The hype for 4-year-old children fold fully is not …

Catholic bishops have been mislead regarding Vatican guidelines on the reception of Holy Communion by Catholic politicians. Consider the following:

“It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the magisterium is totally compatible with being a ‘good Catholic’ and poses no obstacle to the reception of the sacraments. This is a grave error” – Pope John Paul II (Los Angeles speech to U.S. bishops, Sept. 16, 1987).

In June, 2004 Cardinal Ratzinger, (now Pope Benedict XVI) sent a memorandum to Cardinal McCarrick that offered guidelines to bishops for discussing the Communion/abortion issue at their meeting near Denver. However, Cardinal McCarrick did not reveal critical contents of the cover letter to the bishops, but instead suggested each bishop decide for himself the action to be taken.

Some of the key points in that cover letter:

1. In the case of abortion or euthanasia, a Catholic politician manifests “formal cooperation” in grave sins by “consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws.”

2. The politician’s pastor should “meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.”

3. “When these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible, and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it.”

4. “Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.”

Unfortunately, a number of two-faced “Catholic” politicians (especially permissive liberals in the Democratic Party) are taking advantage of this confusion.

Vincent Bemowski – Writer (U.S. Politics & World Affairs & Veteran, U.S. Army)

Menasha, WI

Website: Catholic Messages USA http://www.catholicmessagesusa.com/

HILL’S SO SORRY OVER ‘VIET’ SLAP
APOLOGIZES FOR AIDE’S MCCAIN RAP
By MAGGIE HABERMAN

October 15, 2006 — Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton called John McCain yesterday to personally apologize and denounce comments an adviser of hers reportedly made slamming the GOP senator over his time in captivity in Vietnam.

The move from one potential 2008 presidential candidate to another was sparked by a column in The New York Times, in which Maureen Dowd quoted an anonymous adviser talking about McCain’s criticism of the Clintons over their North Korea position.

The adviser said Team Clinton thought McCain was doing the White House’s dirty work by criticizing the Clintons and ended up “looking similar to the way he did on those captive tapes from Hanoi, where he recited the names of his crewmates.”
That was a reference to an unsubstantiated rumor used to tar McCain, a Vietnam war hero, as off-kilter during the 2000 GOP presidential primary.

Aides to both senators said Clinton reached out to McCain to denounce the comments.

Clinton is said to have a good relationship with McCain, and her circle clearly wasn’t pleased with the remarks.

Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said, “These comments are reprehensible and they in no way reflect Senator Clinton’s feelings.”

McCain spokesman John Weaver replied, “Senator Clinton is correct, the remark was reprehensible.”

Last week, McCain took what many saw as the first shot of the 2008 race, blasting Clinton for placing blame for North Korea’s recent nuclear test on President Bush – and pointed to husband Bill’s policies as a “failure.”

Clinton has avoided directly criticizing McCain over those comments, instead taking aim at Bush and Republicans at large.

Clinton, facing token opposition in her Senate re-election bid, has said she’s focused only on the 2006 mid-term elections, and has stayed mum about her future.

Both senators lead several public polls for their party’s nominations for the White House including a University of New Hampshire poll released last week showing voters in the country’s first-in-the-nation primary state put McCain and Clinton at the top of the pack.

The comments about McCain’s prisoner-of-war days put Clinton’s camp in damage-control mode with five weeks left in the 2006 cycle, at a time when everyone around her has stayed on-message.

The landscape among the 2008 presidential hopefuls changed last week when centrist Mark Warner dropped out suddenly, saying he wanted to focus on his family.

Warner had been viewed by many as the “un-Hillary” candidate in a democratic primary and his departure made her the straight away front-runner, experts said.

Meanwhile, real-estate mogul Donald Trump in Florida on Friday night talked up Clinton as the Democrats’ presidential nominee, reportedly saying at a state GOP fund-raiser: “She’s brilliant woman and she’s going to be a very, very formidable candidate . . . Absolutely I think she can win, especially if the war’s still going on.”

maggie.haberman@nypost.com

We still have no apology from the person who made the comment. Hillary’s apology is nice. It’s sweet and all that. But why can’t we get an apology from the DEMOCRAT advisor who made the comment. The same person who made the public INSULT should be the same person who makes a pulbic RETRACTION and WHO makes a public APOLOGY.

Instead of the Victimizer making an apology, Hillary did. Of course, she was forced to apologize as a political maneuver. Hillary knows she don’t want all vets voting against her, which would be a probability if her campaign appears to be showing contempt towards those who are vets and possibly even prisoners of war.
Some news media such as CNN appears to be using the derogatory remarks made by Hillary’s campaingner’s as reason to glorify Hillary. Instead, we want a retraction statement from her constituent.

…Censured for sexual misconduct
In 1983, Studds acknowledged his homosexuality after the page revealed he’d had a relationship with Studds a decade earlier, when the page was 17. Studds was censured for sexual misconduct by the House, then went home to his constituents to answer questions in a series of public meetings and interviews with the press.

Studds defended the relationship as a consensual relationship with a young adult. The page later appeared publicly with Studds in support of him. The scandal recently resurfaced when former Republican Rep. Mark Foley resigned after exchanging sexually explicit instant messages with a page. Republicans accused Democrats of hypocrisy for savaging Foley, but saying little about Studds at that time….

..\\

The point is that everyone is taking sides, and everyone’s side is the correct one. That’s stupid. Seek truth. Seek justice. The GOP are still angry because Clinton did not abide by the unwritten rules when he got caught AND is STILL loved by the left. The GOP are angry now because Foley got caught, abided by the unwritten rules, resigned, and that’s not enough for the left. There are two sets of unwritten rules of conduct. And the country is confused… like in why didn’t Studds resign? Why didn’y Clinton resign?

IT IS PEOPLE, INDIVIDUALS. I will properly quote you now as saying:

“Yes the Democrats that knew should had come forward sooner. They are just as guilty as any one eles for not reporting it. If “who” and “when” it was reported was not issues people was debating I would have not be so blinded by angry. The one and only issues should have been if it was true, not how to lose or win seats.”

And now I am in 100% agreement with you.
We are against pedophilia
We are against Mark Foley’s unethical behavior
We are against minors having sex with anyone (minors or not — but more especially not with unethical and immoral adults).
We are against anyone, Democrat or Republican, who knew of Mark Foley’s behavior but did not come forward sooner.
We will speak out against any one of them just as viciously as the other.

After all, it is the individual who is responsible for his or her own behavior.

I call a truce. You hear that world. ELAINE IS A GOOD PERSON and she is just standing up for what is right. She doesn’t really care what your race, religion, nationality, political affiliation or etc… is —- I think she and I agree that any individual, especially one in a position of power, should be a good role model and behave in an ethical and moral manner. I think she and I agree that any individual who does break those code of ethics should be penalized accordingly as providence may dictate and if laws are violated, then may the full wrath of the law see justice to the Nth degree on their sorry ass.

Don’t beat me up anymore Elaine, I dig your spunk and wish you well.

(On his way out of office)…the departing President Clinton was busily dispensing no fewer than 176 last-minute presidential pardons to convicted criminals from sea to shining sea. One of these was for Mel Reynolds, a former Democrat congressman from Chicago. Reynolds had been serving a five-year federal sentence for fraudulent-loan and campaign-finance practices, having completed a 30-month sentence for 12 counts of statutory rape of a 16-year-old campaign volunteer.

[para]Clinton pardoned Reynolds at the behest of Jessie Jackson, had an extra-marital affair with 21-year-old intern Monica Lewinsky (of course, it wasn’t sex because she just sucked it)—land Jackson had a sordid four-year affair with a subordinate, one Karin Stanford, a staffer with Rainbow/PUSH.[para]

So let’s get this straight: A disgraced congressman who’d had sex with a subordinate received a pardon from a disgraced president who’d had sex with a subordinate at the behest of a disgraced clergyman who’d had sex with a subordinate. And what was the Honorable Mel Reynolds’ new position with the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition? Youth counselor.

Space prohibits detailing all the sexual misdeeds of Democrats in recent years, but here are a few: Rep. Fred Richmond, arrested in 1978 for soliciting a 16-year-old girl; Sen. Brock Adams, accused multiple times of drugging, assault and rape beginning in 1988; Rep. Gus Savage, accused of fondling a Peace Corps volunteer during a 1989 African tour; and Sen. Daniel Inouye, accused throughout the 1990s of sexual assault by various women. Then there are Reps. John Young, Wayne Hays and the ever affable Sen. Ted Kennedy—all Democrats involved in sexual escapades under Democrat majorities, all of which went unpunished by their colleagues.

It’s clear, then, that issues of sexual impropriety don’t faze Democrats any more than do serious breaches of national security or selling cocaine from the House Post Office, as happened under the Democrats’ watch in the late 1980s. They see Foley’s folly only as a political opportunity to drive a stake through the heart of the Republican leadership four weeks before the midterm elections. Tellingly enough, Democrats haven’t called for an investigation into Foley’s actions, but they were quick to call for an investigation into Speaker Hastert’s response.

Mark Foley deserves whatever comes his way, and bloodthirsty Democrats may ultimately claim the scalp of the Speaker, but let’s remember the Reynolds-Clinton-Jackson troika before we ascribe even the slightest virtue to their actions.

In, “Republicans and Civil Rights” Saturday, Dec. 14, 2002, Diane Alden correctly confirms all that Mark and Linda have asserted:

Republicans did favor 88th Congress, H. R. 7152. Civil Rights Act of 1964 Jul. 1964 voting 138 for and only 34 against.
Contrarily, and par for the course, Democrats grudgingly acquiesced to the civil rights verbiage voting 152 for and 96 against.

This is also confirmed on CNSNews.com, a Cybernet News service who educates us with this truth:

When the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act came up for a vote in the House of Representatives on Feb. 10, 1964, 420 House members voted on the measure, including 248 Democrats and 172 Republicans.

Among House Democrats, 61% voted in favor of the bill, while 80% of House Republicans voted to adopt the bill.

“Of the 420 (House) members who voted (on H.R 7152), 290 supported the civil rights bill and 130 opposed it. Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152-96. It is interesting to note that Democrats from northern states voted overwhelmingly for the bill, 141 to 4, while Democrats from southern states voted overwhelmingly against the bill, 92 to 11.

Even the Wikepedia Encyclopedia assures us that
Everett McKinley Dirksen (January 4, 1896 – September 7, 1969) was a Republican U.S. Congressman and Senator from Illinois. As Republican Senate leader he played a highly visible role in the politics of the 1960s. He helped write the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and played the decisive role in its passage. He later offered his support for the Open Housing Act of 1968, another landmark piece of Civil Rights legislation.

In fact, The evolution of affirmative action, Public Personnel Management, Fall 1999 by Lee, R A clarifies that The principal opponent to H.R. 7152 was Rep. Howard W. Smith (D-Va.), a powerful committee chairman, who did all he could to bury the bill. After he was forced to release it for debate on the House floor, Rep. Smith continued to argue against it.

And again, under Civil Rights Act of 1964, in dksopedia.com, we are again confronted with this astonishing truth:

The provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade discrimination on the basis of sex as well as race in hiring, promoting, and firing. The word “sex” was apparently added at the last moment. Many have suggested that Representative Howard W. Smith (D-VA), a conservative Southern opponent of federal civil rights, added the word in an attempt to kill the entire bill.

Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34
Democrats supported it 152-96

Republicans supported H.R.7152 in higher proportions than Democrats

After the civil rights bill was passed, Dirksen was asked why he had done it? What could possibly be in it for him given the fact that the African-Americans in his own state had not voted for him? Why should he champion a bill that would be in their interest? Why should he offer himself as a crusader in this cause?
Dirksen’s reply speaks well for the man, for Republicans and for conservatives like him: “I am involved in mankind, and whatever the skin, we are all included in mankind.”

The bill was signed into law by President Johnson on July 2, 1964

This bill is better known as the 1964 Civil Rights Bill

We thought people like Elaine might like to know this. The Democrats were probably gonna telly you about it in a few years since is true now.

Elaine says “Democrats waited 30 days before a election to reveal this than the act itself. I wouldn’t give a damn if they waited til the day of the election, it wasn’t a lie.”

After several years of watching child abuse, the Democrats come out and say ” oh, by the way, your children are being abused”. Elaine does not care about the fact that the Democrats complacently and smugly sat back and watched on person violated our children. Elaines best response is “I wouldn’t give a damn if they waited til the day of the election, it wasn’t a lie.”

Gee, let’s question Elaines sense of human decency. Let’s Elaines son is being violated for 2 years. The Democrats witness it for 2 years. They say nothing to you for years. But finally, after 2 years of enjoying the show, the Democrats say to Elaine ” oh, by the way, your son has been anally seduced for 2 years — Aren’t you glad that we watched it happen for 2 years and that we are now telling you about it, it isn’t a lie — it really happened — we knew you wouldn’t give a damn if we waited until the day of the election to tell you about it”.

ELAINE has publicly stated that SHE DOES NOT CARE IF ALL DEMOCRATS KNEW ABOUT FOLEY BUT DID NOT SAY OR DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.

I guess that the decent thing for DEMOCRATS to do would be to watch children be violated for many years before admitting they knew it. Hey, why not enjoy the FREAK show.

ELAINE is a FREAK. She does not really care about the decent thing being done. She just wants to bash GAY’s and REPUBLICAN’s and the fellow named RAY who obviously has pointed out the truth to her.

I am a mother too. And Elaine had better keep her perverted children away from mine.

I am absolutely against Foley and/or anyone who may behave unethically while maintaining a position in government office.

Personally, I believe the age should be 18 in all states. But, I don’t get to make the law. So, while Mark Foley’s behavior appears to be completely unethical, it may not have been illegal. And if it turns out that there was anything illegal, I hope the bastard gets all penalties that can be thrown at him.

blockquote>And finally I would not care if I was in a state where 16 is the age of a consenting adult, if my 16 year old son was having communications of a sexual nature from Mark Foley, I would be furious.. I would be mad because I trusted that my son [my child, even if he was technically and legally of the age of a “consenting adult”] was only allowed and encouraged by me to go there because I thought it was simply a program that would help his career.
I would not have sent him there to be sexually enticed or groomed. In short, my trust would have been violated by a Government official. THAT IS UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR.

In spite of these assertions, which ELAINE, seems to agree with, her narrow mind somehow thinks she should accuse me of molesting 16 years old children [as she accuses Foley} just because there was sick molesting lawmakers who said it is okay.

There is only one point that ELAINE and I disagree on. She blames the entire Republican party and is highly pissed that anyone reminds her of the following truths:

DEMOCRATS like KENNEDY leaves bodies of dead women laying around and goes home to drink tea.
DEMOCRATS like STUDDS doesn’t send emails but has SEX WITH CHILDREN.
DEMOCRATS like CLINTON demonstrates to small children that a head-job is not having SEX behind his wifes back.

She uses her son as a crutch. She says, “I am not against GAYS, I just don’t want adult GAYS messing with my son”. ELAINE wouldn’t mind at all if her GAY son went and encouraged the neighborhood children of other Parents to suck his little pee pee, or maybe to bend over for him. I guess that is okay. They are all minors. Let them have at it. ELAINE, my children are not GAY. While under my roof as minors, they will not engage in sexual activity, gay or straight with my consent. Once they have reached the age of adulthood and move out on there own, I will support their decision to live in any manner they choose.

And as my bold quotes above clearly indicate, I do not endorse the behavior of any one having sex with anyone under the age of 18.

ELAINE LIES AND SAYS she is only arguing that people should be decent human beings: But, when I agree and say I am against pedophilia, I am against Mark Foley’s unethical behavior, I am against children under 18 having sex with anyone , even with each other, (even if it is “legal”, I have made it clear that I believe it is unethical and immoral) GUESS WHAT ELAINE DOES? ELAINE, DOES NOT PUBLICY AGREE with these decent human being view points ——–She instead, shows her IQ (or lack thereof) by making a feeble attempt at comparing me to Foley. Do these view points sound like Foleys view points?

IN SHORT, I merely pointed out to ELAINE the truth is that up to this moment, Mark Foley has not yet been found guilty of violating a law.
SORRY ELAINE ——–BUT NO MATTER WHAT ELAINE SAYS — IT IS STILL TRUE.

Foley, in my opinion, absolutely behaved unethically. I am happy his career is gone because of it. After a proper investigation, representation, and trial, (as our Constitution allows), if Foley is found guilty of a crime, I do hope the bastard gets the full penalty as justice demands. I am against pedophilia, I believe noone should be considered a consenting adult until after they reach the age of 18, I believe her 16 year old GAY son should not have sex with my children or with any child in their neighborhood, or anywhere else in the world. Just because ELAINE thinks the law would allow her GAY son to have sex with other minors does not mean the rest of the country agrees with her low standards.

Elaine, if this is truly about being a decent human being, then stop being judge, jury and executioner. That is not decent. You and I do agree that Ethics and Morality are shattered by people who behave as did Foley. Sometimes laws do not agree with everyones vision or what may or may not be decent for human beings. And ethics and morality may be violated without violating a law. Violating ethics and morality carries penalty as providence may dictate. The law has its own standards.

‘I agree, He was unethical because of his position of authority over a program of young adults. A program that parents encouraged their young adults to go, while assuming that their would be no homosexual advances.’

I am absolutely against Foley and/or anyone who may behave unethically while maintaining a position in government office.

You, on the other hand are attacking all Republicans ……. You said “They [Republicans] are just mad that with all their power they beg still can’t get a consenting adult to do them. So they turn to children.”

Come on ELAINE, It is obvious that you are angry with God and with the world because you have a gay child. Maybe you are angry with yourself. Maybe you now feel as though you have someone to take it out on. Someone to point your finger at so you can somehow feel a little more self-righteous. Someone who stands for all that you despise in your heart —-1. Gay and 2. Republican

I could be wrong in my assessment. But, if I am wrong, it would show in the words you use when you speak——and, If you truly agree with your own assertion, that this has nothing to do with GAY and nothing to do with REPUBLICAN, you would be attacking the behavior of the individual without mentioning his or her sexual preference, nationality, political postion, religion or etc….

Anyone from any of those postions have behaved as improperly as Mark Foley: Catholic Priests (as well as other religions), DEMOCRATS like STUDDS who actually had SEX WITH A 17 YEAR OLD PAGE [a mother's child as you put it now, but have never spoken against].

Maybe you did not know it but 16 is the age of consenting adult in over half of the states. Personally, I believe the age should be 18 in all states. But, I don’t get to make the law. So, while Mark Foley’s behavior appears to be completely unethical, it may not have been illegal. And if it turns out that there was anything illegal, I hope the bastard gets all penalties that can be thrown at him.

I think the Republicans did the right thing by canning his unethical ass right away. I hope there are rules/stipulations or programs set in place to protect our young adult or children pages (depending on which state they are from) —–and I think all DEMOCRATS who violate those ethical rules should be penalized and attacked as vigorously as a REPUBLICAN whether they are man, woman, gay, straight, or of any nationality.

I would not care if I was in a state where 16 is the age of a consenting adult, if my 16 year old son was having communications of a sexual nature from Mark Foley, I would be furious.. I would be mad because I trusted that my son [my child, even if he was technically and legally of the age of a "consenting adult"] was only allowed and encouraged by me to go there because I thought it was simply a program that would help his career.
I would not have sent him there to be sexually enticed or groomed. In short, my trust would have been violated by a Government official. THAT IS UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR.

Fortunately, the Republicans canned Foley right away to let our nation know they will not tolerate this behavior, and if it turns out that laws were violated, I am certain Foley will experience the full wrath of the Republican party as they pursue justice. Mark my word.

Use your brain ELAINE. Do you honestly think that Foley’s behavior, over the course of many years was known only by Republicans and no Democrat anywhere in the world knew anything about it? Did you ever hear any of those Democrats speak out against it? No. If they knew about it, they sat back, allowed it to happen, for years, and then all of a sudden, 30 days before election they say “Oh, by the way, look what Foley is doing”————
I WONDER IF THAT IS UNETHICAL. I wonder if you are speaking out about that.

Contrarily, American history is filled with Civil Rights Legislation and related Civil Rights programs which were opposed by both Democrat and Republican leaders. American political figures who opposed Civil Rights Legislation and related Civil Rights programs had reasons that may or may not have been “politically correct”. However, the will and majority vote of American people assured the enactment of many Civil Rights Legislation and related Civil Rights programs in spite of opposition from these American political figures.

In fact, many may venture to say that it was an act of providence that opposition from these American Political figures could not quell the will of the American people, who demand a country where fairness and equality is for everyone.

On Newsmax.com, Diane Alden makes clear this TRUTH:

“In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.”

This may be confirmed by reading the Analysis from
Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute
Click HERE