Allen West should take a cue from another House Negro of the racist right, Clarence Thomas, and STFU. Better to, as they say, keep your mouth shut and be thought an idiot than to open it and remove all doubt. Today in The Hill, West is given enough rope to hang himself, and unsurprisingly he is left twisting slowly in the wind:
Much has been made of my recent response to a question from a constituent and assertion regarding so-called “communists” in the Congressional Progressive Caucus. I am pleased it has inspired so much passionate debate, for that was precisely the point.
In other words, in addition to being a sadistic racist, he also a committed media whore. Is this news?
When I was studying for my two master’s degrees in political science at Kansas State University and at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff Officer College, the very best professors were those who would begin each lecture with a challenging assertion. It engaged discussion and analysis, and was the best way to uncover the essence of the particular subject of the day.
Them’s some fancy places to get book learnin.’ I guess he didn’t take many writing or poli/sci classes, though, despite his “two,” count em, two, Masters.
As Americans, we must bring to the fore this fundamental discussion of what we want our country to be. Do we veer from our Founders’ vision of a constitutional republic that preserves and protects the individual sovereignty of its citizens, along with the free market and the rights of the several states, or do we continue to slide down this path of expanding the secular welfare state, nationalizing production and enforcing economic equality?
Earth to Allen: The Founders said little or nothing about the “Free Market,” but they did have a few things to say about “cruel and unusual punishment,” one of your favorite hobbies. They also spoke of “the general welfare” far too much for your rather odd tastes. And if anybody’s “nationalizing production” or “enforcing economic equality,” they’re failing utterly. West clearly flunked history, and hasn’t kept up much on current events in the years since.
My colleagues in the Congressional Progressive Caucus have taken umbrage with my equation of their ideals with those of communists. Why? Why shouldn’t we have this discussion? What part of their agenda are they trying to hide?
One reason not to have this discussion is that you’re a clueless nincompoop.
We must be able to openly discuss how our fundamental freedoms are being slowly chipped away by an over-reaching nanny state that has bit by bit slipped its tentacles into every aspect of our lives, from the types of light bulbs we can use to the size of our toilet tanks.
Light bulb standards were established under George W. Bush, and low-flush toilets have been in place for twenty years, jackass. Read a newspaper before you write in one.
We must be able to challenge the mandates being handed down by un-elected officials, which threaten our constitutional right to practice religion however we see fit.
Unfortunately, the way you “see fit” to practice your “religion” is forcing it on everyone else, which is only “freedom” in the eyes of God-bothering, authoritarian dipshits like yourself.
We must be able to question tax policies predicated on “fairness” that punish job creators and do virtually nothing to reduce our spiraling debt and deficit.
The lowest taxes on the wealthy in nearly a century CREATED NO JOBS for the entire Bush (mis)administration. You could be lying, but I’ll be charitable and assume you’re just stupid, which seems abundantly clear at this point.
Specific “party” affiliation is not the point of the discussion — it is rather affiliation with a set of ideals. Conservatives adhere to the ideals of individual responsibility and freedom, limited government, a free market and a strong defense. Those on the liberal left adhere to a collective ideal, directed and controlled by a centralized government to guarantee and enforce social and economic justice.
I see. The guys who lost two wars, squandered the budget surplus, spied on citizens, tortured people, showered their cronies with Pentagon contracts and what have you, were the good guys. The ones who balanced the budget, ended the Depression, won WWII and gave YOU the right to vote are the bad guys. Duly noted.
You can call this what you wish. The esteemed (!) scholar and author Mark Levin calls it “statism.” In our lifetime, the unpalatable and pejorative brands “socialist” and “communist” have been replaced with the more user-friendly “progressive” term.
No, today’s “progressives were once called “liberals,” and before that, “progressives.” Socialists and Communists called themselves just that. I don’t know when your “lifetime” was, but it did not take place in the real world. And Mark Levin is a “scholar and author” in the same way that Dennis Miller is a “comedian.”
But this is not a discussion about labels. It is a discussion far more important and grave, for it affects our nation’s future, our security and each and every one of us. The dialogue must be about the future and direction of these United States. It is about the choice between two futures: a constitutional republic or a bureaucratic nanny-state.
Oh, you mean a “nanny state” where the government dictates everybody’s sex life? Where extralegal surveillance, detention, and torture are the norm? Where artists are smeared and blacklisted for criticizing the President? I thought not. You only like nannies when they’re abusive and psychotic.
As a nation, we must directly confront those issues that are most critical. We must be able to openly and candidly discuss how we will move forward to preserve our nation’s greatness, reduce our debt and deficit, put Americans back to work, take full advantage of our domestic energy resources and ensure our security.
Well, not starting wars we can’t win, not emptying the treasury into the pockets of the wealthiest, not cutting government spending in a recession, not despoiling the environment chasing after dwindling, finite energy sources, and not torturing people would be a good way to go, then…. Maybe you’re in the wrong party.
I do not believe we can achieve those goals with larger and larger government, centralized economic planning and redistribution of wealth. Those methods have failed miserably everywhere they are been tried. I will not stand by and watch this nation I love be remade slowly into a government-directed, bureaucratic collective — whether it is termed communist, socialist, progressive or any-other-ist.
Yes, the Soviet Union failed, but Europe did just fine for many years, until it was conned into adopting your delusional ideas. Here at home, higher taxes on the wealthy and Democratic rule have corresponded with prosperity and rising stock markets and GDP. Under the GOP, everything goes in the shitter, like recently.
I am not a politician by trade. I learned to communicate on the battlefield, where “nuance” is not at all useful and can in fact be dangerous, if not fatal.
Well, we lost those wars, but you survived; coincidence?
These are dangerous and critical times for our country. We must be unafraid to discuss and confront the challenges we face and ensure we keep our focus on the fundamental issues rather than become distracted by semantics. I gladly welcome this debate in the arena of political ideologies of governance.
If it were a “debate,” you could be easily beaten by a 14 year-old with Google. Though you say you’re no “politician,” Allen, I can’t imagine any other job for which you’d be remotely qualified. You’re a halfwit, and in your chosen party, that’s all you need to be.
