[quote=Hemiman]That's because like your liberal Senator arrested in Fergerson for caring a concealed weapon while drunk, hide all their weapons.[/quote
[quote=Constitutional libertarian]This is my answer to your liberal anti military industrial economy. Be sure to actually think about what it says the administration decided it's policy was going to be back in 2012.
Even you know that you cannot keep the peace from a position of weakness or vulnerability.
Issue Brief #4190 on Missile Defense
April 2, 2014
Tomahawk Cancellation an Error of Defense Strategy and Alliance Policy
By Steven P. Bucci, Ph.D. and Theodore R. Bromund, Ph.D.
8
Print PDF
Earlier this month, the U.S. Navy announced that it will stop buying Tomahawk cruise missiles in fiscal year (FY) 2016 and will seek to field a replacement within a decade.
This decision is an error of both defense strategy and alliance policy. Congress should reject the Navys plans and require that it continue to buy a sufficient number of Tomahawks annually to keep production lines open and unit costs affordable until a replacement can be effectively deployed into service and until Britain and Australia (which use or plan to use the Tomahawk), after close consultation with the U.S., are satisfied that the replacement will affordably offer them capabilities that are equivalent or superior to those of the Tomahawk.
U.S. Navy Plans to End Tomahawk Purchases
On March 4, Navy spokeswoman Lieutenant Caroline Hutcheson publicly confirmed that the Navy had made substantial reductions in the number of Tomahawks it planned to purchase.[1]
In FY 2014, the Navy bought 196 Tomahawks, but in its proposed budget for FY 2015, the Navy plans to buy only 100 missiles and none thereafter. Instead, it will shift investment to a next-generation system and, beginning in FY 2019, will establish a recertification program for its stockpile of approximately 4,000 missiles.
In a March 27 hearing, Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus argued that the supply of Tomahawks that we have today that have been manufactured are sufficient
[to] carry us through any eventuality that we can foresee. Senator John McCain (RAZ) expressed surprise at the decision, describing it as really rolling the dice
when we havent even begun the assessment of what that new weapon would look like.[2]
Implications of Navy Plans for U.S. Defense and Industrial Base
The Navys plans raise four serious issues for the United States:
The argument that the existing stockpile of Tomahawks is ample because it is large enough for any eventuality that we can foresee ignores the fact that most U.S. military operations are not foreseen. In 1999, during the Kosovo campaign, missile stockpile levels were critically low due to heavy expenditures in the previous years. In 2003, coalition forces fired more than 725 missiles in the opening phases of the Iraq Warone-third of the entire inventory.[3] These precedents make it clear that it is imprudent to end production of a vital weapons system on the grounds that the future can be foreseen with sufficient clarity to know that no further purchases will be needed.
While the Navys budget proposal allocates funds to maintain the industrial base for unplanned maintenance before the FY 2019 recertification program, the specialized component suppliers and the skilled personnel necessary for maintenance are unlikely to survive the proposed 98 percent decline in the programs budget from FY 2014 to FY 2018, especially since the manufacturer's legal responsibility for ensuring that the Tomahawk works ends when production ends.
The Navy has argued that foreign military sales would help sustain the Tomahawk industrial base to FY 2019, but, to date, Britain is the only other nation that has purchased the Tomahawk.[4] It is a rule of defense production that unit cost decreases as production increases. With only British purchases to keep the program going, the cost of the Tomahawk would rise substantially, as it will start to do in FY 2015 as U.S. purchases shrink. Moreover, the Navy has contradicted itself by asserting that the costs of winding down the Tomahawk program assume that foreign sales are no longer viable.[5]
Any replacement for the Tomahawk is still years from deployment. The Navy announced on March 26 that its goal is to develop new missiles for delivery around 2024. New weapons systems are regularly subject to delays. It is possibleeven likelythat the new missile will not enter service until well after 2024. Even if the 2024 deadline is met, the new missile will not be available in sufficient quantities to address service requirements until well after that date. In either case, the U.S.s stockpile of Tomahawks runs even greater risks of being inadequate.
The decision to terminate the Tomahawk program is particularly perplexing given the Administrations own decision in its 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance to reduce the size of U.S. forces so that they cannot conduct large-scale, prolonged stability operations.[6] The implication of this policy is that U.S. reliance on stand-off weapons like the Tomahawk will only increase.
Implications of Navy Plans for Alliance Policy
On March 26, speaking at an event at The Heritage Foundation, U.K. Defense Secretary Philip Hammond dismissed concern over the future of the Tomahawk program:
Very fortuitously, The Washington Post tweeted this morning about Tomahawk being
zeroed out.
[S]ince I was at the Pentagon [this morning], I took the opportunity to ask, and I was told that there is no such decision, that budgets in that level of detail for 2016 have not yet been published and any such suggestion must be speculation at this stage.[7]
The Navys published budget, the statement of Secretary Mabus, and the Navys public comments dating as far back as March 4three weeks before Secretary Hammonds speechmake it clear that the fate of the Tomahawk program is not speculation. It is difficult to understand why he was told otherwise.
It appears that Britain has not been consulted about the fate of the Tomahawk program. Since its entire attack submarine fleet has been fitted to fire this missile, this lack of consultation, like the U.S. cancelation of the Skybolt missile system in 1962, is a serious breach by the U.S. of its responsibilities to its closest ally.
It is true that the U.S. could sell Tomahawks to Britain from its stockpile, but Britain might be unwilling to invest in a system with a fading defense industrial base behind it. Moreover, the unexpected U.S. decision to end the program means that Britain will now have to contemplate the retrofit of its attack submarine fleet, at considerable expense, to fire an entirely new missile.
The Royal Australian Navy may also be surprised by the U.S. decision, as it is currently completing three destroyers equipped with Tomahawk-capable launch systems. The Australian governments incorporation of this capability has also been jeopardized by the Navys actions.[8]
Continue Tomahawk Production
All weapons eventually go out of service, but it is only sensible not to end production of one weapon until its replacement is ready. This is particularly true when the weapon in question is a mainstay of both U.S. forces and the forces of the U.S.s closest allies. British and Australian dependence on continued U.S. production imposes a serious responsibility on the U.S. that it should not shirk.
There are good reasons to be wary of congressional micromanagement of defense acquisition,[9] but Congress has a vital role to play in correcting policy errors made by the executive branch. Because of its impact on U.S. security and on the alliance with the U.K., the decision to terminate the Tomahawk program is such an error, one that should be corrected by a congressional decision to continue Tomahawk production until a replacement can be effectively deployed into U.S. and allied service.
Steven P. Bucci, PhD, is Director of the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign and National Security Policy and Ted R. Bromund, PhD, is Senior Research Fellow in AngloAmerican Relations in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, divisions of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation. The authors thank Emil Maine, Research Assistant in the Davis Institute, for his assistance.
Show references in this report[/quote]
***********
I voted for President Obama twice. I strongly favor a sharp down-sizing of the military and a simultaneous increase in emphasis upon affordable health care for all. We have very different values. Where I live, I am the norm in a very liberal, well educated, very green, non-militaristic, university town.
I am thankful that I am not surrounded by neighbors who think and vote like you. There are advantages to living in a very blue town in a very blue state.
**********
My bad. That post was addressed to you Bobby. Sorry about that.
MajorAhrens wrote:
Every post a liberal puts up. It has race, Whitey is bad, race, poor minorities, race and racism. Did I mention race?
**************
Are you aware, Major, that President Obama, our first mixed race president has had 3 times the number of death threats as any white president before him? You, of all people, should be aware that racism in this nation, is not something we can yet speak of in the past tense.
As long as it exists, it has to be confronted and expunged, until we have a generation of children who truly could care less about color.
We are getting there...slowly...but we have hardly arrived at our destination.
Nuclearian wrote:
Hmm. When they hit your home, I guess it will be whiteys fault. Or OH..... that didnt happen. If you want uneducated BRAIN DEAD people, we need look no further than you.
***********
We have something a hell of lot better than firearms around here, for security. It's called people respecting each other and treating their neighbor as they would wish to be treated. I have yet to see anyone , other than law enforcement, openly display a gun out in public.
Seems to me, y'all worship a man who preached that kind of thinking instead of, "I've got mine, Jack---lock and load".
Nuclearian, there is a perfect video of you and your friends. It shows you in all your paranoid glory. It is called, "The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street". Just go to google (videos)and type in the name of this show, followed by the words, "Twilight Zone, March 4, 1960, episode 22".
You will easily recognize yourself, slick.....
Nuclearian wrote:
We are likely just 24 hours away from a Grand Jury decision in the officer involved shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO.
Scores of Department of Homeland Security vehicles have been spotted 25 minutes outside of town and the Governor of Missouri has already declared a state of emergency in anticipation of the fallout should officer Darren Wilson be exonerated. National Guard units have been called up and one law enforcement official has advised residents to be armed because the police department will not be able to protect the towns citizens should violence erupt.
And violence is exactly what we should expect more specifically, violence against Caucasians and their children. Two recently recorded videos have surfaced from the Ferguson area showing activists and protesters who are developing a strategy for how they will engage in civil disobedience and who they will target.
As Brian Hayes of Top Right News notes, they are making plans to focus on White areas and are threatening to target police officers, and even their families.
In fact, the protesters in Ferguson have as one of their lead organizer a woman by the name of Lisa Fithian, who was partly responsible for organizing the violent protests known as the Battle In Seattle during the 1990′s. In a video recorded several days ago and posted by Progressive Today and The Gateway Pundit Fithian explains to those in the audience that they need to be targeting areas where the residents do not look like them:
Personally, I think we DONT need to be on West Florissant. I wanna advocate that we go on South Florissant because the people on South Florissant dont look like me. The people on West Florissant look like me and theyre with it. So
I really dont have anything to protest on West Florissant. So if Im in the area Im going to Ferguson Police Department.
But as Bryan Hayes highlights, this isnt the only organizer looking to target whites. In fact, one Palestinian protester directly threatens police officers, as well as their families:
You will never be safe, never in your life. None of you. Not you, not your children none of you will be safe.
During the height of the protests following Michael Browns death President Obama sent Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate civil rights violations.
Now that the targets for the coming mass protests have become white people, will Obama act again to ensure the peace? Or does that only apply when racism affects African Americans?
Whatever the case, should the decision be in favor of Darren Wilson then we may well see riots across the country that surpass the violence and destruction we saw in Detroit in 1967 or Los Angeles following the Rodney King verdict in 1992.
(You can see historical archives of some of the most widespread and violent riots in American history here)
For those resident in the immediate St. Louis area, you should already be prepared for civil unrest. But, this may not be limited to just Missouri. There are direct action trainings taking place across the country and reports indicate that as many as 83 cities are being targeted by protesters.
Given the direct action training being provided by the likes of Lisa Fithian, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the targets of these protests, riots and possibly violence will be white people, including children.
Officials have warned resident to be prepared for a period of disruption.
Step number one should be personal and perimeter defense, and that starts with firearms. As noted previously, those who were armed during the first round of Ferguson riots had nothing to worry about:
It turns out that when violent looters come face to face with people prepared to kill to defend their property, the looters tend to choose a safer target.
Here are some tips and strategies to consider:
Here is a general list of supplies to have on hand. Remember that sometimes power supplies are lost during situations like this. Occasionally officials do this to gain more control over the populace and sometimes it happens as a side-effect of the wholesale destruction by the rioters. Keep the potential for a down-grid situation in mind when preparing.
Water (1 gallon per person per day)
Necessary prescription medications
A well stocked pantry you need at least a one-month supply of food for the entire family, including pets
An off grid cooking method (We have charcoal barbecue, an outdoor burner, and a woodstove inside)
Or food that requires no cooking
A tactical quality first aid kit
Lighting in the event of a power outage
Sanitation supplies (in the event that the municipal water system is unusable, this would include cleaning supplies and toilet supplies)
A way to stay warm in harsh winter weather
Over-the-counter medications and/or herbal remedies to treat illnesses at home
A diverse survival guide and a first aid manual(hard copies in case the internet and power grid are down)
Alternative communications devices (such as a hand-crank radio) so that you can get updates about the outside world
Off-grid entertainment: arts and craft supplies, puzzles, games, books, crossword or word search puzzles, needlework, journals
We urge our readers, regardless of your skin color or location, to be vigilant. When the violence breaks out no one will be immune. Stay off the streets if riots or protests erupt in your city if at all possible.
Otherwise, move quickly, dont attract attention and be prepared to defend yourself with deadly force.
We are likely just 24 hours away from a Grand Jury... (
show quote)
************
You people are NUCKING FUTZ. Lots of splinters in the windmills of what's left of your minds.
This is what is going on in those dense uneducated brains of yours? Really?
badbobby wrote:
brian I live in texas
I see more undocumented south americans every day
texas is fast becoming a province of our southern neighbors
I kno these people are hoping for a better life,and I hope god grants them one
but amnesty to all these millions is not the panacea of answers
have a good thanksgiving
we do still have that don't we???
**********
Tom, you have any idea of the origin of all the Spanish city names in Texas? Are you aware that San Antonio, site of the Alamo, was not named for a quaint fishing village in England on the Cornish coast?
Our president is working to see to it that 4-5 million of your hard working, undocumented neighbors are not going to be deported anytime soon. This is not the same as granting an amnesty to 40-50 million people.
No reason to panic. Have a good Thanksgiving and don't worry so much. It's not healthy
oldroy wrote:
I used that title because I am sure that many here will think just like that if they open the link. I need a sign like that one to warn thieves that I will use my gun if necessary.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/11/19/dear-potential-package-stealer-read-the-note-an-armed-texas-couple-posted-on-their-door-addressed-to-potential-thieves/
***********
Yes, these people have the spirit of the Christmas season. NRA Jesus taught that the most important thing on earth is STUFF---HAVING IT----GETTING MORE OF IT---AND THE JOY OF KILLING FOLKS TO KEEP IT!
New Testament Jesus thought NRA Jesus was a total dick and wanted nothing to do with this uber-capitalist lock and load pig.
Jesus was a socialist who believed that people were more important than stuff and that a camel had a better chance of getting through an eye of a needle----than a dried up old "get off my lawn" geezer obsessed with ever more stuff---had of ever getting to heaven.
NRA Jesus belonged to the Tea Party. New Testament Jesus, of course, was a progressive Democrat.
NRA Jesus would have loved you Roy. You would have been the shriveled, grizzled apple of his eye.
New Testament Jesus---not so much.....
PoppaGringo wrote:
It would appear that your "Israeli family members" were more intelligent than you since they evidently asked you to leave while disowning and disavowing you.
*********
Actually I get along quite well with them. They always have a warm welcome.
Don G. Dinsdale wrote:
Pete Santilli A Perfect Storm
November 21, 2014
A 3 hr vid that I suggest clicking around on to listen to different portions.....this guy is fearless.
http://www.dailytea.us/my-word/pete-santilli-a-perfect-storm/
*********
You want to devote three hours of your life to a tea party video?
You value life that cheaply? You can't think of a better way to waste 3 hours of your life, Don? Really?
Hemiman wrote:
What do you do when they show up at your front door with a machete and a pole.
************
You acknowledge you have been listening to way too much Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Mark Levin and all the other chickenhawk losers on AM hate radio and Fox......and then you acknowledge that it is now messing up your sleep and giving you stupid make-believe dreams of scary, brown people with machetes.
Hemiman wrote:
It's good that your president is now sending our troops back to Iraq,to deal with ISIL.
*********
Two things.
1.He is OUR president...that's how it works in a Democracy. He stops being our president on Jan. 20, 2017.
2. I, like many progressives, do not agree with the U.S. revisiting the quicksands of Iraq. It's a fools errand that will only result in failure as it always does in the middle east.
3. The only wise thing to do in regard to the middle east is stay the hell out. You don't go camping in places infested with rattlesnakes---you just keep away---period.
Constitutional libertarian wrote:
Brian do you even know who as at the center of the Vietnam conflict ???
Do you know the reason why we were there ?
Social entitlements have been going up exponentially as the military has been slashed and burned.
Dude, your a Jew you have been to Israel you know what the world is really like and how we must now more than ever be prepaired to defend what we have all worked so hard to built.
Why hasn't obama pounded the crap out of Isis? Why are they being allowed to pump refine and sell oil? Why is he allowing them to kill rape and destroy all in their path?
And with a border less border it's only a matter of time.
Brian do you even know who as at the center of the... (
show quote)
**********
Isis is just the latest flavor boogeyman, preceded by Al Quaida, the Taliban, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, etc., etc
These ever-changing boogeymen are how the defense contractors keep the billion dollar payments coming for their latest killing toys.
The Muslims have been brutally slaughtering each other since long before the United States became a nation. Why the sudden interest in the middle east in the 20th century?
Our interest in that part of the world, coincidentally intensified, right around the time of American peak oil in 1972.
The U.S. could give two shits about homicidal tyrants if they don't have a resource we want or aren't strategically located.
Idi Amin, in Uganda, slaughtered millions. The U.S. reaction---crickets.
Saudis lop off arms and heads of "heathen" and adulterers with frightening regularity. The U.S. just shrugs. Why? Because we have the type of oil relationship with the Saudis that we want.
Saddam Hussein's biggest problem was that he wanted a type of oil economy that wasn't operated on terms favorable to the U.S.
You really believe we would give a rat's ass about ISIS if they:
1. Couldn't be used as bait to drain the American taxpayers dry for more armaments.
2. The main export of Iraq were OLIVE OIL instead of fossil fuel oil.
Give me a break. The problem with rightwingers is that they think everyone is as stupid and gullible as they are.
Nickolai wrote:
I'm sorry but Palin did it to her self or should I say McCain's campaign did it to themselves. They chose her because McCain's campaign manager told him he was trailing badly with women. McCain said," then get me a woman " Most Republican women weren't very good looking. An aid found Palin on you tube and was impressed with her looks delivering a speech. Only after she got into camp did they discover she didn't know any thing. They tried to teach her and she wrote furiously on three by five cards but she couldn't remember what she wrote. With the Biden Palin debate coming up they were desperate to find a solution to their big problem of not having vetting her, but choosing her for her curtsey looks.
An aid noting her acting ability suggested they write her a script and have her memorise it So they wrote a script with 24 responses to expected issues and four attack points and I worked as he performed well at the debate except they couldn't get her to stop calling Biden, O'Biden
After that she never again appeared for a spontaneous interview on network news, CNN, MSNBC, or anywhere but on Fox News where she was asked softball questions, of giving her the questions beforehand as well as appropriate responses that would be music to ears of conservatives.. She has since developed that little cutsey finger pointing, winking, and one liner jokes pointed at Obama and the democrats. She was never anything but a cheer leader and show girl
I'm sorry but Palin did it to her self or should I... (
show quote)
*********
Sarah and her klan look like they are always auditioning for the Jerry Springer show, which culturally speaking, would be quite a few grades up for those folks. She probably could use Springer's security team to referee the family gatherings.
Next time she's on Springer she promised to bring her new "Mama Grizzly" series of coloring books---for adults.
no propaganda please wrote:
by Ben Shapiro 20 Nov 2014 4359 post a comment
On Thursday night, President Obama delivered his address to the nation on his executive amnesty. It was historic, both in its scope and in its dishonesty: the speech represented a closely-woven and incredible tapestry of falsehood, exposited with a straight face by the greatest liar in modern American history. To those versed in immigration and constitutional law, watching Obama lay out his program felt like watching a madman describe, with preternaturally perfect sincerity, how the moon was constructed of cheese: you know the argument is untrue, but its incredible to watch its dogged exposition.
Obama opened with a glowing talk about the wonders of immigration generalizations with which virtually Americans agree, as is his wont.
Then the lies began. Posing as an immigration hardliner, Obama stated that he felt for families who enter our country the right way and play by the rules, and who watch others flout the rules (of course, Obama was mere moments away from rewarding those who flout the rules and punishing those who play by them). He then explained that businesses exploited cheap immigrant labor (of course, Obama was about to announce wage pressure downward in the form of amnesty). He summed up with this incredible sentence:
All of us take offense to anyone who reaps the rewards of living in America without taking on the responsibilities of living in America.
Well, no. Not all of us, given that the Democratic Party draws its voting base from those who wish to reap the rewards of living in Americas generous welfare state without taking on the responsibilities of doing so.
Obama continued with his fibs about how he had secured the southern border, citing a drop in illegal border crossings a drop caused almost entirely by Obamas weak economy (Obama himself dated the immigration drop to 2007, when President Bush was in office). He pooh-poohed the brief spike in unaccompanied children being apprehended at our border, and said that the number of such children is now actually lower than its been in nearly two years. The notion that there has been a decrease in unaccompanied children crossing our border, according to FactCheck.org, is false.
This all prefaced Obamas big power grab. In true dictatorial fashion, Obama laid out how the legislative process had failed and then noted that he had to do what he had to do.
Now, I continue to believe that the best way to solve this problem is by working together to pass that kind of common sense law. But until that happens, there are actions I have the legal authority to take as President the same kinds of actions taken by Democratic and Republican Presidents before me that will help make our immigration system more fair and more just.
Obama has no such legal authority. He knows it. Obamas executive amnesty is different in scope and kind from anything before it. Neither Ronald Reagan nor George H.W. Bush pursued their amnesty programs in the complete absence of Congressional legislation. No president has ever legalized some 7 million illegal immigrants, as Obama has done over the past three years. This is unprecedented.
But Obama was just getting started. After moving past talk about border security (he doesnt care) and high-skilled immigrants (he doesnt sense opposition), he moved to the heart of his program: amnesty for millions.
Third, well take steps to deal responsibly with the millions of undocumented immigrants who already live in our country. I want to say more about this third issue, because it generates the most passion and controversy. Even as we are a nation of immigrants, we are also a nation of laws. Undocumented workers broke our immigration laws, and I believe that they must be held accountable especially those who may be dangerous
. Mass amnesty would be unfair. Mass deportation would be both impossible and contrary to our character. What Im describing is accountability a commonsense, middle ground approach: If you meet the criteria, you can come out of the shadows and get right with the law. If youre a criminal, youll be deported. If you plan to enter the U.S. illegally, your chances of getting caught and sent back just went up.
Accountability does not mean what the president thinks it means. Neither does nation of laws, in a nation where the president believes that Article II has a f*** you clause designed to allow him unilateral power in the absence of Congressional action to his taste.
But meanings are unimportant. Only the agenda is important.
Obama claimed that he had dramatically increased deportation of criminal illegal immigrants which begs the question as to why, then, we have to reallocate resources to do just that. He then claimed that he did not have the resources for tracking down, rounding up, and deporting millions of people which begs the question as to how he plans to track down, round up, and amnesty millions of people based on background checks, tax records, and family history. That sounds rather labor intensive. But somehow, were up to the challenge!
After redefining accountability to mean anything but accountability, Obama moved on to redefining amnesty as anything but amnesty:
I know some of the critics of this action call it amnesty. Well, its not. Amnesty is the immigration system we have today millions of people who live here without paying their taxes or playing by the rules, while politicians use the issue to scare people and whip up votes at election time. Thats the real amnesty leaving this broken system the way it is.
Actually, amnesty has a precise definition: a decision that a group of people will not be punished or that a group of prisoners will be allowed to go free. Leaving people in the shadows is not amnesty. Declaring by law that they will not be prosecuted or deported is.
But meanings are unimportant. Only the agenda is important.
Next in his catalog of redefinition, Obama moved on to lawful:
The actions Im taking are not only lawful, theyre the kinds of actions taken by every single Republican President and every single Democratic President for the past half century. And to those Members of Congress who question my authority to make our immigration system work better, or question the wisdom of me acting where Congress has failed, I have one answer: Pass a bill.
This is the opposite of lawful. This is dictatorship in a nutshell: do what I want, or I will do it for you. Later in this monstrosity of a speech, Obama would declare that he wanted open debate:
Most Americans support the types of reforms Ive talked about tonight. But I understand the disagreements held by many of you at home. Millions of us, myself included, go back generations in this country, with ancestors who put in the painstaking work to become citizens. So we dont like the notion that anyone might get a free pass to American citizenship. I know that some worry immigration will change the very fabric of who we are, or take our jobs, or stick it to middle-class families at a time when they already feel like theyve gotten the raw end of the deal for over a decade. I hear these concerns. But thats not what these steps would do.
Well, then, that settles that. Glad we could have that debate. So sayeth the President. Having received the mandate of Heaven, may the emperor lead a long and prosperous life.
Then Obama let Americans know that he plans to be a benevolent ruler:
Meanwhile, dont let a disagreement over a single issue be a dealbreaker on every issue. Thats not how our democracy works, and Congress certainly shouldnt shut down our government again just because we disagree on this. Americans are tired of gridlock. What our country needs from us right now is a common purpose a higher purpose.
Good thing Obama has a direct channel to that higher purpose, via his feelings-magic:
Thats what this debate is all about. We need more than politics as usual when it comes to immigration; we need reasoned, thoughtful, compassionate debate that focuses on our hopes, not our fears.
Thats right: the president who just asked Americans not to use character assassination during the immigration debate just impugned every American who disagrees with him as unreasoned, thoughtless, and uncompassionate. After a few bedtime stories about wonderful illegal immigrants and their wonderful children just to ram home that point, Obama concluded by quoting Himself:
Scripture tells us that we shall not oppress a stranger, for we know the heart of a stranger we were strangers once, too. My fellow Americans, we are and always will be a nation of immigrants. We were strangers once, too.
Never mind that Obama despises the Bible, and apparently knows only one verse, which he routinely misconstrues as a call to government seizure of private property. Never mind that this section of the Bible describes converts to Judaism, as well as strangers who accepted the law of the land. Obama stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night and apparently found a Bible in his hotel bedstand there.
Obama summed up:
What makes us Americans is our shared commitment to an ideal that all of us are created equal, and all of us have the chance to make of our lives what we will.
If Obama truly believed that, he wouldnt believe that some of us are more equal than others particularly presidents who stand far above us all, gazing at us in pity from on high.
Ben Shapiro is Senior Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News and author of the new book, The People vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against The Obama Administration (Threshold Editions, June 10, 2014). He is also Editor-in-Chief of TruthRevolt.org. Follow Ben Shapiro on Twitter @benshapiro.
by Ben Shapiro 20 Nov 2014 4359 post a comment br ... (
show quote)
************
The conservatives on OPP seem to have a fetish for "cut and paste". What's up with that? I guess when a person has little education, its always great to rely on the words of the big people who went to college.
The only problem is that when they get a reply the jig is up.
Then they go into commie/pinko/faggot mode because the truth is that they rarely can make a good argument.