Before my self-imposed moratorium from commenting on electoral politics begins, I do want to offer a word or two about the presidential election.
As I have noted so many times before, including the commentary offered above, American electoral politics is a sham. We have two rival gangs of organized crime families masquerading as political parties, the Republicans and Democrats, both of which believe that we exist in order to enable them to pick our pockets excessively by means of the unjust confiscatory taxing powers of all levels of government to fund unjust and evil programs, making us slaves of the state in the process. There is no substantial difference between the two political parties. The only real differences that exist between them are matters of degrees, not substance.
George W. Bush, for instance, has governed in most instances as a liberal Republican, which should not surprise anyone since that is his family's heritage. He has been a big-spending liberal on unjust entitlement programs (most of which would be totally unnecessary if contraception and abortion and divorce and sodomy had not helped to undermine the integrity of the family). He has failed protect American borders from an influx of illegal immigrants, doing so for two reasons: to curry favor with Spanish-speaking voters and to pay off political debts to the corporate barons who profit from the sweat of illegal immigrants. He has, a noted above, campaigned actively for pro-aborts in his own political party, and takes a Wilsonian view of the world, believing that American "democracy" is the salvation of all nations, something I address in a piece on my own website, www.christorchaos.com. His obsession with Iraq has needlessly cost the lives of American service personnel and civilians and piled up debts that will enslave future generations of our citizens while the real threat to American security, Red China, is treated with complete magnanimity as it arrests scores of Catholic bishops, priests and laity in the underground Catholic Church. He is not our friend. Indeed, it is my belief he has been one of the worst presidents in the history of this country.
Barring any unforseen developments, though, he is going to win the November 2, 2004, election against John F. Kerry. Kerry will lose because he is the Democrats' Bob Dole, a hapless, humorless, colorless man who will do or say anything to make himself electable. Bob Dole told a group of conservative Republicans in 1995, "I'll be anything you want. I'll be Ronald Reagan if you want me to." It is little different with Kerry, who changes his positions on issues incessantly, even to the point of eclipsing Bush as a champion of making mutually contradictory statements in the middle of the same sentence, no less the same speech. He is a rich boy who has never had to work in his life, married to the exceedingly wealthy widow of a former Senate colleague of his, the pro-abortion Republican John Heinz. All of his claims to represent the "working man" ring hollow. He lives most luxuriously as he devises schemes to spend more of our money and to tax us excessively. He is a reprobate as a Catholic, championing the cause of the destruction of innocent human life in the womb as an absolute right that is beyond question.
Yes, it is my belief that Bush will beat Kerry. Ultimately, though, we have to understand that it really does not make much of a difference as to who does wind up getting elected. The Supreme Court? Once again, reality, folks. Reality. The Democrats who serve in the United States Senate believe absolutely in absolute evil. They will never permit anyone who is pro-life to be confirmed to the United States Supreme Court. Bush, if re-elected, may try to nominate someone who is pro-life to rally his troops and to prove how committed he is to our cause. He will do so, however, knowing full well that such a nominee will not be confirmed, thus paving the way for some "moderate" who is acceptable to the Democrats to get nominated and confirmed.
Remember, this is more or less how Harry Blackmun wound up on the United States Supreme Court. Then President Richard Milhouse Nixon tried to nominate two "strict constructionists," as he termed them, F. Clement Haynsworth and Harold Carswell, to replace the disgraced Abe Fortas on the Supreme Court upon the latter's resignation in 1969. Haynsworth was rejected by the Senate in 1969, Carswell in 1970. And this is how the pro-abortion Anthony Kennedy got on the Court in 1988 following the Senate's rejection of the nomination Judge Robert Bork by then President Ronald Wilson Reagan in 1987. A major player in Bork's rejection was none other than one Arlen Specter.
Thus, you see, the Court will remain in the hands of the pro-aborts no matter who is elected. Democrats will block Bush nominees who are pro-life; Republicans will do with a "President" Kerry's Supreme Court nominees what they did with Bill Clinton's: confirm them in overwhelming numbers in order to curry favor with "moderate" voters and to show how "bi-partisan" they are. The future of the Supreme Court is thus an electoral red herring used by both the Democrats and Republicans to shore up their political bases. No matter who is elected on November 2, the Court is remaining in the hands of baby-killers for a long time to come.
The quintessential American questions that I always get asked is this: "Well, what are we going to do? Who should we vote for?" My noninfallible prudential judgment remains the same now as it has been since 1996: we should cast a vote of conscience and rest comfortably after casting it,
trusting that Our Lady will use our fidelity to the fullness of truth in ways that will only become manifest to us in eternity, please God we die in a state of sanctifying grace. There will be completely no-exceptions candidates on at least one minor party line (the Constitution Party). And we can always write in a name. We cannot continue to labor under the
misapprehension born of the inherent flaws of the modern state that elections are anything other than efforts on the part of career politicians to gain power for its own sake.
No matter who wins in November, the likelihood is that Rudolph William Giuliani is going to be the Republican nominee for president in 2008. If Kerry loses this year, which I expect to be the case, the likely nominee of the Democrat Party will be Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. Giuliani may be another Catholic reprobate. However, he is no dummy. He might give pro-lifers a crumb by choosing, say, Senator Rick Santorum or Florida Governor Jeb Bush, both of whom are Catholics, to run with him for vice president. The chorus at the National Right to Life Committee and Priests for Life and the Christian Coalition would chant, "Half a loaf is better than none. We have to keep Hillary Clinton out of the White House. If, though, Giuliani thinks he can get away with it - and if Congress proposes and the state legislatures ratify a constitutional amendment permitting a naturalized citizen to qualify for the presidency or vice presidency - do not be surprised if the Republican ticket consists of two Catholic pro-aborts named Giuliani and Arnold Schwarzenegger. The future of American politics, my friends, is not bright. And it is not bright precisely because of its flawed foundation.
We have to come to the realization that we are not solving our problems politically. It is important, therefore, for us as citizens to use the forums available to us to speak as Catholics, realizing that we might be able to plant a few seeds in the hearts and minds of our fellow citizens that could, please God and His Most Blessed Mother, win this land of ours for the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ, thus completing the work begun by the North American Martyrs and Father DeSmet and countless other Jesuit missionaries - and the work of Blessed Junipero Serra.
Our battle cry must not be as partisans of this or that political party. Our battle cry must always be that of Blessed Miguel Augustin Pro: Viva Cristo Rey!
And with that cry my career as a commentator on electoral politics has come to an end. I have nothing more to say, although I will try to publish a book of my essays on this subject as a means of providing a permanent reference source for the future. People can believe that Bush is our friend and that we are making progress despite of all objective evidence to the contrary. I must concentrate on the state of the Church, which has adopted many of the errors of modernity, and on the founding of Christ the King College. Enough is enough with the sideshow provided by professional politicians and their stooges.
Our Lady, Seat of Wisdom and Mirror of Justice, pray for us.
Thomas A. Droleskey, Ph.D.
For the first part yesterday, see Part One
See Tom's web-site at www.christorchaos.com
For his Speaking Schedule for May, see www.christorchaos.com/speaking.html