Monday, May 21, 2007

The Amnesty Bill

Oh...excuse me? It's not called an amnesty bill?


Just what is that saying I'm trying to recall? Oh yeah...if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

You know the rest!

America's illegal immigration problem is alive and well. But this bill makes it far worse!

I'm with Sean Hannity on this one! On his radio show yesterday, Sean mentioned that the moment he heard that Ted Kennedy...of all people...agrees with this bill, that was the moment that he IMMEDIATELY questioned it.

I agree!

And,now that the ugly details are out, I'm even more alarmed!

I heard that this bill will cost American taxpayers TRILLIONS of dollars! That's TRILLION...WITH A 'T"!

Michele Malkin covers most of the details in her posts:

Dissecting the Bush/Kennedy shamnesty bill

In the No-Spin Zone

Michele will be guest hosting The O'Reilly Factor tonight. I think that she is one of the best guest hosts who fills in when Bill is away. Tonight should be most informative and interesting! She plans to cover this awful amnesty bill that Congress is about to succomb to!

Why are many in Congress headed towards approving this bill?

Because they value their OWN power and position in Washington over the desires and will of the people who elected them to office in the first place! That's why!!

We must flood the congressmen and senators' offices with phone calls, letters, and emails voicing our opposition to this terrible bill!!

Trackback URL:

P.S. This bill is so obviously revealed as amnesty, even a cartoon character like Wimpy can explain it!


Kingdom Advancer said...

One interesting part of this bill that you didn't mention is that some think it could potentially eliminate the Republican party and leave us with a one-party system. Now there is some logic you'd think the incomprehensible Republicans that are thinking of passing this bill would definitely understand.
The idea is that so many Hispanics will pour in, get voting rights, and then the majority will vote Democrat.

ebsfwan said...

Leviticus 19:33-34

Christinewjc said...

Hi Kingdom Advancer,

I don't know about that...eliminating the Republican party seems a bit far-fetched to me. But who knows? Anything can happen in this crazy world!

I can understand why you said that, however. If CA Republicans are representative of the Republicans in Washington, then we are in serious trouble.

I just received an email from Randy Thomasson of Campaign for Children and Families. Here's what he wrote:

"Shock. Dismay. Anger! Those were my emotions Monday as I listened to 24 Democrats and 13 Republicans team up to further undermine marriage between a man and a woman. The Senate Democrats voting as they did was expected. But never before had Republican legislators joined them in attacking marriage and leaving California families in the dust. I hope you're angry too.

SB 105 by lesbian state Senator Carole Migden of San Francisco says "the domestic partner or former domestic partner of a taxpayer shall be treated as the spouse or former spouse of that taxpayer" in regards to personal income taxes and corporate taxes. This bill creating counterfeit marriage rights for homosexuals passed 37-2 in the California State Senate on Monday. SB 105 is one of several anti-family bills that the Democrats hope to land on the desk of Governor Schwarzenegger."

I just couldn't believe that 13 Republican state senators voted with the Democrats to further undermine marriage!! Only 2 Republicans, Dennis Hollingsworth and Tom McClintock voted against this bill!

I know that I have veered off the topic here, but this example agrees with your premise that we may, indeed, be headed towards the "one-party system." It's clearly already happening in California!

Back to the amnesty topic.

You stated, "The idea is that so many Hispanics will pour in, get voting rights, and then the majority will vote Democrat."

Do you really believe that would happen? I thought I heard somewhere that a huge amount of Hispanics voted for GW Bush in the last election. Perhaps this is the main reason why he supports this awful bill.

I have consistently disagreed with Bush on the subject of illegal immigration.

He has been consistent and steadfast in the war against radical Islam (despite the MSM and Democrats bashing him every single day) and I applaud him for never wavering on this very important security issue facing our nation ever since 9/11.

However, I vehemently disagree with his illegal immigration policies. The fact that he has not followed through on securing the border and has now added insult to injury by supporting this terrible amnesty bill are what disappoints me most about his presidency.

Christinewjc said...

Leviticus 19:33-34

Lev 19:33 'And if a stranger dwells with you in your land, you shall not mistreat him.

Lev 19:34 'The stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.


Those verses do not say that illegal immigrants should have the same privileges as those who came into our country LEGALLY...according to our sovereign nation's laws and rules for proper methods of immigration!

Get in line, like my grandparents did.

Mar 12:17 And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.

This Matthew Henry commentary seems fitting to include here:

III. The question they put was, Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not? They would be thought desirous to know their duty. As a nation that did righteousness, they ask of God the ordinances of justice, when really they desired nothing but to know what he would say, in hopes that, which side soever he took of the question, they might take occasion from it to accuse him. Nothing is more likely to ensnare ministers, than bringing them to meddle with controversies about civil rights, and to settle land-marks between the prince and the subject, which it is fit should be done, while it is not at all fit that they should have the doing of it. They seemed to refer the determining of this matter to Christ; and he indeed was fit to determine it, for by him kings reign, and princes decree justice; they put the question fairly, Shall we give, or shall we not give? They seemed resolved to stand to his award; "If thou sayest that we must pay tribute, we will do it, thou we be made beggars by it. If thou sayest that we must not, we will not, though we be made traitors for it.’’ Many seemed desirous to do it; as those proud men, Jer. 42:20.

IV. Christ determined the question, and evaded the snare, by referring them to their national concessions already made, by which they were precluded from disputing this matter, v. 15–17. He knew their hypocrisy, the malice that was in their hearts against him, while with their mouth they showed all this love. Hypocrisy, though ever so artfully managed, cannot be concealed from the Lord Jesus. He sees the potsherd that is covered with the silver dross. He knew they intended to ensnare him, and therefore contrived the matter so as to ensnare them, and to oblige them by their own words to do what they were unwilling to do, which was, to pay their taxes honestly and quietly, and yet at the same time to screen himself against their exceptions. He made them acknowledge that the current money of their nation was Roman money, had the emperor’s image on one side, and his superscription on the reverse; and if so, 1. Caesar might command their money for the public benefit, because he had the custody and conduct of the state, wherein he ought to have his charges borne; Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s. The circulation of the money is from him as the fountain, and therefore it must return to him. As far as it is his, so far it must be rendered to him; and how far it is his, and may be commanded by him, is to be judged by the constitution of the government, according as it is, and hath settled the prerogative of the prince and the property of the subject. 2. Caesar might not command their consciences, nor did he pretend to it; he offered not to make any alteration in their religion. "Pay your tribute, therefore, without murmuring or disputing, but be sure to render to God the things that are God’s.’’

Mark said...

I have a feeling Matthew Henry's commentary just exposed ebsfwan as well.

He knew their hypocrisy, the malice that was in their hearts against him, while with their mouth they showed all this love.