Gee, would that "someone" who is going "to keep" those "promises" be a politician? Are these inalienable rights, er, sorry Obama, let's pretend they are "promises to be kept" like you would like to call them, are those "promises" something like, you know, political "promises" made to us by some, ugh, politician? Very, very sneaky. Thanks, but I'll keep my "inalienable rights" that don't come from politicians, but from the Creator, and Obama can just keep his "promises" to himself, for all they're worth -- like any of those other political lies, er, "promises" that he "promises" to "keep."
Very slippery with his words, this guy. Kind of like the Mad Queen trying to bamboozle Alice. Only worse.
And it gets even worse with Obama's transformation of Americans' rights. He mischaracterizes those rights as promises "to be kept" by whoever it is that he wants us to believe made those "promises" to us. Hey, but what happened to those little words in there that Obama glosses over with his "promises to be kept" constructions? You know, the two words "inalienable" and "rights" -- which have nothing to do with somebody making "promises" to us that are "to be kept" by someone? Those rights don't need to be "kept" for us because we are never without them -- they are "inalienable" rights. But, King George, er, Obama would have everone believe that "someone" out there made those "promises" to us, and that unknown entity will be the what or who that "keeps" those "promises" as made to us?
Not only does Obama delete the Creator as the source of our "inalienable rights" in this speech, he goes on to "fundamentally transform" those rights by calling them "promises to be kept."
He'll just redefine those "inalienable rights" endowed by the Creator to Americans, and reduce those "inalienable rights" to mere "promises" that some yet undisclosed source has made to us?
To paraphrase Popeye the Sailor Man: "It is what it is; that's all that it is. And Gibbs is Bozo the Clown."
The demwits are going to learn the hard way that, "It's the economy, stupid!!!"
And that demwit who likes Twain's witticism about his death being wrongly reported should also note Twain's views on crooks, er politicians. To paraphrase, I repeat myself.
Hot dog!!! Another speech by our president! Will it be a "major" speech? Maybe he'll drag those styrofoam columns out of the closet and use them again. Can't wait!!! And all this hoopla is for what? Amnesty? Again? With a promise of REALLY, REALLY enforcing our immigration laws . . . this time? Again? Just like thirty-some years ago when that was the same old song with the same old words of "amnesty with immigration law enforcement" -- a real song-and-dance, that was. How about this for an idea. If what we need is REAL comprehensive immigration reform, lets finish the job right now. We've already done the amnesty half (30+ years ago), so now let's do the other half and enforce our immigration laws -- starting with REAL border security. Start with a fence, and take it from there. Let's hear about that in this BIG SPEECH by Obama. For a REAL change, SECURE OUR BORDERS and ENFORCE OUR LAWS!!!
YES, WE CAN!!! Do it NOW, or Americans will elect politicians who CAN and WILL.
Obama keeps shoveling out his typical, tired old BS. For example, there's his always false "straw man" arguments, yet Obama trots out more of that same old crap with something like this: " 'There's a difference between restraint and willful blindness to consistent problems,' Obama said" Yep, that's sure profound. Here's a comparison that's true, though: there's a huge difference between being a "community organizer" (whatever that is) and actually having the ability to competently fulfill responsibilities of the president of the United States. Obama was elected president, but he sure does not have the ability to BE president. Wish Obama would take a leave of absense for the rest of his term -- indeed, most Americans would probably be willing to give him a big bonus to just do nothing but play golf until he officially retires after the next election.
"Reckless aggression" sounds like an oxymoron. Probably a product of trying to talk tough and conciliatorily at the same time, as in out of both sides of the mouth. Is Gates the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of State?
Mr. Fournier writes in the above article:
"And Democrat Richard Blumenthal, the Connecticut attorney general running for the Senate, disputed a newspaper report that he once lied about his Vietnam record. "
Blumenthal "once" lied? Are you kidding!!! Once??? Come on, now. Are you an actual reporter? Or are you Blumenthal's campaign shill? Even Blumenthal grudgingly admitted today that he made his false claims (i.e., "misstatements" and "misplaced words" per Blumenthal's characterization) of combat service in Viet Nam on a "few occasions" -- which itself plainly appears to be a gross understatement based on what was reported in the NYT's article.
Shame on you --- and on AP.
Blaming the "faulty system" or "lack of authority" is a pretty sorry, and lazy, excuse for not addressing the primary issue of accountability of the people who are charged with administering and enforcing the existing regulations.
Full accountability, not more government red tape and power, is exactly what is needed -- for starters. It's the people running the regulatory agency that make the system work or allow it to fail --- not the system.
Personal responsibility means doing the job with what you have, or get out and let someone who can do the job take over. Knee-jerk whining, crying, and blaming the "system" as "broken" or "inadequate" doesn't cut it.
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Opus