Motley Wrote:You got me there Granny, but the one thing ol' TR didn't mention in that infamous quote was one thing about Religion. Americanization is one thing, but to not even give an opportunity for Americanization is another. I personally don't know any immigrants personally that refuse to speak English or assimilate to American culture.
People spoke plainly back in good ol' TR's day. The reason for that was he was motivated by purity of purpose, "the common good" and because with nothing to hide, he thought more clearly than does today's liberal, who must constantly attempt to seem plausible while negotiating the eddies and convolutions which are the inescapable machinations of all liberal's circular logic.
Teddy's love for his country and his resultant commitment to serve was the source of his quote, which yet today remains clear and unmitigated with the guile of today's politician.
(But I'm sure the liberal history spinners will get busy on this one right away!) Changing the demographic of America is the intent of today's liberal and thus, he dare not speak plainly about his intention. He must therefore, couch his true intentions in language which sounds patriotic, even if it is not. Hence the pictures of little dirty faced yet innocent kids at the southern border, or the constant parroting of the Obama line, "that's not who we are." Au-contraire Mr President, but according to my instincts and the clear language of Teddy Roosevelt, that
IS who we are.
Back to the circular logic. First to give credit where credit is due, I'll admit one needs a score card to keep up with you guys in your attempts to run over the will of the majority. On the one hand liberals seem ready to practically lay down their lives in order to defend their twisted stand on separation of Church and state. No religion allowed within the halls of the legislature or the mind of the judicator, end of story. Right? And yet on the other you're trying to champion the cause of a people who never have and never will get past their bent for theocratic thought and moral convictions.
Muslims insist on mixing the dictates of the Quran with government, and such is both the motivation and the justification for their murderous exploits of destruction and mayhem. So in your mind, the bastardization view for the concept of separation of Church and State seems to be job one. While at the same time, you are willing to throw this country into existential political crisis to defend foreigners, who in many cases we the tax payer must pay passage to come here in the first place, to come here on the grounds of political asylum? Is it just me or are those two concepts not mutually exclusive and therefore impossible to justify? And don't say it's two different concepts because the Democrats are considering affording them the right to live HERE under Sharia Law, which is the embodiment of theocratic rule. Suddenly the argument for separation of Church and State is not so important huh?
These guys have been acting this way since the days of King David and beyond. I mean, there is good reason why the Jew and the Arab have been at each other's throat since the dawn of mankind. Both have by nature been theocratic since their inception though, Israel has espoused the representative form of government since 1948. At any rate, they, the Arab World, absolutely will not ever change, and bringing in a few million of them, no doubt laced with jehadis to this land will only bring more 911, Charlie Hebdo and San Bernardino style attacks to your own neighborhood. George W. for all his flaws at least managed to get the lid back on the hornet hole. In saying that I mean we cannot just turn our back on the wolf because we say we are tired of war.
Leon Trotsky — 'You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.'
There are some things that cannot be left undone if one is to remain a free people. There's a reason the peoples of Europe have suffered so much throughout their war torn history, they lack the discipline necessary to police their own house. That's why sage statesmen of our recent past highlighted the importance of NATO, it always did depend on US leadership. And despite the liberal fascination with Europeanizing the West, I and other conservative thinkers would spare our people the same sort of grief. In other words, it is preferable to deal with the skirmishes and mini wars than to worry whether your loved ones will return safely home at night for fear of terror at the local mall or their elementary school.
Now to the assertion that we are bound by law not to discriminate on religious grounds.
Though that did not deter Lois Lerner, and the Eric Holder led DOJ could not find reason to prosecute. :biggrin: If Muslims do not separate government from church, on what grounds are we Americans doing it for them? We're going to hit the pause button on immigration one way or the other, and the freedom of religion smoke screen will not suffice to stop it. But, if you want to take your argument to it's logical conclusion by recent religious test logic, the US had no right to defeat Adolf Hitler because according to his writings in Mein Kampf,
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." Hitler's religious beliefs should have protected him from US attack under the dictates of the Constitution.
At some point the adults are going to have to stop the food fight. If not, and in light of the events in Chicago and the surging unrest of this land, America's best day lies behind her. Just my humble opinion.
![[Image: 12342845_10208274705735643_7607846376734...e=571715DE]](https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/12342845_10208274705735643_7607846376734366312_n.jpg?oh=6be5a7ed33496bbff4dcb7515aa9b6dc&oe=571715DE)
![[Image: teddy%20roosevelt_zps8fktkca4.jpg]](http://i1344.photobucket.com/albums/p658/GrannyBear1/teddy%20roosevelt_zps8fktkca4.jpg){kind=link}