“… Clinton said she would support legislation that would strengthen U.S. borders, boost technology to secure the borders, and seek greater cross-border cooperation with Mexico and other neighboring countries.
“She also called for new enforcement laws, including penalties for employers who exploit illegal immigrants, as well as a system to allow the roughly 11 million illegal immigrants currently living in the United States to earn their citizenship.
[Ed. Note: that means she seeks to deploy amnesty for illegal aliens].
“Clinton expressed sympathy to representatives of communities along the U.S.-Mexico border that are frustrated by the stress of providing social services to large numbers of undocumented immigrants. But she also said she hoped to send a message that supporters of punitive immigration policy faced significant political risk for doing so.
[Ed. Note: that reads like another Clinton-threat, certainly is not the language of leadership as a representative of this country but is, rather, the language of an adversary of ours].
“‘We want the outcome to be that they’re on the wrong side of the politics as well as the wrong side of history and American values,’ she said.”
[Ed. Note: suggestive of opposition to the Constitution.]
And, worse, she said this:
“It is certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scriptures,” Clinton said, “because this bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself.”
[Ed. Note: key expression there is HER UNDERSTANDING OF SCRIPTURES, which does not mean that she has a correct understanding of Scriptures, nor a faithful one.]
To analyze this keen, Clinton manipulation of terms, it is important to separate (1.) the political campaign (Hillary Clinton’s, specifically), (2.) the social interests (again, a lot of financial helps are being provided to Hillary Clinton and others related toher by position on this issue of illegal immigration, specifically, and, there’s her campaign again, (3.) the legislative ethics and academic competence (4.) from (5.) religious principles (in this case, Christ and Christianity and Hillary’s “hopes” to denigrate those who do not reason as she does about (1.) through (5.).
Jesus Christ says we are to “render to Ceasar the things that are Ceasar’s; and to God the things that are God’s.” (Matthew 22:20-22, also Mark 12:17 and Luke 20:25, so it is clearly an instruction by Christ that is important to his disciples, given the repetition by these respective accounts).
And, moreso, in Romans 13:7, it is written: “Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.”
By these instructions from and by Christ, He tells us to behave honorably, dutifully, in compliance with civics — to not elevate the world to the realm of the holy and thereby not profane that which is holy — and to give to God that which is God’s, our repentence and faith and to preserve our immortal souls. He does not command us to violate laws, nor advise us to encourage others to do so, nor to elevate civic duties and financial interests to the holy but that does not mean that we are to be noncompliant with these worldly requirements nor to encourage others to violate them. No, in fact, Christ says we are to “render…what is due them…custom to whom custom.” He instructs as to practical appropriateness and as the importance of justice in the world, and as required by God. The “state,” therefore, is the equivalence of “Ceasar” and the act of complying with paying taxes to Ceasar is required as a means of civic obedience. However, it does not represent the holiness that is God’s but both are to be regarded in kind, “tax to whom tax is due…”
However — this is an important distinction — Hillary Clinton is a marxist (read about her “Third Way” politic) and her philosophical attempts to represent Christ are not credible in this (as with other) contexts, including that of simiarly-posited Islam: “…There is no ‘give to ceasar what is ceasar’s’ text in the koran. No outlining or recognition for the nation state. Only the state of Islam…”
Hillary Clinton, as a marxist, can and does easily apply that same “religious reasoning” to her attempts now to use Christianity: the collective becomes the religious principle in motion, there is no separaton between what is done in the name of that entity from that which is holy — the collective, thereby, is the equivalent to and of the religious principle, is, therefore, that which is “worshipped” as to fervor, concern, service and reliance.
About that, it is not what Jesus Christ, God the Father and the Holy Spirit command and instruct. Christ is no more “criminalized” by the idea of legislation that would affirm that illegal immigration is illegal (sad that it has come to this because it’s a self-evident illegality although a continually refused-to-be-recognized one). Illegal actions — whether they be as to immigration or any other) are violations of laws, represent unlawful actions by those who engage in them. Worse, persons who repeatedly violate laws and encourage, if not aid and abet others, in violating laws deserve even greater punishment by our judicial system on behalf of our society.
Our laws represent our society, then. Harms against society are identified and punished by our judicial system and that’s what our U.S. Constitution is all about as principle: to establish our nation as governed by our rule of law. People who oppose that “theory,” then, oppose the Constitution and by that, oppose the United States. Alright if you’re in a foreign land and prefer another form of government there (or anywhere else), but not fine if you seek a life in the United States because this place is ripe with laws and you will eventually run into one or know someone who does. The principle of citizenship, then, is based upon respect for the Constitution, respect for the country.
All that can appear grandiose when a person’s concerns are “feeding (a) family” and “work” and the opportunities seem bleak. Most of us don’t exist in a realm that even thinks about the Constitution on a daily basis but we do elect officials ot public office for that purpose: to represent our concerns about Constitutional principles among other citizens and among our world’s neighborhood of nations. If we all abandoned the rule of law when and as it was not convenient, we would have anarchy and, in fact, illegal immigration is a process by which anarchy has grown in the country and by which the U.S. Constitution is continually eroded and disregarded and politicians with arch-principles such as Hillary Clinton (and Ted Kennedy, to name another) are keen enablers of that erosion in the name of various “social” needs and insistence that places a want and/or a desire above the Constitution itself. Excusing those who immigrate illegally, and trying to use “Christ” as the reason why is particularly offensive because the illegal alien population consists of persons who have intentionally violated our nation’s laws and in most cases, repeatedly so, and have renounced or disregarded legal process while opting to intentionally disregard the legal process altogether. Why the idea of applying the truth in terms of right and wrong to that population is, to Hillary Clinton, a bad thing is concerning. Why proliferate the lie, is my point, why continue to amplify the wrong doing. And what is accomplished by this contrary process, this twist whereby that which is unethical is elevated to that which is good and that which is ethical is subjugated to that which is, supposedly, dishonorable.
This is suggestive of great miscarriage of both justice and logic, certainly also of Christ.
No, what Hillary Clinton opines is anarchy in reference to our nation as being governed (and founded upon) the rule of law but it is also the advancement of Marxism: without the rule of law, there is then a “third column” advance of social desires in general to the denigration of the specific. One Constitutional principle disregarded means the entire Constitutional principle is ignored.
To then allege that those who violate laws are not violating is to denounce the principle of law and to establish a special class of persons not subject to the Constitution — which, thereby, disregards the Constitution because it is in it’s essence applicable to all citizens of the country, to the country as a place of citizenship as established by the Constitution. If you are not a citizen, then the Constitution establishes processes of remedy if you seek to become one and if you do not, then it establishes limitations for your presence in this nation, and punishment if you violate those requirements.
How Hillary Clinton can bring “Christ” into this, claiming that He would be “criminalized” under our laws defining who is in the country legally and who is not — if not already because there are already laws in effect that define these terms, but they are disregarded, unfortunately, so new legislation is now being considered to further enforce our existing laws and to create new legislation to address the problems created by those who continue to disregard our laws — how “Christ” can now be used by Hillary Clinton to attempt to modify the concept of what is right and what is wrong in reference to clear violations of Constitutional principles, this is clearly self-serving rhetoric by Hillary Clinton and clearly motivated by encouragement to denigrate enforcement of our laws and her as an elected representative charged with upholding the law. Instead, she wants to make it a bad thing, something ‘against Christ,” so to speak, to apply what is due to whom it is due. She, in effect, is saying that Christ’s words are on the wrong side of things, and in effect, is talking nonsense.
Certainly Hillary Clinton is speaking as one who does not understand Christ’s words. Nor the Constitution, if I understand her positions from this article and from other statements and legislation she has supported and opposed (she’s supported and voted for partial-birth-abortions, she’s supported efforts by the ACLU to remove religious freedoms [Constitutional Freedom of Religion] and much more): her voting record (worse, she is proud of her voting record but — I think Clinton’s 2008 Presidential plans enter into ths remarkable u-turn in policy — up until recently, even those who rationalize illegal immigration rebuked her voting record).
From: “…a saying of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount: ‘…Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.'” — SEE: Matthew 7:6.
No, Hillary Clinton speaks and behaves as one who reads a lot about Christ but has no relationship with Christ. But I hope He heals her. It isn’t as if He is not aware of the problem.
“CHURCHES AND ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION”
— Cardinal Mahoney in Los Angeles disappoints by his distortions of our laws, which is not the first time Cardinal Mahoney has made such outrageously misleading statements.