Posted on 07/09/2010 7:20:27 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
RE: They can’t have it both ways, if they are part of a church shut up if they want to speak out disasssociate themselves form the church.
NOPE, DISAGREE.
Trying to muzzle a Citizen simply because he is a Pastor is AGAINST the SPIRIT of the First Amendment.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXCERCISE THEREOF”.
There is no provision that says “AS LONG AS HE IS NOT A PASTOR OF A CHURCH”.
They got tax exempt atatus to ply their trade, if churches, pastors are an unseperable part of a church, want to deove in politics give up their tax exempt status and operate like any other business.
Thank you. I found quite a bit on George Whitefield. Sounds like he was the original, number 1 Evangelist from what I’ve read so far.
re: Churches are evil and discusting!
I hasten to remind you that the framers of our constitution were MOSTLY members of so called “evil and discusting (sic)” churches. Most of them served as Deacons and Elders in their churches.
So, these pastors are preaching it is okay to break the law.
RE: George Whitefield.
Now that we know who he is, the next question -— What does he have to do with the topic of this thread ?
“. Most of them served as Deacons and Elders in their churches.”
That’s their problem not mine!
RE: So, these pastors are preaching it is okay to break the law
Where did they preach that ?
An awful lot people in this country do not pay certain taxes, particularly the income tax. However there are so many different kinds of taxes, that everybody pays some, one way or another. Why should the nonpayment of certain taxes, any taxes, take away anybody’s freedom of speech? We either have freedom of speech for all in this country, or we do not. Sadly, due to the ACLU and, I think Lyndon Johnson, we do not.
RE: That’s their problem not mine!
NOPE, that is YOUR PROBLEM, not theirs.
Public school teachers and university professors work for organizations that do not pay taxes, and like national public radio and television, even get government money. Yet teachers and university professors, and commentators on national public radio and television have free speech. Many, many other individuals in this country do not pay various taxes, yet they have free speech. Pastors work for churches, which do not pay taxes (though the pastors themselves certainly do), and they do not have free speech which is a Constitutional right guaranteed to all without any sort of required quid pro quo. Somebody please tell my why this is Constitutional.
This is amnesty. Any legislation that legalizes the status of those who broke our laws by entering our country illegally and allows them to stay is amnesty. We must not only prevent the Democrats and some moderate Republicans from hijacking the meaning of the word amnesty, but the public must be made aware about the true impact of an amnesty. The Heritage Foundation concluded that the cost of amnesty alone would be $2.6 trillion. And the number of additional LEGAL immigrants who would join those who were the recipients of amnesty through chain migration, i.e., family reunification, would approach 70 million over a 20-year period, assuming there are only 12 million illegal aliens. We cannot assimilate such numbers. An amnesty would destroy the United States of America with the stroke of a pen.
“their 3 steps”
Step one appears to be well thought out and passes the test (I especially liked the protection from persecution, prosecution and lawsuits part)
Step Two has several problems or items that require clarification:
1.First paragraph does not back up the allegations with facts or statistics. I know several legal immigrants that were treated equitably and fairly. The “low quotas” and “inhumane” treatment and “dignity” are opinions which seem to be means toward an end; 2nd paragraph is OK.
2. Third paragraphs “meaningul quotas” again implies low quotas without documentation; what’s this business of entering legally while maintaining family ties; current LEGAL immigrants have no problem doing that - this seems focused on Mexicans; no problems with temporary worker program if proven shortages; gross omission is failure to enact severe fines for hiring illegals consistent with verification process.
3. Step Three - “specified” illegal immigrants is a joke. Those who qualify (whodat?), involved in lawful commerce (does that mean have a job - how verify?); nothing mentioned about how they will have to go to the back of the bus behind others that have lawfully applied. What good is a work visa for an illegal that doesn’t have a job; that’s a drain on taxpayers; all violators not just the crimes against property or person should be DENIED LEGAL STATUS OF ANY KIND AND DEPORTED; Receiving entitlements has too many loopholes; it should limit to legislative processes that are shielded from the Court system (using Art. III Sec. 2 of the Constitution)which has a nasty habit of enhancing all sorts of benefits for illegal aliens or invalidating State laws or portions of state constitutions. Anchor babies should not be considered as reason to remain unless other criteria met.
All in all step 1 is great - pretty much locked in concrete; the rest of them need some serious modifications - loosey goosey heavily oriented toward wink wink amnesty.
Illegals should not get citizenship. Let them leave and wait their turn in line behind all the people who are trying to do it lawfully. Let them pay the thousands of dollars that those law-abiding people are paying. It is absolutely disgusting to reward illegals with citizenship.
Do you understand how our legal immigration system works? We take in 1.2 million LEGAL IMMIGRANTS A YEAR, WHICH IS MORE THAN THE REST OF THE WORLD COMBINED. We have limitations on various categories of immigrants, mainly based on familial relationships. Legal immigrants can sponsor wives/husbands, children, parents, uncles, cousins, siblings, etc. There are various caps on these kinds of immigrants. We cannot admit everyone who wants to come immediately.
There are approximately 3 million intending immigrants waiting their turn overseas. They have completed all of the paperwork. So exactly what does the "SPEEDY PROCESSING OF THEIR APPLICATIONS" mean in terms of the above framework of admissions. Are they saying we should remove the caps? What about background, medical, and security checks? Admission into the US is a privilege, not a right.
Pol, you covered one I forgot in my post to Seek - the PAY part. And Seek needs to get off characterizing those of us that are opposed to mass paths to citizenship as being racists, un-Christian, et. al. Immigrants need to be self sustaining (legally) or be deported, plain and simple.
The amnesty types like to create the distinction between "criminal illegal aliens" [an estimated 2 million] and "lawful illegal aliens." They draw this distinction so they can give the 10 to 20 million illegal aliens amnesty, i.e., allow them to stay and work here.
The reality is that existing immigration law requires that all illegal aliens be deported. They are all criminals in terms of breaking our laws including entering illegally, working illegally, identity theft, failure to pay taxes, etc.
The open border, amnesty types media have hijacked the language surrounding the immigration issue to the point that we had Michael Chertoff, the Secretary of Homeland Security and our nation’s top immigration official at the time, testifying before Congress using the term “undocumented workers” to describe illegal aliens. John McCain and Barack Obama studiously avoided the term “amnesty” to describe their comprehensive immigration reform plans and despite the evidence, baldly declared that it was not an amnesty. Instead, they used such euphemisms as “getting to the back of the line,” “an earned path to citizenship,” and “coming out of the shadows.” The Democrats and pro-amnesty crowd know full well that the American people are against amnesty, hence the avoidance of the “A” word.
How to dilute a strong problem:
illegal alien - illegal immigrant - undocumented immigrant - unauthorized immigrant - unauthorized worker
Using wordplay to delude the ignorant masses
He who frames the argument usually wins it. The Dems have been past masters at using words, usually focus group tested, to disguise what they are doing. It depends on what the meaning of “is” is.
LOL It’s OK. I’ve gotta tell ya, tho, that my contacs melted after reading that many Google pages. JK
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.