The Relationship Between Communism and Abortion With an Examination of Marxism's Influence in the U.S. Today



Historic Proponents for Legalized Abortion  


Legalized abortion has it roots in Marxism, socialism, and egalitarianism. Lenin and his communist Bolsheviks were the first ones to widely and openly legalize and advocate abortion as a woman’s right. Communism viewed abortion as a vital part of implementing Marx’s and Engel’s Communist Manifesto and their desire for the “Abolition of the family!” and liberation of women who were oppressed by capitalism, marriage, and the family. Modern day Marxists are proud of their pro-abortion heritage and are still leading proponents of abortion as seen by the short article Marxism and Abortion. This article offers us the following insights on how Marxists view abortion – “A Marxist believes that personality and human value are imparted by the external and economic environment, not by any inherent spiritual value, or even by biological processes . . . . The fetus, according to a Marxist, becomes a person when he is judged as such by ‘someone of higher wisdom.’ The humanity of the fetus depends upon how the mother perceives the ‘social relationship’ that exists between them. If the mother desires to keep the baby, then she ‘fantasizes’ it into becoming a human being. But, if she does not want the pregnancy, ‘it is something else entirely.’ Her opinion of the fetus thereby denies it of personhood . . . . ‘Biological processes,’ says Albury, ‘do not carry automatic moral values as the Right to Life suggests . . . . Human economic, social and political relationships create moral values.’ . . .


According to Albury, ‘Material conditions of life change, and so do moral values.’ This means that, to a Marxist, the unborn baby may be a human being for a time, but may then become depersonified and rendered 'pre-human,' all because his or her mother began to think differently about him or her. She adds: ‘Certainly, many women experience mixed feelings; the fantasy baby may even appear for a while. Women can tell it goodbye forever.’” The article concludes with this comment by Dr. John Whitehall: “The inhumanity of communism resides in this arbitrary assessment of human life, which is based on the Marxist valuation of certain social relationships. On this basis, millions have been told 'goodbye'--from the purges of Russia , to the genocide in Cambodia , to the killings in the Philippines , and now to the unborn baby.” I can only agree with Dr. Whitehall’s comment and add that it is amazing that anyone, especially libertarians, would cling to anything associated with Marx’s thoroughly discredited theories. We have already had too many innocent lives needlessly sacrificed for the addle-brained utopian scheme of a classless worker’s paradise; we don’t need to add any more.

Marxism and Abortion

By Editorial Staff

Published November 1988
A recent article in The Tribune,
the official newspaper of the Communist Party of Australia, expounded upon the Marxist view of abortion, adding new understanding to the international debate over the rights of the unborn.
“Human Life and Fetal Images,” an essay by Rebecca Albury, appeared in the Australian publication on August 10 of this year. Albury made the following statements about the
teachings of Karl Marx and their relationship to the unborn:

  • A Marxist believes that personality and human value are imparted by the external and economic environment, not by any inherent spiritual value, or even by biological processes.
  • The fetus, according to a Marxist, becomes a person when he is judged as such by “someone of higher wisdom.” The humanity of the fetus depends upon how the mother perceives the “social relationship” that exists between them. If the mother desires to keep the baby, then she “fantasizes” it into becoming a human being. But, if she does not want the pregnancy, “it is something else entirely.” Her opinion of the fetus thereby denies it of personhood.
  • “Biological processes,” says Albury, “do not carry automatic moral values as the Right to Life suggests … Human economic, social, and political relationships create moral values.”
  • According to Albury, “Material conditions of life change, and so do moral values.” This means that, to a Marxist, the unborn baby may be a human being for a time, but may then become depersonified and rendered ‘pre-human,’ all because his or her mother began to think differently about him or her. She adds: “Certainly, many women experience mixed feelings; the fantasy baby may even appear for a while. Women can tell it goodbye forever.”


Dr. John Whitehall, who reported these statements to the Christian Anti-Communism Crusade in his article “Marx and the Unborn Baby,” (September 15, 1988), commented on Albury’s conclusions by saying, “The inhumanity of communism resides in this arbitrary assessment of human life, which is based on the Marxist valuation of certain social relationships. On this basis, millions have been told ‘goodbye’ – from the purges of Russia, to the genocide in Cambodia, to the killings in the Philippines, and now to the unborn baby.”  




Abortion considered a "major cause" of infertility in women


MOSCOW, October 21, 2002 ( - About 60 percent of all pregnancies in Russia end in abortion, according to Vladimir Kulakov, head of Russia's Scientific Centre for Obstetrics and Gynecology. Only Romania has more abortions per capita.

In addition, about 6 million Russian women are infertile (out of 38 million females who are of child-bearing age), and medical authorities consider abortion to be a "major cause" of infertility, Kulakov said. The number of infertile women is set to increase, as at least one in 10 abortions in Russia is performed on a teenage girl.

News reports are saying that the 1991 abolition of the U.S.S.R. (following the 1989 collapse of the Berlin Wall) led to "disintegration of the Soviet-era state health care system" - supposedly "a key factor behind Russia's population decline."

But this is naive reporting.
It well known that Soviet Communism encouraged abortion as a badge of women's liberation under Marxism-Leninism, and that the health care system was far beneath Western standards well before the collapse of communism. The Soviet Union was the first nation to legalize abortion in 1921.




In the report below, my editorial comment is in (red). - Gary L. Morella


Worldwide Abortion Legislation

by Wm. Robert Johnston
last updated 13 August 2005


Summary of prevelance of abortion policies


abortion policy

number of

number of

total population

of world

largest countries in category

abortion on demand, sometimes mandatory





PR China, North Korea, Vietnam (All communist)

abortion on demand





Canada, France, Germany, Italy, South Korea, United States, Russia, South Africa, Turkey, Ukraine

abortion for economic/social reasons and in hard cases*





India, Japan, Mexico, United Kingdom

abortion in some or all hard cases*





Algeria, Argentina, Brazil, Ethiopia, Kenya, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Poland, Spain, Sudan, Tanzania, Thailand

abortion only to save mother's life or banned altogether





Bangladesh, Columbia, Congo, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Myanmar, Philippines






East Timor

(unpopulated territories)






(world totals)






* hard cases include to protect the mother's physical or mental health, in cases of rape or incest, or to eliminate unhealthy babies.

As summarized above, about one-fifth of the world's population lives where abortion is allowed only to save the mother's life (or banned completely), one-fifth where abortion is permitted only in some "hard" cases, one-fifth where it is allowed for broad economic or social reasons, one-fifth where it is available on demand, and one-fifth where it may be forced upon mothers.


According to United Nations data for 2001, three countries ban abortion under all circumstances: El Salvador, Malta, and the Vatican City. This is down from 16 countries in 1994 and 4 in 1999 (although 10 of the 16 listed for 1994 made exceptions in various circumstances; Chile was listed in 1999 but in 2001 is counted as making exceptions in some circumstances).


Of 193 countries examined, 3 ban abortion in all circumstances and 59 officially permit abortion only to save the life of the mother. Officially, 122 countries allow abortion to protect the physical health of the mother, 120 to protect the mother's mental health, 83 in cases of rape or incest, and 76 to eliminate an unhealthy child. Eleven countries allow abortion for economic or social reasons (besides those allowing abortion on demand): Barbados, Belize, Fiji, Finland, Iceland, India, Japan, Luxembourg, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, the United Kingdom, and Zambia.


The United States is among 53 countries that allow abortion on demand, up from 42 in 1994. (Note that some of these countries may still place some restrictions, such as when during pregnancy abortions may be performed.) It is joined in the western hemisphere by Canada, Cuba, and Guyana. Ten countries in Western and Southern Europe do the same: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden. This permissive stance on abortion is retained from the era of communism by the 15 former Soviet states (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan) and 11 nations of Eastern Europe: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Yugoslavia. Asian nations still under communist rule do the same: Cambodia, PR China, Mongolia, North Korea, and Vietnam. The remaining nations allowing abortion on demand include Bahrain, Singapore, and Turkey in Asia; Cape Verde, Tunisia, South Africa in Africa, and Australia.


Three countries are reported as enforcing mandatory abortions in some circumstances. The People's Republic of China has been recognized as forcing mandatory abortions to enforce its "one child" policy. While the PRC government claims to have recently reformed the policy to eliminate such occurences, reports persist of forced abortions by local authorities. Early in 2003 the PRC placed official restrictions on abortions for sex selection. In Vietnam there are also reports of mandatory abortions in conjuntion with regulations on childbearing. North Korea is reported to force abortions for pregnant Korean women repatriated from abroad.


The greatest regional consistency in restricting abortion is in Central and South America. (This is due to traditional Catholic influence.)  Several of these countries make exceptions to save the life of the mother and in the case of rape and incest--but not for the physical and mental health of the mother. In general, many bans on abortion are regularly circumvented in the courts and can also be avoided by traveling abroad--a common practice in Europe.



Marxism's Influence in the U.S. Today


As the New York Times and its west-coast sister the Los Angeles Times have duly noted-with prominent feature stories-this year is the 150th anniversary of publication of Marx and Engels' The Communist Manifesto. Both newspapers celebrated the event by pointing out the brilliance of its authors saying their work today "emerges ever more distinctly as an unsurpassed dramatic representation, diagnosis and prophetic array of visionary judgments on the modern world." Neither, however, noted the millions of deaths, the prison gulags or the appalling suffering inflicted as true believers of Marxism attempted to impose the teachings of the manifesto on mankind.


Jesuit theologian Father John A. Hardon, author of the popular Modern Catholic Dictionary, has taught graduate courses on Marxism and lectured on the subject widely-on several occasions in Moscow. Following is an abridged version of one such lecture delivered in Chicago, April 4th at the Cardinal Mindszenty Foundation regional conference where, on a personal note, he revealed that members of his own family had died under Communism in the profession of their Catholic faith.


As we come to the close of the twentieth century, we are seeing the gravest crisis in the history of Christianity. In my judgment, at the center of this crisis is the deep penetration of Marxism into our beloved country. I believe we can say even more. Our country is a Marxist nation. Dare I say still more? The United States of America is the most powerful Marxist country in the world.


This thesis deserves not just another lecture or even just a class semester. It should be the bedrock of our understanding of what the Vicar of Christ is telling us. In order to do justice to the subject, however, we have to answer the question "What is Marxism?" And to do that we must identify what I consider the fifteen principle marks of Marxism which might compare with the four marks of the Church founded by Christ. Marxism is a godless religion in which its leaders believe, shall I say, with a faith comparable to that of believing Christians.


The best single source to understand Marxism is The Communist Manifesto. The best single analysis of Marxism is the encyclical On Atheistic Communism by Pope Pius XI in which he identifies Marxism as a "Utopian Messianism." From these two sources we can examine the fifteen principle marks of Marxism:


1. Messianic Ideal. According to Karl Marx, mankind should look forward to the attainment of a Messianic society in this world, which is the highest ideal toward which the human race can tend. The attainment of such a society presumes man's perfectibility, and is based on the belief that the human desire for happiness will be fulfilled on earth in some future period of history.


2. Equality and Fraternity. This idyllic society will be distinguished by the practice of perfect equality and fraternity among its members, the last stage in a series of five stages of human development, reflecting the original state of man in a tribal and communitarian society, namely slavery, feudalism, capitalism, socialism and communism. In the first three of these stages, men exploit one another, in the fourth (socialism) they are passing through an interval of adjustment; and in the fifth (communism) the classless society is achieved.


3. Economic Progress Through Marxism. It is no longer a merely speculative position but an established fact that a Marxist philosophy succeed where others have failed.


4. Dialectical and Historical Materialism. Marxism is founded on two kinds of materialism which claims there exists only one reality: matter. It is dialectical because through the interaction of opposing material forces all apparently higher forms of being evolve-first life, then sentient beings and finally man. It is historical because now that man exists, human history follows the same evolving pattern towards higher perfection, but uniquely through the interaction of material (economic) forces of society.


5. Accelerating Progress Through Conflict. Consistent with its stress on dialectics, Marxism holds that the progress of humanity towards its predicted goal is accelerated by human conflict. Hence the role of revolution is a necessary means of fostering social development and the importance of sharpening existing antagonisms can be stimulated between various classes of society.


6. Marxist Deviation. There is only one "grave sin" in Marxist morality and it is committed by those who deviate from the ideal of relentless revolution.


7. Primacy of Groups. The individual in a Marxian society surrenders his personal rights in favor of the group after long indoctrination, convinced that part of the contribution toward a classless commonwealth is complete sacrifice of his own personality.


8. Equality Among People. Marxism holds that only absolute equality is legitimate. It rejects all civil and ecclesiastical authority and denies any innate authority of parents over their children.


9. Denial of All Property Rights. The Communist Manifesto states that "The theory of Communism may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property." In Marxian ethics no individual should be granted any rights over material goods or the means of production because history has shown private property is the universal source of further wealth. Personal possession gives one man power over another, the origin of every economic enslavement.


10. The Artificial Institutions of Marriage and the Family. Marxism denies any sacred or spiritual character to human life beyond the merely economic. Thus, there are no moral bonds of marriage, only such privileges as the collectivity may see fit to grant persons to mate and procreate. An indissoluble marriage bond may be humored by the state, but has no inherent rights before the civil law.


11. Economics, the Basis of Society. In a Marxist scheme of society economics is the fundamental law of human existence, not freedom, or human rights, or a divinely established moral order. Greater production of material goods, more efficiently and in a collectivized manner, must be given precedence over everything else.


12. The Collectivity Controls the Individual. Six of the ten principle "measures" of The Communist Manifesto affirm how completely Marxism sees the individual as a tool in the hands of the state: abolition of property in land, all rights of inheritance, centralized credit in the hands of the State; centralization of the means of transport, establishment of industrial armies, especially in agriculture. State totalitarianism could not be more complete.


13. Disappearance of the State. According to Marxist predictions, this tyrannical enslavement to the State is the necessary radical surgery which must be performed on society in order to give birth to a new society. By means of the Marxist revolution, the proletariat will be abolished. in place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonism, we shall have an association in which all conflicts are gone.

Women's Rights and Education
in the Marxist Scheme


Each of these marks of a Marxist society as they apply to the United States today could be developed into a separate lecture or even a class semester for study. But, to do some justice to such a gigantic subject, let me choose the last two of my fifteen hallmarks of Marxism to see how deeply they have penetrated American society.


14. Emancipation of Women. Marxism is especially characterized by its rejection of any link that binds woman to the family and the home. Women's emancipation is proclaimed as a cardinal principle of the socialist interim that will usher in the classless society of the future. Women are to be first encouraged and then, if need be, compelled to withdraw from the family and the care of children. These are regularly stigmatized "bourgeois" activities. Liberated from household chores and the rearing of a family through thousands of childcare centers, women are to be thrust instead into public life and collective production under the same conditions as men.


Also known as women's liberation, the emancipation of women has become a major revolution in the United States. Its avowed purpose is to free women from the discrimination to which they have been subject in civil society and in political legislation. It argues from a massive discrimination of women by men, and urges women to revolt against men. The best known proponent of this ideology was Nikolai Lenin, a disciple of Karl Marx, who urged that "The success of a revolution depends upon the degree of participation by women." On these terms, women's liberation is simply part of the larger struggle for the eventual creation of a classless society.


The range of women's liberation in our country is as broad as American geography and as deep as our present-day American culture. Perhaps the best way to see how widely feminism has penetrated our society is to quote some typical statements of feminists who call themselves Catholic but have been seduced by Marxism.


-Bearing and raising one's children have very little to do with shaping the future and still less with finding one's own identity. On the contrary, as the same range of potential ability exists for women as for men, the problem of finding their identity is precisely the same-it lies in their work outside the home ... to find herself, to know herself as a person is creative work of her own outside the home.


-Women are not to find ways to use their full capacities and work creatively within the structure set by marriage and motherhood. It is marriage and motherhood which must be adapted to the structure of one's work life.


-Although the new wave of feminist theology is only twenty years old, it has already developed a broad base of critical scriptural studies, revisionist church history, historical systematic theology, as well as work in ethics and pastoral psychology, upon which to base a comprehensive rethinking of tradition.


-of particular importance is the patriarchal bias of Scripture. It is one thing to critique the tradition as flawed, but on what basis can one speak of Scripture as distorted by sexist bias and still regarded as an authoritative source of revelation?


-Women have opted to seek an egalitarian society that existed before the rise of patriarchy and that ancient religions centered in the Goddess reflect this pre-patriarchal society... They believe, in the groups of persecuted Christianity, such as medieval witches, which Christian inquisitors falsely described as "devil worshipper " Thus these women see themselves as reviving an ancient feminist religion.


Thus the litany of feminist quotations could go on for literally hundreds of volumes that are currently in print. What has been the result in the United States? Inclusive language in the liturgy is only a minor effect of Marxist feminism which has penetrated the Catholic Church. In one diocese after another, women-I dare say-are in charge. One of the most devastating effects of this radical feminism has been the breakdown of literally tens of thousands of once dedicated women who decide they were sick and tired of being dominated by a male hierarchy, especially by a male Bishop of Rome.


It is no wonder that Pope John Paul II urged American bishops to combat what he termed a "bitter, ideological" feminism among some American Catholic women, which he said has led to "forms of nature worship and the celebration of myths and symbols" usurping the practice and celebration of the Christian faith. The ordination of women to the priesthood is infallibly excluded by the Catholic faith. Yet it is being widely promoted in some high, professedly Catholic circles, evidence of the Marxist mentality in our country.


15. Denial of Parental Rights in Education. Correlative with the function of women as robots (Russian for "work"), the Marxist collectivity assumes total responsibility for the education and training of children. The euphemistic statement in The Communist Manifesto, "Free education for all children in public schools." has been implemented to mean that the state alone has the right to educate. In practice, this has further meant that the State, and not the parents, has the exclusive prerogative to determine who shall teach, under what curriculum, with what textbooks, and how the matter is communicated.


Some years ago, I had the privilege of publishing a thirty-page Statement of Principles and Policy on Atheistic Education in Soviet Russia. The opening paragraph of this document stated:


The Soviet school, as an instrument for the Communist education of the rising generation can, as a matter of principle, take up no other attitude towards religion than one of irreconcilable opposition, for Communist education has as its philosophical basis Marxism, and Marxism is irreconcilably hostile to religion. "Marxism is materialism, " says V.I. Lenin, "as such, it is as relentlessly hostile to religion as the materialism of the Encyclopaedists of the eighteenth century or the materialism of Feuerbach."


How has this philosophy penetrated the United States? So deeply that most Americans have only the faintest idea of what is going on in our schools.

William Foster, former American chairman of the Communist Party, wrote in Toward a Soviet America that he wanted the "cultural revolution" to be advanced under the aegis of a national department of education. That is exactly what the National Education Association lobbied for during the 1976 presidential campaign, and a Department of Education is exactly what the American president gave the union in gratitude for its support.


Foster wrote that the Department of Education should be "revolutionized, cleansed of religious, patriotic and other features of the bourgeois ideology. The students will be taught on the basis of Marxian dialectical materialism, internationalism, and the general ethics of the new Socialist society."

What happened to parents' rights to educate their children? In less than a quarter century these rights have been lost by most parents in the United States. Most of the once Catholic schools in America have been closed or secularized. Parents who courageously teach their children at home are being subjected to inhuman pressures, not only by the State but by Church authorities.


Some time ago, I was asked by Rome to write a series of articles on John Dewey, the atheistic genius who is commonly regarded as the father of American education. According to Dewey, the idea of "God" represents a unification of ideal values that are essentially imaginative. In other words, God does not exist, except as a projection of our imagination.


That is why religion, which believes in the existence of a personal God, is excluded by American law from public schools. That is also why Catholic schools in our country have been deprived of any support from taxpayer dollars. According to Dewey, it is a mistake to think that in the United States we have a separation of Church and State. No, says Dewey, in America we have the subordination of Church to State. On these premises, what is left of parents' rights in the education of their children? Nothing, except what a Marxist government allows the parents to teach.

A Reminder to Professed Christians


In light of what we have examined here, can anyone doubt that the United States has been deeply infected by Marxism, so clever that most citizens do not even realize it? I would like to offer some hope, however, by paraphrasing what Pope Pius XI told us in his classic encyclical on Communism, Divini Redemptoris:


He was speaking to professed Christians, specifically, he was addressing "those of our children who are more or less tainted with the Communist plague. We earnestly exhort them to hear the voice of their loving Father. We pray the Lord to enlighten them that they may abandon the slippery path which will precipitate one and all to ruin and catastrophe. We pray that they may recognize that Jesus Christ our Lord is their only Savior, for there is no other name in heaven given to man whereby we must be saved."'


I join my prayer with that of the Bishop of Rome, that Jesus save our beloved country, which has become so deeply infected by the plague of Marxism.

-John A. Hardon, S.J.
Inter Mirifica
, Michigan


Communism's 100 Million Victims
However, this EXCLUDES Abortions




Communism's 100 Million Victims


A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic

- Joseph Stalin


This year's $200 million blockbuster motion picture Titanic tells a tragic story of the world's largest ship, which struck an iceberg on April 15, 1912 and within two hours split in half and plunged to its watery grave in the Atlantic Ocean. A total of 1,517 passengers died in that disaster, the great majority of them ship crewmembers.


Using dramatic license, however, director James Cameron chose to depict the loss of lives in terms of class conflict - rich vs. poor - telling the New York Times (Dec. 19) "We're holding just short of Marxist dogma." (Cameron even cast, in the film's pivotal role as a 101-year-old Titanic survivor, an 87-year-old actress who had been active in Hollywood politics in the 1930's and refused to appear before a Congressional committee investigating Communist influence in the movies.)


While most of the main characters in Cameron's astonishingly crafted film are either downright hoity-toity or sweetly proletarian, at least when the great ship begins its final death plummet the movie rises above agitprop. Unlike Comrade Joe Stalin's cynical observation about tragedies and statistics, each life lost in the ensuing huge disaster matters, as it should.


Only five years after the Titanic catastrophe, in November 1917, the world would witness the beginning of the greatest willful mass exterminations of life in human history. The tip of the iceberg looming on the horizon at the time was the Bolshevik Revolution in Czarist Russia. And today the damage it inflicted on mankind has finally been properly assessed.

The Black Book on Communism


In France, an 846-page academic study compiled by six distinguished historians has become a runaway best-seller with 70,000 copies purchased in four weeks and a second printing underway. Not available in the U.S at this time, the book is titled Le Livre Noir du Communism (The Black Book on Communism) and it has been the subject of heated exchange in the French Parliament. In addition, articles about it have appeared in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the International Herald Tribune and Commentary monthly for January 1998.


Published on Nov. 8, 1997 - the 80th anniversary of the start of the Russian Revolution - one of its authors, Stephane Courtois of the National Center for Scientific Research, is a self-proclaimed leftist and former Maoist. In his introduction he insists that we can no longer distinguish any conventional difference between Communism and Nazism. As Tony Judt, director of the Remarque Institute at New York University, points out, Courtois notes "those very features of Nazism that we find most repellent have now been proved endemic to Communism from its inception ... mass crimes, systematic crimes, crimes against humanity marked both systems in equal measure."


"The archives and numerous witnesses confirm," says Courtois, "that terror was from the outset a basic feature of modern Communism," where concentration camps, forced labor and terror were elevated to a system of government. Mass murders were not the accidental byproduct of misguided policies but the outcome of willful, sometimes genocidal calculation and intent, adds Tony Judt.


Alain Besancon, the eminent French historian, made a similar point in his inaugural lecture to the French Academy (text appearing in the December 1997 issue of Commentaire). Speaking of The Black Book on Communism, Besancon asked "how is it that, today, the two systems are treated so unequally in historical memory, to the point where one of them, Soviet Communism, though a still-recent presence on the world scene, has already been all but forgotten?"


Where Nazism's crimes affected 25 million, Communist regimes have committed crimes affecting 100 million. Described as the first global balance sheet on Communism, here is how The Black Book of Communism breaks down that figure:


China: 72 million, Soviet Union 20 million, Cambodia 2.3 million, North Korea 2 million, Africa 1.7 million, Afghanistan 1.5 million, Vietnam 1 million, Eastern Europe 1 million, Latin America 150,000.


All these millions of Communism's victims were fathers and mothers, aunts and uncles, grandparents, children or other special loved-ones. Every death was a tragedy, not a statistic. Yet, unlike the world's proper remembrance of the victims of Nazism, little is said today about the fate of Communism's victims.


As Tony Judt comments: "From the point of view of the exiled, humiliated, tortured, maimed or murdered victims, it's all the same. in the sorry story of our century, Communism and Nazism are, and always were, morally indistinguishable. That lesson alone took too long to learn, and it justifies a complete recasting and rewriting of the history of our times."

Cardinal Mindszenty's Historic Role


One man whose life bridged the two tyrannies of Nazism and Communism was born in the village of Csehimindszenty on the western bank of the Danube in 1892. Joseph Pehm was the son of Janos Pehm, a peasant but a bold, devout man who rebelled against the county's petty potentates. With his two sisters, Joseph lived in his father's one-story house built of sun-baked brick and farmed the family's 20-acres. When he decided to become a priest, fellow seminarians joked about his country ways and his intense, unsmiling manner. He was however, all admitted, a brilliant student.


From this humble beginning, who would have dreamed in February 14, 1949 the face of the peasant's son would appear on the cover of Time magazine, one of the western world's most respected publication? Or, that the occasion was Joseph Mindszenty's trial for treason against the Communist Hungarian state?


Only three years prior, said Time, he had hurried into the Vatican where Pope Pius XII "placed the flat red cardinal's hat on the head of the peasant-born" prelate, pronouncing: "Receive this red hat, the sign of unequaled dignity of the cardinalate, by which it is declared that thou shouldst show thyself intrepid even to death by the shedding of thy blood, for the exaltation of the blessed faith..."


The priest - then an archbishop - was to become the most outspoken Catholic official occupying the front battle line against encroaching Communist occupation of Eastern Europe. But, even before that, he was known as "a tough fellow to get into trouble with" according to Hungarian Finance Minister Janos Bud. Here is what Time reported:


When the Nazis occupied Hungary, tough Father Joseph Pehm dropped his German name and took a Hungarian one, derived from his native village. Mindszenty's opposition to the Nazis made him a national figure as he preached against the Nazis' "new paganism." Ten days after the Germans took over, Joseph Mindszenty was named bishop of Veszprem. In his graceful rococo palace, Bishop Mindszenty hid many Jews who were being persecuted by the Nazis. Last week, a witness spoke up - but not in the Communists' Budapest courtroom. She was Mrs. Janos Peter, a Hungarian Jew who had escaped from Auschwitz concentration camp. She now lives in Vienna.


"I was advised to flee Veszprem," she related. "I put myself under the protection of Bishop Mindszenty. He received me warmly and hid me in the cellar of his palace. At least 25 people were there. Mindszenty brought food for us. He came to us several times a day and comforted us with apostolic words."


The Hungarian Nazis finally arrested Mindszenty. Every Hungarian knows the story of how he walked to prison in his full robes, blessing the people as he went. When the Nazis took over his palace, they found stores of clothing he had collected for the poor. On this fact the Reds now base a charge that Mindszenty was arrested for hoarding 1,500 pieces of underwear.


For five months, the Nazis kept Mindszenty in Sopron-Kohila prison. When the Russians came they opened the jails to all political prisoners. Mindszenty hitchhiked back to Veszprem.

Iron Curtain Descends


Freed from Nazi domination, the Communist Iron Curtain rapidly descended on Eastern Europe and Mindszenty's Hungary. The church knew, said Time in its cover story of the then jailed Cardinal, "it was entering a fateful struggle in Hungary. Mindszenty was inexperienced, with little knowledge of the world or of diplomacy. He had, however, two assets that must have recommended him to the Vatican: 1) an anti-Nazi record so clear that the Communists could not besmirch it, and 2) extraordinary strength of character."


In many ways, the Prince-Primate lived like a parish priest - said Time - in his vast, gloomy residence, he used only a dining room and a bed-sitting room (never heated) where he received visitors. Only one hot meat a day was set before the Primate. On Fridays, he ate only bread and water as a sacrifice for Hungary's liberation from Communism.


As in his village days, he kept a cow which his mother had sent him. Since he no longer had a gardener, he worked in the palace gardens, where chickens now scratched among the once meticulously trimmed greenery. One day a delegation came to ask him to contribute to a charity. "I have no money here," said Mindszenty. "Take the rug." The surprised delegation walked out carrying an oriental rug.


Not to be intimidated, one day as he was riding through Budapest followed by several other priests, the car bearing his entourage was stoned by Communists. Mindszenty immediately stopped his own car and approached the Red mob. "I am the Church," he shouted to them. "If you want something of the Church, stone me!"


Time explained what it saw as Mindszenty's dilemma as follows:


The Communist state is the instrument of a church: the secular church of international Communism. It teaches a system of ethics directly opposed to Mindszenty's. It actively seeks to turn as many men as it can away from God. It uses the full force of its police power, its educational system and its socialized economy to make its converts and to destroy its religious rivals. In the struggle in which Mindszenty found himself there was no logical line between church and state.


The Cardinal did not fight the Communists' so-called land reform, even though it cost the Hungarian church almost nine-tenths of its holdings used for various charitable and health programs. He made his great stand when the Communists started their drive to nationalize Hungary's schools and make them tools of Communist propaganda. When Hungary's Parliament formally passed the nationalization bill, the Cardinal ordered church bells throughout the nation to toll as a sign of sorrow and alarm.


"The wolf has more security in the forest than a honest Christian in the Communist Hungarian state," Mindszenty declared in refusing to accept safe conduct out of the country in a effort by authorities to silence him. "God has ordained my fate," he added, "and I give myself into His hands." One day after Christmas 1948 the Communist police came to arrest Mindszenty. In prison he was beaten daily and ordered to confess to crimes against the state. He refused and was truncheoned even more severely.


At one point, his interrogators threatened to bring his beloved mother to the jail and force her to watch as they stripped him and wielded their rubber clubs against his body, lashing him like a horse in training. In his Memoirs Cardinal Mindszenty wrote: "An anxiety I had never felt before now began to oppress me. I was frightened for the Church and trembled for all those others who might be dragged down into misery because of my 'affair.' This pathological feeling of anxiety was in all probability the effect of drugs. With medical means the police succeeded in producing an intense dread that more and more dominated my acts and decisions."


In the end, Time wrote: "The Communists issued a 'Yellow Book', containing what they called Mindszenty's written confession. It included passages of almost childishly eager self-accusations very reminiscent of the style of the Moscow purge trials, and bearing no relation to the character of Joseph Mindszenty."

Witness For 100 Million


Cardinal Mindszenty's story did not end with his mock trial. He was freed from his prison cell by the Hungarian Freedom Fighters in 1956 and then witnessed the Soviet invasion which crushed the brief revolt and his liberators as well. Granted asylum in the American embassy in Budapest, he remained a thorn in the Communists' side until in 1971 he reluctantly obeyed the Vatican's order to leave Hungary for good. And from that day until his death he traveled the world visiting and comforting his fellow exiles from Communist tyranny.


In a thoughtful essay in the January 1998 issue of the American Jewish Committee's Commentary entitled "Forgotten Communism," historian Alain Besancon notes that "the deeds done in the name of Communism open an abyss no less deep" than those done under Nazism. It would be "a vast shame if we were to bequeath our own falsified notions to the century now coming upon us," he adds, by ignoring the enormity of the crimes of Communism.


To the 100 million victims now numbered by The Black Book of Communism, Cardinal Joseph Mindszenty exemplifies the most striking religious witness to the evils of atheistic Communism. His strength and valor in opposing Communism should be honored and remembered as we now venerate St. Maximilian Kolbe and Blessed Edith Stein, Catholic saints of the of Nazi Holocaust.



The following news was forwarded to me by Dr. Frank Joseph, M.D., who is a stalwart pro-life Catholic activist from Los Angeles, California.  - Gary Morella

Obama Will ‘End 30 Years of Ultra-Right Rule,’ Communist Paper Says

August 11, 2008

By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer

( – The Communist Party USA’s newspaper is defending Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama against potential defectors on the left, saying his candidacy represents a “broad multi-class, multicultural movement.”

In a July editorial, “Eye on the Prize,” the People’s Weekly World, the official newspaper of the Communist Party USA, admonished anyone on the left who might consider abandoning Obama.

“Barack Obama is not a left candidate,” the editorial said. “This fact has seemingly surprised a number of progressive people who are bemoaning Obama’s ‘shift to the center.’ It’s sad that some who seek progressive change are missing the forest for the trees.

“But they will not dampen the wide and deep enthusiasm for blocking a third Bush term represented by John McCain, or for bringing Obama by a landslide into the White House with a large Democratic congressional majority,” it added.

The editorial, though never using the word “endorse,” expressed excitement about his candidacy. It also used numerous slogans from the Obama campaign such as “hope,” “change” and “third Bush term.”

“The struggle to defeat the ultra-right and turn our country on a positive path will not end with Obama’s election,” the editorial said. “But that step will shift the ground for successful struggles going forward.

“One thing is clear. None of the people’s struggles — from peace to universal health care to an economy that puts Main Street before Wall Street — will advance if McCain wins in November. Let’s keep our eyes on the prize,” it added.

People’s Weekly World Editor Teresa Albano had little to say on the subject.

“I think the editorial speaks for itself,” Albano told “It was not an endorsement, and I have no further comment.”

The communist newspaper said a broad coalition is backing “Obama’s ‘Hope, change and unity’ campaign because they see in it the thrilling opportunity to end 30 years of ultra-right rule and move our nation forward with a broadly progressive agenda.”

“At the core are America’s working families, of all hues and ethnicities, whose determination to move forward does not depend on, and will not be diverted by, the daily twists and turns of this watershed presidential campaign. They are taking the long view,” the editorial said.

The paper praised organized labor for stepping up to the plate.

“If Obama’s candidacy represented nothing more than the spark for this profound initiative to unite the working class and defeat the pernicious influence of racism, it would be a transformative candidacy that would advance progressive politics for the long term,” the editorial said.

The People’s Weekly World was founded in 1924 and was first called The Daily Worker.

The Communist Party USA Web site says that the party does not endorse any particular candidate but does “endorse and join in the anti-Bush/anti-right wing sentiments that are driving so many people to activism.”

“The Communist Party USA views the 2008 elections as a tremendous opportunity to defeat the policies of the right-wing Republicans and to move our country in a new progressive direction,” the party’s Web site says. “We will work with others to defeat the Republican nominee and to end right-wing control of the new Congress.”



Obama's Radical Roots And Rules



August 14, 2008 4


Election '08: Most Americans revile socialism, yet Barack Obama's poll numbers remain competitive. One explanation: He's a longtime disciple of a man whose mission was to teach radicals to disguise their ideology.


The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee's choice of the word "change" as his campaign's central slogan is not the product of focus-group studies, or the brainstorming sessions of his political consultants.
One of Obama's main inspirations was a man dedicated to revolutionary change that he was convinced "must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, nonchallenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future."

Saul Alinsky, circa 1946: Like Obama, he wanted "change."


Sen. Obama was trained by Chicago's Industrial Areas Foundation, founded in 1940 by the radical organizer Saul Alinsky. In the 1980s, Obama spent years as director of the Developing Communities Project, which operated using Alinsky's strategies, and was involved with two other Alinsky-oriented entities, Acorn and Project Vote.
On the Obama campaign Web site can be found a photo of him teaching in a University of Chicago classroom with "Power Analysis" and "Relationships Built on Self Interest" written on the blackboard — key terms utilized in the Alinsky method.
The far-left Alinsky had no time for liberalism or liberals, declaring that "a liberal is (someone) who puts his foot down firmly on thin air." He wanted nothing less than transformational radicalism. "America was begun by its radicals," he wrote. "America was built by its radicals. The hope and future of America lies with its radicals." And so, "This is the job for today's radical — to fan the embers of hopelessness into a flame to fight. To say, '. . . let us change it together!' "
Alinsky students ranged "from militant Indians to Chicanos to Puerto Ricans to blacks from all parts of the black power spectrum, from Panthers to radical philosophers, from a variety of campus activists, S.D.S. and others, to a priest who was joining a revolutionary party in South America."
Capitalism always was considered the enemy. "America's corporations are a spiritual slum," he wrote, "and their arrogance is the major threat to our future as a free society." Is it surprising that an Alinsky disciple such as Obama can promise so blithely to increase taxes on CEOs?
Obama calls his years as an Alinskyesque community organizer in Chicago "the best education I ever had, and where I learned the true meaning of my Christian faith." But as radicalism expert Richard Lawrence Poe has noted, "Camouflage is key to Alinsky-style organizing. In organizing coalitions of black churches in Chicago, Obama caught flak for not attending church himself. He became an instant churchgoer."
Indeed, Alinsky believed in sacrificing ethics and morals for the great cause. "Ethical standards must be elastic to stretch with the times," Alinsky wrote in his last book, "Rules for Radicals," adding that "all values are relative in a world of political relativity."
Published a year before Alinsky's death in 1972, "Rules for Radicals" includes a dedication in which he gives "an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical . . . who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer."
Alinsky's writings even explain what often seems like Obama's oversized ego. In New Hampshire in January, for example, the senator told an audience that "a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany . . . and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Obama."
It was a bizarre spectacle, but consider that Alinsky believed that "anyone who is working against the haves is always facing odds, and in many cases heavy odds. If he or she does not have that complete self-confidence (or call it ego) that he can win, then the battle is lost before it is even begun."
According to Alinsky, "Ego must be so all-pervading that the personality of the organizer is contagious, that it converts the people from despair to defiance, creating a mass ego."
Alinsky also readily admitted that he didn't trust the people themselves. "It is the schizophrenia of a free society that we outwardly espouse faith in the people but inwardly have strong doubts whether the people can be trusted," he wrote. "Seeking some meaning in life," the middle class, according to Alinsky, "turn to an extreme chauvinism and become defenders of the 'American' faith."
This is evocative of Obama's remark during the primaries that small-town Americans are "bitter" and "cling to guns or religion."
Obama is also following Alinsky's instructions to the hard left for attaining power in America. In the last chapter of "Rules for Radicals," titled "The Way Ahead," is found this declaration: "Activists and radicals, on and off our college campuses — people who are committed to change — must make a complete turnabout."
Alinsky noted that "our rebels have contemptuously rejected the values and way of life of the middle class. They have stigmatized it as materialistic, decadent, bourgeois, degenerate, imperialistic, war-mongering, brutalized and corrupt."
According to Alinsky, "They are right," but he cautioned his comrades that "the power and the people are in the big middle-class majority." Therefore, an effective radical activist "discards the rhetoric that always says 'pig' " in reference to police officers, plus other forms of disguise, "to radicalize parts of the middle class."
Obama's rhetorical window-dressing is easily recognizable as Alinskyesque camouflage. New annual spending of more than $340 billion, as estimated by the National Taxpayers Union, is merely a wish to "recast" the safety net woven by FDR and LBJ, as Obama describes it in his writings. The free market is disparaged as a "winner-take-all" economy. Big tax increases masquerade as "restoring fairness to the economy."
Barack Obama's "Change We Can Believe In" is simply socialism — imposed by stratagem because Americans have never believed in Marxist economics. Saul Alinsky understood this, and his ghost is alive and well — and threatening to haunt the White House.








August 13, 2008



Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey, Jr. will speak at the Democratic National Convention on August 26. His father, Bob Casey, was barred from speaking at the 1992 Democratic National Convention because he was pro-life.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue responded as follows:

“If a Democrat voted with the National Rifle Association two out of every three times, no one in his right mind would call that person an advocate of gun control. Yet Bob Casey, Jr., who has a NARAL voting record of 65 percent (click here)—meaning that he votes with the radical pro-abortion group two out of every three times—is somehow considered pro-life. Casey can mouth the virtues of pro-life all he wants, but at the end of the day what matters is his voting record.

“Casey’s father, contrary to the latest spin, was not denied the right to speak at the 1992 convention because he didn’t endorse Bill Clinton. As Bob Casey said at the time, California Treasurer Kathleen Brown (sister of Jerry Brown), was allowed to speak even though she endorsed her brother over Clinton. The difference was that Brown was pro-abortion.

“The Democrats—with the help of their friends in the media—will now use the Pennsylvania pro-abortion senator to sell the message that they have gotten beyond their anti-Catholic reputation. That reputation, which was played out in 1992 by delegates who wore anti-papal buttons at the convention, still sticks. If they are serious about reaching out to Catholics and jettisoning their anti-Catholic baggage once and for all, they can allow a prominent Catholic to speak in Denver who is truly pro-life. That should be an easy choice to make given the small pool of eligible candidates.”







Tuesday August 12, 2008





How Babies Were Left to Die: Nurse Recounts Horrors of Infanticide Practice Barack Obama Protected


 By John Jalsevac


August 12, 2008 ( - At the same time that the National Right to Life Committee has unearthed documents proving that Barack Obama repeatedly voted against a bill that would have protected children born alive after an attempted abortion, Illuminati Pictures has released a video of an interview with a nurse who witnessed the very practice that Obama protected while in the Illinois senate (See:  ).


Jill Stanek was a nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois in 1999 when she discovered that babies born alive after failed abortions purposely were being left to die in the "soiled utility room," which, says Stanek, is a room where biohazard materials and soiled linens are disposed of.


"That’s where nursing staff took these babies and left them to die."


Stanek went public with her traumatizing experiences when hospital staff refused to stop the practice of infanticide. In 2000 she was asked to testify before a U.S. House committee for the federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA). The BAIPA was a two-paragraph bill intended to clarify that any baby who is entirely expelled from his or her mother, and who shows any signs of life, is to be regarded as a legal "person" for all federal law purposes, whether or not the baby was born during an attempted abortion. version of this bill, almost identical to the federal bill, was eventually brought before the Illinois Senate, which is where Obama repeatedly opposed the measure.


"Christ hospital - and we now know other hospitals and clinics around the country - are involved in an abortion procedure called ‘induced labor abortion,’" says Stanek in the video, entitled "Kill and Destroy". In this type of abortion, she says, the abortionist inserts a medication into the birth canal of the mother and induces premature labor.


"My experience was that they [the babies] survive as short as a few minutes, to once, almost as long as an eight hour shift.


"To be clear these were living babies who were left out to die. And they were issued both birth and death certificates according to Illinois state law." 


Stanek relates the story of how one night she saw a nurse bringing a baby to the soiled utility room to die, because the parents of the child did not want to hold it. The other nurse also did not have the time to hold the child. "When she told me what she was doing I couldn’t bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone," says Stanek. "And so I cradled and rocked him for the forty-five minutes that he lived."


Stanek recounts how, besides testifying before the federal House, she also testified before an Illinois State Senate Committee, a Committee on which Barack Obama sat.


"Barack Obama," she says, "was unmoved, and actually opposed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act."


"This one guy, Barack Obama," she says, "thought that infanticide was acceptable and voted to protect it. Some people said that Barack Obama was uninformed or may not have fully understood the implications of this bill. But he voted against it three times. That’s calculated." former nurse of Christ Hospital also dispels the myth, propagated by Obama and his campaign, that Obama only voted against the bill because it did not include language clarifying that the bill would have no effect on legal abortion; this language was found in the federal version of the legislation.


However, observes Stanek, "As chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee in 2003, he stopped the identical wording from being introduced." This fact was confirmed recently by the National Right to Life Committee, which found and made public documents proving, beyond a doubt, that Obama voted against a version of the bill that included the abortion-protecting language. 


Illuminati Pictures’ video concludes with a dramatization of nurses leaving a newborn infant to die on a table in a darkened room.


"Barack Obama can play word games, but at the end of the day his opposition was responsible for living babies being left out to die, and that is indefensible," concludes Stanek.


To view the video "Kill and Destroy"


Obama Cover-up Revealed On Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Bill





Mainstream Media Mum on Revelation That Barack Obama Misled on Abortion


by Steven Ertelt Editor
August 13, 2008


Washington, DC ( – New documents show the excuse Barack Obama gave for opposing a bill that literally stops infanticides was a misrepresentation. But one media observer points out that the mainstream media hasn’t touched the new wrinkle in the story about the Born Alive Infants Protection Act.

As reported, documents uncovered by the National Right to Life Committee show Barack Obama apparently misled the public when he said he voted against the anti-infanticide bill because it may have impacted Roe v. Wade.

The documents from the Illinois legislature show that he voted for an amendment with the exact same language as a Congressional bill he said he supported that would have mitigated his concerns.

Yet, he ultimately voted against the legislation to give babies who survive botched abortions appropriate medical care and got enough of his colleagues to do the same that it died in a legislative committee.

While pro-life friendly media outlets and blogs across the Internet covered the revelations, columnist and media watchdog Warner Todd Huston writes on the NewsBusters blog that the mainstream media haven’t touched on Obama’s latest misstep.

He says media outlets were all over the story and even cited Chicago nurse Jill Stanek who uncovered the infanticides at a local hospital, but haven’t touched the NRLC report or Stanek’s comments on it.

"His claims have been a staple of Old Media reports from the beginning, but now that Stanek has revealed the truth we will have to see if the Old Media corrects the record or if they suddenly just go mum on the subject like they have so far," he writes.

"So we are forced to realize that Obama knows the truth but is trying to rewrite history and with the willing accomplices in the Old Media he has succeeded in doing so thus far," he explains.

"Now, this story is no matter of mere opinion. There is no possibility that Obama just has a different opinion on a controversial national issue than we do," Huston writes.

"What we have here is Obama simply telling a lie and knowingly doing so. Will the Old Media continue to cover up for him like they have done for the last four years?" he asks.

Printed from:





The following article appeared on the front page of the State College PA Centre Daily Times on August 14, 2008.  My response follows. -  Gary L. Morella


Anti-abortion Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania to be a featured speaker at Democratic convention

By KIMBERLY HEFLING , Associated Press


Last update: August 13, 2008 - 11:26 AM


WASHINGTON - Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, a Democrat who opposes abortion rights, will be a featured speaker at the party's national convention, officials said Wednesday.


Casey was set to speak during the convention's session Tuesday night, his office said. He is the son of the late Pennsylvania Gov. Robert P. Casey, who was not given a marquee speaking spot at the 1992 convention because of his anti-abortion views.


Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama supports abortion rights. Casey endorsed Obama over Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, also an abortion-rights supporter, and campaigned with Obama throughout Pennsylvania. Clinton trounced Obama in the primary but not by a big enough margin to thwart his bid for the nomination.


Casey said in a statement that he was honored to have the opportunity to speak. Neither he nor the Obama campaign indicated what would be the topic of his speech.


"Our country faces very grave economic, military and foreign policy challenges and many Americans of all political parties will vote for a change in November. Barack Obama is the only candidate who offers that change of direction we need," Casey said.


Craig Schirmer, Obama's Pennsylvania director, said in a statement that having Casey speak reflects Obama's desire to unify the party and country.


The proposed Democratic platform to be voted on by delegates has a plank for abortion rights that is stronger than usual. "The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right," it says.





“The proposed Democratic platform to be voted on by delegates has a plank for abortion rights that is stronger than usual. ‘The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade …’” (CDT 8/14/08). 


In steps “useful idiot” Bob Casey to speak at the Dem convention in an attempt to legitimize supporting Comrade Obama whose radical left Marxist socialist positions, to the extreme of seeing no problem with infanticide in not supporting “born alive infants acts,” make the Clintons seem like members of Mr. Rogers Neighborhood.  Casey, a purported Catholic, should be ashamed of de facto giving credence to the support of a candidate that sees nothing wrong with promoting the entirety of a “culture-of-eternal-death.”  This is counter to not only faith but also reason, which are married, not divorced.  No spin to the contrary can separate Obama from his resume.  We weren’t all born yesterday!


Simply put, without people, there are no other issues.  A party that supports the continued brutal killing of innocents in what should be their safest place of refuge, their mothers’ wombs, to the tune of over 45,000,000 and counting, does not deserve your support, Mr. Casey, but rather your unequivocal condemnation.  


Obama would leave us with nothing more than the “chump change” of a Marxist socialist state, making a mockery of the sacrifices of all those in our Armed Forces who fought and died throughout our country’s history.  As a Vietnam era Navy vet, I respectfully submit that we owe them more than that! 


Comrade Obama is antichrist material.  See

No Catholic Can Support the Twin Antichrists: Obama and Clinton

The Shameless Hypocrisy of the Inhuman Gramsci Disciple, Comrade Obama, Talking About Our 'Common Humanity'

'Catholic Support for Comrade Obama' is an Oxymoron

Even a Liberal Rag Like the NYT is Starting to See Through the Fraud That is Comrade Obama's 'Optimism Without Reality'




Four years under his rule would make this country formally a Godless Marxist Socialist State.  We’re talking full blown persecution here folks, because, IMO, Obama is a Communist.    America doesn’t have far to go in this regard anymore because America has abandoned God Who is giving America the leaders it deserves.  This is called a chastisement.


I'm as tired of voting for the lesser of two evils as everyone else is.  The reality of the situation is that there are demonstrable people who will listen on the other side for fear of going to hell while the Obama crowd has already reserved condos with the devil.  


You’re never going to have true Catholic voters until you have true Catholic bishops and priests, and more to the point, a true Catholic hierarchy.  THAT is the problem, and the prime reason that apostates like Casey can justify voting for a promoter of infanticide.   The apostates should have been long since excommunicated but Rome has repeatedly given them carte blanche to destroy the Church from within with impunity via orthodox directives, if they come, that are treated as dead-on-arrival.   The mess in America in regard to a Catholic vote is never going to get resolved until you have consistent orthodox Catholic catechesis from the pulpits, which means the complete restoration of the Tridentine Mass instead of a bastardization of same that is unrecognizable as Catholic.  


Lex credendi, lex orandi is more than just a pithy phrase.  We can talk all we want about whom to vote for but that will fall on deaf ears to generations of Catholics who have had the faith subtly stolen from them.   The laity can only do so much to try and educate the ignorant Catholic masses due to the consequence of ignorant masses in a liturgical sense.  If we don’t start seeing uncompromisingly Catholic bishops, this country is finished, as far as I’m concerned, and God will give us what we deserve for mocking Him as a matter of course.  This means abolishing one of the most worthless purported Catholic organizations in the country, i.e., the USCCB, and recognizing Vatican II for the problems that its liberal periti caused due to the built in ambiguities that were expressly designed to destroy the Church from within.  


And it all started with the suppression of the Tridentine Mass, which is why the solution to the problems in the Church MUST BEGIN with the restoration of that Holy Mass as THE primary form of worship in the Roman Rite.  If we had a Catholic Church in this country, we wouldn't be looking at the most dangerous candidates for president that this country has ever had, per my recollection, to include a bonafide antichrist and not much better as an alternative. 

Gary L. Morella