Two Articles by Alan West

please space down
the article is there -HONEST

























































































Alan West is a favorite of mine and these are both thought provoking articles that need to be read by anyone who loves this country.

Written by Allen West on July 8, 2015

I’ve been watching the early positioning for the 2016 presidential race and noticed something interesting. It seems that one presumed nominee is again watching her lead dwindle. Hillary Clinton was supposed to have been crowned in 2008 and she was bushwhacked by a young untested U.S. Senator, Barack Obama. And now it seems she’s losing ground to another U.S. Senator, Bernie Sanders.

Senator Sanders is drawing massive crowds, just like Obama, and there is another common thread between Sanders and Obama — their socialist philosophy of governance. Now, I have to give it to Senator Sanders, he is man enough to admit what he is: he has “come out” as a Democratic Socialist.

Obama, well, his rhetoric and writings proved he was, but if you dared to utter the words that he was a socialist, you were immediately branded racist. Even after comments such as “I think it’s better for everyone if we spread the wealth around” and “if you have a business, you didn’t build that,” America still refused to admit Barack Obama held a core believe system antithetical to that of our Constitutional Republic. Hence why we needed to “fundamentally transform” America — and now we know what that means.

Or do we?

Sir Winston Churchill described socialism in this way: “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”

Even a Time Magazine cover recently stated, “We’re All Socialists Now.” Well, not yours truly, but it should concern our nation that we’ve signed up for something so contrary to why we celebrated 239 years of independence just last weekend.

Then again, has anyone ever articulated to the American people what socialism is as a governing philosophy – and that it has failed every time it’s tried? Perhaps the GOP nominees should stop with the circular firing squad and just do a simple comparative assessment between the ideals of a Constitutional Republic and a Progressive Socialist state.

So I figured this ol’ southern fella would give them a helping hand, with five facts about socialism you need to share with every Democrat you know.

1. First of all, socialists believe in wealth redistribution. This is the most threatening principle for a free market/free enterprise opportunity economy. It seeks to punish those who have worked hard to earn and achieve and believes that it is the job of the state to “level a playing field.” We hear the poll-tested marketed lexicon of fairness, fair share, economic patriotism, and other gimmick words that sound nice. My question is simple; when will progressive socialists share their iPhones, iPads, and all the other niceties they have?

Wealth redistribution does not work because it basically says the indomitable individual industrial entrepreneurial spirit does not (and should not) exist. And if anything has built this great nation to its impeccable level of exceptionalism, it has been individual industrialism. But if socialists have their way, success and achievement become targets of envy.

You know, this past weekend the USA Women’s Soccer team won their third World Cup — unprecedented. Carli Lloyd completed a first ever hat trick in men’s and women’s World Cup history. Every team from all the nations represented had the chance to win the World Cup, but one team was the champion. It was the most widely viewed sports event and we even watched in our home. It brought out all Americans because we like winning. Socialists don’t like winning, they like believing they can choose the winners. Socialists would have redistributed goals from Team USA to Japan in order to promote fairness. We don’t accept that on the soccer pitch — why do we accept that as a governing principle for our nation?

2. Socialists believe in nationalizing the economic production of a country, they do not believe in the private sector, the free marketplace of ideas. They believe in their control and I remember one Rep. Maxine Waters making a mistake and saying that we should nationalize the airlines — she caught herself.

When you consider legislation offered such as Obamacare, it’s about government having a preeminent role and competing against the private sector. You hear the liberal progressive socialists of the left talk about government investments — that is simply not possible. Government does not invest, it spends, and it spends other people’s money.

And the fallacy of socialism is that it works out REALLY well until you run out of other people’s money. If the government gets into the business of public sector growth and engagement in the marketplace, you end up with crony capitalism. You end up with a government that believes it can pick those winners and losers in the marketplace — Solyndra anyone?

What’s worse, the private sector cannot compete with government nationalization of production because government can just raise taxes to increase capital, or print money. Folks out in the free enterprise world cannot do that — thank God.

But just as we saw the shares of three healthcare companies skyrocket after the recent SCOTUS decision in King v Burwell — government should not be able to mandate to individual citizens that they MUST purchase a private sector commodity — inconsistent with the Commerce Clause — but very beneficial to the business that the government has chosen to coddle. In these past Obama years, we’ve seen an incredible intrusion of the federal government into the private sector — case in point, college student loans. It never ends up well — but that’s what Obama, Sanders, and presumably Hillary Clinton embrace.

3. Socialists believe in the creation and expansion of the welfare nanny-state. That is the purpose of wealth redistribution: the move away from the opportunity society to the dependency society. And all one has to do is look at the increase of Americans in poverty and on food stamps in these past six years. Consider the Great Society programs of Lyndon Johnson, especially the REALLY nutty idea of government providing checks to women who have children out of wedlock…with an interesting caveat, no man in the home.

So government removed Dad from the home and that especially affected the black community which 50 years ago had almost 77 percent two-parent households — today that number is barely 25 percent. Socialists come up with these GREAT ideas — mostly billed as free — but the truly intended consequences are detrimental for the society. As Wall Street Journal editorial board member Jason Riley pleads in his book, Please Stop Helping Us. But that is the issue, in that socialism is emotional in its core and these elitists truly believe they can feel better by helping someone — when actually they are promoting the soft bigotry of low expectations.

The dependency society that results from the expansion of the welfare state breeds a lack of drive, determination, and initiative. Socialists do not believe we need a safety net for those who slip off the ladder of success and achievement, which advocates for the individual to get back up and climb. Socialists believe in a hammock — which eventually dry rots.

4. Socialists actually believe in social utopianism — they call it social justice. What this means is that socialists believe it’s not the individual who has the unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness. It is a collective right granted by testate to guarantee happiness. Which is why socialists believe they must redistribute wealth, nationalize production, and give everyone a hammock.

Socialists do not believe in individual exceptionalism – as a matter of fact, “you did not build that” — someone else made it possible. And therefore justice is the sharing of what you THINK you have achieved – you can bet Hope Solo and Abby Wimbach are not about to give up that World Cup!

Socialists do not believe that if you work hard you can have a better life. They believe you must work hard in to spread it around — shared prosperity — because that is what makes a society happy – and makes them feel good, the essence of collectivism as the individual is lost.

Heck, it was MSNBC commentator Melissa Harris-Perry who even stated that parents do not have their own children — that they belong to all of us. Way wrong answer there, Mel.

I don’t need reparations. I just wanted to be a part of the opportunity society, not one based on classifying me as a victim needing standards to be altered to achieve justice for me. Socialists don’t believe individuals can be a victors — not on their own. The State exists to provide its version of justice — which is horribly unjust. Socialists like Julian Castro believe Fair Housing means socially engineering neighborhoods, and if you do not fit their definition — a utopian vision — you are in violation of being socially just.

5. Lastly, Socialists embrace the secular society. Why? Because faith has to be rooted in the State. Here in America, if God is removed from the public sphere, then who becomes the grantor — and subsequently the taker — of your unalienable rights, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

The recent SCOTUS decision on redefining marriage — well, it has resulted in a State punishing citizens for their religious beliefs. That is exactly why folks fled Europe for America in the first place — religious freedom and liberty. There is a reason why we sing God Bless America — and He has, but that is not what socialists prefer.

It was Karl Marx who termed religion as the “opiate of the masses.” Nah Karl, we just know you should never put your faith in man. The Founding Fathers invoked Divine Providence as they signed their 56 names to the Declaration of Independence. They realized King George III was a flawed human being and the divine rights theory was not the way towards individual liberty — freedom comes from the natural rights theory. And that is why our individual rights are granted from our Creator, God — not Obama, Sanders, or Clinton.

It is a time for choosing, America. This socialism stuff may sound enticing but let me end again with the words of Churchill: “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”

I hate being miserable, and I certainly don’t want to share misery with anyone. That’s not how we roll in America folks!




TOP TEN REASONS TO VOTE DEMOCRATIC

Allen West is the man.  The conservative movement needs a lot more stuff like this and we needed it yesterday.

I’ll add one of my own to this list.

I’ll vote Democrat because I hate capitalism. I hate it so much that I will tweet about how much I hate it from my iPhone while drinking a Starbucks.

10. I’ll vote Democrat because I can’t wait for college football season to be delayed or cancelled because the student athletes are union employees.

9. I’ll vote Democrat because I believe oil company’s profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene, but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn’t.

8. I’ll vote Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

7. I’ll vote Democrat because Freedom of Speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.

6. I’ll vote Democrat because I’m way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves. I am also thankful that we have a 911 service that get police to your home in order to identify your body after a home invasion.

5. I’ll vote Democrat because I’m not concerned about millions of babies being aborted so long as we keep all death row inmates alive and comfy.

4. I’ll vote Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education, and Social Security benefits, and we should take away the Social Security from those who paid into it.

3. I’ll vote Democrat because I believe that businesses should NOT be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the Democrats see fit.

2. I’ll vote Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.

And the Number One reason I’ll vote Democrat is:

1. I’ll vote Democrat because I think that it’s better to pay billions for oil to people who hate us, but not drill our own because it might upset some endangered beetle, gopher, fish or frog.

ed Links

Muslim Meeting in the White House

I found this today on Facebook and it is from Alan West.  I have said for several years that Obama, at least, has Muslim leaning tendencies, at worst, is a Muslim.  After the debacle at the Prayer Breakfast the later is looking more likely than the former. Not that being a Muslim is so bad, but a don't think that it is appropriate for a Judeo- Christian based country such as ours to have a Muslim leader.. Especially during this time of terror that the radical Muslims are subjecting us to. This is certainly not the way that he presented himself to the American people during the elections.

I also think that we must think about the face that America is presenting to the world.  We insult and denigrate our oldest ally in the Mideast, Israel,.  There are operatives of Obama there now working to unseat their prime minister. We did not adhere to the treaty that we had with the Ukraine, and we have thrown them under the bus. Obama's golf is more important to him than the beheading of Americans. The King of Jordan has at least, made ISIS pay for the burning of a Jordanian pilot ... we have done nothing.

We are at a point where our friends don't trust us and our enemies don't fear us - not a good place to be and for Obama to be meeting in "the people's house" with radical Muslims is criminal

Remember the piece I wrote firmly stating several reasons why President Barack Obama is an Islamist sympathizer? I think the case was laid out rather simply and wasn’t based on conjecture, but fact, actions and policies by the president. Of course I’m not the only one to say so. More and more Americans are coming to that conclusion as well.

You have to scratch your head after watching the recent Vox.com interview where Obama referred to the Paris Jewish Kosher store terror attackers as “folks” and “random.” And of course thehistorically inaccurate moral equivalency and relativism proclamations of the president at the National Prayer Breakfast further solidifies the case of our  president sympathizing with the Islamist enemy.

However, last week something happened even more damning for Obama (if that’s possible) — and he doesn’t seem to care. As you might recall, President Obama met with American Muslim leaders at the White House, but the administration was unwilling to reveal who attended the meeting, which was closed to the press.

But as reported by Investors Business Daily, “After complaints, the White House finally released names of the “Muslim leaders” Obama met with behind closed doors a week ago Wednesday. Now we know why it was secret. The list includes members of known jihadist groups. After stonewalling for days about the names of participants at the almost two-hour meeting with the president and his national security advisers — a meeting that was granted at the request of Muslim Advocates, an Islamist group that’s demanded a stop to NYPD surveillance of radical mosques, anti-terrorist drone strikes and Gitmo detentions — the White House quietly attached the list of attendees to the back of its daily press briefing transcript Thursday evening, according to the Washington Times.”

As you recall, it was the following day that President Obama delivered his very offensive and controversial comments at the National Prayer Breakfast. Here are some of the 14 Muslim leaders who had our presidents’ ear for two hours according to Investors Business Daily:

Imam Mohamed Magid, who preaches at a fundamentalist Northern Virginia mosque that has listed a number of trustees and major donors whose offices and homes were raided after 9/11 by federal agents on suspicion of funding terrorists.

Azhar Azeez, president of the Islamic Society of North America, a known radical Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas front group that remains on the Justice Department’s list of unindicted terrorist co-conspirators.

Sherman Jackson, who as the King Faisal Chair of Islamic Thought at USC, once gave a lecture at a conference in Toronto that has been described by “Campus Watch” as a “call to battle” between Muslims and the West.

Hoda Hawa (Elshishtawy) national policy analyst for the Muslim Public Affairs Council, which was founded by known members of the Muslim Brotherhood, a worldwide jihadist movement. The group’s former president, Salam al-Marayati, was once kicked off the National Commission on Terrorism after his defense of terrorist acts and the groups who carry them out was revealed.

It’s noteworthy that no representatives of the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations, a terror-tied group the FBI has banned from outreach events, were invited to the White House. The FBI says CAIR is a “front” for the Hamas terrorist group.”

CAIR does however possess very posh headquarters on Capitol Hill and is an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest Islamic terrorist funding case in U.S. history — the Holy Land Foundation – but who cares, right?

I just want to ask a simple question. When was the last time Obama met with Christian leaders? (And Reverends Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, or Jeremiah Wright are not what I’m talking about).

Where are the voices of secular humanists and atheists, like the Freedom From Religion Foundation screaming about separation of church and state? I tend to believe there is an unholy alliance between progressive socialists, Islamo-fascists, and secular humanists. They do all seem to form the base for Islamapologists.

Aren’t you dying to know what they discussed?

“According to the Detroit Free Press, “the White House ordered the Muslim attendees not to talk after the meeting about what Obama said during the discussion. However, some have broken the ground rules and leaked what was discussed.”

“Topping the agenda was “anti-Muslim bigotry” and banning Muslim terrorist profiling by federal law enforcement. Participants said they got a sympathetic ear from Obama. The president reportedly entertained the idea of naming Muslim judges to federal courts. Meanwhile, the most pressing Muslim-related issue of our time — violent jihadism — was not discussed.”

So let me ask of y’all, what do you think will be the topic of the upcoming White House meeting on “violent extremism?” And who will be in attendance for that summit? I can bet there won’t be any Christian leaders — can’t have those mean Crusaders around.

So who will be defined as the “violent extremists” at the conference — the Tea Party? After all, how many times have we heard the voices on the left refer to Constitutional Conservatives as such?

Yesterday we found out that Kayla Mueller, a 26-year-old American woman was killed at the hands of ISIS — they were holding her hostage. Our response? Perhaps we’ll have more Islamic sharia courts like what’s rumored to be right here close to me in Irving, Texas.

Remember the rally for Charlie Hebdo? Of course you don’t, that’s how we roll in Western civilization, with emotional empty responses. Jordan knew how to respond — you didn’t hear about King Abdullah having meetings with Muslim Brotherhood affiliated individuals.

I will close with these thoughts from the Investors Business Daily article for you to ponder.

“If it seems Obama is more interested in protecting the Muslim community than America, that’s because he is more interested. As he vowed after 9/11, revealed in his 2006 memoir: “I will stand with (Muslims)” — even if Muslims are tied to another 9/11.That is, it is their “sense of security” that concerns him, and it is their needs he will tend to — over the needs and security of the majority of Americans. This is the man who’s supposed to be protecting America from violent Muslim fanatics. This is our commander in chief for the next two years, a period that may prove the most dangerous terrorist stretch in our history.”

Yes, the actions, statements, and policies of President Obama do lend one to believe he is an Islamist sympathizer. There are too many disturbing unanswered questions. Where was the request for authorization to support Islamists in Libya, and why did he abandon Americans to die in Benghazi and then lie about it? Why such affinity for the Muslim Brotherhood — going back to that 2009 speech in Cairo when he insisted they be seated in front?

If nothing else, it is time for the Congress — House and Senate — to vote on a resolution for censure.