July 21, 2017

Catholic Church Gets $79 Million to Bring Illegals

*Editor’s Note* – I received this in my email. I do not know the author of it.

As a non-practicing catholic former alter boy that left the church after a homosexual priest that previously had an affair with a 16 year old boy was assigned to our church  – right about the time the church was spending hundreds of millions of dollars settling pedophile suits –  but was not convicted as a felon because the statute of limitations had run out….I just wanted you to be aware that it was Catholic Charities that brought the first Somalis to Lewiston….

https://refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/somali-migration-to-maine-its-the-welfare-magnet-stupid/

….and the church (s) continue to accept my tax dollars to raise the standard of living of people from a foreign country….

http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/catholic-church-paid-79-million-by-obama-administration-to-force-migrant-invasion/

Catholic Church Facilitates Foreign Invasion As Paid Agitator

In an NTEB Special Report, we have recently received information that the Catholic Church received payments totalling $79,590,512.00 to facilitate the flow of undocumented and illegal immigrants into the United States in 2014. This is six million dollars more than they were paid in 2013. Now you know why Pope Francis is so eager to push Obama’s insane flood of illegal migrants, he’s getting paid millions to do it!

In the face of President Obama’s veto threat, the House passed a bill to slow Syrian refugees. But the Republican Congress also has the power to hold hearings into the millions of taxpayer dollars being funneled through Catholic and other church groups to bring them here. Many Catholics and non-Catholics alike would like to know how “religious compassion,” using federal money, is increasing the potential terrorist threat to America.

 

I am a conservative.  If illegal aliens want to come to this country and not go through the immigration process ….and bring their culture with them instead of adopting the American culture while insisting they have ‘rights’ such as receiving an education for their children in their native language instead of English…then I say they should stay home and fix what is wrong there. It is enough to make one become a cynic.

Share

Pope Says You Can’t Make Fun of Someone Else Religion

Yahoo! News reports that Pope Francis says there must be limits to speaking freely and says that, “You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others.” It would seem then, from the Pope and Catholic Church’s perspective, that poking fun of people and their religious beliefs merits limits while the Pope and the entire Catholic Church has for centuries and continues to this day, murdered millions of innocent people all in the name of the Vatican’s disapproval of anyone who does not buy into the false teachings of Catholicism. The Church never took the time to insult their religions, they just went out and murdered the masses of them, including their own people when appropriate.

Spoken as a true anti Christ.

Share

Should Beheadings Be Raised to Capital Murder?

As you may have seen, the US has a recent beheading. Oklahoma of all places.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/09/26/woman-beheaded-at-oklahoma-food-distribution-center-police-say/

There may be a call to raise beheading murders to capital murder. I say, Why not consider it.
I’ve read pertinent portions of the Koran that speak to beheadings of Christians. The Koran’s justification is that Christians are considered polytheists and therefore the equivalent of heathens and atheists and may be killed if they do not convert to the Muslim faith after being given a chance to reform.

From reading a paper from the Catholic Church, the Muslim faith is powerful in the sense that Muslims believe no intercessor is necessary to communicate directly with or to God. I am given to understand that there may be a similar concept of direct communication with God that exists in at least one Protestant faith.

Problematic for Muslims and the rest of us, is that the Koran does not teach submission to the civil authority. It is a younger religion than Christianity by about 400 to 500 years, but it is old enough to have begun when civil authority was not as well developed as it is today. Civil authority is meant to include both the limitations imposed by legislative enactments and by the Constitution. (Is anyone in the administrative law process noticing this definition of civil authority?)(At least one now resigned federal level administrative type was talking about crucifying villagers as an analogous philosophy of agency enforcement.)

In fact, the Muslim concept of four or so Muslims wandering the streets looking to enforce religious standards as they find them is similar to Karl Marx’ notion of a core of committed Communists whose faithful indoctrination to chiliastic Marxist utopian principles guide their on-the-spot enforcement of party rules thereby purporting to eliminate the need for sheriffs, juries, lawyers, judges and executioners. In a way, that sounds similar to the current administrative state. Only in the instance of Muslims and Communists, they could have a senior cleric or party officer bless the actions instead of an administrative law judge.

We also see elements of civil disobedience, I suppose a form of sporadic refusal to submit to civil authority, in the various Communist liberation movements. Brezhnev referenced the existence of various national liberation movements in 1973. And the animal liberation movement got a push with the publication a book of the same name in 1975. Animal liberation papers on civil disobedience followed.

The various reprints of Blackstone’s on common law, adopted by Texas via Virginia, consistently make clear the prohibition of the combination of the office and duties of the Sheriff with the office and duties of the Judge as obvious conflicts. And authentic due process can only come from honoring the priority of individual rights to confront the accuser (who may be the Sheriff himself), put the accuser to the burden of proof in front of an impartial magistrate and have the benefit of a jury of fellow citizens in order to insulate citizens from overreach by both the Sheriff and the King’s orders.

Proceedings such as that described by the Koran provide for a process, but not authentic due process, and so that is why I say the Koran does not submit to civil authority. I am not saying that all practitioners of the Muslim faith do not submit to civil authority. But, I am saying that anyone who acts upon the literal meaning of ancient text, regardless of religious affiliation, that refuses to recognize the God-given fundamental rights of other individuals will lead to serious trouble.

So what would a capital punishment statute look like. I don’t know all the particulars at this early point, but one would think from the defense angle that an individual’s fundamental religious freedom does not extend to private executions.

In the instant Oklahoma case, it appears, so the allegations seem at this early point, not commenting on guilt or innocence, rather the mechanics of the alleged murder, that the act of beheading did not result in the death, instead occurred after the fatal stabbing.

If a capital murder statute had to allege the cause of death as beheading, then murder first by some other means and some sort of body mutilation afterwards might constitute a defense to capital murder by beheading. So, I would think that one might want to take that into account somehow, if possible, so that the death penalty cannot be avoided that way. Another aspect is whether the means (manual or mechanical) of beheading should be omitted from such a statute. If so, then some guillotine deaths might also fall under such a statute which would not be an automatically bad thing. But remember that in the past, some hangings accidentally resulted in separated heads.

At least one person suggests that the legislative banning of Sharia Law takes away the goal of the Muslims to conquer America ; that goal being to impose Sharia Law. That idea may be worthy of some additional thought. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/08/defeat_isis_in_the_comfort_of_your_own_home.html

Forever, I’ve heard the Catholic Church criticized for overreach during the Spanish Inquisition. After a little research I discovered that the Spanish Inquisition came at the end of a 450 year long struggle by the Spanish to rout the Moors (Muslims) from Spain. As in the beginning of any struggle, there is a lag time between the attack and the response. And after the defense is built up, there is lag time at the end of any long struggle, where the remaining vestiges of the forces used to oust the enemy continue to exist. Those remaining forces then seek purpose for its continued existence. So it must have been with the Spanish. In fact, the end of the ejection of the Moors from Spain was marked by Columbus’ voyage in 1492 to the Americas.

I think we should consider responding more quickly than any 450 years to recognize and respond to extralegal proceedings occurring inside our borders but that operate outside the limitations of the civil law and of the limitations imposed by the US Constitution.

Livy, sharing thoughts and opinion from a bunkhouse on the southern high plains of Texas.

Share

Sounds like hate your neighbor to me

Sounds like hate your neighbor to me, doesn’t sound like walk away from non believers and seek men of like minds either..

“He is a heretic who does not believe what the Roman Hierarchy teaches.” — The American Textbook of Popery, p 164 (quoting from the “Directory for the Inquisitors”).

“Heretics (those who are not members of the Catholic Church or who do not hold to Catholic doctrine) worship a God who is a liar, and a Christ who is a liar.” — St. Augustine, (quoted in “Patrologiae Cursus Completus: Series Graca”, by Fr. J. P.Migne, Paris: 1866, 42:207).

“The church may by divine right (confiscate the property of heretics, imprison their person, and condemn them to flames). In our age, the right to inflict the severest penalties, even death, belongs to the church. There is no graver offense than heresy, therefore it must be rooted out.” — Public Ecclesiastical, Vol. 2, p.142.

“When confronted with heresy, she (Catholic Church) does not content herself with persuasion, arguments of an intellectual and moral order appear to her insufficient, and she has recourse to force, to corporal punishment, to torture.” — The Rector of the Catholic Institute of Paris, H.M.A. Baudrillart, quoted in The Catholic Church, The Renaissance, and Protestantism 182-183.

“A heretic merits the pains of fire….By the Gospel, the canons, civil law, and custom, heretics must be burned.” — The American Textbook of Popery, p 164 (quoting from the “Directory for the Inquisitors”).

“The Pope is of great authority and power, that he is able to modify, declare, or interpret even divine laws. The Pope can modify divine law, since his power is not of man, but of God, and he acts as vicegerent of God upon earth…” — Lucius Ferraris, in “PromptaBibliotheca Canonica, Juridica, Moralis, Theologica, Ascetica, Polemica, Rubristica, Historica”, Volume V, article on “Papa, Article II”, titled “Concerning the extent of Papal dignity, authority, or dominion and infallibility”, #30, published inPetit-Montrouge (Paris) by J. P. Migne, 1858 edition.

“We may according to the fullness of our power, dispose of the law and dispense above the law. Those whom the Pope of Rome doth separate, it is not a man that separates them but God . For the Pope holdeth place on earth, not simply of a man but of the true God….dissolves, not by human but rather by divine authority….I am in all and above all, so that God Himself and I, the vicar of God, hath both one consistory, and I am able to do almost all that God can do…Wherefore, no marvel, if it be in my power to dispense with all things, yea with the precepts of Christ.” — Decretales Domini Gregori ix Translatione Episcoporum, (on the Transference of Bishops), title 7, chapter 3; Corpus Juris Canonice (2nd Leipzig ed., 1881), col. 99; (Paris, 1612), tom. 2, Decretales, col. 205 (while Innocent III was Pope).

“We confess that the Pope has power of changing Scripture and of adding to it, and taking from it, according to his will.” — Roman Catholic Confessions for Protestants Oath, Article XI, (Confessio Romano-Catholica in Hungaria Evangelicis publice praescripta te proposita, editi a Streitwolf), as recorded in Congressional Record of the U.S.A., House Bill 1523, Contested election case of Eugene C. Bonniwell, against Thos. S. Butler, Feb. 15, 1913.

“And God himself is obliged to abide by the judgment of his priest and either not to pardon or to pardon, according as they refuse to give absolution, provided the penitent is capable of it.” — St. Alphonsus De Liguori, in The Dignity of the Priesthood, p. 27.

“Unless therefore they receive saving baptism in the Catholic Church, which is one, they cannot be saved, but will be condemned with the carnal in the judgment of the Lord Christ.” — Catholic Bishop Nemesianus of Thubunae, The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. V.

“When we say that faith is necessary for the remission of sins, we mean to speak of the Catholic faith, not heretical faith. Without the habit of this faith, no man is justified.” — St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori, (quoted in Apostolic Digest, by Michael Malone, Book 3: “The Book of Faith”, Chapter 1, “There is No Salvation Except in the Catholic Faith”)

Share

For Pelosi It’s: “Beware the Poison Cup”

Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke said that Nancy Pelosi should be denied communion because her support of abortion is in conflict of her Catholic faith. <<<Read More>>>

Share

Catholic Church Tries to Muscle Washington Against Gun Lobby

It should come as no surprise that the Catholic Church supports the destruction of the Second Amendment and the U.S. Constitution in general. Today, when Fascist Feinstein began her press conference on her destruction of the Second Amendment and a so-called assault weapons ban, she invited the Catholic clergy to begin the conference with a prayer. But before the prayer, the Rev. Canon Gary Hall, mingled church and state (that’s okay with those who need the church on their side), by saying, “Everyone in this city seems to live in terror of the gun lobby,” Hall said. “But I believe that the gun lobby is no match for the cross lobby.”

As fiery as that probably makes a lot of Second Amendment supporters feel, his statement is the truth. The Catholic Church, meaning the Vatican and the hierarchy, own and control much of the gun lobby. So, if you think you are taking on the U.S Government and a handful of fascist-thinking senators, think again.

Share

Book Review: Killing Lincoln

I finished reading Killing Lincoln a few days ago. I recommend the book but with some suggestions.

Killing Lincoln, by Bill O’Reilly and Martin Dugard, published by Henry Holt and Company, LLC., covers many of the details about President Abraham Lincoln’s assassination. Depending upon your level of knowledge and the amount of research you have done in your lifetime, will depend very much on how much in O’Reilly’s book you would find “new” information and how much as rehashed and regurgitated.

I have read numerous books and writings on the killing of Lincoln, and I can say this one is well-written in the sense that it keeps your interest, even while constantly moving from one arena to another as the plot unfolds. However, no new information is revealed and the book falls short on any in-depth research into the vastness of the conspiracy.

Killing Lincoln spends much of the first 16 chapters setting the stage of Lincoln’s death by detailing battles and events that occur leading up to the ultimate surrender of General Lee at Appomattox. Mostly leaving the Civil War battlefields, Killing Lincoln draws in the majority of the conspirators behind the plot to kill, not only Lincoln, but V.P. Andrew Johnson, Secretary of State William Seward, Sec. of War Edwin Stanton and Union General Ulysses S. Grant. O’Reilly provides enough background and information on those he and co-writer Dugard believe to be the main planners in the conspiracy.

As O’Reilly might call his “Back of the Book Segment”, the back of his book gives readers a glimpse as to what became of many of the key characters in his work. He even goes so far as to reproduce a copy of the April 29, 1865 edition of Harper’s Weekly. O’Reilly’s intent is to help readers get a better understanding of how the country was dealing with the killing of President Lincoln.

Over the years many theories have existed as to who was really behind the killing of Lincoln. While Killing Lincoln, the book, casually addresses some of those theories, it is my opinion that had the authors spent less time (16 chapters) recounting the Civil War battles leading up to the assassination and more time digging a bit deeper into the most readily recognized and easily proven conspiracy theory, they could have provided readers with more or a real jaw-dropping read.

The main hypothesis as to who or what was behind the killing of Lincoln points to the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, led by the Jesuits and under the full direction of the Vatican.

Much discussion can be made as to the Vatican’s involvement or lack thereof in Lincoln’s death but if you consider the testimonies and actions that took place after the assassination, a different light is shed on the conspiracy theory; at least enough to pique the curiosities of some and give pause to others.

General Thomas M. Harris was a member of the military commission that tried and condemned the conspirators in Lincoln’s death. His accounts of those trials are quite revealing.

If we follow the trail on one conspirator, John H. Surratt, whose mother ran a boarding house of sorts near Washington, D.C., it was learned that at different times all the conspirators would meet to discuss plans to kill Lincoln. Shortly after Lincoln’s murder, John Surratt was among the missing.

O’Reilly, a catholic himself, mentions very little of John Surratt. In the Afterword, he tells how Surratt, the son of Mary Surratt who was hanged for her involvement, might have been saved if her son had returned to testify. The book states that John Surratt fled to Montreal and later ended up at the Vatican “where he served in the Papal Zouaves“. However, General Harris describes Surratt’s time at the Vatican as being confined to a room and protected from those searching for him in connection with the death of Lincoln.

The Pope is forced to arrest Surratt but arranges for his escape. He is eventually captured in Egypt and taken back to America to stand trial. Gen. Harris points out the work of the Jesuits in controlling and manipulating the trial that ends in a hung jury and the release of Surratt.

Gen Harris’s information is probably some, if not the most, credible of all those claiming theories on Lincoln’s death. His work is well worth the read I think.

While many books have been written about Lincoln’s murder, Killing Lincoln could have been an even bigger blockbuster if they had taken the time to research into the validity of some of these theories, particularly that of Gen. Harris. Should I create my own conspiracy theory by saying that perhaps O’Reilly purposely avoided this theory because he is Catholic?

All very interesting.

I recommend the reading of “Killing Lincoln” and then follow it up with “Rome’s Responsibility for the Assassination of Lincoln” by Gen. Thomas M. Harris and “Fifty Years in the Church of Rome” by Charles Paschal Telesphore Chiniquy.

An addendum to this story: Charles Chiniquy is key to the story of Lincoln as well as his testimony that members of the Catholic Church were telling people of Lincoln’s death hours before it even happened. Chiniquy, is a friend of President Lincoln and repeatedly warns the president that the Vatican wants him dead and that eventually he will be killed. Of course, even as is revealed in the book, Lincoln not only suspects he will someday be killed but he has recurring dreams about it.

Tom Remington

Share