Cong Allen West speakes to NCGOP Convention 2011
I'd vote for this man in a heart beat. HE is a leader ... and I pray he runs in 2012 for President!
I'd vote for this man in a heart beat. HE is a leader ... and I pray he runs in 2012 for President!
I've seen better speakers, as you probably have. But I have not heard a better speech about what Memorial Day IS ALL ABOUT~ Good Job, SGT Raymond Hubbard~ May your father also rest in peace. God bless!
On May 26, 2008, SGT Raymond Hubbard, (a survivor of a rocket attack in Baghdad that amputated his left leg and severed his carotid artery resulting in a stroke from blood loss.) Gave his most heartfelt speech to date. Speaking about his fallen comrades, his family's military history, and what the nation needs to do for it's soldiers, by the end their was not a dry eye in the crowd.
Part of the beginning is missing, and a bit of the end, but this is still worth watching!
Patriot Program preps for relaunchBy ALEX ISENSTADT | 6/1/11 4:42 AM EDT - PoliticoThe National Republican Congressional Committee on Wednesday will launch the Patriot Program, a tough-love incumbent protection effort designed to assist freshmen and a few longer-serving lawmakers expected to face difficult paths to reelection.
Under the program, which Republicans implemented during the last election season, only members who agree to meet a series of rigorous campaign benchmarks will be eligible for financial backing from the NRCC.
This year’s effort will focus heavily on the 87-member freshman class. Of the program’s 10 initial inductees, seven — Reps. Sean Duffy of Wisconsin, Allen West of Florida, Lou Barletta and Patrick Meehan of Pennsylvania, Frank Guinta of New Hampshire, Joe Heck of Nevada and Francisco Canseco of Texas — are first-termers. Two — Reps. Mike Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania and Charlie Bass of New Hampshire — have returned to the House after losing their seats in previous years.
EXCELLENT RESPONSE! God bless!
The Liberals are Scared and they SHOULD Be
In a piece of typical liberal blather, columnist Gary Stein now tries to pain Congressman West as some sort of talking head suffering from an illness he calls “Fox-it is.”
“It seems Rep. Allen West, R-Plantation, has come down with a severe case of Fox-itis.
The tell-tale signs are there. The mouth moves quickly, making noise the tea party loves. The speaker often uses vile adjectives and verbal bombs to get attention.
Fox-itis, for sure.”
Naturally, Stein doesn’t provide any examples of vile adjectives or verbal bombs spoken by Allen West. Perhaps he, Stein, is confused by West’s penchant for honesty instead of politically correct parsing.
Stein continues, “Not only do tea partiers love this guy — they dream of President West — Fox adores him. You often see him talking to Greta Van Susteren or Hannity or others, tossing around words such as "vile," "vicious," "tyrannical," "socialist agitator" etc., when talking about Democrats or Barack Obama. He makes Nazi Germany comparisons. Call me crazy, but I have trouble seeing him at a table negotiating an Israeli-Palestinian peace.
“In a weekly message to "fellow patriots," he talked about Obama saying Israel should go back to its pre-1967 borders as part of a Middle East peace settlement. According to West, "America has a president who lacks moral courage and integrity ... I cannot attribute this incompetent statement to naivete, but rather to conscious, nefarious and malicious intent."
Notice how Stein places fellow patriots in quotes. Liberals really don’t care much for patriots as patriots often uphold the ideas and ideals of the founders, highly regard our constitution, and have no room for socialists believing instead that our republic is great and should continue to be so. Patriot West spent his entire Memorial Day paying tribute to our fallen heroes at one event after another while Obama spent most of HIS Memorial Day trying to stay in the fairway and 3 putting. Par for the course for both men and Stein gets a birdie for failing to mention it.
Stein goes on to write, “Obama, of course, came out and clarified the pre-1967 borders were just a starting point for negotiations and land swaps, similar to what U.S. preference has been for decades.
I have problems with Obama, too, but "nefarious" and "malicious" play well with the red meat-loving right wing and the tea party screamers. Too bad West's words can detract from any real message.”
It DOES matter Mr. Stein. It matters that Obama and his bewildered Press Secretary spent days claiming that the 1967 borders would NOT be a part of Obama’s policy speech and then it was. It matters that Obama gave that speech just hours ahead of Netanyahu’s arrival in Washington. It matters that Obama knew full well Netanyahu would speak to a joint session of congress on that very topic. It matters because when the President of China was in Washington he got a state dinner but before the Prime Minister of Israel could take the podium on the floor of the house, Obama was off to Ireland and England to embarrass himself as the court jester.
It also matters because after getting schooled by Netanyahu, Obama started trying to back paddle, clarify, and restate his position but locking the barn doors at that point pretty much means you’re walking rather than riding to the golf course.
Here’s something else that Matters Mr. Stein. The whole of Obama’s Middle East and North Africa engagements throughout his presidency have centered on appeasement, extending his hand to enemies, turning his back on allies and creating vacuums for elements of radical Islam to fill in those regions. It matters because clearly there is purpose behind Obama’s actions and it matters because Congressman clearly articulates that purpose. It matters because while on the attack, Stein offers no real substance or examples of how Congressman is, in any way, wrong in his assessment.
It is no stretch of imagination to believe, as we move toward the 2012 elections, liberals will stop drinking the Obama Kool Aid and start taking it through an IV drip in a futile attempt to stave off the “Red Meat-Loving” (substitute, Red State) “Tea Party Screamers” (substitute, Patriots) who took control of the process during the 2010 midterm election and put the likes of Allen West in congress.
Fox-itis is liberal code for truth and Congressman West is highly contagious.
To leave comments please visit our forum by clicking here
To read Stein's column click here
On Tuesday May 31st, Congressman Allen West addressed the Heritage Foundation on the 21st Century Battlefield. In this remarkable address, West moves seamlessly from military comments to a number of important topics.
The last 15 minutes or so are dedicated to questions from the audience.
Please notice that throughout the address and Q&A, Allen West speaks from deep knowledge and without the use of any notes. This is Allen West at his very best.
To leave comments, please visit our forum by clicking here.
Allen West spoke on a topic he knows well....
Daniel Hannan: A European's Warning to America - WSJ.com
MARCH 11, 2011
On a U.S. talk-radio show recently, I was asked what I thought about the notion that Barack Obama had been born in Kenya. "Pah!" I replied. "Your president was plainly born in Brussels."
American conservatives have struggled to press the president's policies into a meaningful narrative. Is he a socialist? No, at least not in the sense of wanting the state to own key industries. Is he a straightforward New Deal big spender, in the model of FDR and LBJ? Not exactly.
My guess is that, if anything, Obama would verbalize his ideology using the same vocabulary that Eurocrats do. He would say he wants a fairer America, a more tolerant America, a less arrogant America, a more engaged America. When you prize away the cliché, what these phrases amount to are higher taxes, less patriotism, a bigger role for state bureaucracies, and a transfer of sovereignty to global institutions.
He is not pursuing a set of random initiatives but a program of comprehensive Europeanization: European health care, European welfare, European carbon taxes, European day care, European college education, even a European foreign policy, based on engagement with supranational technocracies, nuclear disarmament and a reluctance to deploy forces overseas.
No previous president has offered such uncritical support for European integration. On his very first trip to Europe as president, Mr. Obama declared, "In my view, there is no Old Europe or New Europe. There is a united Europe."
All right, growth would be slower, but the quality of life might improve. All right, taxes would be higher, but workers need no longer fear sickness or unemployment. All right, the U.S. would no longer be the world's superpower, but perhaps that would make it more popular. Is a European future truly so terrible?
Yes. I have been an elected member of the European Parliament for 11 years. I have seen firsthand what the European political model means.
The critical difference between the American and European unions has to do with the location of power. The U.S. was founded on what we might loosely call the Jeffersonian ideal: the notion that decisions should be taken as closely as possible to the people they affect. The European Union was based on precisely the opposite ideal. Article One of its foundational treaty commits its nations to establish "an ever-closer union."
From that distinction, much follows. The U.S. has evolved a series of unique institutions designed to limit the power of the state: recall mechanisms, ballot initiatives, balanced budget rules, open primaries, localism, states' rights, term limits, the direct election of public officials from the sheriff to the school board. The EU places supreme power in the hands of 27 unelected Commissioners invulnerable to public opinion.
The will of the people is generally seen by Eurocrats as an obstacle to overcome, not a reason to change direction. When France, the Netherlands and Ireland voted against the European Constitution, the referendum results were swatted aside and the document adopted regardless. For, in Brussels, the ruling doctrine—that the nation-state must be transcended—is seen as more important than freedom, democracy or the rule of law.
This doctrine has had several malign consequences. For example, it has made the assimilation of immigrants far more difficult. Whereas the U.S. is based around the idea that anyone who buys into American values can become American, the EU clings to the notion that national identities are anachronistic and dangerous. Unsurprisingly, some newcomers, finding their adopted countries scorned, have turned to other, less apologetic identities.
The single worst aspect of Europeanization is its impact on the economy. Many Americans, and many Europeans, have a collective memory of how Europe managed to combine economic growth with social justice. Like most folk memories, the idea of a European economic miracle has some basis in fact. Between 1945 and 1974, Western Europe did outperform the U.S. Europe happened to enjoy perfect conditions for rapid growth. Infrastructure had been destroyed during the war, but an educated, industrious and disciplined work force remained.
Human nature being what it is, few European leaders attributed their success to the fact that they were recovering from an artificial low. They convinced themselves, rather, that they were responsible for their countries' growth rates. Their genius, they thought, lay in having hit upon a European "third way" between the excesses of American capitalism and the totalitarianism of Soviet communism.
We can now see where that road leads: to burgeoning bureaucracy, more spending, higher taxes, slower growth and rising unemployment. But an entire political class has grown up believing not just in the economic superiority of euro-corporatism but in its moral superiority. After all, if the American system were better—if people could thrive without government supervision—there would be less need for politicians. As Upton Sinclair once observed, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it."
Nonetheless, the economic data are pitilessly clear. For the past 40 years, Europeans have fallen further and further behind Americans in their standard of living. Europe also has become accustomed to a high level of structural unemployment. Only now, as the U.S. applies a European-style economic strategy based on fiscal stimulus, nationalization, bailouts, quantitative easing and the regulation of private-sector remuneration, has the rate of unemployment in the U.S. leaped to European levels.
Why is a European politician urging America to avoid Europeanization? As a Briton, I see the American republic as a repository of our traditional freedoms. The doctrines rooted in the common law, in the Magna Carta, and in the Bill of Rights found their fullest and most sublime expression in the old courthouse of Philadelphia. Britain, as a result of its unhappy membership in the European Union, has now surrendered a large part of its birthright. But our freedoms live on in America.
Which brings me to my country's present tragedy. The fears that the American patriot leaders had about a Hanoverian tyranny were exaggerated. The United Kingdom did not develop into an absolutist state. Power continued to pass from the Crown to the House of Commons.
Until now. Nearly two and a half centuries after the Declaration of Independence, the grievances it adumbrated are belatedly coming true. Colossal sums are being commandeered by the government in order to fund bailouts and nationalizations without any proper parliamentary authorization. Legislation happens increasingly through what are called standing orders, a device that allows ministers to make laws without parliamentary consent—often for the purpose of implementing EU standards.
How aptly the British people might today apply the ringing phrases of the Declaration of Independence against their own rulers, who have "combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws."
So you can imagine how I feel when I see the U.S. making the same mistakes that Britain has made: expanding its government, regulating private commerce, centralizing its jurisdiction, breaking the link between taxation and representation, abandoning its sovereignty.
You deserve better, cousins. And we expect better.
Mr. Hannan is a member of the European Parliament. This essay is adapted from the Encounter Books Broadside, "Why America Must Not Follow Europe."
I have to say that I agree with Bill Bennett, and have never been able to seriously think about voting for Newt for any office, much less President. Cabinet member, possibly. But that would depend on who else was available.
Bill Bennett to Gingrich: You’re Shooting at [Paul Ryan] From Behind! - By Jim Geraghty - The Campaign Spot - National Review Online
I would contend Newt Gingrich’s interview with Bill Bennett this morning did not go well for the candidate. I don’t think I’ve ever heard Bennett, one of the most patient and courteous hosts in talk radio, so exasperated with a guest:
Bill Bennett: We had some tough comments about you, want to give you a chance to respond. Let me put it this way: Is there anything about this Meet the Press interview that you would like to either take back or clarify today?
Newt Gingrich: Yeah, there’s a lot that I would like to clarify, but let me start by just saying something that I think you will fully understand. I don’t think I realized until after Sunday’s Meet the Press how big a threat my candidacy is to the Washington establishment. Think about that show. I go into the show, and I’m hit first with, ‘if you tell the truth about President Obama having food stamps than any other president in history, you’re a racist.’ Then I’m told later in the panel discussion by E.J. Dionne that if you even mention Detroit, you’re a racist…
Finally they ask me totally loaded question that I probably should have stepped back from and answered totally differently, asking me if you were in a position where you had to vote yes or no, on something the American people did not want, would you ram it through?
Now we had just been through Obama doing precisely that with Obamacare. So I suddenly find myself – having spent two and a half years fighting against Obamacare from the Center for Health Transformation which I founded, to help migrate us to a center-right, personally-oriented, market-oriented system – with everything that I’ve said for two and a half years opposing Obamacare, suddenly by late Sunday afternoon, people are confused about where I stand. I then turn, and with Paul Ryan, who I have praised, I have written newsletters about, I have talked about his budget, I said it was courageous, I said it was a tremendous step in the right direction, suddenly I’m supposed to be, as the Wall Street Journal writes this morning, telling House Republicans to ‘drop dead.’ Now that’s just plain baloney.
… a very narrow question. I am totally for what Paul Ryan is trying to do in general terms. I’m actually for more change over the next ten years. This budget is the beginning stage of the scale of change we need. And yet somehow to the Washington elites, that somehow becomes almost a caricature of what I’ve done throughout my entire career.
Bennett: …When you say you’re totally for what Paul Ryan is for and the Washington elites, that’s not what I heard. Maybe I’m part of the Washington elite. That’s not what the Journal heard. That’s not what Krauthammer heard, that’s not what Rush heard, that’s not what Mark Levin heard. That’s not what the listeners to this show heard. We heard you equate Paul Ryan’s plan with Obama’s plan. ‘Right-wing social engineering vs. left-wing social engineering.’ Why the hit on Ryan? It was clearly and unambiguously a criticism of Ryan.
Newt: That’s not a criticism of Ryan as a person.
Bennett: Not as a person, as a plan.
Newt: It is a criticism of — what I said was, you shouldn’t impose radical change!
Bennett: He’s not imposing radical change! How’s he imposing it? He can’t impose it. We don’t have the Senate and White House.
Newt: So since we can’t, then you can say we can all relax because he can’t do it. [Crosstalk] I was asked the question, would you do that? I wasn’t asked a question about where I stood on Ryan; I was asked, ‘should Republicans pass a plan that is unpopular’?
Bennett then plays the audio from Sunday:
Life is Precious... always.... from conception to natural death. You can NEVER predict the outcome of anyone's life. Never.
From Coma To Diploma: Brain Injury Victim Beats Odds - Staying Healthy News Story - KMGH Denver
Both the story and a video are worth taking the time to read, watch.