January 22, 2003 was the 30th anniversary of that Day of Infamy
that will be America's unfortunate boast in history. No it is not Pearl
Harbor Day as you can surmise from the date. President Roosevelt called
the attack on Pearl Harbor the day of infamy as if he was surprised as
well as suffering for our nation, even though we now know he may have had
prior knowledge but did nothing in order to serve his own agenda.
No the Day of Infamy is the day the US Supreme Court dared to
overturn the natural law and Divine law in its hubris of issuing preferential
policy from the bench in contradiction to the purpose of the Court, which
is safeguarding and interpreting the law, not making it!
This article was scheduled to appear on the 30th anniversary but I was
so overcome with grief when I surveyed the cultural landscape via the popular
media that I could not stop weeping long enough to think in the way one
must in order to write. So it appears now.
One could say that January 22, 2003 was also a day of infamy when one
heard all the rhetoric issuing forth from the likes of Planned Parenthood,
NARAL, the left in general, all the Democratic candidates for President
specifically, the phony message [1] from President
George Bush and even some of the so-called pro-lifers or those purporting
to represent them or Republican party interests. To hear them was to weep,
not only for all the babies about to be slaughtered but for the dead souls
of these "leaders" of ours. Never before have we seen death so enshrined
in our nation.
And of course the media, that is, most of it, did its liberal, shameful
best to skew as much as it could to help the cause of murder most foul
and its stench permeating, suffocating America.
If it had not been for EWTN, C-Span [somewhat] and Buchanan and Press
on MSNBC and an attempt at a realistic report by Candy Crowley of CNN one
would not have known how truly horrific abortion is and the toll it has
taken on the soul of America. And even this little was a struggle at that
and that includes the evening edition of the report on EWTN. [2]
The first sign that despite the weakening support for abortion on demand
by all credible polls, the media is intent on perpetuating the myth that
abortion will be the rule of the land no matter what was the repeated fact
of the announcement that the pro-lifers were 50,000 strong in the Washington
March for Life despite the frigid temperature, while the NARAL group's
number was not cited. By definition this means that number had to be substantially
less or else the media would have been drooling to report it. They did
not have the guts to cite the real number of pro-abortion supporters in
the anti-life Washington demonstration. So it must have been paltry indeed
to not be able to compare it to 50,000 favorably when compared unfavorably
with the Million Man March of another time and issue. Knowing the media
would go to this length to hide the truth did not portend anything good
happening by way of truth being vindicated.
And the second was, of course, that most tiresome, irksome "little thing"
called psychological positioning: the use of the term "pro-choice" euphemism
to hide the fact that these folks are rabidly pro-abortion even when it
is coerced [a la China and elsewhere] and anti-abortion for the
pro-lifers. Meaning, one is for something in a positive fashion-----murder
which is a "right" and the other is against that same something,
which makes it seem like a negative. Talk about contrariness and getting
things backward. When one pro-lifer, not that staunch herself, asked for
the correct nomenclature all she elicited from the leftist gal talking
head, was "Okay", with no attempt to actually change it. The tone in the
Okay was dead itself. She merely changed the subject as the whole thing
was forgotten or so she thinks. The complaint will be back and back until
they get it right. We will not ride in the back of the bus anymore!
Over and over again I witnessed many a so-called pro-lifer state the
willingness to accept exceptions for abortion, which means it is okay to
kill some innocent babies if the stakes are high enough, which means they
surrender the principle in the first place and in the last place pro-life
will always be found because the enemy sees the weakness in this kind of
argument from those claiming to be pro-life and exploits it savagely to
further its own aims.
Only some of the commentators on EWTN and Judie Brown and Bay Buchanan
[too intent on viability to be that effective in the end] on MSNBC ever
got it right, most especially Judie Brown, God bless her! She called abortion
murder, period, much to the chagrin and faked distress of Bill Press.
He wanted her to say murder as if to portray her as extreme as against
those who actually favor murder. And to think he says he is a Catholic!
Press pressed her until she said murder, which she should say because that
is the truth, even though she served to serve his agenda ploy. The gauntlet
pro-lifers have to undergo just to gain a spot in the media: What a martyrdom,
and I am not overstating things!
Over half of the American people polled favor some abortion and only
a minority favor no abortion so we appear to favor abortion. Some abortion
always means lots of it as long as people, some people, women only, have
"a choice." There is no way to limit the choice in law if the latest ruling
on partial birth abortion is any indication. Not because there is no way
in of itself, but because this nation is so morally bankrupt that our rulers
have no stomach for what it would take to make murder of innocent babies
living in the womb once more what it is-----savage,
cold-blooded murder!
Psychologically we have bought into the myth that before the second
trimester a baby is well, not a baby, even though we really know better,
especially since those advanced sonogram pictures of babies in the womb
have been so prevalent in commercials for technology companies.
Ironically the missing woman in California story that is the rage in
the media highlights our wanting it both ways:
Every commentator, legal and otherwise, all or most of them probably
pro-abort since they are so part of the mainstream media, have mentioned
the pregnant woman's "baby", not once was he referred to as a "fetus."
Very telling, yet she is not due until February 10, plenty of time for
a late-term abortion if she had wanted one. Very very telling, indeed!
No, there is no way we can claim innocence before God's almighty, dreadful
judgment. We know better!
Pray for the conversion of these poor, sorry creatures called America's
ruling elite. And for ourselves who have not the courage to vote what should
be our conscience. We, too, are in danger of losing our souls, for each
one of us, that day, if it comes, will be also be a day of infamy!
1. George Bush never appears at the March
for Life in person, only a delivered taped speech that says very little
of substance that will be realized. 2003 was no different. He conveniently
was out of town on an economic speech date, but even more conveniently
flew back that afternoon, just time enough not to have to make an actual
appearance. When will Catholics stop being such pushovers? Saying that
he is the best we can get promises us that he will always be the best we
can get because the enemy knows they can count on us to waste our vote
by pretending that is what we are not doing. God does not ask us to win,
just be true. So until we do, we will always lose. The enemy is ever so
much more skillful in these matters. But the truth can conquer all in time,
if we ever gave it a chance.
2. The head of the Knights of Columbus
was a bit too glib in his hope for the future and not so credible when
one realized either he is not aware or does not care enough if he is aware,
that so many Knights' local organizations admit pro-abortion pols as members
and do so knowingly. The Knights have lost their gallantry and their luster
as knights as in true knighthood for me. Helen Alvarez, Columbus law professor,
was more honest about the challenge. But no one had any plan to offer.