Trent Lott: Talk Radio is a ‘problem” June 15, 2007
Posted by Paul Edwards in Politics, Trent Lott, amnesty, illegal immigration, talk radio.trackback
The New York Times has a story in its Friday, June 15 edition on the bi-partisan leaders of the U.S. Senate’s agreement to revive the amnesty bill for illegals. When this bill was first introduced about two weeks ago citizens from across the country flooded Capitol Hill with emails and phone calls objecting to amnesty for illegals. Now a bi-partisan group of Senate leaders has decided to ignore the expressed will of the people by re-introducing the legislation next week.
That’s bad enough. But the story also quotes Sen. Trent Lott (R- MS) bashing talk radio for informing America about the Amnesty legislation.
Comments by Republican senators on Thursday suggested that they were feeling the heat from conservative critics of the bill, who object to provisions offering legal status. The Republican whip, Trent Lott of Mississippi, who supports the bill, said: “Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with that problem.”
Talk radio - for the most part - does a pretty good job of keeping America informed on the issues. Trent Lott thinks that’s a “problem” that needs to be dealt with. Is Lott suggesting it is a problem for you to be informed about critical issues that affect the welfare and safety of your family? Is Lott suggesting that it is a problem for the citizens of this country to express their will on the issues being considered by those we elected? Why, exactly, Mr. Lott is Talk Radio a problem?
Every listener to Talk Radio in this country ought to ask him: by phone - (202) 224-6253 / by email
Yup. Talk Radio is about ideas; and ideas do run this country.
I can understand why Senator Lott feels left out.
I recall the great missionary endeavors towards Mexico several years prior.
I wonder what God would want for the Mexican people.
Don,
First and foremost (and you know this - I realize your question was rhetorical) God would want the Mexican people to be a part of “every kindred, tongue, tribe, and nation” on that day around the throne shouting, “Worthy is the Lamb to receive power, and wisdom, and honor, and glory, and strength: for you have redeemed us to our God.”
Secondly God would want the Mexican people to subject themselves to the powers that be - for there is no power but of God, and the powers that be are ordained of God. They can do this by obeying the laws of the United States of America and entering this country legally. By allowing them to be here illegally in the name of Christian compassion is to undermine God’s plan for governmental authority. If we don’t enforce our immigration laws, we send the message to every person who is in this country illegally that we won’t enforce any of our laws. America is nothing if not a nation of laws which are enforced.
Christian compassion says that we ought to feed the hungry, but that didn’t stop the Apostle Paul from saying, “If a man doesn’t work neither should he eat.” Christian compassion must be exercised within the context of expectations that are upheld. It is expected that people who come to this country do so legally.
Paul
My brother, don”t be so quick to judge. I did not say that I was personally for or against the immigration bill. Why the sword? You missed my point.
The will of the people, however, is not necessarily the will of God. The law states that an abortion is legal, yet do we not as Christians, call it murder? Some states endorse homosexual behavior. and neither can this be charged to God’s will. Ann Arbor has tried for numerous years to soften the laws on the personal use of marijuana. Some states treat child molestation as a minor crime, as evidenced by the penalties imposed by their courts.
I am suggesting there is a higher principal than that “of the people.”
I was trying to elicit a discourse, and to that end, I guess I succeeded. I hope others jump in.
Always your friend,
Don
Paul
Good morning!
After some time to reflect on this subject this weekend, I offer a few additional thoughts.
Firstly, I do not have the answer to the immigration problem. And it is a problem.
If you factor in the children born here, the spouses, the fact that most of them came here to serve their families, by attempting to remove their family from poverty, crime, an extremely corrupt government, it causes me to think beyond the current political tripe.
Further, this country has almost encouraged this behavior since prior to the Regan years.
I also recognize that I probably would do the same, under similar circumstances.
You correctly quoted scripture ” If a man doesn’t work neither should he eat”.
I submit, this is what most of these people are here to do.
“But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.”
What the answer is, is not as simple as some would propose. I do agree that these people “are here illegally”. I also recognize that “I” also, have transgressed a higher law numerous times as they have our laws. Why I am unable to condemn as quickly as others, is that, I received forgiveness for my transgressions over and over.
I’m complexed over the anger this matter generates.
As I said, I do NOT have the answer.
But neither am I am not comfortable with “the will of the people”. History, along with the Word of God, have adequate examples to teach me to be cautious of this will. Thus my question ‘What would God want for the Mexican people?” It was not a rhetorical one, as I expected an answer.
I will close this discussion with this; God is the only one, that I know of, who can think clearly from a position of anger. We all would be better served if we were to seek what God wants prior to accepting “the will of the people.
Talk Radio : Trent Lot is running America. We have to deal with that problem.
Addressing the Trent Lott situation, this will sound pessimistic, I see no reason to have any confidence in either side of the isle. Can a just man be found in Washington? When we can only rally 25%-35% to the voting process, the question must be raised; does the majority really count? Most candidates hope the victory will come from a lack of voter turn out in the opposing parties camp. Here is an additional question for consumption. Can any one name a single candidate who has not changed a position due to political considerations, rather than principal? Can a “principled ” man be found in Washington? We have moved from a representational government to a dictatorial style. The common man has always had more common sense than those who go for us. We can try to change the process, but I suspect many are as apathetic as this entry sounds. Personally, l always vote but with less and less expectations each successive time. Cheerio!