Does Hillary Clinton Really Understand the Scriptures?

I was amused by the article about a speech given by Hillary Clinton regarding the upcoming immigration reform bill in the Senate.

Clinton vows to block bill criminalizing illegal immigrants
By BETH FOUHY
AP Political Writer

Surrounded by a multicultural coalition of New York immigration advocates, Clinton blasted the House bill as "mean-spirited" and said it flew in the face of Republicans' stated support for faith and values.

"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."

I was wondering what Mrs. Clinton was referring to in both of her examples.

First, in the story of Good Samaritan, the traveler was from Samaria, a state within the political boundaries of the Country of Israel. The assumption can be made that because he was a Samaritan, a group of mixed Jewish and Canaanite blood, he was born in Samaria, was a legal citizen of the Country of Israel, and thereby free to wander at will from Galilee in the north to Judea in the south, helping anyone he chose assist. He had not entered from a foreign country illegally, obtained work with fraudulent documentation, and was not sending his wages back to support his family in his country of origin.

Jesus was born in Bethlehem in the State of Judea in the Country of Israel and except for a short stint in the land of Egypt; the record says he lived the balance of his life in Nazareth of Galilee. He did travel on an annual basis from Nazareth to Jerusalem for the celebration of the Feast of the Passover, but this was a legal trip, one that did not require visas, passports or other authorization.

In light of this information, I am completely at a loss to be able to relate Jesus and the Good Samaritan to the immigration reform bill. The legislation is designed to grant citizenship to 9 - 11 million individuals that entered this country illegally, but found work and have been able to elude the law for more than five years. That is more people than presently live in the states of Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah and Arizona - combined. It will also remove recent border jumpers and send them back to their country of origin where they would have to apply for entry under the current laws.

How does anyone have the audacity to stand up and say that someone who intentionally broke the laws of this country has a right to be absolved of that crime and not face the consequences they have earned? There are those who state that these immigrants only take the jobs that current legal residents refuse to do. Wrong; they take jobs that legal immigrants would take them if there were not so many illegal immigrants restricting the number of legal immigrants we can allow into the country. They are taking the jobs from those who are obeying the law, not those that are too lazy to work.

Immigration laws are important and necessary in our country. Without them, we would be flooded with new citizens faster than the economy can absorb them. What a remarkable place the United States of America is. It is one of the only countries in the world that has to put up fences to keep people out. The better solution would be to improve the economies of other nations so their citizens wanted to stay home because they had freedom and the opportunity to make a good living. Then immigration would not be an issue.

The immigration laws of this country may be in great need of repair, but as long as they are the law, they must be followed and enforced until changed. If not, we do not have a democracy, but anarchy.

Is that what Hillary Clinton is advocating?

Government Of The People, By The People, For The People

The recent events surrounding the purchase of Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co by Dubai Ports World, a company owned by the United Arab Emirates, and the resulting management of United States sea ports security by an Arab country has eroded a misconception of the United States government.

A vast majority of countries around the world, especially those who don’t like the U. S., think that George Bush owns, controls, and dictates what America does and doesn’t do through out the world. In their eyes, Mr. Bush represents all that they despise about the Western World. Because they haven’t experienced democracy in their own countries, they don’t understand that even though the President directs the largest and most powerful army in the world, he is unable to use it for his own personal pleasure.

In their world, kings, dictators and other totalitarian leaders own everything and everyone. The country exists for the pleasure and gratification of the leader and his supporters. It is easy to see that coming from this perspective, one would perceive that leadership in the United States is no different.

The Dubai Deal, while not done with the direct guidance of the President, was strongly supported by him as his administration’s policies and something that was good for the country. But the backlash from the voters resounded up through the halls of Congress and slapped Mr. Bush soundly in the face. Polls indicated that more than 65% of the country did not want this kind of deal to be made. With the power of this mandate in hand, the Congressional leaders were able to step into the fray and convince the UAE that modifying the deal to drop the US ports would be in their best interests. Without the support of the people, this deal would not work.

There have been those throughout the term of the present administration that have complained that the Republicans have run an agenda counter to the wishes of the American People. It appears obvious now that if the President or Congress chooses a course of action that is counter to the basic feelings and needs of this Country, the People will speak up and dictate what will happen.

President Lincoln would be please to know that nearly 150 years later, the United States of America still possesses a government of the people, by the people and for the people.