Mark Levin Scorches Obama’s Immigration Amnesty in Epic CPAC Speech

Video Marketing, , , ,

In his fiery speech at CPAC, author and radio talk show host Mark Levin scorched President Obama, calling out the President’s unilateral action on amnesty.

Levin–a lawyer, and constitutional expert–took Obama to task for his continuous rhetorical references to the United States as a nation of immigrants, which have been used to undermine his opponents who don’t support amnesty:

“Let me say this to you, Mr. Obama: you may have a pen and you may have a phone–no doubt an Obama phone–but we have the constitution of the United States.

And we–not you–we own that constitution, we own this country, and you, Mr. Obama do not have any legitimate authority to fundamentally transform what does not belong to you.”

Levin didn’t stop there. President Obama has repeatedly made remarks implying that because we began as a nation of immigrants, those who oppose his own executive amnesty are behaving hypocritically.

For example, Obama said the following during a speech in Chicago:

“There have been periods where the folks who were already here suddenly say, ‘Well, I don’t want those folks,’ even though the only people who have the right to say that are some Native Americans.”

During an MSNBC/Telemundo interview, he also said:

“The country is a nation of immigrants, and ultimately, it will reflect who we are, and its politics will reflect who we are…That’s not something to be afraid of. That’s something to welcome.”

Levin responded with typical heat:

“We are not a nation of immigrants, we are a nation of citizens. A nation [of] immigrants who have become citizens.

We are a nation of citizens, and I’m sick and tired of the American citizen being demeaned and treated as second class citizens while anyone who crosses the border is treated as the most virtuous human being on the face of the earth.”

Twitter lit up. There was a lot of praise for Levin:

But he did have a few detractors:

What do you think? Is Mark Levin’s fiery rhetoric too much, or is he fully justified in his remarks?

Laisser un commentaire