Posts Tagged ‘Allen West’
Are you a black conservative? Whoa! Not so fast – liberals get to decide if you’re “Black Enough”
Saw this not long ago after an exchange between author David Limbaugh and some anonymous leftist;
Lib: “U are racist bc you wrote a book critical of Obama.” Me: I’d vote for Thomas Sowell or Alan West etc 4 pres.” Lib: “They’re not black”
— David Limbaugh (@DavidLimbaugh) April 28, 2012
Isn’t it funny that after years of arbitrarily sorting people by the color of their skin suddenly now they reject some of those same folk despite their skin color? If you don’t believe certain things are true, whether they are true or not, you’re kicked out of the “tribe”. Isn’t that what it really is? Tribal bullcrap? In the melting pot that is America?
Those same leftists can call out perceived “racism” simply based on the same ideological differences. Disagree with Obama, you are a racist. You don’t get to decide by the color of his skin or your own.
Lets take the subjects to the leftist’s obvious (to me) racism:
Allen West, a Republican retired Army Colonel, is a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, a group of dark-toned (generally, and of African heritage) members of the US House of Representatives. They seem content that Allen West is “black enough” that he’s included. Are they “racist” also?
Is this man not "black enough"?
Thomas Sowell is an 81-year-old economist, former professor at UCLA, the Urban Institute, Brandeis University, and Cornell University. You want to talk about racism? He’s seen it. He grew up under the separatist policies of the 1930s through the 1960s. Colored bathrooms and drinking fountains. He’s seen more racism than most of the people calling him “Uncle Tom” have ever had nightmares of.
He knows racism when he sees it. He sees it on the left side of the aisle. The Democrat side. Sowell writes;
Black civil rights attorneys and activists who denounce whites for objecting to the bussing of kids from the ghetto into their neighborhood schools have not hesitated to send their own children to private schools, instead of subjecting them to this kind of “diversity” in the public schools.
As for whites, author Harry Stein says that many white liberals “give blacks a pass on behaviors and attitudes they would regard as unacceptable and even abhorrent in their own kind.” This, of course, is no favor to those particular blacks — especially those among young ghetto blacks whose counterproductive behavior puts them on a path that leads nowhere but to welfare, at best, and behind bars or death in gangland street warfare at worst.
Is Thomas Sowell not "black enough"?
Are we not all Americans here? Can we stop polluting discourse by constantly injecting skin color into everything?
The reason for the leftist’s attack against David Limbaugh is the book he recently wrote titled “Crimes Against Liberty: An Indictment of President Barack Obama.” -
As Americans, liberty is an inalienable right that is granted to us by God, protected by the Constitution, and upheld by our government. Yet, Barack Obama doesn’t seem to share that view. To him, liberty is a threat to the government’s power and something to be squashed by any means possible, as bestselling author David Limbaugh shows to devastating effect in his new book, Crimes Against Liberty. In Crimes Against Liberty, Limbaugh issues a damning indictment of President Barack Obama for encroaching upon and stripping us of our individual and sovereign rights. Laying out his case like he would a criminal complaint, Limbaugh presents the evidence—count-by-count—against Obama. From exploiting the financial crisis for political gain, to restricting our personal freedoms through invasive healthcare and “green” policies, to endangering America with his feckless diplomacy and reckless dismantlement of our national security systems, Limbaugh proves—beyond a reasonable doubt—that Obama is guilty of crimes against liberty.
The book has nothing to do with the color of anyone’s skin, it simply lays out the case that B. Hussein Obama is the wrong man to be President of the US, that’s it. That’s all.
Crossposted to Unified Patriots
Related articles
- Video: Thomas Sowell on Obama’s radical mentor Derrick Bell (theblaze.com)
- Who Is ‘Racist’? – Thomas Sowell – Townhall Conservative Columnists (gds44.wordpress.com)
- Obama Doubling Down on His Leftist Radicalism – David Limbaugh – Townhall Conservative Columnists – Page 1 (genomega1.wordpress.com)
- A Black Man’s Trojan Horse (stargazer12.wordpress.com)
- They Call These Accomplishments? – David Limbaugh – Townhall Conservative Columnists (gds44.wordpress.com)
A “pre-buttal” by Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) to Rep. Allen West’s remarks that the 2012 NDAA doesn’t apply to US Citizens; “False assertions”
h/t Paul
Image via Wikipedia
I’m no lawyer, so wading through this crap isn’t fun, but I posted this video where Allen West is defending the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). I was subsequently directed to this post on Facebook by Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI-03) who on December 16 explains the dangers of the vague wording in the 2012 NDAA (.pdf of full text as signed by Obama on December 31, 2011).
Rep. Amash then posted on Facebook where many in Congress ”…are citing the NDAA’s language as ‘proof’ that Americans are not at risk. A few of them are intending to mislead you, but most simply misapprehend the bill.”
He goes on to cite Rep. Allan West in the video I posted above;
Here’s one prominent example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5KJPm2b-v8. My attached Note responds directly to the most common false assertions, such as those in the attached video, made in defense of the NDAA.
Here is the note he cites, in its entirety, and he brings up some good points;
On Thursday, Congress gave the President sweeping new power to detain American citizens indefinitely, without charge or trial. A provision in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) empowers the President to detain anyone who “substantially supported” groups he determines are “associated forces” of terrorists.
The provision at issue, sec. 1021, was tucked into an 1800-page conference report that was shuttled through Congress in a matter of days. Given the complexity and weight of the issue, I was interested to read House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon’s post on RedState explaining the bill’s detention policy. Unfortunately, the post is almost useless because it muddles two separate provisions of the NDAA.
Sec. 1021, the bill’s discretionary detention provision, authorizes the President to detain persons who “substantially supported” forces “associated” with al-Qaeda or the Taliban that “are engaged in hostilities” against the U.S. or its “coalition partners.” None of the quoted terms are defined. We do not know what constitutes substantial support, hostilities, or our coalition partners. Critically, the bill does not attempt to define “associated forces,” either. Without knowing what qualifies as an associated force, no one can be sure they are safe from the government’s detention.
Sec. 1022, the bill’s mandatory detention provision, requires the President to detain members of al-Qaeda who have planned or carried out attacks against the U.S. or its coalition partners. Only sec. 1022 states that it “does not extend to citizens of the United States.”
(You can read the language of both provisions in the conference report. Sec. 1021 begins on p. 653; sec. 1022 begins on p. 656.)
What’s troubling is that Chairman McKeon’s post gives you the impression that it defends sec. 1021—the discretionary detention provision—when, in fact, his post is all about sec. 1022, the mandatory provision. The post conspicuously defends “the provision,” without referencing a specific section number. And, at the end, it includes a chart titled “Section 1021 of the FY 2012 National Defense Authorization Act,” even though one of the two quotes in the chart is from sec. 1022, not 1021.
Sec. 1021—the provision I and other constitutional conservatives are most concerned about—is much more difficult to defend. Its expansive, undefined, and dangerous detention power goes well beyond what Congress authorized in its September 2011 Authorization for Use of Military Force (9/11 AUMF), even though the bill claims it only “affirms” the President’s authority under the 9/11 AUMF. To understand how much power sec. 1021 gives to the President, consider the 9/11 AUMF’s text, which Congress passed just days after the most deadly attack in U.S. history:
[T]he President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
The 9/11 AUMF authorizes force only against persons and groups who have a connection to the September 11 terrorist attacks. The 9/11 AUMF says nothing about detention, let alone the indefinite detention of American citizens.
Despite the 9/11 AUMF’s plain language, the past two administrations have argued in court that the 9/11 AUMF authorizes the President to indefinitely detain certain persons the administration determines are enemies. Both administrations also have claimed the 9/11 AUMF applies to persons and groups that are “associated” with al-Qaeda or the Taliban. No 9/11 nexus is required, according to the President.
Section 1021 thus claims that it merely “affirms” the President’s authority under the 9/11 AUMF, including the alleged authority to detain persons the President determines are “associated forces.” While the section is framed as an affirmation, it can be viewed as that only if Congress adopted the President’s expansive interpretation of the 9/11 AUMF—an action Congress never had taken before Thursday. To be clear: When the Senate passed the NDAA conference report on Thursday, for the first time in history, Congress approved the indefinite detention of persons who “substantially supported . . . associated forces.”
Who could this cover? An American citizen living in Michigan makes a one-time donation to a non-violent humanitarian group. Years later, the group commits hostile acts against an ally of the U.S. Under the NDAA that just passed Congress, if the President determines the group was “associated” with terrorists, the President is authorized to detain the donor indefinitely, and without charge or trial.
NDAA proponents sometimes point to an amendment to sec. 1021, added by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, as proof that the NDAA doesn’t apply to Americans. The amendment, now subsection 1021(e), states:
Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
The key to subsection 1021(e) is its claim that sec. 1021 does not “affect existing law or authorities” relating to the detention of persons arrested on U.S. soil. If the President’s expansive view of his own power were in statute, that statement would be true. Instead, the section codifies the President’s view as if it had always existed, authorizing detention of “persons” regardless of citizenship or where they are arrested. It then disingenuously says the bill doesn’t change that view.
In fact, the Senate expressly rejected a provision that would have prevented the indefinite detention of American citizens. Sen. Feinstein offered another amendment to sec. 1021 that stated the section “does not include the authority to detain a citizen of the United States without trial until the end of hostilities.” That amendment was rejected 45-55. Sen. Feinstein’s other amendment, which does nothing to protect U.S. citizens, passed 99-1.
Our Constitution does not permit the federal government to detain American citizens indefinitely without charge or trial. I strongly believe in protecting the country’s security and equipping our Armed Forces with the tools they need to defeat our enemies. But the American people cannot support measures that, in the name of security, violate our constitutional rights.
The NDAA’s backers succeeded in part because of the bill’s length and complexity. And I concede that this issue takes time to understand. Over the next few months, I hope to join others who value our country’s constitutional rights to block the NDAA’s dangerous detention provision. Once the American public sees for itself what’s included in the NDAA, I’m confident they will demand we do so.
If you go to the post directly, you can see most of the leftists and liberal Democrats are decrying the fact that Republicans voted for the authorization, but they ignore the fact that Obama signed the thing, and minimize that Democrats voted for it as well. Normal procedure.
Obviously, we’ll have to see what, if any, language is changed in subsequent legislation. The bottom line is, do many trust the current Administration to do the right thing? Ever?
Not many.
Related articles
- U.S. Rep. Justin Amash gathering support in fight against the National Defense Authorization Act (destructionist.wordpress.com)
- Myth busted: Yes, the NDAA does apply to Americans, and here’s the text that says so (mountainrepublic.net)
- Obama Promises Not to Use Military Detention for U.S. Citizens – I Think (reason.com)
Allen West on the NAACP and Institutional Racism
I love this guy
Apparently in addition to running for Congress in Florida’s 22nd District, LTC(R) Allen B. West also writes for a motorcycle rag in South Florida called Wheels on the Road. There’s a lot of good stuff there as I browse through their site, including the picture you see here. The magazine price is only $3 a shot, but you can download it for free (.pdf) also. There, hopefully I just paid for the use of the picture.
Is this a guy you'd vote for? I would!
West wrote for the August issue (not yet available on .pdf) about “Liberal Racism” and the NAACP, a copy of which was provided to African-American Conservatives;
It never ceases to amaze me that as we get closer to our monthly submission of this regular missive that the topic becomes evident. I often use an ole saying from my parents, “sometimes you just have to thank God for stupid people”….and I do. The focus for this month without any doubt has to be the NAACP and its President/CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous.
Let me make one thing very clear, my Mother, Elizabeth Thomas West, was a lifetime membership holder with the NAACP. Therefore growing up in our home I clearly understood the mission and vision for this organization. It was a mission and vision that enabled me to have the pride in myself and the heritage of my parents, grandparents, and extended family. It was a mission and vision that, to me, fostered a desire to excel beyond the standard and have a commitment to excellence regardless of skin color.
However, something has happened to that mission and vision, something horrific and inconsistent with the principles and values I recalled emanating from the “ole school” black community. Somewhere along the way victimization mentality has taken root in the black community resulting in astronomical unemployment rates, high incarceration rates, appalling murder rates, breakdown of the black family, and embarrassing teen pregnancy rates.
More-
