Criminalizing Jesus?!
That's what Hillary Clinton thinks a proposal to make unauthorized (i.e. illegal) presence in the United States would do (when, exactly, was Jesus an illegal immigrant, BTW?).
If this is the Democrats' idea of reaching out to people of faith, it's not going to work. Does Hillary think that all she has to do is drop Jesus' name, and the other side is going to swoon and agree with her? How insulting to all people of faith. Now, just like her husband, it seems that Jesus is being turned into a tool of Hillary's ambitions.
I'd love to see the Republicans smoke the Democrats out by being willing to loosen some restrictions in exchange for tightening voter registration and identifications measures to ensure that illegals aren't voting. What do you want to bet the Democrats wouldn't go for it?
If this is the Democrats' idea of reaching out to people of faith, it's not going to work. Does Hillary think that all she has to do is drop Jesus' name, and the other side is going to swoon and agree with her? How insulting to all people of faith. Now, just like her husband, it seems that Jesus is being turned into a tool of Hillary's ambitions.
I'd love to see the Republicans smoke the Democrats out by being willing to loosen some restrictions in exchange for tightening voter registration and identifications measures to ensure that illegals aren't voting. What do you want to bet the Democrats wouldn't go for it?
posted by LadybugUSA at 7:38 AM
8 Comments:
Always missing the point, aren't you?
Hill wasn't implying Jesus was an illegal alien. She was referring to the law that criminalizes providing assistance to illegals, such as providing shelter or free meals.
I hope you get stupid juries druing your career, or did you go to all the trouble to pass the bar to just be a blogger.
This is the quote from the story:
Clinton renewed her pledge to oppose a bill passed in December by the House that would make unlawful presence in the United States _ currently a civil offense _ a felony.
Please be advised that you are welcome to debate and disagree on this site, but comments with silly ad hominem attacks or insults directed at me or other commenters will be deleted without notice.
"The House measure would make unlawful presence in the United States, which is currently a civil offense, a felony. (NewsMax, 3/8/06)
...Clinton joined immigration advocates Wednesday to vow and block legislation seeking to criminalize undocumented immigrants.
Clinton renewed her pledge to oppose a bill passed in December by the House that would make unlawful presence in the United States _ currently a civil offense _ a felony.
"...this bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself."
(all from Newsday, 3/22/06)
The bill criminalizes several actions, including hiring and/or assisting those here illegally, and changes being here illegally from a civil to criminal breach.
Sen. Clinton's remarks noted in the linked publication make no distinction as to whether she is refering to aiding an illegal or being one. Thus, Carol's interpretation is not wrong, just different than the commenter's above.
The commenter's ad hominem attack, though, was completely unnecessary.
Then the King will say to those on his right, "Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.
"For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me."
Then the righteous will answer him, "Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?"
The King will reply, "I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me." -- Matthew 25:34-40
Jesus then continued, "Unless the least of my brothers happens to be an illegal immigrant. Woe to him who would try to enter the United States of America in search of a low-paying job that American citizens refuse to do--he is a blasphemy in my sight." -- The Lamentations of Platt-Liebau 3:23
Bachbone writes, "Sen. Clinton's remarks noted in the linked publication make no distinction as to whether she is refering to aiding an illegal or being one. Thus, Carol's interpretation is not wrong, just different than the commenter's above."
C'mon, Bachbone, show a wee little bit of spine. No reasonable person would actually infer that Hillary Clinton was claiming Jesus was an illegal immigrant, as Carol claimed. Carol is either grossly negligent or deliberately attempting to mislead her readers, and you are enabling her.
Carol, it turns out that what you wrote in your original post is false, and what Duke-stir wrote is factually correct. Did you acknowledge this fact? No. Instead you decided to engage in sophistry in an attempt to mislead any readers who don't bother to track down the sources.
It's too bad you don't have a policy of deleting posts that are intentionally misleading. At minimum, you could set a good example for us in this regard.
And here I went and believed you when you said you wanted to raise the level of debate.
Twisted Sister (I hope that's not too cruel) takes the typical lefty tack of jumping on irrelevant items in order to lessen the weight of the real point, which is, that Hill was using Jesus to bolster her political position. It's one thing to claim you're a believer, as Bush does, and quite another to inject the name of the Lord to as a dig toward the opposition. It's shameful. It's also very much like your poor application of Scripture to make YOUR point. As Christ said to render unto Caesar, I doubt He would enable law breaking, which is the point of the proposed legislation. There is a right way and a wrong way to enter the country. This bill would only affect those who enable the people who enter the wrong way. Why is it those on the left insist on trying to shame the right with Scripture when they are woefully unschooled in it's teachings?
I know I'm late returning to this, but I feel that Marshall Art's mischaracterization has slandered the Body of Christ, and must be responded to.
"As Christ said to render unto Caesar, I doubt He would enable law breaking, which is the point of the proposed legislation. There is a right way and a wrong way to enter the country. This bill would only affect those who enable the people who enter the wrong way. Why is it those on the left insist on trying to shame the right with Scripture when they are woefully unschooled in it's teachings?"
This bill would make it a criminal offense to provide food, water, or emergency first aid to an illegal immigrant--such is the mean-spirited nature of its content. Explain to me exactly what "schooling" in Scripture I need to understand that when Jesus talked about giving water to the thirsty, food to the hungry, or aid to sick He didn't really mean it. Did I miss the part where it said, "Jesus had his fingers crossed behind his back when He said this?"
Christ continued...
"Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
"For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
"I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
"Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
"Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did [it] not to one of the least of these, ye did [it] not to me.
"And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal."--Matthew 25:41-46
I'm not sure where you got your Scripture learning, Marshall, you may want to revisit this chapter. You are betting an awful lot on the Christ not meaning what he clearly states.
Post a Comment
<< Home