The speech in the video is a section of Reagan’s Time For Choosing speech in 1964 that led to the beginning of his political career which culminated 16 years later in him being elected president. Reagan said of the Marines:
Some people work an entire lifetime and wonder if they ever made a difference to the world. But the Marines don’t have that problem.
This is what we are saddled with today:
That photo is one big dog whistle, let me tell you
There is an article about a situation in Dearborn, MI which can be read at Abyssum Blog. (Speaking of appeasement.) The title follows, cannot figure out the way to show a link.
THE U.S. CONSTITUTION NOW PROTECTS MUSLIMS BUT NOT CHRISTIANS
May 16, 2013
!!!!
Judge Says It’s Ok for Muslim Violence Against Christians
Posted 12 hours ago by Dave Jolly Filed under Christianity, Crime, Islam, Law, Religion
Pat, I’m not sure how the comment relates to the post but, lest TAC get on the wrong train about the incident you describe, I offer this piece from Patheos which goes into more detail about this complicated incident:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/christandpopculture/2013/05/muslims-stoning-christians-in-michigan-not-quite-updated
Thread is going badly off track. Stay on the subject of the post please.
I cannot help but think Obama is doing this to deliberately demean and belittle the Marines and all of the US Military. His whole campaign of uninhibited sodomy and lesbianism in the military seems also geared towards that, as well as his elevation of cowardly leaders and his refusal to come to the aid this in peril (Benghazi shows what he would do we’re a military squadron in a similar situation). Mistreating the legions is always a bad thing to do.
I hope there might be some liberals that will be outraged by this treatment of the Marines, and they will turn on him. There are all sorts of pictures going on Facebook now showing other presidents holding their own umbrellas. Someone said that the Marines are only allowed to hold umbrellas for ladies…
Molly Marines, female Marines, can use umbrellas, but male Marines are forbidden to. The same rule was in force in the Green Machine back in the seventies.
I was under the impression that Navy guys could carry umbrellas.
Stop living in a dream and how soon we forget. Reagan did some good things but: Guys there hasn’t been a conservative serve as President since Harry Truman.
Reagan signed the Gun Control Act of 1986 which was worse than anything, short of confiscation, recently debated in the US Senate.
Reagan supported the Brady Bill/Law.
Reagan granted amnesty to how many millions of illegal aliens?
“Guys there hasn’t been a conservative serve as President since Harry Truman.”
I admire Truman because of his foreign policy, but economically only Obama has been farther to the left than Harry Truman who used to routinely refer to Republicans as fascists.
“Reagan signed the Gun Control Act of 1986 which was worse than anything, short of confiscation, recently debated in the US Senate.”
Rubbish. The legislation was supported by the National Rifle Association.
“Reagan supported the Brady Bill/Law.”
This was after his presidency and when he was suffering from Alzheimer’s. It is more accurate to say that Nancy Reagan supported the legislation.
“Reagan granted amnesty to how many millions of illegal aliens?”
Reagan regreted the 1986 immigration deal. He thought he had an agreement to close the border to illegal immigration and Congress reneged.
Reagan regreted the 1986 immigration deal. He thought he had an agreement to close the border to illegal immigration and Congress reneged.
Did Mr. Reagan have plans to restructure the Immigration and Naturalization Service and increase the manpower and equipment it had to do its work? Did Congress scotch the appropriations necessary to implement this plan? Unless the answer to these two questions is ‘yes’, the executive (Mr. Reagan, among others) has to accept the major share of the responsibility for the post-1986 mess.
Some years ago, I had occasion to read an interview with a dismissed INS agent. Two things he had to say. 1.) the INS had in 1990 seven (7) agents assigned to hunt down people in metropolitan New York who had over-stayed their visas; they were making only the faintest attempt to enforce the law. 2.) the agency’s executives, having received an improved appropriation, allocated the funds to the hiring of naturalization examiners.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_zNR53k5Lg
After Iran-Contra Art Reagan lacked the political power to do anything about Congress reneging on the agreement. Even before Iran Contra broke, after the 86 election the Democrats had a 258-177 seat majority in the House and a 10 seat majority in the Senate. Reagan was a great President, but no President could do anything with Congress so firmly in the grasp of the opposing party.
Kind of evades my questions. Oh well…
In other news:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/bipartisan-house-group-reaches-preliminary-immigration-deal/?hp
I tend to think that the Republican congressional caucus is just execrably led.
“Kind of evades my questions. Oh well…”
It did not unless you believe that Reagan had a magic wand he could wave and compel solid Democrat majorities in Congress to do what they had no intention of ever doing.
No, I do not believe Mr. Reagan had a magic wand.
1. Did he appoint the equivalent of Wm. Bratton to run the INS? and
2. Did they have a plan that needed funding turned down? We can check his messages to Congress over the period running from 1986 to 1989, but I do not think the answer to either question is ‘yes’.
Some of Mr. Reagan’s appointees had satisfactory reputations for improving agency performance or administering important policy changes (Mark Fowler and Clarence Thomas to name two). I do not recall whoever ran the INS was one. All the public attention at that time was fixed on the enforcement of drug laws, as far as I can recall.