Why Voting for Bush is in Vain and Who Merits My Vote July 12, 2004

This very long column is in response to the e-mail we have received about our previous column, "The Kerry Deception" and the current Life Lines column, "Disconnect from Reality".  Too many of you are under the impression that we ought to vote for Bush, period, citing a litany of reasons, which can be reduced to essentially three:

1. He is better than Kerry, period, or at least, better in foreign policy;
2. He will give us better Supreme Court and District Court judges;
3. He signed the partial-birth abortion ban passed by Congress and favors traditional marriage.

I have no doubt that the letter writers are sincere, devoted Catholics, who have put a lot of thought into their position and are passionate enough to try to persuade me to see their point of view. I appreciate this very much, but every day I am more convinced than ever that voting for Bush and whomever will be his running mate if Cheney gets dumped, is useless and wastes my time and energy leaving me with false hope, not to mention fidelity to my conscience. So this column is another stab at explaining the position of dedicated Catholics with traditional, legitimate political goals, for what it truly is, which will be partly a summary of the two afore-mentioned columns expanded for a more in-depth perspective. I will try to put as much thought into this response as those who wrote in did. In the process I will attempt to dissect the three over-arching reasons why a traditional Catholic ought to vote for Bush, to see if the claims are valid, or at least as valid as claimed.

A Brief Recap of American History in re the Constitutional Powers

America is often touted as "a democracy" with power to the people, etc. Democracy is supposed to be a process, not a state of being. Technically and much more accurately we are a Constitutional Republic, ordered to and by our national charter, the U.S. Constitution; thus we are supposedly a nation under law, not men; those men and women who serve in public offices are intended to uphold the national charter and the laws that pertain therein. And the laws that they effect must take into account the general good as established by the natural law. The authority for their holding office is almighty God, from Whom all rightful authority derives, but the means to choose our representatives in political life is the one man, one vote ballot system, which is a form of democracy, with the Electoral College as a bulwark against popular elections for President and Vice-President.

The Founders had a healthy sense of the ramifications of Original Sin, unlike our present cadre of leaders, and feared full-blown democracy where the people rule directly.  [In fact they cynically, hypocritically, used the effects of Original Sin to induce riots to spur the violent revolution.] Tyranny by the mob given to excessive self-indulgence, is still tyranny and to be feared even more than other kinds. Anyone caught up in a runaway mob during a fire or a soccer game understands the analogy. So the first American statesmen decided on a separation of powers, the Congress, for legislating and representing the states and the people, the Presidency or Executive branch, for overseeing the general welfare [not "welfare" as presently defined] and for uniting the country, to wage war if need be with the consent of Congress, etc.; and the Judiciary to safeguard the Constitution, to settle disputes between the states, and so forth. Now the fact that the Founders were almost to a man, anti-Catholic, who wrote our charter in the Masonic view, and eventually coined some of our money with Masonic symbols, laid out the architectural-geometric plan for Washington in a Masonic, pentagonal grid in their extreme captivity to that mentality, and of a liberal Protestant mentality, and those who were not Masonic by membership, at least Masonic in their attitude, is immaterial to the discussion here. That would be not just another column, but an entire book! It isn't that these facts are not germane at all, only not to the present crisis of government we are addressing here. In fact the crisis is and was, in the final analysis, precipitated by the Masonic charter itself, because it was established through the same mentality that confused good men and gave vent to the anti-Roman, anti-monarchy spirit of the age in those who were neither confused nor good. But knowing this and being convinced of this will not assist us in November; all it can do is provide us with a broad perspective for the future, if we are truly serious about being patriots.

When the United States came into existence as a distinct nation, literacy was far higher than it is today and of those who were literate [near 100% of the non-slave population], most had a grasp of the fundamentals of self-government and what it actually means to be a nation of laws, not men. Only those with property generally could vote and this was as it should be for the non-owning public is greater than the other and can easily vote for overturning property rights by taxation-redistribution, at an unjust level, as is the case today with our vaunted sense of "entitlements". The government practices extortion-usury with compulsory income taxation. There were no income taxes when the nation was founded. Government had to be limited. The fact that women did not vote is immaterial. They reared and oversaw the home schooling of those who did vote and much more rightly so than the socialist-driven teachers' unions who "re-train" the kiddies now in contempt of the parents who too often will not fight back or do not know how to. Women vote now, but too many are as ignorant as the men so we just have more ignorance, and less virtue in the national life.  I am not against women voting, I am against ignorance accompanied by the vote; woman have not given the country more virtue as a result; thus the vote is meaningless except to those who gain by our ignorance and thus slavery to taxation and internationalist, sovereign-eroding ethics.  The Founders may have been wrong on a few things, one of which was women's suffrage, but that did not harm political life, at least, because of other realities.  Today men and women all hail the ten planks of the Communist manifesto as the American way of life, a good thing in their view; this is what I mean by ignorance. They are unaware that those ten planks are enshrined in the American ethos and way of life. For worse, not for better, we are all good socialists now, de facto, if not de jure. A hundred or more years ago those ten planks, if proclaimed, would have been largely recognized and repudiated, for all of  the problems of liberalism itself. As the saying goes, that was then, this is now.

The "Rules" as They Really Are

The [liberal] Protestant spirit suffuses our national culture, both social and political. You may object that you know of conservative Protestants. Of course you do, because we all know some who identify themselves as such and honestly believe themselves to be conservative, certainly they are as far as much of traditional morality goes, although with rare exceptions, not all. Almost every Protestant accepts divorce and remarriage under some circumstances and is for some form of limited contraception. So they have already compromised and because they have, they are weakened in their resolve, even if they do not perceive this reality. I acknowledge that they believe themselves to be sincere and I accept this because they are probably not to blame in many cases, having lived their entire lives within this milieu and truly unable at the present time to grasp God's total plan for human happiness with Him as expressed in the Commandments uncompromised. Catholics trained in the government schools have absorbed that mentality so much that now it takes heroic character to just lead a good life, let alone a saintly one.

This being said, I restate, liberalism is the over-arching spirit of our country: by liberalism, I mean, absolute freedom of religion, except for Christianity, almost unlimited free speech, that man can perfect his lot here on earth through political means and social engineering, not merely safeguard his rights and duties under God. The embodiment of that spirit is encapsulated and perfected for national exploitation in and by the ACLU, its founder, Roger Baldwin, an uncompromising socialist-communistic atheist. Even those who claim they reject social engineering, actually accept changes gradually by default. If this were not true, the last fifty years could not have brought us a revolution in mores and such widespread erosion of traditional family life.  How else do we explain mother and fathers permitting their young daughters to dress half-nude for Sunday Mass and their sons to sport multiple earrings and other forms of body piercing? Where is shame? We are more concerned about being "tolerant" than offending Almighty God. And we in turn expect Him to be tolerant also: "I just know that God understands my situation . . . . He won't mind one tiny mistake."

 The problem of "political correctness" is so acute that we cannot even be honest anymore, at least in public, for fear of reprisal.  Only those of us who have no affinity for human respect are free to speak or instead, belong to the cultural elite who make the "rules". Who decides what is "correct"? Does it really matter, if we submit? I recognize that some aspects of the moral issues involve economics, nor just political and social aspects, but this is not the point, because our economic spirit is also liberal and it is liberalism per se that is the problem. Man first became a liberal when he sinned in Paradise. Original Sin is the very spirit of liberalism or put another way, liberalism is the very essence of Original Sin.

Liberalism of spirit, an inherent intolerance of any "intolerance" [a self-contradicting position] has left us paralyzed as a country; because of a misconceived idea about the meaning of freedom of religion and freedom of speech, we have become willing victims of the tyrannical courts, to which and through which all legislation must submit; the courts are so imbued with liberalism that ideology rules, not reason. The abnormal now rules over the normal, which must be sacrificed for the sake of the abnormal. If this is not the definition of madness, I do not know what is. Judges now brazenly use the court's power to legislate from the bench under the guise of judicial "interpretation". And we, weakened by our own acceptance of the liberalist spirit, go along; perhaps reluctantly, but we give in, in the end, feeling helpless. We elect our officials and tolerate their treachery like we raise our families, with as little inconvenience and fuss and muss as possible. Actually we aren't that helpless, but the nation is no longer politically literate, and we by and large, as individuals are self-indulgent, intellectually lazy, to the point we lack a national will to use the power granted to the people by our state and national charters: the power of recall and impeachment. And the Congress has the Constitutional power to limit the jurisdiction [and more in the case of the lower courts] of the federal courts-----district, circuit and Supreme-----yet does nothing, for the same reason.

In other words, to reduce the situation to the bottom line for the sake of brevity, Christ the King, Who must be recognized by all nations which have an absolute duty to recognize His Kingship, is dismissed! The churches are filled on Sunday throughout the land according to polls, yet we have abortion on demand!

National politics, as is most state politics, is so corrupt by huge, consolidated economic interests that there are but few statesmen left, worthy of the name. Now I recognize that many who enter public life regard themselves as exempt from corruption. Intent and actuality are not equivalent. The powers and principalities that be are so powerful that every politician-----who plays by the current rules-----must deal with them and compromise to some extent, more than is good for his soul, period, whether he acknowledges this or not. Self-deception is part and parcel of national life today. Winning, being re-elected to office for years on end is the goal, not serving for the sake of serving. If service as understood in the Christian sense, was the actual aim, the political landscape in re electioneering would be far different with campaigns short, and not nearly so expensive, simply because the humble and virtuous would be promoted for office, not the men who think they are so singular they spend years running for office in one form or another with so much calculation and use of the media. Imagine the arrogance and self-love of a little known neophyte senator with almost no experience who thinks he ought to be President not just Vice-President! These politicos would readily cede to others coming into political life in short rotations, then go back to private life, rather than work to secure a big pension, if they were real statesmen. They would remain only by overwhelming demand apart from the ballot process which favors incumbents.

Both parties pretend to be opposites or at least enough so as to present a so-called "choice" for the American people. It is to laugh as they say, but hardly amusing. I say this with all confidence, although with deep sadness: both parties are internationalist in spirit, beholding to the men of money and power, the hidden hand behind everything in the final analysis. The men of money do not really care that much who is in power up front, giving to both parties by and large, because they are actually in control. Sometimes for their own purposes one man is more suitable than an another for a period of time, but this, too, is but a means to an end. They have no allegiance to any country, only to the game of high finance and their own secular anti-Christ vision. If you do not believe this, look at the problem of "out-sourcing", just one symptom of the national malaise. Then ask why the largest promoter of smut and pedophilia, the biggest champion of abortion in the courts, the ACLU, is permitted by us to effect local laws so that symbols of Christ are always ousted but the Menorah and the Crescent Star, and pagan goddesses are not; why school children in some districts are forced to practice, not just learn, about other religions, while Christian practice is banned, even privately for the most part, such as merely quietly saying grace in the cafeteria? It is only Christianity that "offends", don't you know? The ACLU has no allegiance except to the lowest common denominator at best and to the Father of Lies at worst. Yet, we are willing to tolerate its presence within our midst and its foul deeds because we do little to nothing to oppose it in earnest. Tolerance has its limits and mine closes down on any protector of such vile sins as the slaughter of the innocent,  porn and sexual idolatry.

The Congress has the actual power to change things under the Constitution, but lacks the will. If you think I am exaggerating, consider the present "same-sex" imbroglio in Washington-----we can't even pass this proposal for an amendment because of a lack of clarity and will. If you counter, but they passed the partial birth abortion ban; yup, they did all right as it was perceived more politically correct; then they let the courts take it away, clause by clause; I say "let" because they refuse to use their power to limit jurisdiction. And Congress, which has the proper powers, not the Presidency, will not permit original intent justice-nominees through, so the situation will grow more dire as the years roll on. Congress is corrupted because it, too, refuses to acknowledge the rights, the absolute rights of Christ the King. A majority of its members claim to be Christians, but act otherwise all too often. The few exceptional in office are not enough. The President is largely symbolic as far as legislation goes, because he, too, permits the courts to overturn anything it chooses anytime. The President, whoever he is, whatever party, has not called for Congress to use its proper powers, does not use leadership to call for this. And the next President won't either. Down deep I think you already know this.

The Nitty-Gritty

But for the sake of argument, let us pretend that choosing Bush over Kerry is better for the above cited reasons in all your e-mail. Is Bush better, or even as good as claimed?
1. No one can be certain of an outcome of an election until the final tally, and sometimes not even then as it turns out, until a court decides. Every person casts his ballot, which choice obviously, by necessity, counteracts his neighbor's vote which went the other way. Do we say, if we end up losing, well, I wasted my vote because it was matched by Mr. Smith? Of course not.  In fact, if you honestly voted an informed conscience your vote was not wasted because you maintained your integrity and your dignity. This is a very patriotic thing, not to have been bought cheap by cheaper arguments that always play into the hands of the enemy; having uprightness as a citizen helps one's country in the end. How can allowing ourselves to be compromised serve us as patriots? Patriotism is a selfless, noble undertaking, without concern for human respect.

2. The body politic and the bandwagon organizers will not be there when Christ passes judgment on our eternal destiny at the instance of our death. He will not ask us if we were on "the winning side", but did we do the right thing, especially were we willing to trust Him enough to do the right thing, if it meant standing alone as a majority of one? Only one Apostle stood beneath the Cross with Our Lady. And only one of the two thieves who were crucified with Jesus was on the real winning side, but not by the standards of the populace at large.

3. But you respond, is it not better to compromise for a good reason. Yes, it is, if the reason does not violate moral integrity. Thus I do not always have to have my way, I can compromise on a zoning law, lets say, or the hour for an imposed curfew due to a local crisis, and so forth. But to choose deliberately an evil versus another evil is to choose for evil, period. The attitude that says I can morally compromise is the same mentality that says it is better to kill one innocent person to save many. That is always morally outlawed. I cannot kill one innocent person to save you or even myself. Now the innocent person may choose to sacrifice himself, and I hope that you and would do so likewise, but we may never select them rather than ourselves. Some actions are so intrinsically evil that we can never favor them, for any so-called good reason. So we are morally justified in choosing to avoid both evils, allowing God's will to inform us of His intention. Would you kill one of your twins to save the other? Of course not, but many couples do this with in vitro fertilization. They have convinced themselves they are justified, that the goal they seek outweighs such a moral aversion. In the same way we have allowed ourselves to be convinced that unless we vote for one of two equally perverse positions that somehow we are not doing our duty as Catholics and citizens, that we will "ruin the election". We go to inordinate lengths to convince others using all the guilt trip methods that have been employed against ourselves at one time or another. We are so good at the technique we no longer recognize its fallacies, one of which is the "wasted vote". Because we have so convinced ourselves that this is the right approach [and it is always temporary, even though it has become a permanent way of life] we turn it into a reality, a self-fulfilling proposition, when it could have been different. We fail to have the courage of our convictions; and the enemy knows this, counts on it, each and every time. So we always settle for second best because that is all they will give us, because they have no incentive otherwise.

But what if, each of us admits the truth and decides that he has had enough of holding his nose with one hand while he lets the hand that we feed bite our other hand. What if, each person decides on his own, I am going to the right thing, this time, even if it means I stand alone. And what if enough people did this? What do you think would happen? The next time we would not be taken for granted. We would have the same cache as all the certifiably politically correct groups have. No playing cards wisely to get the Catholic vote while actually duping us one step at a time. What if? Well, if you want to waste your vote, one more time, I cannot stop you. All I know is I am not going to go along for a few crumbs that dry up in the arid heat that always comes our way.
If you are not convinced by these statements, perhaps two good Catholic men, much more eloquent than I am will wake you up. The men are the eminent Catholics, Christopher Ferrara and Thomas Droleskey. The June 30 issue of THE REMNANT has an article by each, "The Problem with George Bush" and "When Do We Take Our Stand." The latter article, written by Droleskey, is not on the election but on Tradition and patrimony. However Mr. Droleskey writes often on the Social Reign of Jesus Christ and hosts the web site, CHRIST OR CHAOS.

Every issue of The Remnant is a must read for any earnest Catholic, but if any issue is paramount to read right now, this issue is it. If you are not currently a subscriber, and cannot subscribe at this time for whatever reason, please give them a call at 1-651-462-8323 and ask for the June 30 issue. Do your Catholic souls and minds a favor and read very carefully Mr. Ferrara's article in re the election and Mr. Droleskey's for the sheer Catholic joy of reading a Catholic genius who is first a virtuous man, as is Mr. Ferrara. I am amazed that God can not only love me, a miserable sinner enough to let me be a member of His Mystical Body, but that He created me to live in the same country in the same century as these two scholars and men of letters. What have I ever done to merit such a treasure? I was content enough just to have Joseph Sobran to read, but God was much more bountiful than I could have asked for.

Early this year I had intended to vote for Patrick Buchanan, but I came to realize that he is, although a personally upright and honest man, a solid Catholic, and very capable, too imbued with the Americanist heresy, unbeknown to him, along with a blind spot on the premature "death" of the cold war.

 I carefully and with great awe as before a holy thing ponder all their writing: Mr. Droleskey has run for office before and Mr. Ferrara braves the pagan court of Baal regularly in defense of the innocent Catholic led to the slaughter in the culture war.

I announce my intention to write in their names, Thomas A. Droleskey for President, legal residence, Oyster Bay, New York and Christopher A. Ferrara for Vice-President, legal residence, West Caldwell, New Jersey. I challenge you to do the same. You see, I love my country and yours, just too much to do anything less.

Bushwacking: Or Fooling Most of the People All of the Time November 16, 2004

I received more negative mail on the previous column in which I stated that I could not support Bush for President, while not supporting Kerry either, than almost all the mail combined regarding this page. Even after listing Bush's abominable record and the company he keeps, all too many Catholics maintained that I was wrong and that Bush and Kerry were worlds apart and that I ought to vote for Bush. Either they cannot read or are willingly blind, much like those who close their eyes to the heresy from certain prelates in the Vatican, not just some of the bishops back home.

Listening to the current nonsensical repartee back and forth between liberals and "conservatives" I can only say that Lincoln was wrong: you can fool all the people all the time, or most of them anyway. And this is without the hypocrisy:

Liberals are taunting "conservatives" [so-called moderates] for having a litmus test on abortion where nominees for Court appointments are concerned. Yet, one of Bush's pol-pals, Arlen Specter, up for Senate Judiciary Committee chairmanship is on record warning his friend so inconsiderately and ungratefully [after Bush betrayed pro-life for assisting Specter in the close primary earlier this year] that he better be careful who he nominates, meaning no one who does not support abortion on demand. Now, this is what I call a rigid stance, otherwise known as a "litmus test". No media outcry about Specter's litmus test. Oh no, liberals-----and Specter is a liberal no matter what he claims, by definition as understood in the Catholic sense of the true nature and danger of liberalism-----are permitted all the litmus tests they want without any threat from the watchdog media, dedicated not to reporting the news, but influencing and directing, when not outright creating it. Sheer hypocrisy and we are supposed to pretend we do not notice that it is. How silly of us traditionalists, thinking that all we had to do was vote for Bush and he would award us our due in exchange for our willingness to hold our nose while we voted. The talk is in certain circles that "he owes his base."

As Ann Coulter so sharply notes in her latest book, How to Talk to a Liberal [If You Must]:
(I paraphrase so as to not violate copyright law.)

Never be kind to a liberal as they will reward you with an insult.

In other words, they are willing to take advantage of the poor political survival instincts of Republicans in general and too many conservatives in particular, then proceed to hang them with their own petard, when convenient. George Bush is a liberal by the Catholic definition: He says he is against "gay marriage" but for "civil unions", which is just plain uncivil and illogical on its face. I do not know why I was so surprised to see so many neo-cons attempting to dodge this one, and so clumsily that it was painful to watch. Now that they have made their Hobbesian bed, they can't seem to jump into it fast enough. I wonder how peacefully they will actually sleep. Little Red Riding Hood's grandmother had nothing on the Bushpack. Except this is reality, not a fairy tale gone bad. "Civil unions" are prelude to legal marriage, by definition given the trajectory of evil on the installment plan when combined with weakened human nature. I have an addendum to one of Coulter's principles: never trust anyone who claims to speak for conservatives unless he has a proven track record, and shows every sign of being in the state of grace, objectively speaking. Anyone can claim to be one, then pretend his plans went awry because he was lacking Congressional support, all the while courting on the QT all the "right people" with money backing and other forms of powerful support.

Repeatedly I heard about Judicial appointments and how important Bush was on this score. Right. Let's see now. All but one of the 6 liberals on the Supreme Court was appointed by a Republican president, at least one of those being more conservative than the present Bush. Hmmm? Even when Republicans controlled the chairmanship of the JC they allowed liberal nominees to sail past, and not just sail past, they used laudatory flattery in obeisance to the prevailing Zeitgeist while permitting them. One of the most sickening sounds I ever heard on the floor of the Senate was the Senator from Utah, Hatch, singing the praises of Ruth Bader Ginsburg; if he was so ignorant as to not know better, he is too ignorant to be qualified for office, even that of dog-catcher.

We will soon see, given the aging of the Court, just how willing Bush is to curtail the Court's runaway activism, that is, legislating from the bench and making mischief in general. We will soon see how serious the Republican controlled Senate and House are. They have the Constitutional power to limit Supreme Court jurisdiction, but thus far have lacked the will to use it. In the uproar that followed his brutually frank comments warning Bush, Specter arranged to get himself booked on every news-oriented show in Cableland and on the networks to do some serious PR work while pretending to "take back" his off-the-cuff remarks. But did he really? Promising to "assure a swift hearing" for nominees is hardly promising anything at all. A hearing, swift or othewise is no guarantee. But even if it were, George Bush wants no litmus test for his judicial appointees. Well as a voter, I had a litmus test and am proud of it. I refused to vote for any candidate who lacked the courage to address forthrightly and the intelligence to recognize the shibboleth of the dread "litmus test."

Bush's nominee for Attorney General is not exactly a happy arbiter of things to come.

  The Death of Reason November 23, 2004

Taking in the news yesterday consisted mostly in watching segments covering the Scott Peterson case in California or a sports brawl involving several basketball players. The purpose of this column is to examine the first story. The inanity and brutality of the second is almost "understandable" given the comments by legal beagles hosting various court shows, especially a segment on Court TV hosted by Lisa Bloom and James Curtis, both of whom identify themselves as "pro-choice". I wonder if they had been pro-life could they have even been chosen as host-commentators? As an exercise in intellectual dishonesty this segment was a real beaut. Mrs. Bloom admitted that pro-lifers were being more consistent than she was as an advocate of abortion rights. Mr. Curtis said he had less of a problem, although after his explanation for the double standard he held for baby human beings, he was only flattering himself. A guest commentator, a prosecutor, I believe, also muddied the waters with her idea of nuance. This is how it went:

The background, for those who have no television and thus have not seen this news story is briefly:

Scott Peterson, was found guilty of double homicide in a California Court earlier this month, the penalty for which under California law can be death by lethal injection. The jury that convicted him will decide his sentence in early December. He killed his wife who was eight months with child, it is thought, because he did not want the responsibility of a child and a stay-at-home wife, to boot. California law recognizes the killing of a preborn child in the womb as murder, but only if it is anyone but the mother who does the killing. Imagine! The Laci and Connor law, passed by Congress and signed by President Bush was the topic that precipitated the three way exchange, opened by Lisa Bloom. She referred to the problem of inconsistency in her position in being for the law while advocating abortion rights. That was the only honest statement she made. She failed to recognize or admit that if a mother can kill her preborn child, that it is unfair, logically speaking, to deny the same to the father. Scott Peterson was merely exercising his "procreative rights" while snuffing out the only witness against him, his wife, Laci, using the rationale that naturally follows the abortion trajectory. If the baby in the womb is a human being or child and he has to be if he was murdered under California law, since we do not murder animals and plants, then it is always a human being once conceived. The baby in the womb does not cease being who and what he is merely because some women do not want to carry the baby to term. This is basic reason and medical fact. Only by a twisted logic and a deliberate denial of human reason can we permit the killing with impunity of some infants in utero and not others.

James Curtis was even more absurd. He said that when he was practicing as a prosecutor he dealt with the situation by assigning a wanted baby human status and protection of the law but not so if the mother did not want the baby, actually the same position as Lisa Bloom's but he claimed he was less inconsistent, with no evidence ever provided. He said that a baby in the womb could be killed under law and he saw nothing wrong with it, and that he had no problem being "pro-choice" taking umbrage that people suggest that to be "pro-choice" is to be pro-abortion. Well, Mr. Curtis, if killing the baby by abortion is so okay, why are you ashamed of the association? Why do you need to hide behind the euphemism of "choice"? You betray the illogic of your position and the discomfort that it brings by so insisting on hiding behind the euphemism.

The woman prosecutor who weighed in with her position was even more irrational. She was very adamant about the horrible crime committed by Scott Peterson, as she ought to be, since his crime was so savage. But then she told the audience that fathers cannot kill their unborn children, she called the child a child or baby, without explaining why it was okay if mothers so killed their babies. In fact she went so far as to describe how baby Connor struggled within his little sphere, fighting for his life, so accurately she provided us with a verbal replay of the abortion video, the Silent Scream. Does she not know that if Laci had decided to kill her baby [she would have no need to kill any witness] by strangulation that he would have to have struggled in the same way? Would he have been any less a human being, just because his mother killed him rather than his father? I thought the prerogative of deciding who is human was God's and God's alone? It is, no matter how many law degrees commentators in the media possess. No one has any ability to abrogate the natural law, nor any right to derogate from it. Not only are their claims spurious, and even more savage than the crimes committed by Peterson, but they signal the death of reason, to any reasonable person, who can still think clearly.

Have mercy on us, O Lord, for surely we know not what it is that we do . . . or perhaps we do . . . innocent people who are seriously mistaken have no need to employ euphemisms and do not do so, at least never in my experience of some 62 years. And to think these people made comment after comment on the lies told by Peterson, lies that disgusted them. Compared to theirs, his pale in comparison, which is not to justify his evil deeds, but to note the height of hypocrisy masquerading as social outrage!

December 8, 2004

The December 7th broadcast of MSNBC's "Hardball", hosted by the Catholic Chris Matthews should have been retitled "Softball" or even "Woofle Ball" because the only entity that Matthews came down on was religion, including Catholicism. The topic was Christmas and the media, which is not our concern here. What matters to us is that the self-proclaimed Catholic Matthews expressed his frustration with religious differences among Christians over doctrine, asking why we had to have these conflicts and since we all believe in Jesus Christ, the Savior, that this should be sufficient.

After that startling comment on his commitment to the articles of our Divine Faith, the Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church, everything else that was said was lost on me.

Mr. Matthews, for starters, Jesus Christ certainly did not have this attitude. If He had He probably would have escaped the Cross and you and I would more than likely be certain of Hell for all eternity. So important was dogma and the articles of the Faith, including how we are to pray, that Christ wasted no time in instructing His Apostles, the first Bishops, on the matter. The Apostles' Creed is a good beginning. Every article is precise and irreplaceable for the knowledge to attain salvation. He founded a specific Church over which He promised the protection of the Holy Ghost in its instruction. He did not say "If you love Me, merely believe." He said, "If you love Me, keep My Word, or the Commandments and the Divine Law. Commandments are specific and how we keep them or even if we do keep them, is another consequence [and why there are differences, because man wants his sin and salvation, too] of His charge to the Apostles and to us through them. In fact He told them that He came not to do away with the Commandments, but to fulfill or strengthen them: that where He once tolerated divorce for a stiff-necked people, there was to be no more divorce as before; where an eye for an eye was permitted, He told them that if they so much as "grew angry with a brother" that they were guilty of sin compared to murder. The "GROW" aspect meaning, dwelt on it, nursed it, caused it to increase, not merely the momentary flare of righteous anger that dies properly in the forgiving heart.

He told Saint Peter that he was like Satan when he suggested an idea that was not as Catholic as it ought to be: "Get behind Me, Satan." Now, if the mere questioning doubt on orthodoxy or right belief could evoke this response from God, what must He be thinking about now as He hears this from you? He also told Peter that "I have prayed for you that your faith might be strengthened . . ." Peter was in turn to strengthen the faith of the others. Now if only belief in Him was sufficient, since they all knew Him, the body of doctrine preached by the Apostles would be unnecessary. He asked St. Peter, three times, for emphasis in the tradition of His people, "Do you love Me?" Each time the first Pope answered, "Yes" or "You know that I do." And Jesus in turn responded, "Feed My sheep." Feed My sheep, means instruction in the true Faith and governance of the Church and sanctification through grace. That is, the articles of the Faith and all that flows from them matter. Not only do they matter, and matter to Him, most of all, that Jesus Christ most emphatically stressed that He came not to bring peace as the world knows, but to divide, brother against brother, father against son . . . Now if we all believe in Jesus Christ and that is all that matters, how could Jesus be calling for division? He could because dogma matters, whether theological or moral: That to love Him and serve Him we must be prepared to abandon everything that pulls us away from Him, including human respect and familial ties if necessary. This means that families would be divided on beliefs, but there was only one way to serve and follow Him, through the practice of our Holy Catholic, precious, Catholic Faith.

Jesus experienced division within His Own ranks and among His followers. Recall that when some of the disciples found His teaching on the Eucharist too "harsh a saying", they left. He did not call out to them, "Wait, fellas, you misunderstand, you react too quickly, let us dialogue, why quibble over these matters, as long as you believe in Me, that's all that matters." Oh, no, not at all, just the opposite. At one point He asked those who stayed, "Will you abandon Me, also?" Another vital aspect of Jesus' teaching was on the Sacraments, a matter of great controversy, but vital all the same, as we just looked at in the above example. Our Lord gave us exactly seven Sacraments or signs instituted to give grace. One of those was Baptism. He said, "Those who believe and are baptized will be saved." So we have to do more than believe, we have to do certain things to obtain salvation. And if one of the seven is necessary, what about the other six? Do you honestly believe that Christ wasted His time on non-essentials? Much of the division among those professing to be Christians is over the Sacraments, how many, how necessary and so forth. And they must matter because Christ instituted them.

Whenever a Catholic throws up his hand in mock scandal over the divisions of dogma, I know that his arguments are not with the human actions of weak, fallible, sinful men, but with Jesus Christ Himself, because the objector really down deep prefers to form God in his own image rather than obey, adore, serve, and preach a God Who formed man in His own image, that constituted to a specific nature, for a specific purpose and to that end, one set of rules, without which human nature becomes degraded even more than it was after Original Sin. And this brings us to the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Among dogmas, this one most divides Christians, even many Catholics, unfortunately. Our Lady's creation without this stain of the human race, her perpetual virginity and sublime purity, her nobility and Her Queenship, over earth and Heaven as the Mother of God, a consequence of her creation, is under heavy attack through the desecration of Her images, and insults to her virtue. I suppose you wonder why the Immaculate Conception should matter so much also? After all we can't even prove it in the world's terms.  If you reply that it matters, why, since it divides? If not, then you have insulted the Mother of God and thus insulted Her son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and the whole of Heaven. It sure matters to God Who created Her as She is, above all the Angels and Saints, below only the Blessed Trinity in the order of perfection and in the Divine economy.

Saying we all believe in Jesus Christ, the Lord and that this is what matters, is like saying "Lord, Lord," but not meaning it sufficiently. Jesus told us that "Not every man who says Lord, Lord, enters the Kingdom."

This matter of Dogma: It matters!

Modernity and The Will of God January 9, 2005

He said, speaking of the tsunami devastation in Indonesia,
"It can't be the will of God because that would make God a monster!"

How often do we hear words to this effect, and from Catholics, too, as the man above is. People who say things like this just have not thought the idea through to its logical outcome, provided their position could possibly be true. Of course they are wrong, but they do not  agree, so, for the sake of argument, let us adopt their position in theory, so as to not blaspheme God:

If God would never will this kind of destructive storm that kills 150,000, at least a third of whom were children, then He surely would be the "monster" described by the gentleman. Why? Because God is all-powerful and can do all things. If He positively does not will storms and the toil left in their wake, then He would surely stop them, if they were only part of nature. Not to do so, as is the case in Indonesia, is to sit by and do nothing within His power, even though He could not, would not, cannot will the storm. If you and I, who have the power to snatch a child from danger who is about to run into the street, but chose to do nothing, would not we be considered horrible? Well, what would this make God? Since God is the One Who possesses the prerogative of who dies, when and how, this power of His will cannot be anything but perfect, in that He wills it because He chooses to do. If modern man finds this cruel or unfeeling, then it is man who is judging God by his own disorientation through sin; but another prerogative of God is to judge man by His standards, not ours. It is up to us to accept His will in all things, positively.

The same man acknowledges that God is the author of life and death, not man. This is His prerogative as our Creator. On any given day around the world, more than 150,000 persons die, most from "natural causes". Does not God will their deaths? Of course, because man merits death because of Original Sin, in partial punishment for violating the Divine order over nature established at Creation. Storms, volcanos, earthquakes, all kinds of atmospheric eruptions are included in man's punishment for that first sin. Until the fall in Paradise, the natural environment was perfect as it was meant to help man and glorify God; but it was man who caused the disequilibrium in the natural order and brought chaos into his habitat. After this God promised a Redeemer, but man would have to begin to subdue the earth by the sweat of his brow and his wife, bear her children in pain, where before that was perfect, natural happiness, without pain or fear or death as we know it.

I would have wished for the opportunity, the right place and time, to ask this man about the Flood, the building of Noah's ark, the few who were saved; the total destruction of the abomination of lustful degradation of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, including God sending His Angels in advance on behalf of the few who were in His grace, and on and on. This man acknowledges that God answers prayers and sometimes heals the sick, even of "incurable" cancer. If God can heal, by definition He wills to, positively wills it, either directly or through a human agent. If He does not do so, does this mean He is powerless to do so? Again, by definition, He must will not to do so.

One of the great all-time Catholic classics is HELIOTROPIUM, by Fr. Drexelius, S.J. Fr. Drexelius' work on our behalf at the hands of God leaves no doubt as to the only, the right, perspective about the will of God, positive, and positively, no pun intended. No Catholic who is serious about being one ought to pass up this rare gem of a spiritual work. Once you have read it, if you once uttered such nonsense as above, you won't be able to anymore. Every earnest Catholic should make it one of his "cardinal" rules of spiritual warfare.

Blessed Be the Will of God

May the most just, the most high, the most lovable will of God
be in all things done, praised and magnified forever! Amen.

  Roe v Wade, A Generation Later January 24, 2005

Fr. Gilbert Combe, for a time spiritual director of Melanie Calvat of La Salette, testified that she was granted a vision of Leo XIII on his deathbed. She beheld him horribly contorted in what appeared to be a moral struggle, his eyes rolling left and right so that only the whites were visible. Terrified and begging to be spared the sight, she heard our Lord say, "I am about to call my Vicar to Myself!" The press release from Rome indicated later that before breathing his last the 92-year-old Pontiff had twice sat bolt upright in bed. No one knows what he saw, but he was heard to repeat humbly, "My intentions were good."

Now, if the press report is accurate, even with good intentions, the Roman Pontiff, known to be a personally pious man, can seem to be responding to a rebuke from God, what must be the situation of those who sit on the pro-abortion side of the US Supreme Court, were they to come face to face with their eternal Judge? It is well known by now that the majority which decided in favor of Roe, did so on a strictly utilitarian basis. Now, the utilitarian can never be a rationale for abrogating the natural law by fiat. But, strictly for the sake of argument, let us give them that and see if they even uphold their own "principle": Medical knowledge has advanced geometrically in the past 32 years [since that infamous year] and there is scientific certitude regarding the child in the womb possessing all the attributes of a human person, and there is the knowledge that "viability" [another hideous utilitarian term] is now recorded at earlier and earlier months, than the previously 6-7 months at the time of Roe. So, since the majority of the Court claimed a utilitarian basis for their decision, would not irrefutable evidence of the same be cogent and imperative for it to look at? If the Court were following its own "logic", yes. But the Court is not about logic, consistency as to precedent, because it refuses with full knowledge to not  follow their own precedent here. The US Supreme Court is refusing, as of this date, to re-consider the case based on new evidence that the original findings were based on improper knowledge. The justices have been advised that such is the case, and in such way that it is known to be more then mere speculation, but fact, scientific, medical fact.

Pope Leo, for all his mistakes concerning the "goodness" or blessings of democracy, can at least be excused for basing his conclusion on faulty reportage from those with an agenda, unbeknown to him. And with this he is held responsible, at least according to his reaction before his death, most likely caused by his conscience that haunts us all at such moments just before entering eternity and the last four things.

But the Court has not even this excuse, for it has been given a great grace by God, a second chance, a reprieve from eternal death because medical science has made such advances in fetology. The Pope was known to have said he would have acted otherwise in certain matters had his information been different. Yet, accused he stood, at least in his own conscience. The Court willfully refuses to take advantage of this reprieve. The pro-life army has no other recourse but open protest on the mall in Washington, in frigid cold, to address the frozen hearts and dead souls of the majority justices. And what excuse can this Court claim? Will each justice as he faces his own mortality, sit up like a thunderbolt in bed and dare to make the brazen claim, "I had good intentions"?

Scripture teaches us that God warns us at our own peril if we disregard His authority and His truth: "Because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will reject thee . . ."  [Osee 4:6]

By rejecting the knowledge at hand, the Court rejects God, the giver of all knowledge that is good and salutary for His people. The land is not just cold and fraught with unstable weather climatic patterns, it is barren [literally] and willfully, spiritually dead, more frozen than any tundra . . . nature, repulsed by our perfidy, rebels to show its utter disgust . . .

Who Ambushed Whom?: GEORGE BUSH AND MORALITY January 24, 2005

The American President, while still the Texan Governor was secretly taped by a so-called friend during an off-the-record discussion of social issues; said friend is now exploiting these tape-recorded admissions from Bush to sell a book about, what else, the raising of former Presidents, while railing the current President. In politics and journalism, and now history, apparently all is fair or at least there is no longer any such thing as the gentlemen's agreement of "off-the-record". To say that this tactic is sleazy would be an understatement. This is by way of stating the obvious and getting it out of the way.

The purpose of this column is not to defend Bush in the matter nor to analyze the "friend", for our charlatan, folksy President is finally exposed for the hypocrite he really is and whom I always knew he was, but could not understand how fellow Catholics did not hear the spin in the speech. I even wrote a couple of columns about his true "values", including those on homosexuality, that belie his carefully crafted public statements.  I knew I knew, not so much by what he said, but mostly by what he did not say.  The details are in the dodge.

My use of the term "values", is deliberate because it has become a substitute for what was once traditional morality and virtue, now upheld by a minority of Americans who are increasingly viewed as curiosities-----and barely tolerable at that. Sooner than we realize now, we will no longer be thought of as quaint, but as enemies of the state and criminals. "Values" is one of those amorphous words, much like "rights" that are found dispersed in modern media "bites" and speeches that sound good, but everybody has a different meaning for it, yet we are supposed to pretend we all mean the same thing. Only the insiders know the score. Whenever I hear someone, who ought to know better employ the term, "values", I know that he has sold out or never believed in and tried to his best to practice the traditional virtues in the first place, but he wants you to think so and maybe he wants to convince himself also. But I digress, although not by much. Even the most debased and depraved person "values" some things.

A part of the "secret" conversation, indeed, included "gay rights". Governor Bush, clearly hoping to be the American President, told his "family friend" that "he was a sinner" and thus, he was not about to do anything about "gay rights". Right. Let us examine this sophistry, however well intended he may have been, or thought he was being.

We are definitely all sinners as the Word of God tells us that even "the just man falls seven times a day." And as such we certainly cannot point fingers at any individual sinner in that we judge his position before God or presume we are better than he is. For certain we would be sinning by doing so. Now, having said this, does this dictum from God also mean that we are to remain helpless while sin is legislated from the bench or other once-hallowed halls and or otherwise supported? Of course not! Someone needs to write a book called "Basic Morality for Political Dummies", apparently.

If we followed the false creed of George Bush, we could have no laws at all dealing with morality, we could not even say thief to a thief or rape to a rapist, claiming "rights". You and I are not permitted by God, under penalty of suffering the same judgment, of deciding the particular judgment by God of any individual sinner, but He also instructs in Scripture to not "throw our pearls before swine" and so forth. This means we must judge to avoid moral ruin. And those in position of guiding society have a greater burden and responsibility to judge rightly, prudently and justly, to prevent society from ruin and moral chaos. Immorality is immorality and we have to address it by way of social policy. To pass a law that says certain lustful acts are degrading and cannot, must not be tolerated, is not to judge an individual's fate at the particular judgment, but merely to uphold the natural, moral law. George Bush is confused at the very least, but I think that this was his way of copping out without appearing to be a coward. After all, if he followed his own creed he would not have said that terrorism was wrong, because acts of terror, while sinful are well, just another sin before sinners, right?

Wrong, according to him. In other words, he gets to decide when sin matters but you and I are self-righteous if we do so and have no claim on our leaders to uphold the natural law. So I guess abortion can't be addressed either except in the most vague manner, talking but no long-distance walking. Are not we all sinners? And he has nothing to fear but fear itself as he cannot run a third time, but can retire on his ranch with a hefty pension and all the limelight he cares to court. Meanwhile he is refusing to control our open borders, thereby sealing our eventual fate as the new country, third-world Meximerica, or worse. George Bush? He is God's way of chastising us for our own perfidy to His saving truth and His saving commandments.

Why There Is No Hypocrisy, Period CONGRESS AND TERRI SCHIAVO March 19, 2005


Terri Schiavo's feeding tube has been removed despite the last-minute effort of the US House of Representatives to block her scheduled execution as a non-indicted, non-co-conspirator, non-criminal, severely disabled person.

 Interestingly, a priest had been forbidden to bring her Holy Communion before now as she supposedly would not be able to swallow the Host, but before they began the killing process, "they" did allow her to receive the Last Rites and Holy Viaticum. Suddenly she can swallow on her own? Or did they recognize that the Host need never be swallowed; in fact, It ought to be dissolved slowly, naturally as It will? And if so, why not before?

The media, including much of the so-called "conservative" commentators, was all abuzz about the interference with states' rights-----the liberals suggesting that the "conservative" Congress was violating its own principle of favoring states' rights, calling the House action hypocritical. Just like liberals, the penultimate of hypocrites. Let us take a brief tour down memory lane, or should I say amnesialand:

Who can forget Little Rock of more than a generation ago: The Federal government interfering with a states' rights issue, segregation in the government schools; indeed there was the cry of foul play, especially when forced busing was ordered. No complaints by liberals then, some from certain conservatives. So now liberals want to equate this kind of action with the House action of March 18, morally, legally, politically, going so far to say that the House "was playing politics" because a "few right-to-lifers" had called their Congressmen.

Even "conservative media" were saying, yuh, hey that's right, we are "uncomfortable" with this, as if to say the liberals' analogy was valid. Wrong, folks, dead wrong, unfortunately for Terri Schiavo.

The first obligation of the state is to protect innocent human life from the threat of death or grave bodily injury; it is also the first obligation of the nation as it is of any government with an army and or police power. Period. Normally the states are permitted their own laws in regard to this. However, when a particular state is derelict in its duty to protect innocent human life and persists in it, it can be said to be in violation of the natural law; thus a higher government must step in to supply for the good that is lacking. Not only is this not a violation of states' rights-----because the state has no right to kill innocent persons by withdrawing food and water-----but it is the very vindication of human rights, and the natural law, which supersedes any state law to the contrary. Racism and forced segregation of little school children was also a violation of the natural law; forced busing was the wrong solution to the right problem as we now know and as some of us knew back then. But stopping the killing is always the right solution to the problem of forced starvation because there is no other way to prevent state-ordered murder other than to prevent it. There is no way to find another solution, as in forced busing, simply because there is only life and death. So the liberals, per usual, have it all wrong, too quick to play the "gotcha card" of  hypocrisy. One commentator went so far as to correct former Congressman Bob Dornan for mispronouncing Terri's last name; he was indignant in his tone when he pointed the mistake out, while some of his colleagues elsewhere were also mispronouncing the name. Of course this was his only recourse as he had no sound arguments for Dornan's stance in support of Terri's right. When arguments fail, attack the person making the unassailable argument. In this case the correction, because of its tone, showed what a truly small mind there was behind the correction. Usually a person's name is very important and we all ought to pronounce names correctly when possible as a mark of respect. However this pro-death media elite-type had no grounds for indignation as he certainly cannot be said to respect Terri Schiavo, can he?

There are those who would say that the pro-death by starvation [they claim they are also "uncomfortable" with the method] do respect Terri and want to honor her wishes. But no one has the right to remove a feeding tube from a non-cancer [as in advanced cancer] patient as this is basic treatment and not "extraordinary care". You know it is very suspicious to me because when Michael Schiavo got the settlement he said that he would "take care of Terri for the rest of her life" with the money. No mention of her claim of the right to die, nothing. It was not until much, much later that suddenly this claim was being asserted on her behalf. She was supposed to have said that she did not want to be tied to tubes and machines, in reference to some TV program they were watching. Like most people she probably meant a ventilator, a kidney machine, and lots of other similar devices all at the same time. That is, if she actually said this. She may have, most of us have said this at one time or another, and rightly so as we are not morally obligated to have extraordinary care where there is no reasonable hope of recovery, using up resources that could better be used for others who can recover. But I am willing to bet that she never turned to Michael Schiavo and said, "Gee, honey, if I only have to have a feeding tube, I want that removed anyway, because I want to die by starvation even if I do not have advanced cancer." Would you say that, would any rational person? If she was irrational then she could not be held to the statement. Regardless, no one has the right to refuse ordinary care where it can maintain life that is not in a terminal state. Period.

At any rate a good friend of hers went with Terri to visit a grandmother in a nursing home or hospital and as Terri passed patients with tubes she said, "Where there's life, there's hope."

  Two of the most frightening aspects of this case are "the cognitive state" as a rationale for the right to life and the future of Alzheimer patients. Repeatedly the media were heard to refer to her lack of a cognitive state, as if to say that this confers non-personhood on her. But if she really wanted to die, her cognitive state would only be an issue at the time of the supposed claim, not now. And if she did not, the cognitive state is not germane. It is never germane to personhood. Even a dead person is still considered a person and is accorded dignity. Young babies cannot "communicate" other than by grimace or smiles or blinks or other sounds, such as crying. Terri has shed tears and makes sounds and smiles, etc. She is fed by a tube like a baby is fed by bottle and special formula if he has an allergy; he gets his diapers changed and is played with and loved. So does Terri. It is truly monstrous to use the "cognitive state" to define boundaries for the right to life.  I know of several profoundly retarded children who must be cared for like babies for the rest of their lives.

The death-squad, while taking jabs at the "God-squad" as some refer to them also claim that this is a special case and that it will not be used to kill Alzheimer patients. Right. Remember back when the Social Security number was introduced, we were told "it will never be used as a national ID." Yet it is used most often as a national ID. Heck, you cannot even open a bank account without producing it. In other words you cannot buy or sell or eat without it in the end. Then there was "affirmative action" otherwise known as racism for pay back. Remember when Senator Humphrey on the floor of the Senate said "it will never be used for quotas"? Then of course, it was and is, still. And my all-time favorite lie: "We do not want the right to marry, we only want the right to a job and an apartment ..." This was the mantra over and over. Five years later this is just the beginning of what the sodomites want. How much do you want to bet that the severely disabled with low cognitive states are next? Never trust the promise of any liberal. But even if Alzheimer patients are not next, this is not material. What matters is that an innocent woman is slated for execution by starvation and dehydration, that after 12 years her appeals ought to cease according to the ruling elite; yet the proven guilty murderers on death row have at least 20 years and usually more of appeal after appeal. Something is rotten, so rotten it stinks to Hell and back [backwards]. Where are these liberals when you really need them?