ARTICLES - HOT OFF THE FAGGOT

Vatican’s ploy to thwart criticism of its nefarious Bank is yet another scam

Amplify’d from www.secularism.org.uk

Vatican’s ploy to thwart criticism of its nefarious Bank is yet another scam

By Terry Sanderson

In a desperate attempt to pre-empt the findings of an investigation by Italian authorities, the Vatican has rushed through new procedures which it claims will make its notoriously opaque banking activities “more transparent”.

In September, Italian prosecutors announced that they had put Mr. Gotti Tedeschi chairman of the Vatican’s bank and the bank’s director general under investigation for alleged noncompliance with Italy’s anti-money-laundering rules. They also impounded 23 million euros of the bank’s cash.

Now the Vatican has announced with great fanfare that it has created a watchdog to supervise financial transactions and new laws against financial crimes.

“This is a very important step in a long path towards transparency and legality,” said Father Federico Lombardi, the Vatican’s spokesman – as though honesty was something that Vatican had to strive for and ultimately be forced into.

The new so-called Authority for Financial Information claims that it will monitor all Vatican institutions — including its bank, pharmacy and supermarket — for possible crimes including terrorism financing, stock-market violations and insider trading, according to an apostolic letter published on the Vatican’s website.

The Authority will be able to investigate and prosecute violators “in accordance with Vatican law”. This is the same “Vatican law” that permitted the cover-up of thousands of crimes committed by paedophile priests. It is the law that is answerable to no-one but the pope and can be interpreted in any way that suits the Holy See’s purpose. No-one who is prosecuted under canon law goes to prison; mostly they just have to say a few “Hail Marys” to absolve themselves.

The new watchdog is claimed to be “autonomous” – so autonomous, in fact, that all its members will be personally appointed by the Pope.

The whole thing stinks, but once again the Vatican puts up a smokescreen and flim-flams its way out of trouble and everyone just sits back and believes — because the pope says so — that the problem has been addressed and solved. Will the Italian prosecutors be taken in by this blatant attempt to deflect attention from the Vatican’s almost-certainly illegal money-making activities?

According to a person close to the probe, as part of the investigation into the Vatican Bank’s unregulated activities, Italian prosecutors are trying to determine whether the bank’s clients used it to transfer funds to Italy from Vatican City, which is outside the jurisdiction of Italian financial regulators.

For years, the Vatican Bank has transferred funds to its accounts at other banks on behalf of its clients without fully disclosing who those clients are. It was because of this that suspicions arose that mafia money was being laundered through the bank. In 2007, however, Italy introduced tougher disclosure laws, requiring banks to list the names of people who receive funds from Vatican bank accounts and the reason for the transaction.

Read more at www.secularism.org.uk
 

US: Vatican relations strong despite cable leak

US does not need relations with the Vatican beast power!

Amplify’d from www.google.com
US: Vatican relations strong despite cable leak

ROME (AP) — Washington's relationship with the Holy See is too strong to be undermined by WikiLeaks revelations, the U.S. ambassador to the Vatican said in an AP interview Friday.

Among thousands of U.S. diplomatic cables being leaked by the secret-spilling site are comments on aggressive Vatican diplomacy to head off law suits in the sex abuse scandals and claims that some Vatican officials harbor anti-Semitic sentiments.

Miguel H. Diaz said there are always "ups and downs" in any relationship and they sometimes end in divorce, but he didn't see the WikiLeaks issue as "one of those situations."

Diaz represents the Obama administration, which has come under sharp attack by some in the Catholic church for its support of abortion rights and embryonic stem cell research.

Pope Benedict XVI stressed the church's position on the issues when President Barack Obama visited the Vatican in 2009. Vatican officials said Obama pledged to seek to reduce abortions, a promise the president made publicly during a visit to Notre Dame University. The visit was nevertheless opposed by conservative Catholics because Obama supports abortion rights.

Obama's election presented a challenge for the Vatican after eight years of common ground with President George W. Bush in opposing abortion, an issue that drew them together despite the Vatican's opposition to the war in Iraq.

"There has never been a time in any administration in which there is 100 percent consensus across the board," Diaz said.

The United States only established formal diplomatic ties with the Vatican 27 years ago under President Ronald Reagan, who forged a close relationship with Polish-born Pope John Paul II helped by their mutual opposition to Communism.

From an era with a rallying cry of "tear down this wall," Obama has moved to "building bridges" to overcome differences, Diaz said.

He cited U.S.-Vatican cooperation on promoting human rights and religious freedom, opposing the trafficking of human beings and working with the Catholic charity Caritas on relief efforts after the deadly earthquake in Haiti and elsewhere.

Hispanics make up a large segment of the U.S. Catholic population, and the Havana-born Diaz, a university theology professor who is a Roman Catholic, is the first Hispanic to serve Washington as envoy to the Holy See. Polls showed Obama received a majority of Catholic votes.

Read more at www.google.com
 

Supremes consider stopping courts from passing the buck on eligibility

Amplify’d from www.wnd.com

Supremes consider stopping courts from passing the buck on eligibility

Well, somebody has to rule, right?

BORN IN THE USA?

By Drew Zahn




© 2011 WorldNetDaily


Lt. Col. Terry Lakin is the highest-ranking and first active-duty officer to refuse to obey orders based on President Obama's eligibility.

The question of Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility to be president is being discussed in conference before the Supreme Court today, as an attorney is asking the justices to stop lower courts from passing on the buck on where eligibility challenges should be heard.

In the separate cases of two U.S. soldiers – Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin and Capt. Connie Rhodes – who refused orders from a commander in chief they allege has not demonstrated eligibility to hold command, attorney Dr. Orly Taitz says lower courts have issued contradictory rulings to defer making a decision, rulings that now must be resolved by the nation's highest court.

"We have clear controversy between different courts," Taitz told WND. "The judge in Capt. Rhodes' case said he was not going to decide a lawsuit on internal matters of the military, saying it was up to the military to decide.

"On other hand," she pointed out, "in Lakin's case, Army Judge [Col. Denise R.] Lind says it's not up to the military, and based on that, Lakin was imprisoned."

Furthermore, Taitz explained, civil courts have also issued decisions citing mutually exclusive reasons for refusing to rule on Obama's eligibility.

"In Alan Keyes' lawsuit, a California judge said the case was premature, because the electoral process had yet to run its course. The case was filed before the meeting of electors, and only afterward could the judiciary step in," Taitz told WND. "But in cases in Georgia, Judge [Clay] Land stated that it was frivolous to file so late, after the Electoral College had run its course."

Taitz' implied question, which she has now submitted to the Supreme Court for a definitive answer, is, which is it? Should challenges be brought before the election is ratified or after? And should soldiers bring their challenges to civilian courts or military?

"When we have cases with different courts and military courts coming up with decisions that are clearly contradictory, the Supreme Court has to hear this case on the merits and resolve such disputes between courts," Taitz insists.

In the case of Capt. Rhodes, Judge Land insisted the legitimacy of the commander in chief was a question for the military and issued Taitz a $20,000 sanction for thus bringing a "frivolous" lawsuit to a civilian court.

But in her most recently filed brief, Taitz argues Lt. Col. Lakin's case demonstrates the need for the Supreme Court to establish where and when challenges to Obama's eligibility can be given hearing.

Orly Taitz
Orly Taitz

"Currently we have conflicting and diametrically opposite decisions," the brief states. "Taitz was sanctioned because Land believed the legitimacy of order was internal for the military, and Lakin was dishonorably discharged and imprisoned because Judge Lind believed that it is not up to the military to decide.

"There has to be a judicial determination by the Supreme Court in the land, the Supreme Court of the United States, whether members of the U.S. military can question legitimacy of orders coming down the chain of command from [an] illegitimate commander in chief," the brief continues. "[The Supreme Court] needs to determine whether such challenge and inquiry into legitimacy of orders can be mounted in federal court, state court or military court."

The Supreme Court is meeting in conference today and scheduled to consider the merits of Taitz's brief. The attorney told WND a decision on whether or not to hear arguments in the case could be announced as soon as Monday.

There have been dozens of lawsuits and challenges over the fact that Obama's eligibility never has been documented. The "Certification of Live Birth" his campaign posted online is a document that Hawaii is a document that has made available to those not born in the state.

The controversy stems from the Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

The challenges to Obama's eligibility allege he does not qualify because he was not born in Hawaii in 1961 as he claims, or that he fails to qualify because he was a dual citizen, through his father, of the U.S. and the United Kingdom when he was born and the framers of the Constitution specifically excluded dual citizens from eligibility.

There are several cases still pending before the courts over Obama's eligibility, including two that are scheduled to be discussed by the members of the U.S. Supreme Court. Others remain pending at the appellate level.

Those cases, however, almost all have been facing hurdles created by the courts' interpretation of "standing," meaning someone who is being or could be harmed by the situation. The courts have decided almost unanimously that an individual taxpayer faces no damages different from other taxpayers, therefore doesn't have standing. Judges even have ruled that other presidential candidates are in that position.

The result is that none of the court cases to date has reached the level of discovery, through which Obama's birth documentation could be brought into court.

Tens of thousands already have signed on.

"What we need are hundreds of thousands of Americans endorsing this strategy on the petition – encouraging more action by state officials before the 2012 election. Imagine if just one or two states adopt such measures before 2012. Obama will be forced to comply with those state regulations or forgo any effort to get on the ballot for re-election. Can Obama run and win without getting on all 50 state ballots? I don't think so," he said.

For 18 months, Farah has been one of the few national figures who has steadfastly pushed the issue of eligibility, despite ridicule, name-calling and ostracism at the hands of most of his colleagues. To date, in addition to the earlier petition, he has:

Farah says all those campaigns are continuing.

"Obama may be able to continue showing contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law for the next two years, as he has demonstrated his willingness to do in his first year in office," he wrote in a column. "However, a day of reckoning is coming. Even if only one significant state, with a sizable Electoral College count, decides a candidate for election or re-election has failed to prove his or her eligibility, that makes it nearly impossible for the candidate to win. It doesn't take all 50 states complying with the law to be effective."


If you are a member of the media and would like to interview Joseph Farah about this campaign, e-mail WND.

Read more at www.wnd.com
 

'Religion of peace' launching 'ferocious' attacks


Uninvited

Amplify’d from www.chick.com
 

Confusion Growing over Tolerance of Homosexuals

Amplify’d from www.chick.com

Confusion Growing over Tolerance of Homosexuals

The signing of the Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell repeal by President Obama is yet another advance to the mass confusion caused by the sodomite "abomination." It is a victory for homosexual activists, but military officials plan to use caution in implementing it.

Foot soldiers wonder how they will feel when ogled in the common showers and chaplains fear restrictions on preaching from certain scriptures where God expresses His opinion on the subject.


We are just beginning to see some of the early consequences of legalizing this sin. David Epstein, a Columbia University professor arrested for felony incest with his consenting 24-year-old daughter, is pointing to the 2003 Supreme Court decision striking down sodomy laws.


The court found that the government cannot prohibit "private, consensual, sexual or intimate conduct that does not involve minors or coercion." Epstein argues that this makes incest legal between any consenting adults.


In Maine, a middle school is being charged with discrimination against a sixth-grade child who is a boy, biologically, but has chosen the "gender identity" of a girl. Instead of allowing him/her access to the girls' bathroom and showers as she/he requested, they provided personal separate facilities and sensitivity training for the staff and other students.


The parents sued because this arrangement "isolated and alienated" her/him from other students. They then moved the child to another school to escape the "hostile environment."


Another front of attack by the sodomite lobby is called ENDA, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. If  passed by the legislature it would add "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to the list of protected categories that an employer cannot consider when hiring, firing or promoting someone. The bill supposedly contains a "church exemption," thus not forcing churches to hire someone who does not hold the church's biblical values. But what about Christian publishers, gospel bookstores, missions organizations, etc.?


If  ENDA passes into law, it would be administered by the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission. President Obama's nominee to sit on the EOEC is Chai Feldblum, an open lesbian and Georgetown law professor. When asked about employers considering religious beliefs when hiring, she replied, "Gays win; Christians lose!"


Another goal of the homosexual lobby is the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). This law, enacted in the mid 1990s, states that marriage must only be between a man and a woman. This is the main block against legal acceptance of same-sex marriage nationwide. If it falls, all states will have to honor such marriages performed in other states.


Hot TopicsAs mentioned in a previous Battle Cry about the judge's ruling against the Christian Legal Society at Hastings Law School, other universities are pressuring Christian clubs on campus to stop "discriminating" against homosexuals by refusing to allow them to be leaders in their clubs.  Also, other states are following California's lead in mandating the teaching that same-sex marriage is just an alternate life style.


Until the last quarter century, our laws agreed with the Bible that sodomy was a "preferred" behavior that people chose to do. Now, they have succeeded in selling the lie that they were born with a same-sex "orientation." This makes them eligible for special "civil rights," just like people who were born black. Using the anti-discrimination laws, they are claiming all kinds of benefits and protections for their sinful lifestyle.


Chick Publications has tried to warn against this abomination with tracts and books exposing these lies and stressing God's viewpoint. Our newest tract, Uninvited, shows how Satan uses his devils to seduce people into this sinful lifestyle. But Jesus has power even over this demonic spirit.


Another Chick publication, Hot Topics, deals with homosexuality and pornography, among other politically incorrect subjects.

Read more at www.chick.com
 

The Sissy, the Movie

Tiny Shoes Cartoon

Tiny Shoes Cartoon

Videos from two of Jack Chick’s stories, “The Sissy” and “Tiny Shoes.”

Amplify’d from www.chick.com

Four years ago, Steve West called Chick Publications with an idea, and a vision.  He asked for permission to make video animations of Chick tracts, using software currently available.  His vision was to deliver these gospel messages to a generation that is reading less and less.  He hoped to have them translated and make something that would help missionaries spread the Gospel.

We gave him permission, and he formed Littleshots Productions and produced videos from two of Jack Chick’s stories, “The Sissy” and “Tiny Shoes.” 

Steve West does not have a fifty million dollar budget (he paid for it all himself), so the result may not be Pixar-quality, but the gospel message is emotional and uncompromised. We are making these two stories available to you on DVD so you can use them in your ministry.  To see if they meet your needs, we suggest you watch them first (see video players below).

You can show them to your Sunday School class, youth group, or even your church.  Then discuss the message of the story and lead people to Christ.  Also, if you purchase a copy, you are free to make as many copies as you wish for your own use.  You can give them away like a tract, too.

The Sissy
Tiny Shoes
See more at www.chick.com