Allen West: Refuse To Consent To Bad Leadership

Very good read, written by Col. West:

Scandals that must make a difference

We must listen to government officials telling us that losing an American ambassador and abandoning Americans in a combat engagement is irrelevant or that the incident at Benghazi, Libya, consulate is a joke or a made up scandal. This truly does not speak to the better angels of our nature.

When Susan Rice can lie to the American people five times on Sunday talk shows and be rewarded with a promotion to National Security Advisor — or when Victoria Nuland can play a key part in altering intelligence talking points and be recommended for higher State Department post — the government lacks the accountability the declaration envisioned. But then again, as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, “What difference does it make?”

We found out this week that the State Department allegedly has been covering up some disturbing behavior by some ambassadors and security detail personnel. I know, what difference does it make?

The difference is that we also now know that our own government is recording our communications data. We are told that these activities are all about ensuring national security, that the PRISM data-mining program and the PATRIOT Act that presumably allows it are necessary. President Obama told us “trade-offs” of our privacy are necessary to keep us secure.

But remember Benjamin Franklin’s warning: “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Refuse to consent to bad leadership

We know that a huge data collection facility is being built in Utah. What becomes of the billions of records mined daily?

What happened with Anwar al-Awlaki, the jihadist with ties to al Qaeda eventually killed in a drone strike; with Maj. Nidal Hasan of the Fort Hood, Texas, terrorist attack; with the underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab; with Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square bomber; with the Tsarnaev brothers of the Boston Marathon bombings; and with Carlos Bledsoe, who traveled to Somalia and Yemen for terrorist training and shot two Army soldiers? Why are 57 Islamic organizations, some with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, sending a letter to former counter-terrorism adviser and now-CIA Director John Brennan?

Why are we carpet-bombing American citizens while disregarding the enemy for precision scrutiny? Has cultural relativism and political correctness led us to the point where we all must be classified as being guilty of something to appease the sensitivities of others?

No, I do not subscribe to the belief that we must surrender civil liberties in order to be safer. That belief and the scandals discussed above have fueled a lack of trust between the governed and those occupying high elected offices.

If there is to be a next generation, we must re-establish the consent of the governed and discharge those who believe that lying, deception and the officialdom of arrogance is the new normal. We must find American leaders who will take responsibility and accountability for their actions, and we must not tolerate excuse-makers and deflectors.

The time for choosing is upon us all.

12 thoughts on “Allen West: Refuse To Consent To Bad Leadership

  1. Great article. Great American. I am glad West hasn’t given up after having his seat stolen from him.

    “… some people seem to believe that winning an election gives public officials enough consent, or a mandate, for their agenda – regardless of whether that agenda conflicts with the fundamentals of America as a constitutional republic.”

    True. I supposedly live in a ‘conservative’ state, but every time I look at a local paper, I see rubber stamps on progressive actions. Not enough people are asking where the money comes from, how liberties will be affected. And for those of us who do, there is a lack of will to do anything about it.

      • West is one of the few men in politics who you just know is never going to pull a Christie or a Rubio, which is why Dems and RINOs nationwide used everything they had on him.

            • No, I am no longer a part of the Republican Party. haven’t been for a while.

              As I see it, the leadership of an organization defines it. That means, what Bush did, Boehner is doing, McCain, Graham, Rubio and Ryan — all these people we keep calling RINOs are not RINO’s — they are the Republican Party. The people who are not on board with and working toward the Party’s agenda are the RINO’s. Rush pretty much said this Friday (did you see the articles of his monologue?). So what to do?

              Well, “conservatives” can stay with the Party and keep trying to change it from the inside, but they have been trying this for decades now. Where has that gotten them? Nowhere — while, at the same time, by the very fact they keep voting Republican, they vote against their own interests by giving power to the very leadership they oppose. Now, it’s true and I acknowledge that — someday — this may change. I just don’t see any evidence this is going to happen any time soon.

              So, back to Rush. He thinks the R’s are looking for a new power base, new voters. they want to ditch the Christians. So they think they can grant amnesty and this will give them a new, Latino voter base. OK, fine. So why would you want to be part of a Party whose leaders are that rock-stupid? Have they not looked at the religious affiliation of the Central American Latino? CATHOLIC, baby? i.e. nominally Christian. OR, do they believe they have the Catholic Church in their pocket? Now, there is good reason to believe this may well be the case — especially with the American Catholic Church (sorry, Catholics, but you know it’s true).

              So let’s suppose that is the case (and it may be, because I think part of Rush’s role is to leak the truth in a controlled manner so it doesn’t stick to the behind the scenes leadership). Either way: why be part of or hitch your political ambitions to a Party that wants to be Godless when you have the Democrats already? Without God, there is no liberty, no rights, no moral grounds to even object to arbitrary rule by man according to the whim of your leader. So, if that is what you want, you should be a Democrat, shouldn’t you?

              And that gets me — finally — to why I firmly believe the 2 Parties ARE 1 pretending to be 2. At their core — their leadership — the only thing they differ on is how free business is going to be. In other words, who gets to be rich and wield power: the business monopolies, or the scholastic bureaucrats? So they take turns trading the reigns, the whole time, our nation’s strategic (i.e. long-term) political policy/agenda maintains a steady, un-altered course. Don’t believe it? Step back and look at the trends.

              • It’s good to see a line being drawn between Limbaugh and Levin and the Republican party. It’s a step in the right direction, and I hope they abandon the party altogether.

                • Justin,

                  Had they done so 10 years ago, I honestly believe we wouldn’t have seen Obama elected. In fact, I doubt the nation would be on the brink as it is today. But they are vested in the Party first. I believe my buddy, Bill, is probably correct: they are as subject to normalcy bias as the rest of us.

                  But, at the risk of drawing fire for invoking his name, Beck was the first to announce he had left the Republican Party and to encourage people to start pursuing the goal rather than the Party (the goal being individual rights and liberty). When you go back and look at who was driving it at the time, you’ll find that — in the beginning — Beck had more to do with encouraging the TEA Party than Limbaugh, Hannity or anyone else on the Right. The 9/12 project was started to help movements like the TEA Party and, true to the ideal, he turned it loose. Now it is run entirely by the members. If L and R ever want to leave the R’s, they can join the 9/12 group, Freedom Works and TEA Party groups. THAT is closer to the way our founders wanted to see us do thing, anyway.

    • And here we have a Ruling by Justice Roberts infringing on Free-speech rights out side the Supreme Court…..

      From the article itself…
      However, the high court posted online an announcement that it now is imposing a regulation that bans activities on the court’s grounds or building such as picketing, speech-making, marching, vigils or religious services “that involve the communication or expression of views or grievances, engaged in by one or more persons, the conduct of which is reasonably likely to draw a crowd or onlookers.”

      The notice said the plan has been approved by the marshal and approved by Chief Justice John Roberts.

      Everything about Washington and the Federal Government seems Out-of-Control at this point !!!


Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.