Posted on 12/02/2018 6:26:36 AM PST by Sean_Anthony
If the President has to shut down the government to get the necessary funding, he should do it without hesitation
We have heard the chants for three years, “Build the Wall!” It was the number one reason why Americans elected Donald Trump as President in 2016. Unfortunately, it is the most glaring unfulfilled promise of the Trump presidency.
Although the President wants a border wall, he needs Congress to fund the construction. Until now, Congress has only provided an anemic $1.6 billion for the border wall. This pathetic amount is nowhere near the $25 billion that is actually needed to properly build a wall that will stop the influx of illegal aliens.
The Chippewas and the Iroquois had the first failed immigration policy in our history.
Yes indeed. Lesson learned.
_______________
It's gone already.
I'll give you some stats that will show you that that last 20-30 million illegal immigrants are having a lot of babies.
Very soon, Texas will be blue , and so forth.
It's all been an ugly plan.
> Post silly stuff, get appropriate response. <
Another insult, Chainmail? Please permit me to go into more detail. You might well be right about this issue. Maybe a large and expensive standing army is the way to go. If so, convince me. And then I’ll vote for candidates who favor that position.
But what is your goal here? Is it simply to insult other long-term Freepers who happen to disagree with you? If so, I guess you are moving in the right direction.
But if your goal is to change minds and influence people, I’d suggest a change in course.
Our work’s cut out for us... you’re right about the press not covering the issue honestly ... it’s sad they could be that blind and still have jobs.
So yeah, it’ll fall to people like us - trying to back up our President... and safeguard the country until the ‘elites’ catch on...
Most Children Younger Than Age 1 are Minorities, Census Bureau Reports
The U.S. Census Bureau today released a set of estimates showing that 50.4 percent of our nation's population younger than age 1 were minorities as of July 1, 2011. This is up from 49.5 percent from the 2010 Census taken April 1, 2010. A minority is anyone who is not single-race white and not Hispanic.
The population younger than age 5 was 49.7 percent minority in 2011, up from 49.0 percent in 2010. A population greater than 50 percent minority is considered “majority-minority.”
***********
There are plenty more "stats" on skyrocketing illegal immigrant births ....... but of course they cannot be completely accurate.
(We can't even find out if they vote let alone give birth.)
I guess it’s because I have very little patience for Freepers - who should understand and value our Armed Forces - saying things that are more appropriate for Leftist fora.
History tells us that there have been many preeminent civilizations but none of them survived when they neglected their ability to defend themselves. In a world where we could be annihilated from any spot on Earth within 30 minutes or so, we have no choice but to be the best there is at keeping the potential enemies at bay.
I have traveled all over the world and found that there are millions of wonderful, gracious people - who you would never want to be in charge of you and your future.
Now why did you have to go and complicate our perfectly criminal election process with rules! /s
The Constitution is ignored by our so called Leaders (sans one) and our sovereign Vote is erased by hoards of Illegal Invaders. All this is supported by over half the Citizens.
For some reason you are arguing about something I did not say in the first place. Of course we need a vibrant military. It must be the best in the world. And of course that military should be valued and respected.
My point (and that of central_va and pfflier as well) is that we do not need a HUGE military. A strong military, yes! A huge military, maybe not. That is the topic under debate.
Europe does not have to defend itself because we do it for them. Japan does not have to defend itself because we do it for them. Why is that OK?
As you noted, civilizations have fallen because of an inadequate military. But civilizations have also fallen because they felt the need to maintain huge, expensive armies - armies that just had to be everywhere at once. The Roman Empire is a good example of that.
Remember that Golden Oldie? How do you know that our armed forces are adequate for the future? They have been steadily reduced over time, primarily by Democrat administrations, until we no longer have the credible capability to fight two "peer adversaries" at once as we did before. China, Russia, Iran and others have ramped up their armed forces and their technologies at a very rapid pace and thanks to Obama's reductions and degradations (actively serving gays and girls for the infantry) our forces are further hobbled.
We have been focused on long-term limited war to hold off the immediate threats and have reduced our forces available for forward deployment, which serves to support allies and to reduce reaction time against the larger potential adversaries.
So in answer to your proposal, no, "faster, lighter forces" would not be adequate. And no, Europe or Japan or any of the rest of our allies could not survive long against Russia or China without us.
The Romans disappeared because they cheaped out and manned their perimeter with foreign forces ("barbarians") and when the Attila, the Visigoths and others showed up, they stole everything that wasn't nailed down and had their way, as it were.
We must be a major military power - or we have to accept rule by others.
I have expressed no opinion on the size or deployment of our military (army) in this thread yet.
I was a military brat that lived overseas until I was 16. After I joined the USAF, my roots were still in the old SAC days where we had 18X overkill capability and it worked as a deterrent. We had SAC and TAC bases world wide. Many bases were close to army garrisons and the combined arms kept the soviets and North Koreans in check.
I always thought it was a good idea to waste the bad guys there rather than here.
I’ve always found it odd that we have these neoisolationists on the Freerepublic - like, how does reducing our role in the world and reducing the defenses of our country equate to conservatism?
I have always believed that those of us who have served are the realists and the true conservatives because we know first hand what’s out there and what it costs in lives, parts of bodies, and treasure to keep freedom alive.
Thank you for your service, by the way.
And thank you.
I didn’t say didn’t believe in a huge Navy with a 1,000 ships.
It makes sense for the money to come from the Army since that is one of their missions, border security.
Shrink the Army, grow the BP and grow the Navy. The Army is useless.
Cut the funding for the Army in half. Give the money to the BP and the Navy.
If I could snap my fingers I would get rid of the Army and give that funding to the Navy, the BP/CCE and build a big beautiful wall.
Are you serious? How does conservatism equate with our military presence, at an expense greater than, what, all other countries combined?, all over the globe?
It is not to protect global corporations abroad that we should be sending our patriotic men and women in the military off to death and maiming.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.