Abortion and the Syrian Pretext for War


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!

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 Contrary Spirit of Man Indifferent to the Rights of God

Filed by Pauly Fongemie, June 28, 2012

IN HIS EXPOSITION for this great Feast, Abbot Gueranger in THE LITURGICAL YEAR, instructs us:

"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!


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


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.

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 ...

  October 3

I was not going to comment on the upcoming mid-term elections, but the sight of so many on the political right almost frothing at the expectation of a spectacular win a month from now certainly gave me cause to pause. I have no intention of disagreeing with their assessment in general, any gains under the circumstances, have to be counted as a plus in theory. In fact much of the credit can be given to the Tea Party movement or, borrowing from one of their constituent organizations, the TEA PARTY EXPRESS, for it seems to have picked up enough steam to stay on track going headlong for years to come, and not to the erstwhile conservatives who joined the establishment, becoming just an everyday variant of progressiveness, sometimes referred to as the GOP or Republican party. Anything that will shakeup those who ought to have known better in the first place, given what followed in the aftermath of 1994, is to the good and should be applauded. My arguments are not with the well-intentioned, dedicated members, regular folks like you and me, as far as things go. My arguments are strictly with the zeitgeist or overarching cultural mandate: that abortion, the slaughter of the most innocent of human beings and the banishment of the natural law, the first rule of all positive law, is off the table. This is sheer, utter folly!

 Essentially, tragically, the nihilistic left has won the culture, so much so that Sarah Palin can say without any sense of shame that she is proud of her daughter's appearance on a jaded, garish entertainment television show called "Dancing with the Stars". It is to weep. Our descent into degenerate circuses began with the first court cases that led to Roe v Wade, most especially with the Connecticut suit that established birth control as a right of privacy. Having sundered the most private of all, the marriage act, from the natural and supernatural, it was only a matter of time before abortion would be enshrined in the panoply of expanding rights in direct violation of our obligations to Almighty God. If life itself is no longer sacred, if innocence itself is so easily discarded, everything that has followed is quite predictable given the trajectory of hellish designs, which follow their own "doctrinal" inferences. Human persons are created in the likeness and image of God; it is ungodlike to manipulate that which is holy and ordained by God---openness to human life in complete trust of Him Who is the creator of life, Who is Life. Having abased the most private of human intimacy, having soiled ourselves in an act of defiance, can it honestly be thought that the rest of the natural law would hold? That law itself would retain its respectability? The answer surges up before our eyes. But we turn away, wanting things to be as we imagine, that we can accept a détente on abortion and still expect the grace of God to enable us to perpetuate the myth that is such an egregious affront to Heaven.

We look for our salvation now, from men in economic affairs and social arrangements, reserving God for Sunday and pious holidays, in so many words. Even Sunday, supposedly so holy to all the Americans who tell pollsters about their deep religious Christian beliefs, is a day of profanation with shopping a "sacrament" among other forms of contempt. Our Lady of la Salette had much to say about this blasphemy or sacrilege, with tears in her eyes. We are the lukewarm that He "will vomit" out of His mouth. And know it not anymore, if we ever did. You see, as I am wont to say, but must repeat because it is so necessary: reason and the natural law are indispensable friends of each other: banish the one, lose the other. This is why the emotional, the sentimental, the physical dominate; why we ask "How do you feel?" rather than "What do you think?" so often, misapprehending that one is the equivalent for the other.

Rather than be ruled by reason we are under the tyranny of unreason, that is, irrationality and the absurd---the pertubation of twisted logic, literally we have subjected ourselves to insanity. And no more is this displayed than in the federal courts where "law" is enacted out of deliberate will, the very hatred of normalcy while we are like helpless, scattered sheep before the dominion of lawlessness that has turned everything upside down, with some notable exceptions---the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah had a few righteous men. The long "slouch towards Gomorrah" [taking a phrase from Judge Bork] has reached its terminus in an almost complete embrace of the unnatural. Sodomy is now accorded rights, even among many who claim they do not mean to include "marriage". And I am talking about people who say they are "conservatives" or traditionalists, to be blunt, such as the woefully misguided Glenn Beck [as I first pointed out in the very beginning of the zenith of his public cult] and his adulation of the occultist Ben Franklin and the "deist", Thomas Jefferson. This Pied Piper, a lapsed Catholic, has not much good to say about Christopher Columbus and altogether too much good to say about his unholy trinity of faith, hope and charity, personified by Washington, Franklin and Jefferson.

Nothing that is truly sacred is off limits, for debate or rather, I should say, browbeating into eventual submission and humiliating oblivion. A corollary of this is that the new racism demands that Whites be denied equal protection of the law at the voting booth, a slight blip on the radar screen of outrage, then disappearing like a little burp into the morass of our political landscape. That vile swamp is so viscous that it withholds common sense and justice from our grasp: The latest victim being a cheerleader who was raped by a football player who admitted his crime. When he was allowed to return to the team [imagine!] the school punished the girl when she refused to salute him, rather than the savage. She was exiled from the squad, not he! Perverse obeisance to the zeitgeist is as overweening as is our pride and lack of normal shame.

Limiting the scope of government will be daunting to say the very least, like applying a Band-Aid to a hemorrhaging heart. Cavalier about spurning the natural law, we think we can pass laws that will have the consequences we intend. The law of unintended consequences, part of the human condition, is now on steroids because we do not have the grace of God upon our country anymore. He awaits out humility, our repentance, still ... there is only one depot for our runaway trains to end, abruptly---annihilation of the "American way of life".

I do not know if the elections will yield the hoped for bonanza of virtuous office holders or not. It is immaterial. God is chastising us and given our penchant for outsmarting ourselves, having assumed the rights of God Himself, He will let us have our way, "deliver us up to our iniquity" by not permitting us to see clearly enough to prevent the inevitable. That is, until, and only until we repudiate abortion, strike it from our midst and do penance for the holocaust of millions of innocent babies who were sacrificed on the altar of political expediency and the terrifying notion that mothers have a positive right not to be inconvenienced by their youngest children, the turning upside down of all that is right and natural and holy: that mothers make sacrifices for their children, not of their children. Some "rights" are so wrong that the price that is paid is far more costly and ruinous than any one individual, who accepts such evil, let alone an entire society, can comprehend.

Look for the law of unintended consequences to be rife, ready and more than able to cause confoundment and havoc, what we bargained for unwittingly, because it is what we deserve.
Until the Consecration to Russia of Our Lady's Immaculate Heart is made as explicitly asked for by Our Lady of Fatima, will the world begin to be set aright once more and live and legislate according to the just dictates of the natural law. For now it scarcely pays lip service to the natural law, embarrassed by the Divine.

 Traditionalist Catholics are the only ones left now to pray and make reparation. Until enough of us have done so, the chastisement continues.

Why the Consecration to Russia? Because Our Lady requested it and she requested it because Russia is the original source of the errors of our day, whence the evils of our time arose. Communism and socialism are habits of the mind and will and godless, dead souls, of men, courting Hell itself, and not necessarily any particular country; yet, it is Russia that must be converted first, that the rest of the world might follow.

The more Our Lady's requests are scoffed at, the more the mischievous Murphy moves in with his best aide de camp, the law of unintended consequences ....

This is my last column, and I conclude where I began, arriving full circle years hence with social matters only becoming less conducive to salvation than before. I am leaving the web with no regrets. I want to spend more time in prayer and catching up with good Catholic reading. I want to go back to basics as the phrase goes, for a more natural way of living, the silence of simplicity and the simplicity of silence---solitude. Pray for me as I will for you. I believe with all my heart and soul that this is the very will of God, Whose ways are unsearchable but most compelling, irresistible ...

The Long Cold March of Modernism or
The Wolves of Winter
  August 24, 2010

The little church was silent as the parishioners entered, genuflected, and knelt down to pray before the Blessed Sacrament. Holy silence before the Real Presence absent in Protestant churches, where the congregants have fellowship with each other in lieu of adoration of Our Lord in the tabernacle. A regular Sunday morning for those Catholic folks with a simple piety befitting any believing, practicing parishioner in the House of God.

A few minutes before the beginning of Mass a roar erupted near the sanctuary as the "late-vocation" up-to-date priest came through, noting the quiet of hushed prayer. He was offended that the parishioners were not behaving as Protestants, crying out, "You know this is a Catholic Church because it is so silent!" You should not be doing this, you ought to speak to your neighbor instead." Then a loud "Good Morning!" And more bidding to leave the tabernacle and commune with others in the pews. Most of the parishioners complied and a small cacophony welled up to impose itself devilishly on those who persevered in prayer. The molestation of the modern spirit continues unabated to enervate what is left of traditional piety. This ought to have been quite enough for any one Sunday. Ah, but it was not to be so. Pestilence is relentless.

The priest insisted that every one was to sing at the top of his lungs the Protestant song---Catholic hymns a rarity now---something about the table of plenty. Once more, only a few refrained, would not let the love of human respect conquer them. The sign of the times, and also  an indicator of more to come within a few minutes. The only altar server---there are no more acolytes---was a teenage girl, the lone lector a woman. Nothing new under the sun from the "get used to change" crowd.

At last the dreaded homily as a foreboding set in based on what transpired just before.

The priest quoted St. Luke 13: 24 about the narrow gate and the need to strive to enter thereby. But never explained what happened if one failed. Without the context, that is, the union of this passage with that of St. Matthew 7: 14, that few there are that find it [and are saved], it is easy to misapply the meaning in order to serve the new religion spawned by the "new Mass". Then all Hell broke loose as the priest announced the many [not the few] Hindus, Buddhists, Confucians, atheists, Protestants, Moslems, et al that were saved and how wrong the Church had been in its previous [actually the priest is unaware it is by necessity perennial and unchanging] teaching that there is no salvation outside of the Church; he added that he did not understand why the Church had taught as it did. So much for the supposed advantage of the wisdom of age. He made sure the parishioners knew that they ought to be ashamed of this dogma. He also entertained the assembly with a joke heard a hundred times before concerning all the rejoicing going on in Heaven by every group, still Hindus and Company, except the dour Catholics who were quiet, thinking they were the only ones there. No explanation why thinking this led to quietude. Nothing about the Beatific Vision and the eternal adoration of the Holy Trinity. Interestingly he separated the saved by religious beliefs, not order of sanctity, sheer prejudice, certainly in order to serve the blasphemous joke.  He also overlooked the reality that if a person who is justified is saved, an occurrence that Pope Pius IX taught we ought not consider as something readily [often] hoped for, it is through the grace of the Catholic Church and not by his false beliefs although in invincible ignorance. All the heathen's gods are of the devil as the New Testament tells us. Nothing like context. The real irony, not lost on every parishioner, thanks be to God, was that even if one starts out as a Buddhist or Moslem, etc., and is saved, when he gets to Heaven he is no longer these but a Catholic, period. The only human souls in Heaven are Catholics, notwithstanding that not every original Catholic finds himself saved.

This is the same priest who told the Mass-goers on the Feast of the Assumption that when you die you will all be like Mary, assumed into Heaven, or words to that effect. Purgatory? What is that to him, apparently, let alone the possibility of Hell.

St. Matthew's dire warning is worth repeating, in its totality:

Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat.  How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!  Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. [7:13-15]

 July 17, 2010

Friday's evening news broadcast by the National Barack Corporation [NBC] is evidence that the network has sunk to a new low, so much so, that its corporate letters could as easily stand for No Balance for Catholics. The offending segment, an exercise in raw bigotry and obscenity, was a specious news report on the Church's non-ordination of women. The reporter equated priestly pederasty, a real crime and loathsome vice, with what he characterized as another "crime", the ordination of men only. The tone was barely restrained sarcasm encased in outrage: a smear job that would make yellow journalism look virtuous. There was no attempt to present the reason why the Church cannot, not only does not, ordain women. The purpose was agitprop, to serve dissenters and heretics who use "the cause for ordaining women" as a pretext to destroy the Church. Given the network's total cover-up for President Obama's socialist agenda and much worse, actually; and the mockery of normal, ordinary Americans who are waking up to the monster they put in power in a reckless moment of serendipity about hope and change, it is not exactly surprising that Friday's display of contempt for the Mystical Body of Christ was so blatantly biased. NBC has the resources to do fact checking, send reporters all over the globe in the pursuit of news. It did not even try; it does not want to know the truth, for truth is uncharted waters therein and the reason its ratings are tanking lower than depth of the Dead Sea.

I don't have the same resources that NBC does, fortunately, for I have revealed truth in my arsenal of facts. The following is taken from A Short Catechism on "Women Priests" by John Vennari in the February 2001 issue of Catholic Family News. Mr. Vennari's "catechism" is succinct, clear and completely demolishes the arguments of those who claim they have a right to ordination:

What is the Church's teaching on women in the priesthood?

The Church's constant teaching can be summarized in three points.

1) God Himself determines who will exercise the function of the priesthood in the public liturgy. Not even Christ as man takes the honor to Himself, and to the Apostles He says, "You have not chosen Me, but I have chosen you, and have appointed you." [John 15:16]
2) God chose men both in the Old and New Testament exclusively for the priesthood.
3) Only men are to exercise the ministerial priesthood, representing all mankind before God in things pertaining to God.
Is there any foundation for woman priesthood in the Old Testament?
There is none. From the beginning God chose only men to offer sacrifice. Adam, created before Eve, is the head of Eve and the whole human race. He is the first official priest through the primacy of his creation to offer sacrifice to God. It is also through Adam that sin was passed on to the human race. If only Eve had sinned and not Adam, the human race would not have fallen. Noah offered sacrifice when leaving the ark. Melchizedech, King of Salem and priest of God, offered sacrifice of bread and wine. Abraham, whom God called to be the father of many, offered sacrifice. Under Moses, Aaron was chosen by God as high priest. This Levitical priesthood [the sons of Aaron] continued until the coming of Christ, Who annulled all former priesthoods. There is no record of women offering sacrifice anywhere in the Old Testament.
Is there any foundation for woman priesthood in the New Testament?
There is none. Christ, the new Adam, through Whom are born all the children of of God in the supernatural order of Grace, offered Himself in sacrifice as both Priest and Victim. Christ chose only men as Apostles to act in persona Christi, i.e. to act in the person of Christ, particularly in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist.
Is there any foundation for woman priesthood in the Sacred Tradition of the Church?
There is none. St. Irenaeus and Tertullian of the early Church, both condemned heretical sects that attempted to admit women to priestly orders.
Is there any foundation for woman priesthood [priestesses] in the history of the world?
Yes, but in the paganism and witchcraft of the pre- and post-Christian era, as well as the condemned heretical sects mentioned above. It should be noted that every time such paganism and witchcraft is mentioned in Scripture, it is mentioned as something evil, to be condemned. This is why today's feminist "theologians" openly declare how "right" were the pagans and how "wrong" were Christ and the Church fathers.
Could it be that Christ did not institute woman priesthood because He was victimized by culture, custom and prejudice of His time?
Christ was no peaceful conformist. It is evident that Christ broke many of the conventions of His surroundings. He cleansed the temple of accepted commercial conventions and revoked the convenient custom of divorce [which is Rule #1 of "How to be unpopular"]. He spoke to Samaritans and that of a woman, He disregarded the legal customs of the Pharisees. Christ, being God, did not conform to the age. but commanded His age [and all ages] to conform to Him.

Didn't St. Paul say that "In Christ there is neither male nor female," therefore, women have a right to be priests?
This quote from St. Paul [which actually refers to sanctifying grace received at Baptism and not Holy Orders] is often cited by woman-priest advocates as an argument from infallible Sacred Scripture. Yet these feminists ignore the same St. Paul who wrote elsewhere in Sacred Scripture: "Let women keep silence in the Churches." [1 Cor. 14:34-35]
Didn't  the early Church have Deaconesses?
Yes, but it is unanimous from early Church documents that the term "deaconesses" had nothing to do with the Sacrament of Holy Orders. St. Epiphanius gives unquestionable testimony as to the non-ordination of "deaconesses." They were only women-elders, not priestesses in any sense, and their mission was not to interfere in any way with sacerdotal functions, but simply to perform offices in the care of women. [Haer. lxxix. cap. iii]
Does the non-admission of women to the priesthood have anything to do with "inferiority" and superiority?"
It has nothing to do with "inferiority" and superiority," but upon the roles which God has ordained for men and women. According to Divine Plan, God did not call women to the priesthood any more than He called men to motherhood. Our Blessed Mother was the most perfect being ever to walk the earth, outside of the God-man, Jesus Christ. So much does Her excellence surpass all of God's creatures that She is Queen of Angels and Saints. Yet Our Lord did not choose Her as one of His priests, but twelve unlettered men, one of whom betrayed Him. 

Is there any example to help us understand God's order?

The example of the Holy Family bears out God's order. St. Joseph was the pure and just head of the Holy Family. Our Lady was lovingly obedient to St. Joseph and Our Lord was subject to both of them. Yet in the order of excellence it was the other way around. Christ is the most excellent, then Our Lady, and then St. Joseph. Heaven recognized Joseph as head of the family as the Angel always went to Joseph with instructions to "Take your family to Egypt" and "take your family back to Nazareth." Unfortunately, a Christian understanding of the proper order of man, woman and family is practically non-existent in our modern atheistic world, which makes an understanding of the supernatural order of Christ's Church and His priesthood quite difficult for modern minds. But it is the modern world that is wrong, not Christ.

Will any of these arguments convince the feminists that they are wrong?

No, because they are based on Sacred Scripture and the Sacred Teaching of the Catholic Church established by Christ. Feminist "theologians" do not believe in the Divinity of Christ, nor in Sacred Scripture as the Word of God nor in an infallible Church instituted by Divine authority, nor ------- for that matter --------  in God the Father. [One of the latest trends in inclusive language is to replace "In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost" with "In the name of the Creator, the Redeemer and the Sanctifier." Some priests have Baptized using this inclusive language, thus nullifying the Sacrament and committing the mortal sin of sacrilege].

On what, then, do the feminists base their "theology?"

On pitiful fantasy, wishful thinking and the lies of occultism.