Posts Tagged ‘Tea Party’

An appeal to my reasonable conservative friends:

Important: if you are not reasonable and open-minded, don’t read any further. I’m not looking for “zots.” I’m looking for reasonable people who are serious about making the right choice. When I know I’ve chosen wisely, I feel at peace, without doubt in my mind, and start to get excited – like Chrissy Mathews, I get “that tingle.” How do you feel when you know you’ve made the right choice?

At this point, you’ve been following the primary race for months, and that means you are looking to make the right choice. Are you aware of how important making the right choice is in this primary process? I agree, and that’s why it is important to keep an open mind. That’s why you’ve read this far, so you might as well hear me out.

Obama has made it clear that he is pinning his reelection efforts on class warfare. So, think about whom you would want the GOP nominee to be if you were Obama, and you needed a target for class warfare? I agree – Mitt Romney. Understand that Obama uses Alinsky tactics, and Alinsky tactic 13 is “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Simply put, it is much easier to attack an organization or an idea if you can ‘put a face on it’. If you can find a single individual who both represents your opponent, and who, given the right spin, can be portrayed as the face of evil, you can use this person as a proxy for your attacks on your adversary. What face would you put on the 1%? Mitt Romney.

You may think that Mitt Romney is a great guy, and a great example of success, and I agree with some of that (and certainly applaud his success), and I would add that you should have no doubt in your mind that this is exactly what Obama will do (stick a big, fat 1% on him), and you can imagine that he is licking his chops in anticipation of doing it. If Mitt Romney is the nominee, this is what the general election will look like. Click Here. No matter what he says or how well he says it, he will not be able to shake that label. How does that make you feel about Mitt? And it doesn’t help that he has a habit of making mistakes and saying the wrong thing. Click here. Even Romney booster John McCain no longer believes Romney can win. Click Here. Moving on.

Obama’s second trick is throwing “red meat” distractions to keep us from discussing the areas where he is most vulnerable, such as economic and foreign policy. The biggest distraction so far has been the contraception controversy. And Rick Santorum took the bait- big time. Rick Santorum is a great father with great moral values, but he is also a one trick pony. Social issues are important, but he just can’t stop talking about them, and that has gotten him in a ton of trouble. The issue isn’t that he talks a lot about social policy, the issue is that he just can’t change gears quickly enough to avoid the damage caused by Obama’s intentional deceptions and sleights-of-hand. Consider how many distractions Obama will throw out there if Rick is the nominee. We’ll be talking about birth control all the way through November. By the time Rick manages to shift the debate back to Obama’s weak points, it may be too late.

Rick also tends to make serious, and very public, mistakes. For example, he loses his cool very quickly. Click Here. Cringing? He also gets confused regularly – in this instance, he gives Obama credit for CREATING jobs, publicly, on CNN! Click here. Just imagine if he makes even ONE mistake like this in the months between the nomination and the general election. Understand the very real risk with Rick. How do you feel about that, given the stakes?

Please understand that all of this is just fact, and I understand that some of you will now feel a bit disturbed and unsure at this point. But, I digress.

Newt is a flawed man, but recognize that his flaws are less subject to substantive attack. For example, Freddie and Fannie? It may be a big deal in the Republican primary, but Democrats do NOT want to go there! Yes, he’s had multiple marriages, but how many times has Rush been married? Do you still listen to Rush, at least here and there? And, of course, Democrats cannot launch credible attacks on the subject of adultery – we can go there. Before I close, I urge you to do one thing, and one thing only… please watch this video – click here. You’ve read this far, so another minute or two won’t kill you. Click here. Now, how do you feel about this man going up against Barack Obama?

The above letter from J.M. Stein at Red Side of Life is so good, as is, that I chose not to break up his text with my comments.

Indeed, Stein makes a very compelling case. But if there is still any doubt in your mind, please consider a few additional facts:

  • Besides the “1%er” card that Stein says will be played against Romney, the Democrats also have their old favorite: the race card. Mitt is a very committed member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, aka the Mormons, and until 1978, Mormon theology relegated blacks to a kind of second-class membership in the church. After considerable social and political pressure, the church’s “living prophet” declared a new “revelation” changing the previous position which had been held since the church’s inception. Already, many on the Left are raising a stink about this. We can be sure that if Mitt were the nominee, this ugly issue would only get uglier — much uglier. The Democrat-Media Complex will make sure of that.
  • The issue of contraception is problematic for Santorum not only for the reason Stein explains — namely, that the Left is skillfully and shamelessly using it to sidetrack discussion away from Obama’s staggering malfeasances in both foreign and domestic policy — but also because the driving force behind Obama is the “Shadow Party” funded by George Soros, who has an obsession with population control. Soros and other Agenda 21 promoters believe that world population must be reduced by literally billions of people. Santorum, the father of seven children — one of whom has Trisomy-18, a genetic disorder for which many Leftists believe abortion to be the only appropriate response — has the Left’s bull’s-eye on his back.
  • The Left surely will demonize Newt just as viciously as they would Romney or Santorum. That’s what the Left does — to anyone who opposes them. A key difference, however, is that Newt fights back. Like the late, great Andrew Breitbart, Newt is a “happy warrior” who both understands the Left, and loves taking them on. Plus, like Breitbart, Newt understands that Big Media is every bit as much our opponent as is the Democratic Party. He is smart, articulate and confident enough to be able to answer their attacks on the spot, without hemming or hawing. People in media continually try to nail Newt with their “gotcha” questions — but they never succeed.
  • America’s survival is threatened not only by terrorism and rogue states outside our borders, but by two major enemies within: communism and radical Islam. Yet, no other candidate besides Newt even mentions Saul Alinsky, Bill Ayers and George Soros. Newt is the only one who seems to recognize — or at least, will publicly say — that Obama is not a misguided incompetent with well-meaning intentions, but rather a Marxist radical who believes America is more evil than good, and who is committed to destroying the freedoms that have made America great. As for radical Islam, while Rick Santorum recognizes the threat from Iran, and is very knowledgeable on national security matters, only Newt recognizes — and openly talks aboutthe giant strides that sharia (Islamic law) has already made right here in the U.S., thanks to CAIR, ISNA, ICNA, MAS, MSA and the whole alphabet soup of Muslim Brotherhood-spawned groups that, despite proven connections to Hamas and other terror groups, are presented as legitimate “moderates” in our media and have infiltrated our government at high levels, including within the Department of Homeland Security.
  • We can look around and see the perfect storm of economic collapse, national-security threats and inflamed social passions that is converging on us. America is — whether or not we yet realize it — in as much danger now as Britain was in the spring of 1940. Almost too late, the British people finally recognized that Winston Churchill — whom they’d previously despised as “impulsive” and “arrogant,” whom they’d castigated for his “poor judgment” and “grandiose ideas” — was actually the best man, perhaps the only man, who could lead them through the crisis. I’m not saying Newt is Churchill — but having studied Churchill, I am struck by the remarkable parallels between the two. Just as Churchill saw who Hitler really was long before most of his countrymen woke up, Newt understands the dangers to America that many people have so far been unable or unwilling to see. Newt will help open their eyes — because, like Churchill, Newt has a gift for explaining things in ways people can understand. Just as importantly, Newt has the bulldog tenacity and unabashed can-do attitude that the nation needs in its leader if we are to make it through the tough times ahead. As we saw so clearly during the South Carolina debate — when standing ovations kept erupting as Newt spoke — Newt has, as Churchill did, the power to inspire.

Read Full Post »

I am very distressed by Allen West’s giving even the slightest bit of consideration to Donald Trump as a serious candidate, much less a serious Republican candidate. West recently said that he’d consider being Donald Trump’s running mate if it were offered, and Trump and West shared the stage at a South Florida Tax Day Tea Party rally. This is both puzzling and disturbing.

The Conservative Diva sums up my own feelings about Trump pretty well:

From my friend Stephen Maloney, just learned of Poll Insider’s little refresher on the man who, for reasons not  yet fully known (is he really running for president or is this just a publicity ploy?) has transformed himself from Obama lover to Tea Party advocate. While some conservatives rhapsodize over what feels like an endless media blitz over Obama’s birth certificate, others like Poll Insiderare actually pointing out some inconvenient truths about The Donald.

On Abortion: Donald Trump Then: “I support a woman’s right to choose, but I am uncomfortable with the procedures. When Tim Russert asked me on Meet the Press if I would ban partial-birth abortion, my pro-choice instincts led me to say no. After the show, I consulted two doctors I respect and, upon learning more about this procedure, I have concluded that I would support a ban.” From his 2000 book. “I believe it is a personal decision that should be left to the women and their doctors” – When he last considered running for President in 2009. Donald Trump Now: “As you know, I’m pro-life…  I’m forming an opinion, I’m forming a very strong opinion but I’ll let you know in about three or four weeks if I decided to.” That’s comforting, he will let us know in 3 or 4 weeks what his reformed views on abortion are.

On Healthcare: “I’m a conservative on most issues but a liberal on health. It is an unacceptable but accurate fact that the number of uninsured Americans has risen to 42 million. Working out detailed plans will take time. But the goal should be clear: Our people are our greatest asset. We must take care of our own. We must have universal healthcare. Our objective [should be] to make reforms for the moment and, longer term, to find an equivalent of the single-payer plan that is affordable, well-administered, and provides freedom of choice. Possible? The good news is, yes. There is already a system in place-the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program-that can act as a guide for all healthcare reform. It operates through a centralized agency that offers considerable range of choice. While this is a government program, it is also very much market-based. It allows 620 private insurance companies to compete for this market. Once a year participants can choose from plans which vary in benefits and costs.”

On Taxation: Forget raising taxes, Trump wanted to tax, at 14.25% the net wealth of “the evil rich.” Money that was already taxed. Of course, he played the “I’m raising taxes on myself” card to prove his selflessness. (Ironic given his inability to settle his own debts…) His 1999 plan:

  • Raise $5.7 trillion to erase the nation’s debt and save $200 billion in annual interest payments
  • Use the savings to save Social Security and slash taxes for the middle class
  • Increase his personal tax bill by at least $725 million.

Political Donations (and no, I don’t accept the “he did it for business reasons” excuse. Has George Soros ever donated to a conservative politician in the interest of business and against his dearly held lefty ideology?):

Charlie Rangel (D-NY): 2006 – $10,000 Yes, he of corruption, tax evasion, and mass liberalism

Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) $12,000 Total, $2,000 in 2006

Re-election Harry Reid: Donated $4,800 in 2010 to Reid to defeat Sharon Angle. $10,400 to Reid overall

Chuck Schumer: Donated $4,000 during 2010 Election Cycle

Kirsten Gillibrand: $5,800 over past 2 cycles

Ted Kennedy: $7,000

John Kerry $5,500 ($2,000 in 2004 Pres race, which he also gave Bush $2,000. How bi-partisan!)

Democratic Senatorial Committee: $116,000 (versus $30K to GOP equivalent)

My question for conservatives — especially those who’ve declared Sarah Palin unelectable: Do we no longer care about a candidate’s past record, associations, donations to lefty candidates and stance on important issues? Or are you so thrilled by his constant drum-beating over Obama’s birth certificate you are willing to overlook everything else? By the way, here’s what he had to say about Obama in 2008:

Update 2: 2008 Trump Blasts Bush, Praises Obama, Says he Can Save the World: “I think he has a chance to go down as a great president. Now, if he’s not a great president, this country is in serious trouble,” said Trump. “I think [Obama’s] going to lead through consensus,” continued Trump. “It’s not going to be just a bull run like Bush did. He just did whatever the hell he wanted. He’d go into a country, attack Iraq, which had nothing to do with the World Trade Center and just do it because he wanted to do it.”

My own issues with President Bush aside, I’m not taking a gamble (so to speak) on Donald Trump. The more I learn, the more I want to recant my statement about voting for him if it comes down to Trump vs. a GOP Establishment type. Let the voter beware. UPDATE: Since one of the comments in the thread accuses me of being unfair in not stating that Trump has also donated to Republicans (he has), here’s an addendum from Open Secrets.org:

In all, Trump has contributed to 96 candidates running for federal political office since the 1990 election cycle, the Center finds. Only 48 of the recipients — exactly half — were Republicans at the time they received their contribution, including ex-Gov. Charlie Crist (I-Fla.) and ex-Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), who both of whom received their Trump contributions as Republicans.

Since the 1990 election cycle, the top 10 recipients of Trump’s political contributions number six Democrats and four Republicans. Embattled Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.), who was censured last year by his U.S. House colleagues, has received the most Trump money, totaling $24,750. The most recent contribution from Trump to Rangel was a $10,000 gift during the 2006 election cycle.

In the most recent election cycle, Trump doled out $22,500 to political candidates, of which $16,200 benefited Democrats.

The top Republican recipient of Trump’s money is Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) who has collected $13,600 from the billionaire magnate, the second most of any politician. Trump did not contribute to McCain during the 2010 election cycle, during which the former presidential candidate was facing re-election.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) is the recipient of $12,000 in Trump contributions, including $10,000 for his 2006 re-election campaign.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has received the fourth-largest amount of Trump’s contributions, including $4,800 in the successful 2010 campaign against Tea Party favorite Sharron Angle. In total Trump has contributed $10,400 to Reid.

In 2010, Trump also contributed $4,000 to Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who easily won re-election. Schumer has received $8,900 from Trump since the 1996 election cycle. Trump has also been generous to New York’s other Democratic U.S. senator, Kirsten Gillibrand, who’s received $5,850 in Trump money.

After McCain, the Republican with the largest amount of Trump’s contributions is former Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.), who left office in disgrace in 2006 when his online solicitation of male House pages became known. Trump contributed $9,500 to Foley between the 1996 and 2006 election cycles.

Trump has also supported other notable politicians, including:

• $7,000 to former Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), the “liberal lion of the Senate”
• $7,500 to former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani (R)
• $5,500 to Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) including $2,000 during his 2004 presidential run
• $5,000 to former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.)
• $4,000 to former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.)
• $2,000 to former President George W. Bush (R)
• $1,000 to then-Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.)

Like most conservatives who happen to be registered Republicans, I know all too well that “Republican” does not equal “Tea Party conservative”. Therefore, I take no comfort in his donations to RINOs like Charlie Crist, whom the NRSC rushed to endorse a year-and-a-half before the primary in their zeal to take out Tea Party favorite Marco Rubio. As for Trump’s support of Harry “This war is lost!” Reid, John “Reporting for Duty” Kerry, Teddy “Chappaquiddick” Kennedy and all of the other progressive Dems on the list…well, that’s just a little too much for this voter to ignore. So yes, I did my homework — and once again, the hyperlinks to my sources are embedded in the post. Everyone is free to support whomever they’d like; I am simply expressing my opinion backed up with facts as to why I will not support Donald Trump.

I would only add to Conservative Diva’s comments my own fears that Trump is doing and is likely to do three things:

1.  Expose Republicans to ridicule by pounding away on the birth certificate issue.

2.  Distract attention from serious, legitimate Republican candidates; and maybe fracture the party.

3.  Lose the GOP nomination, run as an Independent, and draw away enough GOP votes to hand the election to Obama. (Which may be the real agenda all along.)

Maybe Allen West knows something we don’t know — but at this point in time, it looks to me like poor judgment on West’s part. I think the number one quality a chief executive needs — other than the obvious ones such as integrity, intelligence and a good work ethic — is the ability to pick good people. No executive can do his or her job without advisers and department heads, so good judgment of character is absolutely crucial. Let’s just say I have my doubts.

Rather than President, I’m leaning toward West as VP, Secretary of Defense or National Security Adviser. I think he’d be magnificent in any of these positions — for someone other than Trump!

Read Full Post »

Courtesy of  The Right Scoop and The Shark Tank, we have this video footage of Allen West’s recent speech at the 2nd 9/12 Project Picnic in Lake Worth, FL:

Read Full Post »

Dear Sarah:

Long before most Americans knew your name, I’d become one of your fans.  Having read an article about you in the Weekly Standard, I was impressed by your competence, as evident in the extraordinary things you’d accomplished in the brief time you’d been governor, and by your courage and integrity in rooting out long-entrenched corruption from your state’s political establishment.  You only rose in my estimation when, a few months later, I read an admiring article about you in a pro-life publication, and I took note of your fundamental decency, as shown in your bringing precious baby Trig to term (he’d not yet been born at the time the article was published).

Please note that, unlike many of your admirers, I do not consider this last point as anything heroic.  I’d have done the same, and regard it as basic human decency, the bare minimum one should expect of people who call themselves civilized.  Albert Camus once said – I’m paraphrasing – that it’s a pathetic state of affairs when a society holds up as heroes people who have simply done the decent thing. Giving birth to Trig is not what makes you my heroine – although governing Alaska with vision, energy and excellence while raising five kids certainly does.

Some people have a hard time believing how capable you are.  I remember the skeptics back in 2008 who said things like, “She must be short-changing something; no one could be a good governor and a good mom.”  Perhaps one reason I never had those doubts is that, living as I do in the rural heartland – “flyover country” – I know more than a few women who are as competent at multitasking as you are.  They’re not governors, but, like you, they sure pack a lot into 24 hours.  My part of the country,  with its history of pioneer resourcefulness, has a high concentration of what I call “superwomen” – they would laugh at the term, for they don’t see themselves as out of the ordinary – I’m speaking of women who help run their husband’s farm or small business while working a part-time job in town, homeschooling five or more kids, raising goats or chickens and a huge garden, canning up gallons upon gallons of homemade salsa and spaghetti sauce, teaching Sunday school, and bringing their homemade pies and casseroles around whenever someone in the neighborhood has a birth or a death in the family.

So you, and Ann Marie Buerkle, and Kristi Noem, and Michele Bachmann… are not a foreign, exotic species to me.  Admirable, gifted, accomplished, yes – but not creatures of fantasy. When I saw and heard so-called feminists saying that you shouldn’t be John McCain’s running mate because the responsibilities of office – especially if fate were to put you in the Oval Office – would prevent you from being a good mom, I just laughed.  Obviously, those “feminists” are not acquainted with the kind of women who live in my neck of the woods – and in yours.

High on the long list of things for which I’m grateful to you is the way that, just by being who you are, you have not only encouraged and empowered other “Mama Grizzlies” to run for office and help save our country, but you have also helped all of us pro-life, pro-family feminists to reclaim authentic feminism from the frustrated, wounded, angry people who hijacked it 40 years ago and warped it into their own image.  I have been a member of Feminists for Life for nearly 30 years, and a supporter of the Susan B. Anthony List for as long as it has existed.  SBA List director Marjorie Dannenfelser is one of my personal heroines, and I am immensely proud of the win rate of the SBA List candidates.  But any honest observer must acknowledge that you, Sarah, had a substantial role in those Election Day successes – not only by speaking and fund-raising for individual candidates, not only by endorsing them on Facebook, which introduced them to people all over the country, but also, just by being who you are.  It is your example more than anything else, I believe, that has reinvigorated authentic feminism – or what you have called “pioneer feminism.”  As a long-time pro-life feminist – who for years felt like a lonely voice in the wilderness – I have a very particular gratitude, admiration and affection for you.

Along with being the face of pioneer feminism, you have been the face of the Tea Party. The devilries of Obama, Pelosi and Reid would have provoked a reaction no matter what, since there are still so many Americans who believe in the bedrock American values of faith, family, freedom, personal responsibility and the adventurous entrepreneurial spirit.   Rick Santelli’s off-the-cuff coinage of the phrase “Chicago Tea Party” only ignited a conflagration because tens of millions of Americans, horrified by the explosion of the federal debt, were already like dry tinder just waiting to be lit.  But if Santelli’s rant was the spark, and the righteous outrage of millions of ordinary Americans was the fuel, then you, Sarah, were the fire-tender, the one who, more than any other single individual, has channeled that energy and given a voice to Americans who are feeling, as never before, despised and threatened by their own government.

You have been the heart, the soul, the face and the spirit of the Tea Party movement, its mobilizer and behind-the-scenes strategist.  The Left attacks you because they envy the way you can change the course of a political primary by endorsing a particular candidate; it eats them alive that you can mobilize millions of Americans to contact their elected representatives about some issue just by posting a few paragraphs on Facebook. The Left does not understand that the conservative revival is not about you any more than Rush Limbaugh’s huge audience is about Rush.  We love you because, like Rush, you don’t tell us what to think; rather, you validate and give voice to what we already know and feel.  Since the lamestream media ignore us at best, and savage us at worst, we cherish you because you articulate, with a very big microphone that the rest of us don’t have, the ideas that we want Washington to hear, loud and clear.

I think of you, in some ways, as our Mahatma Gandhi.  Gandhi never held elected political office, and yet he was the most powerful, influential figure in the Indian independence movement – indeed, there is no more beloved figure among Indians; they call him the “father of their country.”  And yet, he was never President or Prime Minister.  He did what none of those people could:  inspire and empower the people in a way that made them willing to make great sacrifices for a righteous ideal.  Gandhi wrote prolifically, gave speeches everywhere, led through personal example, and because of his genuine solidarity with the masses of India, was able to “speak truth to power” as the authentic voice of the Indian people.  Like him, you have influenced the course of events with your writing, speaking, personal example, and solidarity with “We the People.”

But now, there is talk of your seeking the top executive job in our government, and this gives me pause.  Not because a woman can’t do the job – just look at Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, Margaret Thatcher.  But when you do look at them, you immediately notice something:  They were very, very different from you.  They got where they did – and performed effectively in those positions – by being very much like… men.  We love you, Sarah, and are inspired by you because you are not like a man.  You fulfill a very special role, and your femininity is an essential part of it.

I am not downplaying your toughness or competence; you’ve proven beyond doubt that you have plenty of those.   No, the difference between you and “the Iron Lady” has to do with the unique role that you are playing in our society – and specifically in the Tea Party movement – at this point in history.

The Tea Party is the most important political movement in decades – precisely because its origins were spontaneous, and it is genuinely grassroots, i.e., it has no official leadership structure.  Its decentralized, freewheeling nature is the source of its vigor and vitality.  And yet, if did not have some kind of leadership, it could easily lose focus and fizzle out.  What’s needed, then, is a rare type of leadership that works outside the usual channels.

As the conservative sweep of November 2 demonstrated, you are that leadership.  It was your endorsement that made the difference in enough races to give the GOP a new majority in the House, and a larger presence in the Senate.  But here’s the key point:  It worked because you are outside the official structures. Our movement is bottom-up, not top-down, and the “bottom” – the conservative grassroots – is powerful today in large part because you, as a free agent, are the wind beneath our wings.  Does anyone suppose that Glenn Beck by himself could have attracted the numbers that crowded Washington on August 28?  Even as Glenn Beck has inspired millions of Americans to really study the Constitution and American history – many of us for the first time in our lives – you are the one who is stimulating a rebirth of the American spirit.  Your positive outlook, warm affirmation of our country, and contagious love of life are a light for us in this dark time, and a source of real energy.

I am convinced that this energy will be dissipated if you go the conventional route of electoral politics.  I would remind you once again of Mahatma Gandhi, who empowered and sustained the Indian people as no elected official could.  Like him, you are a “kingmaker.”  As our unruly Tea Party movement moves forward, we need a kingmaker who stands outside party politics, and has greater influence because of that.  Elected officials and kingmakers are two very different roles, which ideally are filled by two very different kinds of people.  You are magnificently effective as the latter, as our victories on November 2 attest.

Conservatives across the country are grateful to you for focusing your unique and powerful spotlight on the likes of Kristi Noem, Sean Duffy, Ann Marie Buerkle, Tim Scott and Adam Kinzinger – a new generation of conservative American leaders who are going to shake up Washington and help put us on the road back to fiscal sanity and responsibility toward the generations that follow us.

But the most important person that your support helped to elect is the man I believe can save our country as our next President:  Allen West.  His Democratic opponent threw every dirty trick imaginable at him, and in a district that is more Democrat than Republican, all the lies and slanders could have sunk him.  They didn’t – in part because Allen West himself is such an amazing man, and there’s simply no suppressing him; in part, because the FL-22 Republicans who volunteered for him in droves are an incredible bunch of people who saw, early on, what a phenomenal person their candidate was, and then worked their hearts out for him; and partly because – and this might have been what put him over the top – your support increased his national name recognition, and thus helped bring much-needed financial support from around the country.

Allen West is ready to lead – he could walk into the Oval Office tomorrow and be job-ready – and we need him at the earliest opportunity – which means 2012.  Many people have noted the parallels between Obama and the appeaser Neville Chamberlain – with the radical Islamists being the Nazis who threaten world takeover.  I believe that God in His mercy has given us a Winston Churchill in the person of Allen West.

We are at war, and we need a wartime President.  The enemy is not only at the gates, but already within our borders.  Radical Islamists and their sympathizers have infiltrated not only the executive and legislative branches, but even our courts, and, it would appear, very high levels of our military.  Only one man has the deep knowledge of history; the keen understanding of the Islamic mind that comes from daily personal contact with Muslims as both foes and allies; and the boldness to speak the enemy’s name out loud, regardless of opposition, regardless of political correctness, regardless of the risks to his own personal safety.

Only one man has the toughness, born of decades of military discipline, to tell us the unpleasant truths about the struggle we are in; and the leadership that will inspire us to persevere through the “blood, toil, tears and sweat” that lie ahead of us.

Important as the most-discussed current issues are – jobs, taxes, health care – radical Muslims have declared war on us, whether we like it or not, and their clearly stated intent to annihilate us overwhelms all other issues.  With Allen West as our President and Commander in Chief, we can begin in earnest what will be a long but determined struggle to defeat this enemy.  Please help us, Sarah, to make this happen.  Help us to save our country.


Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: