Lt. Col West

Lt. Col West is running for Congress in Florida.

Here is a breathtaking speech.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VP2p91dvm6M


It is heartwarming that in this time of crisis, albeit many don't see it, so many superior people have decided to run for office.  Perhaps, they can turn serving in government into an honorable tour of duty.  As it is, no normal person is interested.


The left detests the military as it is an honorable profession which means it is not easily corrupted. Even with the PC there today, those who serve are generally clear about what and who are to be afforded duty and honor.




Secret insiders not he quotes Thomas Paine:

THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country;

I continue

but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value.

Here is another:


“'Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.”

Christopher Gibson

As most of those close to this grand blog know, we are organizing on several fronts to help Chris, see below. If anyone wants in, let me know. 

You can read the section below or see his web page.  

As you will see, we have a chance, for a change, to vote for a grown up, one who not only understands the Constitution, but who has put his life in harm's way to protect it.  This is no small matter or a grotesque charade, a la Mr. Kerry. 

I met with Mr. Gibson the other day and he is clear, focused, and honorable.  I just hope that is still in vogue.

His call for smaller government and a return to cleaner government cannot be doubted. I do not see him changing to meet the pressures in D.C. 

The column below is offered here with respect to Chris' credentials.  I am glad the author sees former officers entering politics. What holds the military together is honor;  what is degrading our nation on a daily basis is mockery of it.  At the core, things really is that simple. Honor or dishonor. All the rest is detail.

NY POST: 

From battle to ballots

Veterans aiming at Congress

Last Updated: 4:35 AM, May 6, 2010

Posted: 1:43 AM, May 6, 2010

Comments: 1

|More  Print

Victor Davis Hanson

Usually a handful of ex-sol diers seeks political office every election cycle. But more than 20 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are running this fall for Congress alone. Almost all are riding a wave of public anger at incumbents over a profligate government and dishonest Wall Street -- and a general feeling that the Democratic remedy has proven as bad as, or worse than, the GOP disease.

The "culture of corruption" of the previous Republican-controlled Congress simply continued under the present Democratic majority, thanks to the likes of Chris Dodd, William Jefferson, Eric Massa, Charles Rangel and the late John Murtha.

Gibson: Retired Army colonel running for House in NY's 20th.

Reform candidate President Obama has run up more debt in 15 months than unpopular spendthrift George W. Bush did in eight years. Obama once talked of a new unity, but he has polarized America far more rapidly than did Bush.

The public is desperate for civic-minded leaders untainted by Washington but who have a proven record of competent service on behalf of the nation. If they haven't held office before -- apparently, so much the better.

The combat-veteran candidates certainly aren't the usual state legislators or congressional aides ready for career advancement. Neither are they anti-war liberals who flash their national-security credentials nor one-issue hawks who want more defense spending. They don't claim their combat experience guarantees good governance per se -- not after the examples of Murtha or disgraced Republican Duke Cunningham.

So, other than a shared furor at out-of-control spending, government takeovers and corruption, the 20-something soldier-citizen candidates are an odd bunch. Some are officers; others are enlisted men. A surprising number were wounded in combat.

Most are running as Republicans and seem to have little if any money. They weren't so much preselected by GOP operatives as pushed forward through grass-roots and sometimes Tea Party support.

In New York's 20th Congressional District, retired Army Col. Chris Gibson -- four deployments to Iraq -- is a PhD, former West Point instructor and author of a book on civilian-military relations. He received a Purple Heart, and recently served in the Haitian relief effort. While he's running on smaller government and lower taxes, his main theme is a call for ethics, accountability and a return to the notion of the citizen-legislator who works in Washington, rather than works the Washington system.

Other veteran candidates are already well-known. In Florida's 22nd Congressional District, decorated retired Army Lt. Col. Allen West was involved in a controversy seven years ago when he purportedly fired a pistol near an Iraqi prisoner who he thought had information on a planned ambush of West's battalion. West has MA degrees in military arts and sciences and in political science, and was wounded a few years ago while serving as a civilian adviser in Afghanistan. His theme also is ostensibly smaller, cleaner government, balanced budgets, strong national security and lower taxes.

For 30 years after 1865, almost no American could get elected to office without prior Civil War service. Last century, being a World War II veteran was virtually mandatory for any congressional leader until about 1970.

But Iraq and Afghanistan are seen differently from the collective sacrifice and bipartisan efforts of past wars. Today's veterans usually fought in impossible circumstances, where friend and enemy were sometimes indistinguishable. The aims and means of their missions were often questioned -- with the public as against the difficult later stages of the wars as they once were for them in the easier early stages.

These veterans aren't saying, "Vote for me for because I fought for you," as much as, "Vote for me because I did my duty even if some in this country questioned why one would." 

We live in a wartime of economic crisis, crushing debt and endemic political corruption. Rules, obligations and laws don't seem to matter. Personal honor is an archaic, fossilized concept.

But suddenly, amid public malaise, dozens of nontraditional soldier-citizens have stepped forward out of the shadows to argue that right now neither money nor incumbency matters as much as civic duty and the old idea of public service. And, unlike most of us, they once put their lives on the line to prove just that.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/from_battle_to_ballots_cqJoMbe00xT0J6goLVVpCK#ixzz0nATHzYcY

Another "TRUST" destroyed by Congress: Medicare

First, from Bob (I give up trying to work this embed thing) 


http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=G44NCvNDLfc


This is the second time I have watched the representative.  He is my choice for the next president, the old guard being of no value. He knows what he is saying and can form coherent thoughts; I wonder if his associates understand what he is saying?  


---------


I have an advantage over most, I got sick early. I got mine; that fits with the new America. Good luck to you.


 Below, you can see why Obama wants to kill off older people. Now, it all makes sense.


Note that defense spending is now less than Medicare.


When I started studying the end of America as a student, the Social Security Trust Fund actually existed.  It was a trust that the government set up to help the people, though it had its socialistic element of forced contribution.  


This projection puts a recent comment by one of those Democratic talking heads. The logic being used was we had to have a socialized plan because it is too expensive (TO GOVERNMENT) the way we are going.  Tomorrow, I will publish a table showing private insurance makes very little return on income and some of the sectors are negative. This is what the government wants to improve. The eternal:   ???????  


Actually, it is not hard to figure out, if you read history. First, tyrants take control of medical care, then guns, then schools. Done. In our case, the medical care grab also involves a huge sack of money that the government does not have. You can bet it will absorb all that insurance money, spend it, then promise to pay medical care out of the general fund with the coming funny money. Except, Congress will not participate, of course, who I am sure will continue to use AIG.  


The Democratic Congress could not leave a pile of money alone, so it no longer exists. Gone. If I did that with a trust or escrow company, the politically correct thing to do is have me arrested, but I am not Congress.  


Since all these thieves are voted back in, we, the people, are responsible. You can't keep blaming the hacks, if they keep getting voted in.  You have to act or take part of the responsibility, as well as buy silver in a few weeks. 


A very young Prince Charles once said in an interview, I would say in the early 70's, something that bothered me, so I kept in mind, it went something like:  "The people get the government they deserve."


The Medicare Trust Fund, sent in by Irene:

Medicare Trust Fund

Source:  Office of the Actuary for Medicare. 

Hoven's Index for October 26, 2009

Medicare expenditures (% GDP) in 2008:  3.2%.

Projected for 2035:  7.3%.

Projected in 75 years:  11.4%.

Source:  Office of the Actuary for Medicare. 

Total Defense expenditures (% GDP) for the years 2004-2007:  4.0%.

A glimpse of your future

Another easy rip off. Here is the Bluefiled Daily Telegraph giving some contra thoughts on our new green initiative. I will edit the article in order to spin it as I like. You have to love a "Smokey Shott."

Proposed federal legislation could spur higher energy costs, weaker economy

By JAM,ES H. "SMOKEY" SHOTT
Bluefield Daily Telegraph

West Virginia Democrat Rep. Nick J. Rahall II, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, has proposed a plan to sharply increase the cost of drilling leases that the federal government sells to oil and gas companies...His plan would increase royalty rates by 50 percent and would cut the lease periods to five years from the current 10 years or more.

Mr. Rahall’s plan comes as crude oil prices rose from a recent low of $43 to nearly $70 a barrel as the summer...
His recommendation would be part of a massive overhaul ... And, according to Sharon Buccino, director of land and wildlife programs at the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Rahall proposal fits into the efforts of the Obama administration and congressional Democrats to drive energy production toward “green” sources and away from conventional sources. “This is a key part of moving that agenda forward,” she said...

An analysis by the Heritage Foundation notes that “the impact of Waxman-Markey on the next generation of families is $1,500 per year in higher energy costs, over $100,000 of additional federal debt ... a weaker economy, and more unemployment.”

Oil producers object, as well. American Petroleum Association (API) spokesperson Jane Van Ryan said, “We’re particularly concerned...only two percent of emissions allowances to refiners, but it holds them responsible for 44 percent of carbon emissions. Under the bill, U.S. refiners would have to pay for the carbon emissions from their own facilities as well as all of the cars, trucks, buses, airplanes, etc. that operate in the United States. Utilities get nearly 44 percent of all allowances, select ‘energy-intensive’ industries get 15 percent, and local natural gas distributors receive nine percent,” she said. “This isn’t an equitable way to parcel out the emissions allowances.”

Ms. Van Ryan went on to say that under Waxman-Markey overseas refiners will have a competitive advantage “making the U.S. less energy secure and more reliant on imports.”

API President Jack Gerard said in a statement that an “independent study projects ... up to 2.7 million net jobs lost annually, even with new green jobs created. According to one of these reports, an average family will pay ... 74 percent more for gasoline. Today, that would mean gasoline prices above $4.00 a gallon, an increase nearly equivalent to a ten-fold rise in the federal gasoline tax.”

... Waxman-Markey raises energy prices by 55-90 percent. These higher energy prices push unemployment up by 1,105,000 jobs on average, with peaks over 2,479,000. In aggregate, GDP drops by over $9.6 trillion. The next generation will inherit a federal debt pumped up by $29,150 per person. All of these costs accrue in the first 25 years of a 90-year program that, as calculated by climatologists, will lower temperatures by only hundredths of a degree in 2050 and no more than two-tenths of a degree at the end of the century.”...

And, apparently neither the Obama administration, the Congress nor the environmentalists give two hoots how much it will cost average Americans, or how much damage is done to the nation’s economy in the process.

They follow this course despite the desire of most Americans to increase domestic energy exploration, not reduce it. A poll conducted by Harris Interactive found that 61 percent of Americans who voted in the 2008 presidential election support access to offshore oil and natural gas resources, while only 26 percent opposed it.

bla bla....

Get a bicycle and a house in Ecuador.

Actually, upon, unfortunately, sober thought, this could kill New England which is already losing ATM machines, I mean tax payers. I can't see people staying when there is an huge increase in oil and gas prices.