Posted on 03/26/2006 3:59:37 AM PST by Liz
Ever since they lost the 2004 elections, Democrats have been falling all over themselves to proclaim their personal religious faith to an electorate that obviously cares about such things. So now the party that once ridiculed politicians who cite their personal values is trying to show that it can out-Jesus the GOP.
They've been none too subtle about it - particularly New York's own Sen. Hillary Clinton. These days, she sounds more like she's running for dean of the local theological seminary than for president of the USA - er, that is, for re-election to the Senate. Hillary's latest tack is typically Clintonian: She's accused "mean-spirited" Republicans of plotting to put Jesus behind bars.
Say what?
Clinton contends that based on "my understanding of the Scripture," a GOP bill to crack down on illegal immigration by making it a felony to be in this country unlawfully "would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself."
But Rep. Peter King (R-LI), chairman, House Homeland Security Committee, rightly wonders just what she's talking about.
He says he finds it hard to believe that Jesus would risk lives by crowding hundreds of people on board a broken-down ship for a dangerous sea journey, or marching them across a desert with no food and water, or abandoning them at the border.
To be sure, this isn't the first time Hillary has uttered such nonsense in an effort to bolster her Bible Belt credentials. Last fall, she compared the plight of Hurricane Katrina refugees to Mary and Joseph searching for a place to stay in Bethlehem, adding caustically: "At least they didn't have to worry about FEMA."
Fortunately, Congress will decide such issues based on what's in the Constitution, not the Scriptures (or Pastor Hillary's interpretation of them, anyway).
Praise the Lord.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Better alo wear your "Don't mess with Texas" hat with that tee shirt.
Also having conservatives like Laura Ingraham getting on the Today show and blasting the LSM helps. I heard the sound bites she played the other day, and those reporters are idiots. She was like a huge, mean cat playing with a mouse before the kill.
Certainly for his time He could have been considered a liberal but by today's definition of the word, He could not be more diametrically opposed to that anti-Christ ideology.
Sen Clinton will bring out women to vote who traditionally stay home. She will also get the women who don't follow the issues closely. Finally, Clinton will score with those women who fancy voting against their husband's wishes.
Still makes my skin crawl.
Why is voting for a woman just because she's a woman morally righteous and yet voting against one for the same reason is immoral?
According to the MSM and liberals, it depends on the woman.
A conservative woman should be voted against based on the issues.
A liberal woman should be supported simply based on her gender.
I have to admit I differ with the Catholic Church's stand on the death penalty. But supporting the lawful execution of murderers is a world apart from the destruction of an innocent (save for original sin) baby in the womb.
Absolutely!
That seems to be the formula. Any women who dares to vote against she who must not be spoken of will be portrayed as a traitor to her gender.
ping to read later
Absolutely oxymoronic isn't it?
Twisted is the word I'd use.
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.