who raised any objections, probably they had rationalized their way into thinking cross-grained, unless they, too, had been converted to religious indifferentism, where all faiths are equal and only away from the public square, the core of the American spirit. I was the lone town crier, as far as I know. And this included Catholics that I have contact with. How easily one simple sentence which can reveal what many a treatise often conceals can slip pass unnoticed by those prepared to only see what they hope for. Unmitigated liars and schemers actually do not have to rely much on ingenuity, the popular will is already disposed to being deceived. We only have to look at history, the case of Noah, his ark, and those who resisted his warning as too dire and unrealistic, unthinkable, and so perished. Man, fallen in nature with Original Sin, is ever ready to believe a fable, the more unbelievable by the standard of logic and human experience, the better. When coupled with a loss of grace through betrayal of those essential things that must remain as given by the Divine Lawmaker, the tendency is magnified. "For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables." [2 Timothy 4:4]

Even as I pen these words there will likely be those conservatives who will rush to find a plausible understanding, sheer madness, given the scope of the hoax perpetrated earlier today. I am speculating because I have neither the heart nor fortitude to turn on the news, having shut it off this morning. It is solitude I need most today. In all the turmoil and dismay, the utter sickness of heart, I praise and thank Almighty God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost more than ever and await Them, Three Divine Pesons in one Godhead, and their perfect will. Thus, the sunflower [heliotropium] in the graphics: this glorious flower is the symbol of submission to the will of God, ever beseeching Him for another answer at some future time, if that be part of His Divine Providence, which we cannot know with certainty at any given time, ever fleeting. For now, as I wrote in SACRIFICING PRINCIPLE FOR POLITICS: The Republican Campaign to Re-elect Obama, this past spring:

"Let us resolve, here and now ... to rise to the occasion, the merciful hand of God extended for one shining moment, rather than fall sway to the false blandishments of the so-called 'prevailing wisdom.' The Republic is on the precipice, Pat Buchanan's 'Day of Reckoning', it is now or never; let us get down on our knees in reparation for those apostate Catholics, some 54%, who voted for Obama, and for our own faults as citizens and Catholics, begging the mercy of God, that we might become worthy ... If we spurn this last, second chance, then almighty God has already spoken, for He will be delivering us up to the mystery of iniquity ..." That merciful hand is the sure knowledge that He has answered our prayers  and that answer for the time being is no, a retribution, not to mock us, for God Who is not mocked, does not mock, but rather to teach us, for our own good. Naiveté may be appealing to some, but all in all it is a most unattractive trait in an adult with serious responsibilities and duties. Let us leave the mocking to the Judas goats disguised as sheep among us, and turn to our Divine Shepherd.

  Later I would make the observation "... recall that Roberts and Alito were suspect on this basis alone and real fear existed about a monopoly of Catholics on the court." I posited that I believed strongly that a back room deal was struck at the time, [even if subtly nuanced], "because of the Cheshire catlike grin on Charles Schumer's face when leaving his office with Roberts. Smug did not begin to describe it. Schumer is one tenacious, very shrewd cat indeed. I have never known him to back down from the attack unless he has prevailed, by hook or by crook. The curious 'dance' of the hearings was like a courtship for an arranged marriage. There will be no need for this dog and pony show with Sotomayor, and everyone knows it, although I am the only one who is saying so. The Cheshire cat is out of the bag, if I may put it like this." [LEVIATHAN RISING, Part 2, July 16, 2009] Emphasis in bold and text in brackets not in the original monograph.

At the time certain "conservatives" who will remain unnamed by me, for it is not my purpose to embarrass them further, were enrapt in psalmody with praises for Justice Roberts, jubilant, hailing his nomination and approval as a feat for Bush, a supposed further argument for why they had been right all along about how critical it was to vote Bush in, because "he is our man, he will appoint the right kind of justices." Uh huh and then some. Shades of Reagan and Bush the elder. My pointing out that the majority of the non-originalist justices now serving on the Court were appointed by Republican presidents, was like talking to a mass of impenetrable boulders poised to form a lethal landslide, of course. And as we now know with unvarnished realism that an "originalist" justice is no guarantee at all. How vain is man, filled with his own conceit and wisdom, and not the wisdom offered by God, that he readily deceives himself and those who place their trust in him, not Him.

Whenever a judge says in earnest that "he will be his own man", that is, that "his religion will have no role," one can be assured of only one thing, that he no longer subscribes to the natural law, a part of the Catholic religion, surely, but also a part of the human condition by force of metaphysical necessity, although modern man has chosen to feign it no longer exists or matters, if it does. A denial of the innate dignity of man and the denial of all reason itself! It is our bulwark against the ruthless, our redoubt when confused or uncertain, the very fortress of the family and all civility itself. This is why those who are so shrill and incessant in calling for "civility" in public discourse are the very same ones who most egregiously violate their own standards---all of them no longer subscribe to the natural law, except pro forma, in name only and only when constrained to do so.

Now, it is the first rule of the first law of man in the natural sphere---the natural law---that any law that conflicts or violates the natural law is null and void on its face and must be rejected, resisted and repealed [by those who have the authority in the case of the last].

Roberts, who is the Chief Justice, had not enough clout in two majority opinions that kept Roe v Wade alive and kicking for all practical purposes, except for the millions of small babies, who are no longer alive and kicking, the forgotten in unmarked graves amid all our triumphant, vainglorious platitudes about rights, rather than sending Roe v Wade to the same pit of condemnation containing previous illegitimate Court decisions. Five "Catholics" on the Court and not enough who acknowledge and pay due respect to the natural law mandate that is encumbent on us all as free men created by God in His image and likeness.

Such disgrace, the abandonment of one's imperative duty, the upholding of the natural law that forbids all willful murder of the innocent [and guilty also], one of the four sins crying out for vengeance from Him [the others being the sin of Sodom; oppression of the poor---such as enabling them to be dependent and not self-reliant whenever possible means exist, demeaning them through class warfare by way of using them as wedges and or pawns; and defrauding laborers of their just wages] brought down the rightful, terrifying anger of Almighty God on us who elected the cretins who gave us such sorry [in]justices. Renaming a crime that is willful murder does not negate the punishment due before the seat of justice in Heaven. Ignoring our sinful error only compounds our guilt---"it is less the crime than the cover-up." There is a time for war and a time for peace; and there is a time for God's mercy which is always merciful and a time for His justice, which is always just. We will to be insensible to our arrogantly devised ruse that we can defy the natural law and its unceasing mandates for civilized society worthy of the name, so He is leaving us where we have put ourselves so recklessly, so shamefully. Now the blind lead the blind all the way to our well deserved Armageddon. The decision on Obamacare, to use the colloquial term, was led, and crafted by Roberts, the other three originalists, Scalia, Alito and Thomas, joined by Kennedy, dissenting. These at least recognize momentarily the purpose of the use of reason here, how to judge with prudence, to judge justly.

As to the matter of an untended consequence of the effective banishment of the natural law, those with power seek more of it to the extent that if they are justices, they rewrite the law, rather than applying it as it is purposefully written. This is tyranny---by any other name, still tyranny. If you doubt me, revisit the eminent domain case that defies all constitutional precedent and reason. Eminent domain according to the majority of the Court is now defined as the right of a business owner to take private property so that the locale has a better tax base, the power to tax ginned up then; now, since Thursday, June 28, 2012, it is on steroids, to use the phrase. We are no longer free, in essence, all constitutional grants aside.

The rationale on taxation by Roberts is gobbledy-gook, convoluted and without basis, simply because the bill never used the term "taxation". Obama insisted it was not a tax. Apparently even the majority of the Court was not open to taking our rogue regime at face value, impishly ironic, which only serves to serve those who are not observant of normalcy, common sense, and right reason. Rogue "justice." While the majority rightly concluded that the Obama health insurance mandate did not comply with the commerce clause, that the government could not force a person to participate in a commercial transaction, yet, perversely, devilishly, as if sworn bound to contrariness, Roberts decided that if the mandate was changed to a tax, why that changed reality. Sort of like saying, if not perfectly comparable, that the Holy Mass is no longer a bloodless re-presentation of the Sacrifice on Calvary, but a representation, two distinct entities that sound almost alike but have different meanings, leading the unwary into unbelief and disastrous practice.

Taxing a person who does not purchase what the government mandates is still a forced commercial venture, one that favors the government and the insurance companies, in some cases, perhaps, and it is still a penalty for failure to comply or agree to a specific commercial purchase. Taxes have always been added to transactions or possessions, not a refusal to participate. If I do not purchase a bedroom set I pay no sales taxes. If I do not own a home or rent one in lieu of ownership, I am not liable for property taxes. Even tolls and user fees, a form of levy, are constituted from a public good, a real service that is supplied by the assessor to a real individual, the one being levied. The full impact of this fake "tax" is manifestly unfair, as well as making precedent with far-reaching consequences for further governmental intrusion and crushing power, because it forces the healthy to pay for those who through their own fault are unhealthy. The insurance companies understand risk and will reconfigure the costs accordingly, passed on to those least able to bear the burden, simply because they are the majority in raw number. Bogus reasoning, a pure fraud. Reading the opinion, I was reminded of the cant of the partisans of error favoring the side of King Henry VIII adverse to the eloquence and righteousness of the reasoning of Thomas More, who went on to become a Saint, keeping his mind and conscience intact while losing his head, unlike those opposed to him. They have not only lost their heads, but their very credibility, surrendering the respect normally owed the Court.  It is actually insulting to think they think we cannot think at all!

Roberts was persuaded by the lies and distortions, the legerdemain of the Obamarites who addressed the Court in oral arguments. So much for his vaunted intellect. We knew the "liberals" would be charmed by the snake master, naturally enough, despite the rigorous questioning by some of them, all window dressing to mask a rubber stamp alliance and to convince themselves, if not the more prescient of us, they were acting like true justices. This is what I mean by blindness, willful blindness. Roberts officially denied Christ and His right to reign in civil matters when he groveled before the Judiciary committee because of ambition. God has left him without the most elementary shard of reasoning, allowing him to wallow soul-deep in his self-imposed iniquity and darkened mind as his ambition of reputation scatters like drybrush under the blazing sun, amid the storm clouds gathering ahead in dead reckoning in unrelenting irony: Soiling himself in his reach for the honors bestowed by lawless men who actually despise him.

A woman I know objected to my portrayal of events surrounding Roberts' nomination to the Court, saying to me that in her opinion Roberts "had no choice, if we want a conservative on the Court." A liberal response from one who fancies herself different from the liberals she says she opposes, instead being an appeaser and compromiser herself, judging from her reply. My response was that we have been doing this for ever and a day and the results: we end up with the same old folderol of dishonesty bred from the initial lie. The so-designated "conservative" once compromised, willingly, is now weakened and further inclined to keep going along to get along, etc. I mean, if he "has to lie" to get there, certainly he will continue to lie to stay there, human nature 101.

Unfortunately for the rest of us, who are subjects of the worst sort of tyranny, that of the runaway train of the law of lawlessness under the name of the law. Yet we are not without blame ourselves, the we meaning we as a culture and society, exempting those among us who have never stopped fighting the good fight, whatever the personal cost and sacrifice. To the extent that I could have done more, I include myself among the guilty. I do not necessarily mean to include everyone or anyone reading this column.

Rush Limbaugh was right once again. Yesterday he said that whatever the decision there was going to be "a mess". Indeed!!! He may not be a Catholic [as yet], but he thinks more clearly on many issues than many a Catholic in public life and a good number in private.

Look at all the sound and fury, all the hype and waste of words and time on speculation about the outcome of the Supremes. No such efforts on behalf of all those babies slaughtered day after day. We, too, are guilty. The Congress, the House at least, with GOPers in control have done almost nothing pro-life that was meaningful other than symbolic, for it has concentrated on "late-term" abortions and nothing else. As I said before, "guts for gas but no pluck for the preborn." [THE ANTHONY MURDER VERDICT, July 7, 2011] Three guesses how far they will manage the purported "repeal" even though some are sincere, caring, determined, dedicated, and have earned our esteem, such as Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, to name just two, who happen to be my favorites.

We only have to go back to the revealed decision in the Arizona Immigration bill of three days before, wherein Scalia demonstrated that he has some ability left to reason as one of the dissenting justices. His dissent was scathing, withering and frank as only candor calls for, just as in the Obamacare dissenting opinion. A man who "manned up". Refreshing. However, the majority gave us a truly malicious, moronic opinion. Arizona has the right to ask for citizenship ID under reasonable suspicion, and to turn anyone not in compliance over to the federales. Then, inexplicably, the Court ruled that immigration policy is federal domain. Sure it is, legally, but that is the problem. The Congress has not legally changed current law as is their purview, but the Obama administration is refusing to enforce the law as it was intended, unilaterally, by fiat. So this means, realistically, that Arizona is in its own double jeopardy. Right back to square one. Any victory for the Arizona law is fast disappearing vapor, leaving a long-lasting stench in its trail. Scalia understands the full implication. He used dissimilar words than I have, but this is the gist of his opinion.

To use an analogy. The local police have charge over the return of stolen property and the capture of said felons who commit this crime. Let us say that our constable, for whatever reason of his own, decided that he is opposed to some of the law relating to theft. After repeated pleas he still refuses to look for thieves who steal less than a thousand dollars worth of goods at any one time. So the local residents, being robbed blind, at nine hundred and ninety-nine dollars a clip, clip after clip, take matters into their own hands and begin a neighborhood policing effort, always beholden to the just strictures of the natural law. They carry no weapons, for their purpose is to identify and as a group stop the criminal, not kill him just because they may have the power to in their hands. The governor, alarmed by this, and having an agenda, hoping to win the next election by courting felons whom he suspects will be cheating to vote under a lax system, sues the citizens before the state supreme court; the court rules in favor of the felons and the governor, mindless of the peril to the honest, law-abiding citizens, deliberately so one may reasonably conclude. Without any defense, not even the necessity defense.

Would not anyone, with a sliver of reasoning still remaining, rise up in outrage and call this charade for what it was? But, yes. Well, essentially, this is what happened with the Arizona decision. When that occurred, while I was still hoping and praying that the mandate would at at least be overturned, deep in my heart, I suspected that the same vicious nonsense would continue in the Obamacare case. A natural trajectory of godless illogic, so logical in its own perfidious way. I am always willing to give the devil his due. And I said to myself, daring not to voice it out loud, so dreading it was I, "if this happens, look for Roberts to be the culprit---the proverbial guilty as sin." For days I was so grief-stricken with foreboding, that I was physically ill to the point of almost being incapacitated. Meanwhile the pundits all overlooked the supernatural aspect and the absolute, abject descent of our culture into base amorality, not only immorality and indecency, also expected. I would have been taken by surprise if matters turned out otherwise. I say this, not as a cynic, but as a realistic Catholic with her nose to the ground of the socio-political morass we have forged in our unseeing, unseeming barbarity and irrationality. Human nature does not change, no matter how much we might act as if it has, and neither have the ends ceased to follow unwise and or evil means.

This is an analysis from a religious perspective because ultimately we are dealing with spiritual decay, the fish rotting from the head first, in our case from the soul first and foremost. I once more implore those of you who are militantly, unapologetically Catholic:

Let us  exhort our bishops and Rome for the complete restoration of the Traditional Mass as the ordinary, normative Mass, the restoration of the Sacred Womb; then, and only then, will God hear our prayers to end abortion, restoring the human womb; and then, only then will He hear our imprecations for the restoration of the Republic, based on the natural law, which is society's participation in the Divine Law, Supreme, over all.

In the meantime, is anyone within the sound of my voice open to the idea of judicial impeachment?

Article Three of the United States Constitution establishes the judicial branch of the federal government. The judicial branch comprises the Supreme Court of the United States along with lower federal courts established pursuant to legislation by Congress.

Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior ...

Could not a reasonable person say in all honesty that good behavior includes restraining from rewriting the law from the bench, but only interpreting it according to the actual intent and meaning of the Constitution and the lawmakers, who are not the Courts but the Congress?

I would gladly serve at the side of one more capable than I am in such an endeavor, but he or she will find me an intrepid soldier, not easily daunted. We need a new definition for "Roberts' rules of order", pun intended, in this case disorder in the Court.

Today is another historical day of infamy!

ADDENDUM:

I apologize for nothing that I have written because if there was ever a time for plain talk, surely this is it. However, I do apologize for my inartful employment of the analogy regarding the Mass. While I did stipulate that the comparison was not exact to the Court decision, the parallel should have read that in the case of the  redefinition of the Mass by using what superficially look like almost identical terms led to distinctly different beliefs and practice, but in the Court decision on taxation versus a mandate, dissimilar terms were employed to effect the same outcome, the two situations like polar opposites, with the same use of cunning inversion, the irony is stunning. I also inadvertently left off the "ing" in "interpret" above, it should have read interpreting, proper grammar, it is now fixed.

I repeat, I apologize for nothing I have said so directly. I never implied that the idea of a tax originated with Justice Roberts; in fact I indicated that the idea arose in the Obama camp and was rubber-stamped by the four known liberals. Although we know that John Roberts sided with the constitutionalists on the Court in the beginning, this alters nothing. It is not how one begins that matters, but how one finishes that counts. The betrayal of Justice Roberts is even more egregious because he took a hand in the original majority opinion that would have wiped out the mandate provision and knew the sound jurisprudence behind it.

As I wrote above, about his ambition for his reputation as chief jurist, "... his self-imposed iniquity and darkened mind as his ambition of reputation scatters like drybrush under the blazing sun, amid the storm clouds gathering ahead in dead reckoning in unrelenting irony: Soiling himself in his reach for the honors bestowed by lawless men who actually despise him." So he somehow convinced himself, rationalizing naturally enough, that he could turn Quisling strictly for political reasons, forsaking the tradition and the once conventional wisdom that a lifetime appointment would forestall such political machinations. Dead wrong. This is partially what I included in the name I gave Roberts' actions, a fraud.

As for his taking the lead, I stand by that phrase and all that it implies, for the simple reason that as Chief Justice he took the lead in writing the final majority opinion and it was his idea and his alone to turn tail and make a run for glory.

Those of you who may be inclined to detest the man are are also dead wrong. We may well hate his actions, but we must forgive him even if the far-reaching implications are death panels tantamount to cold-blooded murder as in the 135,000 put to death annually under Britain's government-run albatross, mistitled, health care. No, we must love John Roberts, for in the coming days he will realize the magnitude of his treason and be a pitiful soul and who will be there that truly love him, save a few new "friends" and his family, which I am certain he loves dearly more than anything else on earth. Who will there be to pray for him? Let us not taint ourselves with the malice of hate, unbecoming a Christian, but storm Heaven on his behalf. It is easy to love those who are always so loveable, but of what merit? Let us seek to love unselfishly those who carry the stain of reproach, mindful that we, too are woeful sinners.

As for human respect and the honors of the world, it is all vainglory, all folly, a variant of damnable pride that leads to the worst kinds of falls, the higher the position, the faster the rise, the swifter the defluxion, the lower the fall.

Mark these words, take them to heart, remember them as if your salvation depends on them, for it just might at that:

The glorys and accolades of this world die when the world dies; but the tragedy of such ill grandeur, its disrepute and distortion, its utter hideousness, endures in Hell, forever and ever, without end ....
Mitt the Moonshiner: Sophistry and Shame

SEE ADDENDUM HERE.

May 19, 2012

A breaking news article from CNS, written by Patrick Burke, exposes the real Mitt Romney:

"Same-Sex Couples ‘Have the Right’ to Adopt Children -- But Not Marry."

"I also know many gay couples are able to adopt children. That’s fine," Romney said during a recent interview with Fox News' Neil Cavuto. "But my preference is that we encourage the marriage of a man and a woman." [Emphasis in bold and italics added by me.]

He forgot to add that one of his major policy players is an avowed homosexual activist, but then that would be a bit of overkill since the above illogical stance is already damning enough on its own. Also note that he employs the political jargon of the left, "gay".

Just as moonshine is illicitly distilled liquor, Romney's reasoning is illegitimately extracted from faulty premises in that it does not comport with human nature, human reason and common sense:

The inclination to same-sex attraction is a grave disorder, a corruption of human nature, the acting out of which violates in a grievous manner the natural law, especially when proclaimed as if normal and righteous, so much so that God has told us that the vice of sodomy is one of the four sins crying out for His vengeance. Those persons hardened in this affliction, whatever compassion they merit from us, are also entitled to the truth, one aspect of which is that such persons do not possess the proper attributes to undertake parenting. The affliction of homosexual attraction affects more than the base appetites, bad enough as this is, but the whole person, thus the term grave disorder. Raising children is nothing less than an ardent profession of self-sacrifice by mature adults. Two of the well known but media-suppressed facts about the disorder is the self-absorption and narcissistic tendencies that adhere in the affliction, with a focus on victimhood above that which ought to conform with reality, that is, an internalized immaturity that predisposes one to emotional dysfunction. It is no mystery that persons with this affliction undergo higher rates of alcoholism, drug use and other disruptive and or self-destructive behaviors. Now, we all know, perhaps, an exception here and there, which only serves to verify the rule about the disorder. In other words, a level of emotional immaturity that stems from a faulty development in the formative years of the homosexually tempted man or woman. Public policy can not be based on the exception, by definition. Furthermore, any person claiming such a right is already displaying his inability to be a proper parent because he has just declared that he no longer recognizes the natural law at the very least. Or if he does, he is the supreme judge of that law, and not the lawgiver, which is Almighty God, thereby providing the evidence of his narcissism.

By what right can anyone who has a grasp of the implications of the vice itself decide to confer a "right" to adopt, while denying the right to marry? Marriage is for the begetting of children, the rearing of a family in obedience to the natural law and the Divine law. It is only in marriage that couples have the moral right to beget children. Single men and women who are not deviant may adopt children who otherwise might not find a family, but this is like comparing apples to oranges. They are adopting, not begetting and they suffer no such disorder as we have just described. And they have a probability of marrying and the necessary attributes for marriage in the future. They have not violated the natural law in so doing.

 It is as nonsensical to say that heterosexual couples have the right to bear children outside of marriage. Now, they may do so, in fact, often choose to do so, but this is sinning, one that it is not possible for authorities to regulate without further injustice; this being said, the fact that couples transgress the moral law in this way does not confer a right in of its own; it merely is a state of affairs that is regrettable, unduly corrupting of the children and to be discouraged when possible. But it can never be held to be a right. Ergo, the same for those with homosexual attractions and "lifestyles." Romney appears to have imbibed of too much nice guy, middle-of-the road swill, evincing not only a profound ignorance, but a willingness to compromise on that which may never be compromised under the natural law. He is unsuitable for public office as is our current President. No one, not even the President of the United States has a right to abrogate that which is immutable under the Divine and natural law, the first law of all law. Look at it from another perspective: Romney, the family man, thinks it is normal and or okay for two men or two women behaving in a manner that grievously violates the natural and Divine law, yet possessing a so-called "right" to adopt. Well then, if they are this suitable, for the rearing of children, the most vulnerable among us, pray tell, why not confer along with this "right" another bogus right and permit marriage? He simply cannot have it both ways and the sodomite clan knows this all too well and will exploit it for its own advance as all Philistines and social malcontents do. Romney has gained nothing and surrendered everything, rash, untenable and ill-conceived, whatever his motive may be.

I am assuming that Romney is assuming that we won't pay close attention to his actual words and not focus on hs choice of the word, preference -- as if a mere choice about matters that are morally indifferent. I prefer spinach to kale, orange flowers over that of pink, and one restaurant rather than another for fine dining in our locale. So what? My preferences do not bear on the public good and the moral law. I don't even require any logic for my preferences since these are subjectively established by their very nature of being itself and are not functions of rationality. There is no right and wrong involved at all. With the natural and Divine law, which every man is subject to, whether he is willing to acknowledge this or not, preferences are not  morally equivalent options. There is an objective right and wrong, the ignoring or dismissal of such brings ruin to society as history attests. We may have to tolerate lame-brained liberals in our midst who think they are above the natural and Divine law, but surely we need not promote them as worthy for public office. As a matter of conscientious duty we have a moral obligation to see that they are not installed with the public trust.

That people who comment and influence public policy have not pointed these salient facts out serves to demonstrate how degenerate our society has become, to our everlasting shame, one of the great sophistries of our time being that the only shame is in laying name to actual shame, the deeds that rightfully belong hidden in the dark, lest any innocent be led astray and thus debased.

As a Maine resident, even if I could find a way to hold my nose and vote for Romney, it would be a waste of my vote, not to mention my conscience because Maine is so solidly Obama country. The electoral college determines the outcome -- there is no popular election as such. All Romney votes will be swallowed up by the morass of liberalism that has a stranglehold on our political will. If the vote were close, perhaps someone with a false sense of duty could try to make the case for Romney. However, the reality is that in Maine there is no such thing as a close presidential race.

I will be writing in Michele Bachmann's and Rick Santorum's names for President and Vice-President, with gratitude that such good Americans exist and have sacrificed so much for America.


THE PROTRACTED CONFLICT: OSAMA AND OBAMA
May 3, 2011,

This column is neither to decry or applaud the killing of OBL in Pakistan this week after nine and a half years of intelligence work. There are those who say it was unconstitutional because he was a "civilian" and that the President ordered his death. Others rejoice because he was a mass murderer. I can never rejoice at the death of anyone, no matter how despicable his deeds, especially if objectively, a person would not be harsh in observing that he may have gone to Hell. Subjectively both a nominal Catholic and a fervent Protestant in the public eye stated unequivocally that he "went to Hell." We simply cannot know as this is the purview of God alone. In its public judgments the Church has only been given the power under special circumstances to declare who is in Heaven, not Hell.

As to OBL being a "civilian", this is a matter of perspective. One of the tenets of Islam is the Jihad or so-called Holy War against the infidel, meaning non-Moslems. His Muslim "brothers" in this effort referred to him as a "Holy Warrior". This is good enough for me. If one must wear a specific uniform under a specific formal entity such as a country to be considered a non-civilian, then certainly we have already lost the war permanently because we could never act against any of these Islamic murderers. Al-Quaeda is not a country, it is not even a place, it is one embodiment of  Jihadists. If they consider themselves warriors, ought we not also? The just war and its undertaking must be conducted with prudence, not stupidity and denial.

And as to the direct order to kill Osama, as I understand it, he  was given the option to surrender but declined, and in any event the situation appeared so dangerous to the Special Ops team that killing him was the only sane thing to do when he refused. This is not the same thing as an ordered contract on Osama's life. Under the just war prerequisites it seems to me that his killing was justified, especially since the troops did their best to protect civilians, meaning the non-terrorists, in other words they recognized there was a difference.

In his address to the nation on Sunday, President Obama said that "we are not at war with Islam". This statement either reveals an unhealthy naiveté or willing blindness. The President distinguished between radical Islamists and the general Moslem people. Now, of course, most Moslems in all likelihood do not subscribe to the Osama way, although the Obama way serves the purpose of Islam proper, which is the conversion and domination of infidels, either and or both, period, the means being attrition and taking advantage of our weakness as a secularized nation comfortable enough with widespread legal abortion to continue its practice, unwary of the loss of grace and His special protection.

What Osama knew well, Obama has yet to learn. Islam, itself,  is at war with us, whatever its means.

No better example of its triumph thus far is better seen than in what transpired this very week and what has being going on for quite some time. I refer to the disposal of the remains of Osama and the preparations for the same. His body was provided a Moslem send-off, if you will, complete with the washing of the body, its proper draping in cloth and a Moslem prayer for his soul.

Contrast this reality: [1] His many victims were not given this much consideration in most cases, Moslem and non-Moslem. But even more, consider this:
[2] US government policy dictates that Christian---both Catholic and Protestant---servicemen cannot have a prayer said by a US chaplain that mentions Jesus Christ, so PC or post-Christ is this country actually now, despite the slogans and rhetoric.

Consider this: why is it that Christ is banned but not Allah?

The war against Christ is fought on two fields of engagement, here at home by our supposed own and without by the Moslem "brotherhood" and all its cadres here and abroad.

For now Osama's troops are ahead by any count.

I neither rejoice nor relent.

We are at war with Islam, because Islam is at war with us. I speak less about the war with violence but the war with intimidation, a very real war, a more nefarious, insidious war because of its very means. Heaven help us, we no longer seem to be able to help ourselves in a widespread effective manner. The Islamist Jihadists may be killing the innocent in their bloodlust, at least they are not murdering the most innocent of all---the preborn child in the womb! As tormented as the souls of these devils may be, at least they believe it is ordered by their God. We pay only lip service to ours, the only True, the only God.

It promises to be a protracted conflict for our lifetime ...