Archive | Uncategorized RSS feed for this section

Black Racism Killed Trayvon

23 Jul

Rachel Jeantel, the troubled young woman who was speaking on the phone to Trayvon Martin just before he was killed, testified in George Zimmerman’s second-degree murder trial that Martin called Zimmerman a “creepy a– cracka” before their violent confrontation.

 

I’ve been warning for the past 23 years that black racism is out-of-control – it appears black racism killed Trayvon Martin, and Paula Deen’s career!

 

Since the shooting of Martin, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and the NAACP (along with the liberal media) have done their best to portray Martin as an innocent kid tiptoeing through the tulips who just happened to be the victim of a racist white vigilante (even though Zimmerman is half Hispanic).

 

Blatant hostility and racism toward whites is common among black youth. Martin’s friend Rachel Jeantel admitted that where she comes from the term “cracka” is a common term used to describe whites.

 

Before his death, Martin was suspended from school; he was caught with a marijuana pipe; it was reported he had burglary tools in his locker; and it was recently revealed that pictures of marijuana plants and someone suspected to be Martin holding a gun were found on his cell phone. Does this sound like a well-adjusted teenager?

 

Trayvon Martin was the product of a broken home. He was also a victim of the corrupt civil-right leaders who peddle racism infecting the minds of young blacks. Martin’s parents (Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton) stood next to race hustlers and knowingly allowed this case to be framed as a race issue. As a result, supporters have taken to Twitter, threatening to kill Zimmerman and random white people if he gets off:

 

  • @HotTopicLys: f**k Don West. f*** George Zimmerman. I’ll kill both them n***as.
  • @StayFocus_Jones: ima kill a white person in self-defense if Zimmerman go free lol on everything.
  • @ZackSlaterExe: If they don’t kill Zimmerman Ima kill me a cracka.
  • @BE4L_Pervis: If Zimmerman win, I’m gonna kill a white kid by mistake.

 

All the threats and screams of racism from these thugs, as well as Sharpton and Jackson, have nothing to do with justice for Trayvon! Just as the uproar over celebrity chef Paula Deen’s use of the word “N–-er” decades ago has nothing to do with eradicating racism.

 

Deen has been excoriated after she admitted she had used that word in a deposition over a case accusing her of condoning an atmosphere of sexual harassment and racism in her businesses.

 

Paula Deen has apologized profusely to everybody and their mama! She released statements, videos and appeared on the “Today” show begging for forgiveness from blacks.

 

Jesse Jackson (of all people!) has said his organization plans to investigate the matter and that he will help the embattled chef overhaul her image. She didn’t owe an apology to all black people. Jesse Jackson is not the gatekeeper to black America, and she doesn’t need him to remake her image.

 

Since Paula’s admission, the Food Network, Wal-Mart, Caesars Entertainment, Smithfield Foods, Sears and diabetes drug maker Novo Nordisk are no longer doing business with her. This type of overreaction by majority white-owned companies is the height of cowardice.

 

Just as in the Zimmerman case, it’s time for people to take a stand against all forms of racial intimidation!

 

By apologizing to all blacks, Deen and her former sponsors are unwittingly sending the message that just the accusation alone is enough to get whites to cave. This only encourages vultures like Jackson and Sharpton to swoop in and exploit these incidents for personal gain.

 

Jackson claims he’s going to investigate Deen’s past use of a racial slur. Did anyone investigate his past use of racial slurs when he used the slur “hymie” and “hymietown” respectively when referring to Jews and New York City? Or when Jackson accused Barack Obama of “talking down to black folks” by lecturing them on moral issues?

 

If Jackson, Sharpton and the NAACP hadn’t jumped on the Trayvon Martin case and made it into a racial matter, nobody would have heard of it. His death would have gone unnoticed, just like the more than 500 black youths that were murdered in Chicago in black-on-black violence last year.

 

The attention on the Zimmerman trial is not about justice for Trayvon; it’s about intimidation and dividing the American people along race.

 

I hear from many white people that they’ve given up on trying to help or deal with blacks. If they hire blacks, they’re afraid to correct them because they may cry racism. God forbid if they have to lay off or fire a black employee – all hell might break loose! This is putting fear in white people because they can’t win either way.

 

Whites have to overcome the fear of being called “racist.” Blacks have to be on the side of good and stand for what is right, regardless of race. In order to conquer these racist black leaders, we must see clearly that the uproar in the Trayvon Martin and Paula cases is NOT about justice.

 

Original Source: http://www.wnd.com/2013/07/black-racism-killed-trayvon-and-paula-deens-career/

 

© Copyright 1997-2013. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.Image
 

 

JUST WHO IS CONGRESS REPRESENTING WE THE PEOPLE OR ILLEGALS?

23 Jun

Image

The Congressional
Oath of Office

At the start of each new Congress, the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate are sworn into office.

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”
Both the house of representatives and the senate take this oath

1. I do solemnly swear (or  affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.

Image
A. Illegals -those who invaded our country by crossing our sovereign borders are indeed  enemies of our country. They have broken our laws,. They have no rights under our Constitution to be represented by Congress of the United States.

They have no legal grounds on which to stay in our country,none.nada,yet congress is working feverishly to protect and defend the illegals using our tax monies, our freedoms laid out in the Constitution for AMERICAN CITIZENS.  Congress has no allegiance to our Constitution when it comes to awarding AMNESTY to criminals (Illegals who broke into our country) they have sided with illegals instead of protecting LEGAL AMERICAN citizens.

2. That I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.

Image
3.Anchor babies-those babies of illegals that are born on United States soil are awarded US citizenship and all it’s rights under the constitution

Question. Has this right ever been confirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States

Answer:  NO,The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the 14th Amendment, it has generally been assumed that they are

The Supreme Court has dropped the ball, they have never been challenged on this issue.
They are not holding up their sworn duties as laid out when they were sworn in

B. WHAT ARE THE DUTIES OF CONGRESS?

Image

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

No where in the DUTIES of CONGRESS does it say they  should legislate and protect illegals that have broken into our country.  There is nowhere in their duties that states they must honor and help those who have broken into our country by awarding them AMNESTY!!

There is no law on the books that states the United States of America must award AMNESTY to those who broke our laws of immigration and border sovernity
Image
The Constitution of the United States is  exclusively for LEGAL AMERICAN CITIZENS, it does not include any provision for AMNESTY for illegals who broke into our country by crossing our sovereign borders illegally

Yet, our congress both members of the Senate and the House of Representatives and the White House are working to crate a phony immigration reform bill that is nothing more than AMNESTY and they are going against the majority of Americans who do not want this/

WE THE PEOPLE HAVE RIGHTS that are laid out in the Constitution, illegals have no rights yet congress treats them as citizens with rights, this is wrong, congress should be held accountable for this.

WE THE PEOPLE ARE THE CARETAKERS OF OUR COUNTRY AND WE SHOULD NOT BE SADDLED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY (THROUGH TAXATION) to support illegals, we are not required to do so under any law in our land.

CONGRESS HAS A DUTY to uphold it’s sworn oath of office to defend and protect the United States of America   NOTHING MORE NOTHING LESS

Image

 

AMERICAN CITIZENS AGAINST AMNESTY-JOIN TODAY

CONGRESSIONAL BLACK CAUCUS AND THE BENGHAZI HEARINGS

8 May

The Congressional Progressive Caucus

The Congressional Black Caucus

The Congressional Progressive Caucus was founded in 1991 by Bernie Sanders-the openly socialist then Congressman from Vermont, Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and the radical Washington DC based “think tank” Institute for Policy Studies (IPS).

Many members were and continue to be linked to DSA and/or the Communist Party USA, IPS or other radical organizations.

From small beginnings the CPC has grown to embrace more than 80 members of Congress and three in the Senate – Roland Burris, Bernie Sanders and Tom Udall (NM).

Benghazi Democrat hearing members
Congressman William Lacy Clay

may82013congressmenclay

A PROGRESSIVE (another word for Communist) A RACIST A CROOK

BACKGROUND:Caucus memberships

Congressional Black Caucus
Congressional Progressive Caucus (Vice-Chair)
International Conservation Caucus

Since his first term, Clay has been a member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. He currently chairs the House Information Policy Subcommittee. He is also a member of the House Financial Services Committee. Ordinarily, House Democrats who serve on the Financial Services Committee would have to give up their other committee assignments. However, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and House Financial Services Committee Chair Barney Frank of Massachusetts granted him a waiver allowing him to remain on the Oversight Committee.

Clay made headlines in early 2007 when, as a member of the Congressional Black Caucus (co-founded by his father), he objected to the possible inclusion of U.S. Representative Steve Cohen of Tennessee, a Caucasian who represents the majority-African American district in Memphis and had made a campaign promise to attempt to become the first white member of the CBC.

Although it is not part of the CBC’s bylaws that members must be black, all members so far have been black. Clay told Cohen “that he could not collaborate with the Congressional Black Caucus for the benefit of his black constituents ‘until your skin turns black.'”

In response to press inquiries, he said, “Mr. Cohen asked for admission, and he got his answer. He’s white and the Caucus is black. It’s time to move on. We have racial policies to pursue and we are pursuing them, as Mr. Cohen has learned. It’s an unwritten rule. It’s understood.” In response to the decision, Cohen stated, “It’s their caucus and they do things their way. You don’t force your way in.”

Clay issued an official statement from his office in reply to Cohen’s complaint: “Quite simply, Rep. Cohen will have to accept what the rest of the country will have to accept — there has been an unofficial Congressional White Caucus for over 200 years, and now it’s our turn to say who can join ‘the club.’ He does not, and cannot, meet the membership criteria, unless he can change his skin color. Primarily, we are concerned with the needs and concerns of the black population, and we will not allow white America to infringe on those objectives.” Some have said that since Cohen represents a district with 60 percent of African American voters, that he has a legitimate interest in helping the goals of the CBC, and the decision should not be solely based on skin color.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington issued a report in June 2007 saying that Clay’s sister Michelle Clay is a registered lobbyist for the Kansas City airport and previously for the city of St. Louis. They reported that in the 2006 election cycle, Michelle Clay’s law office, Clay and Associates, received $51,800 in consulting fees from her brother’s campaign funds, along with an additional $9,963 for reimbursements. In the 2004 election cycle, Michelle Clay’s firm received $52,514 for consulting, and in 2002 Michelle Clay herself was paid $32,00 for campaign management and legal fees. During the 2004 election, Clay’s campaign reimbursed his father more than $6,000 for book purchases.

FURTHER INFORMATION ON CONGRESSMEN CLAY

During Clay’s previous 17 years in the state legislature, he authored Missouri’s Hate Crimes Law which included gender, sexual orientation and sexual identity in the criteria of what constitutes a hate crime.

Clay made it clear that he supports the Employment Nondiscrimination Act which would make it illegal to discriminate against employees of any sexual orientation, notably gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered workers. He also noted that he believes that the 33 states that are allowed to fire employees due to sexual orientation are in the wrong.

Clay has been a consistent critic of the War in Iraq and was among those who voted against the Iraq War Resolution in 2002. Clay’s NPAT also displays disagreement with elements of the War on Drugs. He believes that government reform is necessary to make sure every citizen’s voice is heard. Clay also continues to fight for programs that will improve that status of the poor, including initiatives to allow lower-class people to purchase homes.

Clay is also active in election reform and believes that any electronic voting system must include a paper trail to verify the results.

Clay added his name as cosponsor to a bill calling for the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney, House Resolution 333.

He was one of the 31 members in the U.S. House of Representatives who voted not to count the electoral votes from Ohio in the 2004 presidential election.

CONGRESSWOMEN ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON

MAY82013NORTONHOMES
MEMBER BLACK CAUCUS
A PROGRESSIVE

((FY))
DELEGATE HOLMES HAS NO VOTING PRIVILEGES ON CONGRESSIONAL BILLS
Voting rights of citizens in the District of Columbia differ from the rights of citizens in each of the 50 U.S. states. The United States Constitution grants each state voting representation in both houses of the United States Congress.

As the U.S. capital, the District of Columbia is a special federal district, not a state, and therefore does not have voting representation in the Congress. The Constitution grants the Congress exclusive jurisdiction over the District in “all cases whatsoever.”

In the United States House of Representatives, the District is represented by a delegate, who is not allowed to vote on the House floor but can vote on procedural matters and in congressional committees. D.C. residents have no representation in the United States Senate. As a result of the Twenty-third Amendment to the United States Constitution, adopted in 1961, the District is entitled to three electoral votes in the election of the President of the United States.

Norton was elected in 1990 as a Democratic delegate to the House of Representatives, defeating city council member Betty Ann Kane in the primary despite the last-minute revelation that Norton and her husband (both lawyers) had failed to file D.C. income tax returns between 1982 and 1989. As reported in the Washington Post, this issue was resolved when she and her husband paid over $80,000 in back taxes and fines.

In September 2010, the national press criticized Norton after the release of a voice message in which she solicits campaign funds from a lobbyist who represents a project that she oversees. Norton countered that the message was typical of appeals made by all members of Congress and that the call was made from campaign offices not paid for by taxpayers. In March 2012, the public radio series This American Life featured the voice mail message at the start of a program on lobbying titled “Take the Money and Run for Office”

CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS
(NOTHING TO DO WITH OVERSIGHT-INTELLIGENCE-DIPLOMACY-MILITARY)

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Post Office, and the District of Columbia
Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and National Archives
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Subcommittee on Aviation
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment

MY QUESTION REGARDING HOLMES IS THIS-WHY IS SHE A SITTING MEMBER ON THE BENGHAZI HEARINGS IF SHE HAS NO VOTING POWERS IN CONGRESS, SHE IS ONLY A DELEGATE FROM THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Congressman Elijah Cummings

may82013cummings

Cummings is a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
He served as Chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus during the 108th United States Congress.

For 16 years, Cummings served in the Maryland House of Delegates. In the Maryland General Assembly, he served as Chairman of the Legislative Black Caucus of Maryland

REALLY DOING HIS JOB
Cummings received praise and a boost in notoriety following the Congressional panel hearings on steroids in March 2005. While investigating the use of steroids in sports, the panel called numerous baseball players to testify, including former single season home run record holder Mark McGwire. After McGwire answered many questions in a vague fashion, Cummings demanded to know if he was “taking the Fifth”, referring to the Fifth Amendment. McGwire responded by saying, “I am here to talk about the future, not about the past.” The exchange came to epitomize the entire inquiry.

Committee assignments

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation
Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (Ranking Member)
Subcommittee on Domestic Policy.
Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Post Office, and District of Columbia.
Joint Economic Committee

may82013danny_k_davis

Congressman Danny K. Davis

 U.S. Representative for Illinois’s 7th congressional district,

On December 6, 1995, Davis announced his candidacy for the 7th Congressional District,
Davis ran on the progressive Democratic platform popular in the district. He was pro-choice and supported gay rights.

Davis was fully promoted as a Democratic candidate, he also ran as a New Party candidate.
Davis also received the endorsement of the Chicago Democratic Socialists of America (CDSA of which he is a member and had a relationship pre-dating his congressional run.

Party leadership and Caucus membership
Chair of the Congressional Postal Caucus
Regional Whip

Davis is a member of the Congressional Black Caucus
Progressive Caucus
Democratic Socialists of America.

Davis was one of 31 U.S. Representatives who voted against counting the electoral votes from Ohio in the 2004 presidential election

 

LET’S PAY ATTENTION MAYBE MR CUMMINGS WILL ASK THE WHISTLE BLOWERS IF THEY ARE TAKING THE FIFTH

MY QUESTION IS THIS WHY ARE THERE THREE MEMBERS OF THE CONGRESSIONAL BLACK CAUCUS ON THE BENGHAZI COMMITTEE–KEEP IN MIND ALL THREE WHISTLE BLOWERS ARE WHITE. HAVE THEY BEEN SELECTED BY THE COMMUNIST DEMOCRAT PARTY TO PROTECT FELLOW BLACK AND THEIR LEADER OBAMA . WILL THEY FALL ON THEIR SWORDS FOR HIM—-WE ALL KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT!

HEADLINE
Congressional Black Caucus Chairman Admits Obama’s Blackness Trumps His Failed Record

VISIT THE GETTIN AFTER LEFTY SHOW RADIO HOME PAGE

CLICK HERE

GANG OF EIGHT -CREATES BOGUS IMMIGRATION BILL

18 Apr

Image

Rep. Lamar Smith: Immigration Bill ‘Worse Than We Thought,’ Legalizes Relatives and Previously Deported

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said today that the Senate immigration bill is even worse than feared, since it legalizes illegals’ relatives and even those previously deported:
“It’s hard to believe, but the Senate immigration bill is worse than we thought. Despite assurances, the border is not secured before almost everyone in the country illegally is given amnesty. The bill guarantees there will be a rush across the border to take advantage of massive amnesty.”
Rep. Smith says the Senate immigration bill shreds current immigration laws:
“And the Senate proposal offers amnesty to far more illegal immigrants than we thought. In addition to most of the 11 million illegal immigrants already in the country, the bill offers to legalize the relatives of illegal immigrants outside the U.S. and even others who have already been deported back home. So current immigration laws are shredded.
“The Senate bill is bad news for the American people. The good news is that the House Judiciary Committee will come up with a better plan that improves our immigration system and puts the interests of American workers first.”

written by Craig Banister
http://cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/rep-lamar-smith-immigration-bill-worse-we-thought-legalizes-relatives-and

———————-

Image

Gary Gatehouse comments

As the truth comes out on this so called immigration it will become more evident that the GANG OF EIGHT,worked tirelessly creating a immigration bill that hid their true intentions AMNESTY!

Marco RubioImage, and his 7 collegues have shown that their so called immigration bill did NOT have the interest of “WE THE PEOPLE”  their intentions was to hoodwink the American people into thinking the bill was a good thing for America.

Marco Rubio is a liar, a RINO and should not be trusted, oh he is good when it comes to speaking, just like another liar we all know -OBAMA.  Marco Rubio -JUST ANOTHER RINO who has no validity when it comes to his self generated public image.

We conservatives who wanted to hang their hopes and dreams on this man -in my opnion should move on!  

VISIT GARY GATEHOUSE AT HIS RADIO HOMEPAGE GETTINAFTERLEFTYSHOW

 

The Roman Catholic church and United States Catholic politicians

24 Mar
 THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND CATHOLIC POLITICIANS

My question to the leadership and yes to the Pope the world leader of the Roman Catholic church is this,why are these politicians who do not believe in PRO LIFE, who support ROE V WADE, who support abortion, who support taking of human life, why are they NOT excommunicated from the Catholic Church? 

They go against the teachings of the church, they and many who call themselves cathoics who attend church every sunday support ABORTION,why has the church tolerated this? 

Where are the United States catholic cardnials who represent the church leadership here in America? 

Has the Catholic Church turned it’s back on it’s own teachings on abortion, will it not enforce it’s own religious laws? 

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHINGS ON ABORTION

Abortion and Excommunication

The Roman Catholic Church from the beginning has consistently upheld the sanctity of the life of the unborn child and condemned the act of direct abortion. To oppose this teaching contradicts the revelation of Sacred Scripture and Christian tradition.

The Catholic Church has consistently condemned abortion — the direct and purposeful taking of the life of the unborn child. In principle, Catholic Christians believe that all life is sacred from conception until natural death, and the taking of innocent human life, whether born or unborn, is morally wrong. The Church teaches, “Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being”

Obtaining an Abortion

Any Catholic who deliberately and knowingly obtains a procured abortion commits a mortal sin and is also automatically excommunicated, under canon 1398.

Under the laws of secular society, if one person commits a crime, then anyone who deliberately and knowingly provides essential or substantial means for that person to commit that crime is called an accessory to that crime and is also subject to the penalties of law. Similarly, any Catholic who deliberately and knowingly provides essential or substantial means for any woman to procure an abortion also commits a mortal sin and also incurs the same sentence of excommunication.

Any Catholic who substantially assists another in the deliberate sin of abortion is also guilty of serious sin and also incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.

Believing in Abortion

Any Catholic who obstinately denies that abortion is always gravely immoral commits the sin of heresy. The sin of heresy also incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.

Unfortunately, some Catholics obstinately deny that abortion is always immoral, and some Catholics claim that abortion can, at times, be a morally-acceptable choice, and some Catholics claim that a person can, in good conscience, choose abortion. Under the Code of Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church, canons 751 and 1364, all such Catholics are automatically excommunicated for the sin of heresy.

This sentence of latae sententiae excommunication applies to any Catholic who denies that abortion is gravely immoral, regardless of whether they keep this denial hidden or publicly reveal it.

Promoting Abortion

Those Catholics who publicly announce their denial that abortion is always gravely immoral, or who publicly promote abortion, or who publicly argue in favor of legalized abortion, also commit a mortal sin and also incur a sentence of automatic excommunication.

This sentence of excommunication applies to Catholics who are politicians, as well as to those Catholics who are political commentators, or public speakers, or who write or otherwise publicly communicate their erroneous view that abortion can be morally-acceptable or that abortion should be legal. This sentence of excommunication also certainly applies to those Catholics who claim to be theologians or Biblical scholars, but who believe or teach that abortion is not always gravely immoral.

Those Catholics who promote abortion are automatically excommunicated for two reasons. First, they have fallen into the sin of heresy by believing that abortion is not always gravely immoral (canons 751 and 1364). Second, these Catholics are providing substantial assistance for women to obtain abortions by influencing public policy to make abortions legal, and to keep abortions legal, and to broaden access to abortion. Those who provide such substantial assistance commit a mortal sin and incur a sentence of automatic excommunication (canon 1398).

Voting for Abortion

Any Catholic politician who casts a vote with the intention of legalizing abortion, or of protecting laws allowing abortion, or of widening access to abortion, commits a mortal sin.

When such a vote indicates that the Catholic politician believes that abortion is not always gravely immoral, such a politician incurs a sentence of automatic excommunication, under canons 751 and 1364, because of heresy.

When such a vote is intended to have the effect of making abortion legal, or more easily obtainable, or more widely available, such a politician incurs a sentence of automatic excommunication, under canon 1398, as someone who is attempting to provide substantial or essential means for women to obtain abortions. Catholic politicians who pass laws which legalize, protect, or widen access to abortion, are providing essential assistance to women who want to obtain abortions.

It is not sufficient for Catholic politicians to claim that they are “personally opposed” to abortion. If any Catholic politician favors legalized abortion, despite a claim of personal opposition, such a politician commits a mortal sin by promoting abortion and by voting in favor of abortion.

The same is true for any Catholic who casts any vote with the intention of legalizing abortion, or of protecting laws allowing abortion, or of widening access to abortion. Such a voter commits a mortal sin and incurs a sentence of automatic excommunication for two reasons. First, they are committing the sin of heresy by believing that abortion should be legal and available. Second, they are committing the grievous sin of providing women with substantial or essential assistance in obtaining abortions, by attempting to legalize or broaden access to abortion.

However, if, for a period of time, Catholic politicians and voters are unable to enact a law prohibiting all abortion, then Catholic politicians and voters may in good conscience vote for whichever law offers the greatest restrictions and limits on abortion. Subsequently, Catholic politicians and voters are required by the moral law to continue to enact further restrictions and limits on abortion, to the greatest extent possible, and, at every possible opportunity, to vote for laws which completely outlaw abortion.

Voting for Politicians

In general, the moral law requires Catholic voters to vote for those candidates who oppose abortion over those who favor abortion. However, there are exceptions to this general principle. For example, if a political candidate favors abortion, but is a member of a party which generally opposes abortion, a Catholic voter may, in good conscience, vote for that candidate, with the intention of giving more political power to the party which opposes abortion.

In another case, a Catholic voter might, in good conscience, vote for a pro-abortion candidate, if the political office would offer no opportunity for the elected candidate to vote for or against abortion. Even so, every Catholic voter should consider that anyone who supports abortion, as if it were a woman’s right, or as if it could ever be a moral choice, must necessarily be someone who has a seriously limited understanding of morality and justice. Such a person would not often be the better candidate for any office in place of one who understands that abortion is gravely immoral.

In every case, a Catholic should vote in such a way as to obtain as many restrictions on abortion as possible, and so as to obtain the end to legalized abortion as soon as possible.

Constitutional Amendment

Within any constitutional form of government, it would be ideal to have a constitutional clause or amendment which permanently and completely outlaws all procured abortions. Such an amendment must ban all abortions, regardless of circumstance, so that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent prenatal human being will be always contrary to human law, just as it is always contrary to the moral law.

A constitutional amendment can permit certain medical procedures, which are absolutely necessary to save the life of the mother, and which indirectly result in the unintended and unsought death of the prenatal, only if there is no possible way to save the life of the prenatal. A prenatal is defined as any human being from conception to birth. Every reasonable effort should be made to save the lives of both mother and prenatal. If the life of the prenatal can be saved by no other possible option than by risking or allowing the death of the mother, then the prenatal must be saved.

Catholic teaching clearly allows for certain medical procedures, which indirectly and involuntarily result in the death of the prenatal, to save the life of the mother, but only when all options to save the life of the prenatal have been exhausted. Such a procedure is not an abortion and is not an exception wherein abortion is allowed.

On the other hand, a constitutional amendment which bans abortion with exceptions for various cases, such as rape, incest, or a risk to the mother’s life, would be worse than having no such amendment at all.

Any woman who is willing to commit the sin of abortion, would also be willing to lie. If a constitutional amendment permitted abortion in cases of rape, then any woman willing to lie and to falsely claim that she was raped, would be able to also claim that she had a constitutional right to an abortion. The result would be that a constitutional amendment, which seems to ban abortion with some exceptions, would end up giving every woman who is willing to tell a lie, a purported constitutional right to abortion. This situation would be worse than having no such constitutional amendment at all.

Therefore, the only acceptable pro-life constitutional amendment would be one that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, bans all procured abortions without exception.

Snapshot of the spectrum of pro-life votes and views of Catholics on Capitol Hill, newly updated for the 112th Congress.

The percentage next to them is their pro-life rating since 1997, as compiled by National Right to Life

They are listed from the highest pro-life rating to the lowest.

SENATE

100%—Mike Johanns, R-Neb.

100%—Jim Risch, R-Idaho

100%—David Vitter, R-La.

  94%—Pat Toomey, R-Pa.**

  68%—Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska

  50%—Robert Casey Jr., D-Pa.

  31%—Mary Landrieu, D-La.

  23%—Susan Collins, R-Maine

  11%—Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.


  4%—John Kerry, D-Mass.

  2%—Richard Durbin, D-Ill.

  2%—Tom Harkin, D-Iowa

  2%—Barbara Mikulski, D-Md.

  2%—Patty Murray, D-Wash.

  2%—Jack Reed, D-R.I.

  1%—Robert Menendez, D-N.J.

  0%—Mark Begich, D-Alaska

  0%—Maria Cantwell, D-Wash.

  0%—Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y.

  0%—Claire McCaskill, D-Mo.
House of Representatives

100%—Steve Austria, R-Ohio

100%—John Boehner, R-Ohio

100%—Kevin Brady, R-Texas

100%—David Camp, R-Mich.

100%—Mario Diaz-Balart, R-Fla.

100%—Mike Fitzpatrick, R-Pa.**

100%—Jeff Fortenberry, R-Neb.

100%—Virginia Foxx, R-N.C.

100%—Phil Gingrey, R-Ga.

100%—Peter King, R-N.Y.

100%—Steve King, R-Iowa

100%—Bob Latta, R-Ohio

100%—Blaine Luetkemeyer, R-Mo.

100%—Daniel Lungren, R-Calif.

100%—Michael McCaul, R-Texas

100%—Thaddeus McCotter, R-Mich.

100%—Patrick McHenry, R-N.C.

100%—Devin Nunes, R-Calif.

100%—Tom Rooney, R- Fla.

100%—Edward Royce, R-Calif.

100%—Paul Ryan, R-Wis.

100%—Steve Scalise, R-La.

100%—Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio

100%—Christopher Smith, R-N.J.

100%—John Sullivan, R-Okla.

100%—Patrick Tiberi, R-Ohio

99%—Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla.

98%—Steve Chabot, R-Ohio**

98%—Walter Jones, R-N.C.

97%—Tim Murphy, R-Pa.

95%—Frank LoBiondo, R-N.J.

91%—Jerry Costello, D-Ill.

88%—Tim Holden, D-Pa.

85%—Dale Kildee, D-Mich.

83%—Daniel Lipinski, D-Ill.

79%—Connie Mack IV, R-Fla.

77%—Joe Donnelly, D-Ind.

77%—Michael Doyle, D-Pa.

67%—Leonard Lance, R-N.J.

62%—Brian Bilbray, R-Calif.

61%—James Langevin, D-R.I.

57%—Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio

53%—Tim Ryan, D-Ohio

47%—Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio

44%—Stephen Lynch, D-Mass.

43%—Henry Cuellar, D-Texas

38%—Jason Altmire, D-Pa.

34%—Michael Michaud, D-Maine

32%—Richard Neal, D-Mass.

28%—Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas

27%—Bill Pascrell, D-N.J.

24%—Joseph Crowley, D-N.Y.

21%—John Dingell, D-Mich.

18%—Peter Visclosky, D-Ind.

15%—Dennis Cardoza, D-Calif.

14%—Ruben Hinojosa, D-Texas

13%—Jim Costa, D-Calif.

  8%—Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y.

  7%—Joe Baca, D-Calif.

  7%—James Moran, D-Va.

  4%—Brian Higgins, D-N.Y.

  3%—Robert Brady, D-Pa.

  3%—Charles Rangel, D-N.Y.

  2%—Peter DeFazio, D-Ore.

  2%—Jose Serrano, D-N.Y.

  1%—Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn.

  1%—Anna Eshoo, D-Calif.

  1%—Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y.

  1%—Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill.

  1%—Ed Markey, D-Mass.

  1%—James McGovern, D-Mass.

  1%—Frank Pallone, D-N.J.

  1%—Ed Pastor, D-Ariz.

 1%—Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

  1%—Lucille Roybal-Allard, D-Calif.

  1%—Loretta Sanchez, D-Calif.

  1%—Nydia Velazquez, D-N.Y.

  0%—Xavier Becerra, D-Calif.

  0%—Timothy Bishop, D-N.Y.

  0%—Michael Capuano, D-Mass.

  0%—Gerald Connolly, D-Va.

  0%—Joe Courtney, D-Conn.

  0%—Charlie Gonzalez, D-Texas

  0%—Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz.

  0%—John Larson, D-Conn.

  0%—Ben Ray Lujan, D-N.M.

  0%—Betty McCollum, D-Minn.

  0%—Jerry McNerney, D-Calif.

  0%—George Miller, D-Calif.

  0%—Patrick Murphy, D-Pa.

  0%—Grace Napolitano, D-Calif.

  0%—Linda Sanchez, D-Calif.

  0%—Albio Sires, D-N.J.

  0%—Mike Thompson, D-Calif.

  0%—Paul Tonko, D-N.Y.

  0%—Peter Welch, D-Vt.

TAKE NOTICE OF HOW MANY SO CALLED CATHOLIC HISPANCS LEADERS IN CONGRESS WHO SUPPORT ABORTION AND  WHO REPRESENT MOSTLY HISPANIC AND MOSTLY CATHOLIC CONSTITUENTS

THE UNITED NATIONS IS COMING AFTER AMERICAN CITIZENS GUNS

22 Mar

PATRIOTS, ALL FREEDOM LOVING AMERICANS ALL WHO BELIEVE IN AND TRUST THE CONSTITUTION OF UNITED STATES ,WE ARE UNDER ATTACK FROM THE INTERNATIONAL CROOKS OF THE UNITED NATIONS.

ALL THOSE TIN HORNED DICTATORS,ALL THOSE THAT HATE AMERICA, HATE EVERYTHING WE STAND, FOR ALL THOSE IN OUR OWN GOVERNMENT THAT IS CURRENTLY UNDER THE BOOT OF A MARXIST REGIME THAT HATES THE 2ND AMENMENT WE PATRIOTS ARE NOW ON ALERT

IF WE FAIL TO STAND UP TO THIS,WELL HELL IT IS ALL ON US NOBODY ELSE, IT WILL BE OUR FAULT, WE MUST SPEAK UP LOUD,WE MUST NOT SHY AWAY FROM SAVING OUR COUNTRY, WE MUST TAKE UP THE BANNER OF FREEDOM, WE MUST DO THIS!

  photo ONTHEAIRFLASHINGSIGN.gif  photo march2013noamnestyBANNER_zps95a83c11.jpg Republican Party is thought to be the institutional vehicle for the advancement of conservative policies, but for decades, the conservative movement has been frustrated with the party’s deviation from conservative principles. It is no longer the party of Ronald Reaga, we do not have the drive the fire burning in our conservative bellies as we once had.  Who will light that fire once again?  THAT IS THE QUESTION
  photo galnetworkpunchoutbanner.gif

AMERICA CONGRESS IS LYING TO YOU OR DO YOU REALLY CARE

22 Mar

Lies that the illegal alien lobby perpetuates:

Lie #1: Illegal aliens take jobs Americans won’t do.

Truth: Americans are willing to do most jobs at a fair wage, but they won’t do those jobs at “slave wages” or minimum wage. Thus, American workers are constantly replaced by illegal aliens willing to work for half or a third of what American workers once received. These jobs that once afforded a middle class life style now only offer illegal alien workers poverty level wages, resulting in the shrinkage of the “American Middle Class” and the enormous growth of an ever-increasing “underclass” dependent on government entitlements.

Lie #2: Illegal aliens contribute more to the economy and tax base than they take.

Truth: A large portion of illegal aliens work for cash “under the table” paying no taxes. The great majority of illegals make $6-$8 per hour, ($12,480 – $16,640 per year). At such income levels, not only is there no tax due, but they also qualify for the “earned income tax credit”. In California, public education alone costs over $7,500 per pupil. Multiply that times 2-4 children, add the costs of free school breakfast and lunch, free medical care, food stamps, housing subsidies, and other entitlement “give-aways”. Harvard Professor George Borjas estimates illegal immigration costs the U.S. 70 billion dollars per year and Californians $1,300 per household annually in additional taxes. The Center for Immigration Studies estimate that the average Mexican illegal alien will use $55,200 more in public services during his lifetime than he pays in taxes.

Lie #3: Without illegal alien farm labor, a head of lettuce would cost $3.00.
Truth: It already costs $3.00. You just make a $1.00 down payment at the grocery store. The government finances the other two dollars until tax time, when the additional $2.00 balance is extracted from your wallet in the form of higher taxes. The Agriculture industry gets cheap labor and higher profits, while shifting all the social costs of illegal immigrant labor to the American tax payer.

Lie #4: Most illegal aliens come here only to seek work and are law-abiding “citizens”.

Truth: In Los Angeles, as of January, 2004, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide (which total 1,200 to 1,500) target illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are for illegal aliens. A confidential California Department of Justice study reported in 1995 that 60 percent of the 20,000-strong 18th Street Gang in southern California is illegal; police officers say the proportion is actually much greater. 

The bloody gang collaborates with the Mexican Mafia, the dominant force in California prisons, on complex drug-distribution schemes, extortion, and drive-by assassinations, and commits an assault or robbery every day in L.A. County. The gang has grown dramatically over the last two decades by recruiting recently arrived youngsters, most of them illegal, from Central America and Mexico. (Source: The Illegal-Alien Crime Wave, by Heather MacDonald, City Journal, Winter 2004)

Mortgage loans for illegal aliens
In search of profit at any cost, banks, credit unions and other American financial institutions are not only opening accounts and issuing credit cards for people they know to be in the U.S. illegally, but they are also making mortgage loans to those illegal aliens.

The federal government is doing nothing to stop this criminal enterprise.

Under the federal Immigration and Naturalization Act (8 USC, 1324), it is a federal felony to encourage an illegal alien to remain in the United States. Also, as Dianne Grassi reports in “Mortgages for Illegal Aliens Encouraged by FDIC” under U.S. Criminal Code 274, ‘It is a crime punishable by 10 years in jail for aiding and abetting someone in this country illegally for commercial gain.’ … the Bank Secrecy Act of 1972 provides that ‘Banks must know their customers and any illegal activity must be reported to the government.’”

Any reasonable person must see that by making a mortgage loan to an illegal alien, the lender is not only clearly encouraging that criminal to remain here, but is itself in violation of federal law.

In  War on Terror, banks are opening accounts and issuing credit cards to people from all over the world who are allowed to overstay visa’s or simply walk into America. Ask yourself why accepting wages from illegal labor as deposits and then helping to electronically wiring a portion of that money out of the U.S. is not money laundering.
PATRIOTS,ask yourself how many of the 9/11 terrorists had credit cards that helped take advantage of America’s freedoms.


Has your congressmen or senator mentioned to anyone,public or private that this type of law breaking is going on?  Has congress brought any of this information to light?  Has any of the Republican leadership mentioned any of this to the American Public?  The question must be asked. Does any of this information concern you and by the way this is just the tip of the iceberg, You are being lied to kept in the dark and


PATRIOTS IS THIS WHAT REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP BELIEVES?  THEY HAVE STATED  THEY WILL START CATERING TO HISPANICS/MINORITY CLASS (AND THAT INCLUDES) 11-20 MILLION ILLEGAL’S (AMNESTY IS JUST AROUND THE CORNER…

TO SEE HOW MUCH THIS IS COSTING YOU ON A DAILY BASIS,HOW MANY ILLEGALS ARE COMING INTO OUR COUNTRY AND MORE CLICK HERE