Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19
Like Tree1Likes

Thread: Carson: Latinos don’t just care about immigration

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #11
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883
    Quote Originally Posted by csarbww View Post
    Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham have told us about a successful strategy for Republicans to win elections: A populists’ appeal for jobs for Americans by unequivocal opposition to amnesty and absolute border control. If a republican candidate did that he would draw to him many of the Democrat blue collar workers like Reagan did, the so-called “Reagan Democrats.” That is how to “broaden the Party’s base.” It is foolishness to try to compete with Democrats on their liberal issues. E.g. no matter what amnesty proposal a Republican may make the Democrats will offer an easier, bigger amnesty.

    Blue collar workers know they have been betrayed by the Democrats who care more about illegal aliens and gays than they care about American laborers. They see the Republicans ignore them and pander to mega rich corporations. If a Republican fought to preserve jobs for Americans starting with the biggest jobs killer, illegal immigration, they love him and rally to him.
    Even some Republican women and men who support them won't vote for a Republican Pro-Life Anti-Gay candidate. Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham get it right on immigration and some trade issues but fail on civil rights issues. Furthermore, the candidates they have supported so far have proven they can't be trusted on immigration and trade issues. So, no they have not laid out a successful plan at all.

    And, right now, unless we come up with a candidate that supports both the right stances on trade, immigration and civil rights, Bernie Sanders is going to be the next President of the United States.

    I hope Trump can get it together, so we'll wait and see.
    Last edited by Judy; 06-19-2015 at 03:13 AM.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  2. #12
    MW
    MW is offline
    Senior Member MW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    25,717
    Quote Originally Posted by Judy View Post
    It's not about race. What's being ignored by GOPers is the women vote. They're trying to replace the votes they lose in the women vote with Latino votes so they can maintain their anti-woman, anti-gay stances and still try to win the White House. It's quite foolish, but then people who are anti-woman and anti-gay are generally pretty foolish. They think Latinos because most of them are Catholic will side with their anti-abortion, anti-gay stances, but they're wrong. These two issues are why most Latinos are Democrats. These two stances are why Democrats are still the majority party, it's why even though Republican History and the Original Republican Philosophy would have dictated Republicans be a majority in our country by now, but we aren't and won't be until we change the platform and stop this nonsense against women and gays.
    Being against abortion doesn't make a person anti-women, nor does believing marriage should be between a man and woman makes you anti-gay! Guess you've got the lefts talking points and phrases down pat. Furthermore, no, the majority of Latinos do not support abortion. The study I just read shows them pretty evenly divided on the topic.

    "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" ** Edmund Burke**

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts athttps://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  3. #13
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883
    Quote Originally Posted by MW View Post
    Being against abortion doesn't make a person anti-women, nor does believing marriage should be between a man and woman makes you anti-gay! Guess you've got the lefts talking points and phrases down pat. Furthermore, no, the majority of Latinos do not support abortion. The study I just read shows them pretty evenly divided on the topic.
    Well, let me put it more direct then. In my opinion, anyone who wants to use laws to represent their views to force a pregnant girl or woman with an unwanted pregnancy into childbirth against her will is anti-girl and anti-woman just as forcing gay couples who want to marry to live without the same legal and financial protections of state-recognized marriage that other couples have is anti-gay.

    As to Latinos and abortion, I guess it depends on what study. Here's one in Texas:

    The poll found that Latino voters in Texas hold very similar views to Latino voters nationwide on abortion rights and the health insurance coverage of abortion and birth control. Exit polls in the 2012 elections showed that 66 percent of Latino voters believed abortion should be legal, while only 28 percent disagreed. In Texas, 6 out of 10 Latino voters said even if a church leader says abortion is wrong, it should be legal, and 78 percent said they agree that women should be able to make their own decisions about abortion.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/1...10.htmlLatinos and Abortion

    MAY 11, 2014

    This story is included with an NYT Opinion subscription.






    To the Editor:


    Re “In California Race, a Latina Democrat Carries Hopes of Her Party and People” (news article, May 5):


    It’s disappointing to see myths perpetuated about Latino attitudes toward abortion, which was the case when, as you reported, Representative David Valadao, a Republican running for re-election to California’s 21st District, said he believes that his conservative politics on issues like abortion and taxes appeals to Hispanic voters.


    This isn’t just incorrect; it also serves to shame and silence Latinos who support abortion access or who have had an abortion themselves.


    Latinos hold compassionate views on abortion; according to our polling, three of four Latino voters believe that a woman should be able to make her own decision about abortion and pregnancy without the interference of politicians. I talk to Latinas every day who are struggling to care for their families, protect their health and make the best decisions about their futures. What they need is more access to quality health care services, not political grandstanding based on stereotypes.

    JESSICA GONZÁLEZ-ROJAS
    Executive Director, National Latina
    Institute for Reproductive Health
    New York, May 7, 2014
    And if it's not anti-woman to force girls and women into childbirth against their will, lets see how they voted on other women's stuff like ... equal pay for equal work.

    Oh my .....

    Equal Pay For Equal Work Seems Like A No-Brainer, Right?

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/peggydre...brainer-right/

    On Wednesday, Senate Republicans blocked—for the third time—the Paycheck Fairness Act, a bill proposing to close the pay gap between men and women. The goal of the bill—the attainment of equal pay for equal work—seems like a no-brainer, right? Women with the same job, and same qualifications, as men deserve to be paid the same. They do not deserve to be discriminated against in salary on the basis of gender. Seems obvious. And yet not a single Republican voted in favor of the Act, and many Americans no longer know what to think, either.

    The problem is that the message has been greatly muddled, twisted, and usurped, mostly for political gain. Equal Pay has become less a noble, unquestionable goal than a political talking point. Democrats argue that wage disparities persist, pulling out the oft-cited figure that women, on average, earn 77 percent to a man’s dollar. They accuse Republicans of failing the bill in favor of “more important” political agendas.Republicans, meanwhile, say the bill is simply a Democratic ploy to distract from the disappointment of Obamacare; that it’s been against the law to pay a woman less than a man with similar experience in the same job since the Equal Pay Act of 1963. Paycheck Fairness, they say, would make it impossible for employers to tie compensation to work quality, productive, and experience. Lawsuits would increase.

    And, well, look, they point out: Even women in the Obama White House earn 88 percent of their male counterparts, according to study conducted by the American Enterprise Institute.It’s undeniable that women are losing ground. A study released earlier this week from the Pew Research Center reported that after decades of decline, more mothers—nearly 30 percent—are staying at home to raise children, a 6 percent increase since 1999. But these aren’t quite the women we often think of as stay-at-home moms, the ones choosing to rebel against the Sandberg manifesto and “opt out,” or who can rely on well-paid husbands to foot the bills.

    The women represented in the increase are younger, less likely to be white, more likely to be foreign-born, and less likely to be college educated. They’re staying at home in increasing numbers not by choice, but because they can’t find work—or the work they find isn’t well compensated enough to cover the necessary childcare. Perpetuating the cycle is the fact that, as Pew also reports, women are more likely to experience family-related “career disruptions.” They fall behind when they take time out to raise kids. They return to the workplace at a disadvantage.

    Whether women earn 77 cents to the male dollar, as the Obama administration sticks to, or the figure is closer to Pew’s findings of 84 cents for most women and as high as 93 percent for younger women, it’s clear that the playing field is not equal. It’s also clear that disparities are indeed related to gender. Recent cases have shown that women who ask for pay increases often don’t get them. What they get instead: negative reactions. A 2007 study found that women who asked for raises were perceived as demanding. Men, meanwhile, faced no backlash.

    Even Republicans concede that gender discrimination is no myth, and have offered an amendment to the Paycheck Fairness Act that would address the opportunity gap and prevent employers from retaliating against workers who share salary information.Which means that both parties want the same thing. So what’s the problem? The problem, of course, is politics. And unfortunately nothing will happen until Democrats and Republicans agree to make Equal Pay a fairness issue rather than a political one. In the meantime, it’s women who suffer.

    Follow Peggy on Twitter and Facebook and learn more about Peggy at www.peggydrexler.com

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/peggydre...brainer-right/

    I don't understand people who want to force girls and women into childbirth against their will, who want to force gay couples to live without legal and financial protections or deny them services, who want women to do the same work as men without the same pay, and so on and so forth.

    But hey, if Republican candidates want to continue to alienate women and gays to pursue the "Latino vote", have at it, but I think most will be very disappointed with the outcome.
    Last edited by Judy; 06-19-2015 at 09:57 AM.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  4. #14
    MW
    MW is offline
    Senior Member MW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    25,717
    Judy, does it surprise you to know that there are actually gay people that don't support gay marriage? Does that make them anti-gay? What about all the millions of women who are pro-life? Does that make them anti-women? Your utilization of such liberally designed terms are lost on me.

    As for Hispanic support for abortion:

    Excerpt:

    Yet overall, Hispanics are evenly split on the issue of abortion—the same percentage (46%) of Hispanics think abortion should be legal in most or all cases as think it should be illegal in most or all cases (the remaining 8% aren’t sure of their views). The extremes are the same size, too—one in five (20%) Hispanics think abortion should be legal in all cases, and the same percentage thinks it should be illegal in all cases.
    http://hispanics.barna.org/hispanic-...ily-and-youth/

    Excerpt:

    Gallup didn’t break down abortion views by race, but the Pew Research Center did. The following people said abortion should be illegal: 40% of Non-Hispanic Blacks, 45% of Non-Hispanic Whites, and 50% of Hispanics. This is a wider range than that for age, but it doesn’t align with the suggestion that the pro-life movement is disproportionately white. Apparently Hispanics are more likely to consider themselves pro-life than white people, and there are millions of black people who are also anti-abortion.
    http://blog.secularprolife.org/2012/...ro-lifers.html

    "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" ** Edmund Burke**

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts athttps://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  5. #15
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883
    Well, MW,

    Yet overall, Hispanics are evenly split on the issue of abortion—the same percentage (46%) of Hispanics think abortion should be legal in most or all cases as think it should be illegal in most or all cases (the remaining 8% aren’t sure of their views). The extremes are the same size, too—one in five (20%) Hispanics think abortion should be legal in all cases, and the same percentage thinks it should be illegal in all cases.
    Your own Gallup quote means that 80% of Hispanics think abortion should be legal in some or all cases with only 20% who oppose. Can't you even understand the political relevance of your own statistics? Geez.

    Furthermore,

    Race

    Among women from the 39 areas for which race was reported for 2006, white women (including both Hispanic and non-Hispanic white women) accounted for the largest percentage (55.8%) of abortions; black women accounted for 36.4% and women of other racial groups for 7.8% (Table 10). Black women had higher abortion rates and ratios than white women and women of other races (Table 10). Among the 29 reporting areas that provided data every year during 1997--2006, the percentage of abortions by race changed little; abortions by women in the "other" racial category increased, but the percentage remained low (5.8%--7.7%) (Table 11). Among women from all racial groups, abortion rates and ratios generally declined during 1997--2006, but the abortion rate was higher in 2006 than in 2005; for black women, the abortion ratio was lower in 2006 than in 2005, whereas for white women and women in the "other" racial category, this measure was relatively stable during 2005--2006 (Table 11).

    Ethnicity

    Among women from the 31 areas for which ethnicity was reported for 2006, Hispanic and non-Hispanic women accounted for 20.1% and 79.9%, respectively, of all abortions (Table 12). Abortion rates were higher among Hispanic women than among non-Hispanic women (21.1 compared with 14.1 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15--44 years, respectively), but abortion ratios among the two ethnic groups were similar (200 and 224 abortions per 1,000 live births, respectively). Among the 19 reporting areas that provided data every year during 1997--2006, the percentage of abortions accounted for by Hispanic women increased 23.6%, whereas the percentage among non-Hispanic women decreased 4.8% (Table 13). In both ethnic groups, abortion rates and ratios generally declined during 1997--2006, but during 2005--2006, abortion rates increased and abortion ratios remained essentially unchanged (Table 13).
    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwr...cid=ss5808a1_e

    As for gay people who are opposed to gay marriage, yes, they would be anti-gay, because they have no empathy for the gay couples who want to marry. That may be because of their religion, it may be because they themselves don't want to marry and care nothing for those who do, it may be they're playing political footsie, "I'm gay but not rocking the boat", or any variety of reasons. It's no different than the people who use drugs but want keep it illegal for a variety of reasons, such as they prefer buying from the black market, don't want to buy legally and expose themselves in a retail store making a legal purchase of drugs or they're part of the drug trade itself and find the black market financially rewarding. There are all types of reasons people have their own opinions on these personal issues.

    But like I said earlier, if you believe the road to the White House for Republicans is through the Latino vote instead of the Women Vote, have at it. But at the present time, unless Trump can get it together or a dark horse comes out of the woodwork, in my opinion, we don't have a candidate who win a General Election for President in 2016.

    Deep down I think everyone knows that but are still clinging to these failed platforms on abortion, gays and trade like a Custer's Last Stand while the country sinks.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  6. #16
    MW
    MW is offline
    Senior Member MW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    25,717
    Judy wrote:

    Your own Gallup quote means that 80% of Hispanics think abortion should be legal in some or all cases with only 20% who oppose. Can't you even understand the political relevance of your own statistics? Geez.
    Attempting to twist the actual facts to fit your own personal agenda isn't going to work for those of us that can actually comprehend what we're reading. Basically you're playing word games. As difficult as it is for you to believe, you're not always right (none of us are). Just live with that fact and let's move on.

    Like I said earlier, not all people that are pro-life are anti- women, nor are all people that believe marriage should be between a man and woman are anti-gay.
    Last edited by MW; 06-19-2015 at 11:36 PM.

    "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" ** Edmund Burke**

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts athttps://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  7. #17
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883
    Quote Originally Posted by MW View Post
    Attempting to twist the actual facts to fit your own personal agenda isn't going to work for those of us that can actually comprehend what we're reading. Basically you're playing word games. As difficult as it is for you to believe, you're not always right (none of us are). Just live with that fact and let's move on.

    Like I said earlier, not all people that are pro-life are anti- women, nor are all people that believe marriage should be between a man and woman are anti-gay.
    No, MW, I'm not playing word games, it's called ...MATH. If only 20% believe all abortions should be illegal, then the other 80% either believe abortions should be legal on some basis (72% and a vast majority) or aren't sure what their view is (8%).

    Furthermore, Hispanics use abortion rights at twice the rate of non-Hispanics. Source: CDC

    So the frivolity of chasing Latino Votes over the Women Vote is non-sensical to me. Women are not only the majority of registered voters, they show up to vote at higher rates than men. Plus a great number of men support women's rights which includes abortion rights, just as a great number of men and women who are straight support gay rights which includes the right to marry.

    It's just simple statistics that involves a little math to understand that at a certain point, when you've taken some issues too far, that it's going to boomerang on election day and bite you in the butt, just as it did for Romney, and I believe will be an even harder and bigger bite in 2016.
    Last edited by Judy; 06-20-2015 at 07:11 AM.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  8. #18
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883
    Activists prepare for gay marriage decision

    By Mark Preston, CNN
    Updated 1:08 PM ET, Thu June 18, 2015




    Same-sex marriage at SCOTUS in less than two minutes 01:56

    Washington (CNN)New Mexico Pastor Steve Smothermon says he is ready to go to jail to protect his religious freedom. And he is not the only one.

    Smothermon is one of more than 50,000 people who have signed a pledge to engage in social disobedience if the U.S. Supreme Court issues a ruling this month that would legalize same sex marriage across the country.

    "We want to help people, but we are not going to be forced by the government and society or the politically correct to say we are going to believe in it," said Smothermon, senior pastor of Legacy Church in Albuquerque. "If they said, 'Listen pastor, we are going to put you in jail if you don't honor this.' I am going to say, 'Then put me in jail.' "

    Emotions are running high as the nation waits to see how the Court will rule on whether states should be required to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples and if a state should be forced to recognize same sex marriages performed in another state. Some social conservatives argue that recognizing same sex marriage will weaken the nation's moral fabric as well as their religious freedom. Supporters of a constitutional right for same sex marriage say it is high time the nation recognized these unions.

    No matter how the Court rules, it is expected to have dramatic political implications in the 2016 elections and beyond.

    Shifting opinion

    Until recent years, same sex marriage has been an issue relegated to the shadows, as politicians either did not support or would not publicly endorse it.

    And it wasn't just Republicans who opposed same sex marriage. In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act -- a law that defined marriage as being between a woman and man. Clinton would later disavow his decision. President Barack Obama waited until 2012, seven months before Election Day, to announce his support of the right for gays and lesbians to marry.

    Support of same sex marriage by elected officials tracks with changing public opinion on the issue. A majority of Americans, 63%, believe that gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to get married, according to a May CNN/ORC International Poll. In August 2010, the CNN/ORC poll showed that 51% of Americans believed that gays and lesbians did not have a constitutional right to marry.

    "It is amazing thing for someone like me, who has been in politics for 35 years now, to see in your own lifetime an issue going from being a strong negative for your party to being a strong positive the way gay marriage has," said Richard Socarides, an openly gay Democrat, who served as a senior adviser to President Clinton. "Democrats supported gay rights and never wanted to talk about it and Republicans opposed gay rights and always wanted to talk about it. It has completely shifted in a very short period of time."




    This shift is particularly pronounced with Democrats and Independents. The 2010 CNN/ORC poll shows that 56% of Democrats and 57% of Independents supported a constitutional right for gays and lesbians to be married. In the latest CNN/ORC poll, support for a constitutional right for same sex marriage jumped to 74% for Democrats and 69% for Independents.

    Republicans have also moved towards supporting same sex marriage, but a majority remains opposed. The May CNN/ORC poll showed that 60% of Republicans do not support a constitutional right to same sex marriage; in the 2010 CNN/ORC poll, 73% of Republicans were against it.

    Dividing the GOP


    Complicating matters for the GOP is that same sex marriage is a divisive issue within its own party. It not only pits social conservatives against centrist-leaning Republicans, but also younger people against their parents and grandparents.

    The May CNN/ORC poll showed that 59% of Republican and Republican-leaning independents under the age of 50 supported a constitutional right for gays and lesbians to marry, while 61% did not.

    Growing support for same sex marriage among young Republicans, polling data and the fact it is already legal in 37 states and the District of Columbia is enough for some in the party to say it is time to let the issue go. In March, former Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, who is gay, and more than 300 GOP office holders, activists and operatives including former Illinois Republican Party Chairman Pat Brady submitted a brief to the Court expressing support for same sex marriage.

    Brady, who stepped down as chairman in 2013 after sparring with social conservatives for supporting same sex marriage in Illinois, said it is not productive for the GOP to continue fighting this issue.

    "When we run as the party of big ideas we do very well," said Brady. "Whether you agree or disagree on how the court has ruled, we need to focus on electing a Republican president."

    Still, there is strong opposition in the GOP when it comes embracing same sex marriage, and social conservatives want to put people on the record on this issue -- specifically those running for the White House.

    "We need to make sure we have presidential candidates standing up for religious liberty," said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage.

    Brown's organization will unveil a 2016 presidential pledge Thursday, asking candidates to publicly state their support for marriage between one man and one woman. He said they would begin contacting campaigns immediately asking them to sign the pledge, much like Mitt Romney and other GOP presidential candidates did in 2012.

    Already, two Republican presidential candidates, Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum, have added their names to the Defend Marriage Pledge, the online document Smothermon and 50,000 other people have signed in which they vow to ignore the Court's ruling if it violates the teachings of their faiths.

    "A decision purporting to redefine marriage flies in the face of the Constitution and is contrary to the natural created order," reads the pledge. "As people of faith we pledge obedience to our Creator when the State directly conflicts with higher law. We respectfully warn the Supreme Court not to cross this line."

    Dr. Rick Scarborough, who helped launch the Defend Marriage Pledge, said it is critical for people to come together to fight for religious liberty. Scarborough, founder of the Judeo-Christian advocacy organization Vision America, said he is concerned that the government will try to force people and organizations to ignore the teachings of their faith and accept same sex marriage. In addition, he warned that if the Court ruled in favor of same sex marriage, it would a "slippery slope" resulting in the enactment of new laws that would further encroach on people's religious liberties.

    Scarborough noted that California and New Jersey have already passed laws in recent years outlawing "reparative therapy," which supporters claim will help turn a person's sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. (The American Psychiatric Association disagrees and opposes such treatment).

    "The real issue for us is the effort to silence us for what we believe is true," Scarborough said.

    Ted Olson, former solicitor general of the United States under President George W. Bush, said he does "not think anyone's religious liberty would be violated" if the Court rules in favor of same sex marriage.

    "I do not believe someone would force a member of the clergy to perform a marriage," said Olson, who successfully argued to overturn California's prohibition on same sex marriage. But Olson did add that merchants would be prevented from asking personal questions of potential customers.

    "If you are in the commercial world, just as in the case of race, I do not think if you have a bake shop you can ask someone their sexual orientation," he said.

    Issues for 2016


    Opponents and supporters agree that regardless of how the Court rules on same sex marriage, the issue is not going away.

    "We will work to overturn any illegitimate Supreme Court ruling and we will make sure that folks understand that it is an illegitimate ruling by the Court," said Brown, who will be present outside the Court on the day of the ruling.

    Adam Talbot, spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign, said his organization would continue to fight for equality even if the Court rules in favor of same sex marriage, because people who identify themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender are "still at risk for discrimination."

    And expect to hear same sex marriage and religious liberty discussed on the campaign trail in the coming months -- like Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush each did this past week.

    "They turn their backs on gay people who love each other," Clinton said at a campaign rally over the weekend, accusing the Republican candidates of refusing to back same sex marriage.

    Bush warned that if Clinton is elected president she would work to weaken their religious freedoms.

    "These have been rough years for religious charities and their right of conscience," Bush said. "And the leading Democratic candidate recently hinted of more trouble to come. Secretary Clinton insists that when the progressive agenda encounters religious beliefs to the contrary those beliefs, quote, 'have to be changed.'

    "That's what she said, and I guess we should at least thank her for the warning."

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/18/politi...age/index.html

    __________________________________

    I think those numbers tell an important story for 2016. And the GOP needs to come to terms with those political realities. The absurdity of discriminating against gay couples who want to marry is epitomized by Ronnie Floyd, President of the Southern Baptist Convention, who classified gay people as the same evil as Nazi Germany when he quoted Dietrich Bonhoeffer to bash gays, who was not speaking about gays in his statement, he was addressing the evil of the Nazis and their persecution of the Jews. Dietrich Bonhoeffer was hanged by the Nazis for his efforts to try to stop them. As was his brother.

    And to the Southern Baptist Convention, throughout your history you've been on the wrong side of everything, you were on the wrong side of slavery, you were on the wrong side of the Civil Rights Movement, you were on the wrong side of the city limits during Katrina, you're on the wrong side of illegal immigration by supporting amnesty for illegal aliens, you're on the wrong side of women's rights including abortion rights and the wrong side of gay rights including the right to marry. So since your inception, you've been on the wrong side of everything our nation was founded to do and to be for the citizens of our country.

    You have disgraced yourselves, the religion and our nation since your formation to defend slavery. And it seems, nothing much has changed. Based on Ronnie Floyd's statement and the applause he received for it at the Convention, you remain the wild-eyed, half-crazed, self-serving, self-centered intolerant heretics and false prophets dividing a nation you created your Convention to be. And any politicians who even give you the time of day have established themselves as not only unsuitable for public service but unelectable in a national election.

    Individual members of the Southern Baptist Church are not part of this. Individuals have the right in our country to live their lives according to their personal beliefs including religious beliefs and Southern Baptists have as much right to that freedom as anyone else right up to the point where in the conduct of business or politics they're using their own freedom to try to deny someone else their freedom. I'm a Southern Baptist raised in the church long before I knew the history of the Convention, which does not speak for individuals, only the delegates from the churches to the Convention. But I implore my fellow church members to return to the teachings of Jesus, upon which our Church is based, to the kind, sensitive, compassionate and loving environment that I was raised in and ask the Convention to stop this political madness.
    Last edited by Judy; 06-20-2015 at 09:21 AM.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  9. #19
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883
    Baptists Call for Amnesty

    By James R. Edwards Jr., June 20, 2011

    The Southern Baptist Convention, which met last week in Phoenix, adopted a resolution endorsing the legalization of virtually all illegal aliens. This action followed the SBC's 2006 passage of a similar pro-amnesty resolution.

    The resolution calls for "our governing authorities to implement, with the borders secured, a just and compassionate path to legal status, with appropriate restitutionary measures, for those undocumented immigrants already living in our country."

    Intense debate on the resolution indicated that this pro-amnesty measure wasn't a slam-dunk for its advocates (Revs. Richard Land and Paul Jimenez). Tucson pastor Richard Huff nearly succeeded in erasing the amnesty provision. Huff said, "[T]he principle is that citizenship is a right of people that are here under legal processes, and you do not want to make this something you are rewarding people who are in violation of the law and they have no interest in being here legally." Huff's amendment narrowly lost, 723-766.

    Another amendment would have urged illegal aliens to return to their home countries. It, too, was defeated. Proponents did add an "ignore the man behind the curtain" amendment, an Orwellian denial of the obvious: The resolution is "not to be construed as support for amnesty for any undocumented immigrant." Right. It's really full-fledged amnesty for every illegal alien.

    The resolution also encourages Baptist churches to evangelize and minister to all people regardless of their immigration status. Further, it proclaims that "any form of nativism, mistreatment, or exploitation is inconsistent with the Gospel of Jesus Christ."

    The whole point of this resolution, the reason proponents agitated for it and fought for its adoption, is to move Southern Baptists further and further on record supporting mass amnesty. It seems to covet the praise of men more than that of the Lord. As a document written by amnesty backers, the resolution lacks balance. It tilts entirely toward benefiting illegal aliens. It utterly ignores vulnerable Americans and native-born taxpayers and the harms mass amnesty would compound.

    Americans with little education and skills, native-born minorities, convicts who've served their sentence, the disabled – the American natives who face direct job competition with and suffer wage depression in a labor market flooded with 8 million illegal foreign workers who've stolen American jobs – are left entirely exposed to suffering the consequences forced upon them by comfortable Southern Baptist convention messengers. Surely such citizens count among "the least of these."

    Legalization would reward the lawbreakers, punish citizens who have a right to the protection of their civil government, and encourage other would-be illegal aliens to risk breaching the U.S. border on the prospect of another amnesty. It may be "nativism" in the SBC's book to be more concerned with the welfare of one's fellow countrymen than foreign lawbreakers, but surely that's a form of "nativism" not inconsistent with the Bible and the Christian gospel.

    Because the devil is in the details, a lot rides on what is meant by "appropriate restitutionary measures" in the amnesty provision. If it means nothing more than payment of a meaninglessly low fine or fee (as in the various "comprehensive immigration reform" proposals Land has endorsed), not having been convicted of a felony, enrolling in some English course, gaining U.S. citizenship, having equal privileges of sponsoring more immigrants, etc., that hardly amounts to restitution.

    Notably, an SBC white paper about immigration is more thoughtful and nuanced than usual public statements by Baptist (and other religious) officials. Unfortunately, the SBC resolutions don't do much to promote keen, reflective thinking on the subject. And, in fact, the white paper deals far too leniently with illegal aliens rewarded with amnesty.

    "This resolution upholds the rule of law," Land baldly asserted. "This resolution upholds the sovereignty of the United States, and this resolution seeks to deal compassionately and fairly and justly with those who are here in an undocumented status, and calls upon us to act as if this is a gospel issue, which it is." In fact, this resolution undermines the rule of law, national sovereignty, and the principles of compassion, fairness, and justice.

    Land is correct that immigration is a gospel issue. Christians know that God is sovereign over all things in the City of Man and He calls His people to act prudently, wisely, and purely concerning every matter, public and private. Immigration policy is a public matter. Sharing the gospel with everyone, even illegal aliens, is a private matter. While neither individuals nor the government should mistreat illegal aliens, the SBC resolution's definition of "compassion" towards them fails to square with appropriate biblical standards.

    http://cis.org/edwards/baptist-amnesty-resolution

    ______________________________________________

    This is posted for those who didn't know that the Southern Baptist Convention, not individuals who happen to be Southern Baptists, is no different than the National Council of La Raza with respect to our cause here at ALIPAC.

    So like I said earlier, any politician who gives the SBC so much as the time of day isn't fit to serve our nation in an elected capacity.

    So Wake Up, GOP.
    Last edited by Judy; 06-20-2015 at 09:59 AM.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Gun Control: Why Latinos Should Care About the Second Amendment
    By Newmexican in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-16-2013, 01:39 PM
  2. Latinos watching health care debate closely
    By American-ized in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 08-11-2009, 01:29 PM
  3. Health Care & Latinos - INCREDIBLE!!!!
    By CitizenJustice in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 06-29-2009, 08:58 PM
  4. County works to care for Latinos
    By had_enuf in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-31-2006, 10:55 PM
  5. Carson students join nationwide protest of immigration refor
    By patbrunz in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-28-2006, 06:25 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •