Fox News Contributor Allen West Busted by Fact-checking Site Blaming Obama for Policy Started by Bush

Blaming President Obama for something that Bush did is nothing new for Republicans. Hell, they’ve been doing it since before Obama even moved into the White House. After all, these are the people who blame him for the millions of jobs we lost that were caused by the economic crash that was a direct result of the policies of the Bush administration.

The latest attempt to blame President Obama for something that occurred during the Bush administration comes in a comment made by frequent Fox News contributor Allen West, who claimed that the president was taking executive action to allow illegal immigrants to enlist in the United States military.

West posted on his Facebook page:

“Morning folks. While you were sleeping, Barack Hussein Obama took out his pen and ordered our Military to enlist illegal aliens. In other words, this charlatan has allowed those who have disrespected our Constitution and are not citizens to take an oath to support and defend the very document, our rule of law, of which they are in violation.”

First, let me get something off my chest. It infuriates me how disrespectful people like West are toward the office of the President of the United States. He’s the president, yet they’ll frequently call him “Mr. Obama” or Barack Hussein Obama. Purposefully leaving off his title in a blatant show of disrespect toward who he is.

Well, West’s little post here happens to be inaccurate, as Politifact found his statement to be “Mostly False.”

According to Politifact’s findings:

In December 2008, under President George W. Bush, the Defense Department announced a pilot program to temporarily allow certain legal aliens who were doctors or nurses — or could speak certain in-demand languages such as Haitian-Creole, Chinese or Farsi — to join the military. (Spanish is not on the language list.)

The program started with 1,000 recruits, and in May 2012 the cap was raised to 1,500 a year through Sept. 30, 2014. The program has been open to asylees, refugees, and certain categories of people who hold non-immigrant visas, such as students or workers. All told, the MAVNI program has enrolled about 2,900 individuals since its inception, Defense spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Nathan Christensen told PolitiFact.

Just days before the program was set to expire, Jessica Wright, the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, signed a memo that extended the program through the end of fiscal year 2016 and allowed Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival (DACA) recipients to apply.

DACA — announced by Obama in 2012 — allows certain illegal immigrants who came to the country as children to apply for a renewable, temporary status that suspends deportation. As of the end of June 2014, about 580,000 individuals received initial deferred action under DACA. There are an estimated 11.7 million illegal immigrants in the U.S.

To summarize, all President Obama’s administration did was slightly extend a policy that was passed during the Bush administration. 

So, if West thinks the president is some unconstitutional “charlatan” for simply extending one of Bush’s policies, I wonder what he thinks of our former president who actually created the policy.

And as Politifact concluded:

The program in question was initiated by Bush in 2008, before Obama was president. In addition, contrary to West’s sweeping suggestion, experts say it’s doubtful that many undocumented immigrants would be brought into the military. And Obama didn’t order the military to take illegal aliens but rather made it an option.

So, no matter how you try to slice it, West not only distorted the facts behind which president actually initiated this policy (Bush) but blatantly misled Americans into thinking that President Obama “ordered” the military to take illegal immigrants in. When all he did was slightly adjust the policy passed by his predecessor.

Here’s my suggestion for a new slogan for the GOP: Republicans, we’ll try to blame everything on President Obama – even if it’s a policy that was passed during the Bush administration.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.


Facebook comments

  • Jim Bean

    The jobs lost during the Bush administration were the result of the bursting of a housing bubble initiated by Janet Reno and Bill Clinton and by Barney Franks obstruction of Bush’s efforts to clamp down on the subprime mortgage industry that had grown out of it. All three of the former were/are Democrats.

    • Arthur C. Hurwitz

      The Bush Administration made no effort to regulate “The Market” and did not intervene, until the very last minute, and only to save the banks which now meant the world economy, but not the ordinary individuals affected. The Clinton Administration deregulated the banks and thus, it is also at fault.

      • Avatar

        Yes but not in scale of W. Bush that led to super massive crash since the Great Depression. Wall St. literally complained about Clinton’s policies even if he pushed for deregulations and few changes. It led to create more jobs in 96-98’s.

      • Iceneedle

        To add, who thought by cutting taxes would stimulate the economy in 2001? Oh yes George W. Bush.

      • Avatar

        Well, W. Bush knew he lied about it anyways.

    • Avatar

      Your attempt to rewrite history is nothing but filled with desperation. Clinton left the White House with surplus budget and debt was going to go downhill if Bush continue to hold Clinton’s policies. Instead, Bush White House decide that allowing Wall St to be unregulated, killing environment for sake of short term goals.

      I can easily keep going on and on. You’re just like that Colorado school conservative board members who attempt to rewrite history to glorify conservative movement and force our students to be submissive toward the authorian movement known as pseudo Christians.

      • Iceneedle

        Hey Avatar, just remember, it “happened” Bush’s second term. The reason why I mention it, if “conservatives” can blame Clinton for the 2008 fiasco, why can’t they blame Bush for any ills in 2010-2014. Just saying.

    • clr1390

      The jobs lost were sent overseas. Welfare woven in the tax code allowed the US taxpayers pick up the moving expenses to help corporations put the final knife in. Those millions of jobs will probably never come home, as our shameful minimum wage is still too high to compete with China. If you think the Bush administration would have pushed corporations (banks) clamp down on sub prime mortgages, you are clueless.

      • Jim Bean

        Baloney across the spectrum.

        A corporation gets exactly the same ‘welfare’ (in reality – the right to claim moving expenses as business expenses on their tax returns) whether they move from Kansas to Nebraska or Kansas to Timbuktu.

        The jobs lost in the housing crash were jobs directly or indirectly related to the housing industry which had been artificially excited into a frenzy of unsustainable activity from the flood of sub-prime mortgages. The jobs lost went nowhere. They shouldn’t have been there in the first place.

        And though its true our minimum wage is too high to compete with China, a 52″ flat screen costs $600 – not $6,000 – because it was made over there and brought here for you to purchase.

      • Iceneedle

        The race to the bottom for labor, until no one can purchase that flat screen TV. The jobs were being sent overseas in the 1990s. Look back to the headlines for all of those engineering jobs.

      • Jim Bean

        Yeah but consumers, not corporations, caused that.

        American products weren’t removed from the shelves and replaced with imports over a Columbus Day weekend. The American and import products were side by side on retailer shelves for years and your mommy and daddy and my mommy and daddy consistently chose the cheaper imports until the American corporations could no longer sell their American made products. They ultimately had to choose between going out of business completely or finding away to harness some cheap foreign labor for their companies.

      • oldiugymnast

        This is also not true.

    • Nemisis

      Tell me another good one. How about the time Bill Clinton had a play date. So that’s why he was impeached. I always remember it was just the GOP not getting to privatize social security.

      You seriously think there was 800 billion worth of middle and lower class home loans?
      Our government could have given every citizen a 1 million dollar tax free grant, instead it chose to save the people who made the “bad loans”.

      Had the grants been handed out, middle and lower class America could have paid off their outstanding debt and still have money left over. That would have saved America $799,670,000,000 and removed the claim that it was middle and lower income America’s fault. I’m not sure that would have stopped the collapse but it definitely would have been better for the scapegoats.
      By putting the problem squarely on the backs of the people who created problem.

      The housing crash is not what lead to the economic collapse.
      The housing collapse is merely a result of the same poor economic decisions made by Republicans every time they get into the white house, banking deregulation.

      • Andy Kinnard

        To be fair, and, not saying it wasn’t “political”, but Clinton was impeached for the cover up, not the sex act.

        You are more than correct on the rest of it though. I was and am still just hopping mad about that bailout. It was the greatest transfer of wealth in human history, and we all acceded to it like it was nothing at all. I still am not convinced of any good reason not to have allowed that market (for, if there ever were to be a “libertarian-pure” market, it should be that one) correct itself. Yes, there would have been carnage. Yes, some retirement/pension/civic funds would have taken a beating. Yes, some mega-banks would have folded. No, I’m not convinced that would have been harder on the average person than what we actually endured and are still suffering.

      • Nemisis

        Clinton was also acquitted of the charge.

    • oldiugymnast

      This is simply not true. When Bush and company wanted “reform” of Freddie and Fannie it was to get them to make MORE second tier mortgages, not less. Fannie and Freddie had fewer bad loans than any of the banks and equity funds. You guys just make stuff up and try to pass it off as gospel.

  • Arthur C. Hurwitz

    Details aside, there is a long tradition of foreigners serving in the US Military who then took U.S. Citizenship. There is nothing new about this….

    • Paul Julian Gould

      Indeed… and quite a few of those with various high awards for valor in combat, and, I believe some have risen to high rank, not even counting the foreign soldiers during the American Revolution and other wars prior to the 20th and 21st centuries.

    • strayaway

      Presidents have no authority to legislate. Legislation is the exclusive domain of Congress (Article 1, Section 1). Also, Congress , not the President, is the body authorized to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”. That goes for Bush too or do I have to say “President Bush”out of respect? But let’s imagine the President can legislate to move on. The first paragraph of the politifact response says what Bush did. Its last paragraph says what Obama did. Besides being quantitatively different they are qualitatively different. Those two paragraphs let two different groups into the military. The first group meets technical needs. I’m not sure of the reason for the second group being admitted as the military is presently down sizing and being otherwise more selective. Maybe its to placate La Raza.

      • Andy Kinnard

        That’s not a credible retort to Arthur’s point. You’ve broached a different topic (of your choosing) to deflect from the single relevant point at hand. This clearly doesn’t require legislation, or your side can feel free to sue. I’m over playing nice guy on this type of stuff: During the W admin, a lefty offering an objection similar to yours would simply have been called unpatriotic (or worse), and that would be the end of it. The public, official response from the President would have been, essentially, “suck it, haters.” I’m over it: This is a policy he has set. Get over it.

        That said, I agree with your last sentence: I don’t see why the military, given it’s current downsizing trend, needs a larger pool of potential applicants.

      • strayaway

        Go ahead and ignore the elephant in the room so your narrative might make sense. Put W In jail too. I’m not nice either.

        I’m glad we agree on something. I’m not totally opposed to letting in foreign mercenaries and rewarding them with citizenship if Congress agrees to that. It worked for Rome up to a point but I would put it off until we couldn’t make our recruiting goals for reasons other than low pay.

      • Andy Kinnard

        A straw man argument is no better than the fallacy above it, my friend.

        If you had an Elephant in the Room argument to make, then make it, but not as a retort to someone else’s valid point that’s unrelated to your response. It’s wholly dishonest.

      • strayaway

        I consider executive branch legislation “the elephant in the room”. That is why I included the caveat, “But let’s imagine the President can legislate to move on.”

        Definitions of ‘caveat’ include: b : an explanation to prevent misinterpretation.
        c : a modifying or cautionary detail to be considered when evaluating, interpreting, or doing something.

      • deckbose

        Your entire post is a non sequitur as a response to Arthur. Definitions of non sequitur include: an inference or a conclusion that does not follow from the premises.

        That describes your above comment about Presidential/Congressional legislation to a tee.

      • strayaway

        Aren’t you clever? The problem is that the only way I could enter the conversation was to set aside the elephant in the room everyone like you chooses to ignore. Once past that, the last half of what I wrote was to the point. No one else had brought out the distinction between the qualitative an quantitative differences between previous inclusions of non-citizens and President Obama’s inclusion of non-citizens in our military. So…you are wrong. My example of non-sequitor would be mimicking Andy’s inside the belt line and Wall Street interpretation of the Constitution.

      • deckbose

        I am afraid you are sadly mistaken. Embarrassingly so. There is no elephant in the room here. There is only your agenda which has nothing to do with the previous comment. It’s alarming how badly you have misstated your intentions here.

      • strayaway

        deckbose. What time frame was Arthur writing about? You said he was writing about a time frame. Spell it out, which years was he talking about? Be specific.

      • deckbose

        When someone writes “there is a long tradition of foreigners serving in the US Military,” it’s safe to assume his timeframe precedes the presidencies of both Bush and Obama. Are there any other evasions you’d like to pursue before you recognize how entirely off-topic your comment was?

      • strayaway

        Before you were claiming a “different timeframe”. Now you say that you are making “pretty clear” that “it’s safe to assume” about which time frame. You’re guessing. It’s what you want to imagine it to be. That works in fuzzy logic land but not very well on an open forum.

        I think that Paul posted after I did since his post is above mine. You honor me by thinking that I was somehow able to respond to a post not yet written but alas that is something I don’t attempt.

      • deckbose

        “I think that Paul posted after I did since his post is above mine.”

        LOL. Please review the descending order of comments according to their posting time. You have now managed to move the topic so far afield from your original nonsense that it is clear you have no intention recognizing logic. I will say good night here before you incite a far nastier response.

      • strayaway

        A far siller response would be more like it. You lost credibility when you were unable to define a specific time frame you claimed to know in Arthur’s post and sputtered away with “pretty clear” that “it’s safe to assume” to make your point. First, you are incensed that I broadened the topic to subjects you don’t allow, then you claimed to understand Arthur’s unstated time frame, and then I was supposed to be responding to Paul’s comment instead of Arthur’s. The “simple reality” is that you are all over the place. The fact remains that no president can legislate or make uniform rules of naturalization. That is constitutionally the sole power of the legislature. The article and Arthur’s point assume a president can legislate and proceed from there.

      • deckbose

        Your demanding a specific timeframe from me is laughable. I do not owe you one and one is not necessary. Any 10-year-old can see that Arthur is speaking in a historical context. Your attempt to subvert that such a straightforward declaration is just pathetic. You’re desperately reaching for lifesavers that are just pointless, e.g., “You can’t tell me specifically what timeframe Arthur means,” as though that it were debatable, as though it proves anything at all. For God’s sake, man, you don’t even understand in what order the comments are printed.

        “The article and Arthur’s point assume a president can legislate and proceed from there.” That is 100% inaccurate, as posters have pointed out. Your claim is not just inaccurate — it’s not even in the same plane of reality. I suggest you stop commenting at this point — you are embarrassing yourself to such an extent that your best hope is that this thread gets very few visitors.

      • strayaway

        Maybe a 10 year old can see speaking from a “pretty clear” that “it’s safe to assume” context. That’s how 10 year olds are.

        What “other posters have pointed out?” Realizing that the Constituion is outside your reality, this is what the Constitution points out: “Article. I. Section. 1.: ALL legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

      • Roy J Nuss Jr

        Idiot! The TOPIC is Fact Checking, which has been proven by the incongruous arguments from you and your interpretation of the Politifact article to be idiotic. Done. You are wrong and you defame a brave American soldier and officer who has served his country with integrity and honor.

      • deckbose

        Sorry but you’re completely wrong. Not every thread under an article refers to the specifics of that article. You read Arthur C. Hurwitz’s comment at the top of this thread and explain to me how “the TOPIC is Fact Checking.” Clearly, you’re as doltish as the damsel you jumped in to rescue. Btw, if West had “served his country with integrity and honor,” why was he forced to resign? You’re really not very good at this.

      • politicalsanity

        Damn. That comment caused a spit take… using Allen West as someone who ‘served his country with integrity and honor’… NO. That is why he was drummed OUT of the Army, for distinctive measures that proved he acted WITHOUT honor and integrity.

      • Andy Kinnard

        You’re ignoring my central point that you’re evading the central point of the comment to which you appeared to respond.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        OK, so since when is enacting a policy the same thing as enacting a law?

      • John

        Wow! you really don’t get it or you are pulling my leg? The reason is the SAME–limited to a few highly technical categories that the military cannot otherwise fill. It is not some program to flood the military. Frankly, maybe only a dozen people a year will qualify out of millions of service members. Second, this is not LEGISLATION. To legislate is to write a law. This is simply making an administrative determination, which the President has the right to do. Presidents have been doing this since George Washington. Third, the President does not give citizenship to anyone. They have to apply and go through the regular process for that. It only makes them eligible, as is any other person who serves in the Military. You really get stupid when you listen to Fox, don’t you? Its like a brain shrinking machine. LOL.

      • strayaway

        I don’t understand what you are trying to get at in the first part of your post. I didn’t criticize including a limited number of technical people into the military. I instead noted that it was qualitatively different from Obama’s action; something no one else or the article had mentioned.

        Executives execute legislation. Congress legislates. Execution involves hiring, procuring, and the like within the boundaries of Congressional legislation. Example of things presidents are not constitutionally allowed to do is conduct executive ordered wars e.g. Libya and override Congress. In 2010, the Senate looked at the Dream Act and voted against it. Since then, President Obama has used executive orders to allow 600,000 ‘dreamers’ to stay. This was a serious case of violating his oath of office by overriding something Congress had taken a look at and rejected. He legislated by executive order. Allowing Mexican truck drivers on US roads also overrode existing legislation according to the Teamster union. There are other examples. The Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the chore of establishing uniform rules of naturalization.

        I blame Congress, especially Democrats, for allowing the President to do such things. They act like they have passed an enabling act. The President, for his part, crows “We’re not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help they need. I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone”””And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions”. It’s the President telling Congress that if they don’t legislate, he will.

        John, let me help you with your posts. No, I don’t come across Fox very often. I begin my news day with BBC world news. I realize that doesn’t fit into your narrative. To be a truly great liberal poster, you must learn to include ‘Fox’, ‘Koch’, and ‘because he’s black’ into the same sentence.

      • James Foley

        wow…. not quite bright are ya? Congress has sole authority to legislate, but the executive branch, with or without congressional help, has authority to engage in executive action where necessary and prudent. Case in point; hurricane Katrina. Many conservatives believe Bush was right in his decision not to take over or extend federal aid to the states because it would step on state governments toes. Clearly, in times of need a president must have the power to do what’s needed.

        That said, Obama’s extension/expansion was enacted because more resources were needed, and, since it was already allowed under Bush, the legality is a decided issue. If it was pronounced legal under Bush then it is legal, constitutionally, under Obama. Sadly the same is true of anything having to do with the patriot act. If you want to belly ache, then I’d suggest you do so over the initial findings of legality by the Bush administration. You didn’t do so at the time, you can’t do so now.

        The quantitative [rise in accepted resources]is directly related to the continuing need for more people to do those jobs. People die in wars son. Get over it.

      • strayaway

        James, I suggest you read up on ‘The Enabling Act of 1933’. We have no such act in this country although Congress is so lame that it acts as if we have a de facto enabling act. Your logic is similar to proponents of the Enabling Act of 1933. If something is needed, then it can be legislated. There is no need to go into authoritarian mode. One huge problem with doing so is that it leads, for instance, to unpopular, unproductive, and unnecessary wars that you seem so blasé about in your last paragraph. Look up on Youtube, “The rise of evil – Reichstag fire” and decide which side of the room your post indicates you are on.

      • James Foley

        I’ve read up on the act [this is an old post I know, but it bares attention now that I’ve seen it]. The president and his administration have in the past [‘the president meaning presidents in general] had the power to take actions when necessary. Did the president need congressional approval to send the national guard to schools during the civil rights movement to keep kids safe? no. Would a good president sit by as American citizens were being intimidated and harassed and threatened and beaten and killed? No. As far as what side my post is on, it’s on the side of prudence and logic.

      • strayaway

        Prudence and logic support the rule of law rather than imperial fiat. In the long run, that is the safest bet. Was your remark, “Would a good president sit by as American citizens were being intimidated and harassed and threatened and beaten and killed?” a reference to Benghazi? As Commander in Chief presidents were not allowed to arbitrarily bring in the national guard. that was one solution that worked but there were probably others. Commanders in Chief certainly have no business bombing countries like Libya and Serbia that did nothing to the US. That is an example of the slippery slope you advocate. It seems reasonable to sent the troops to Little Rock of no alternatives are considered. it would then seem more reasonable to bomb Tripoli since troops were once sent to Little Rock. In the long run, more people get killed when the rule of law is ignored.

      • James Foley

        Occam’s Razor

      • strayaway

        I do mind Libya because the failure of the Libyan bombing policy was that left in its wake a trail of destruction: Mali, racist killings,Benghazi, IS training camps for starters. I do mind bombing Serbia historically a bulkward against the spread of Islam into Europe. Thank you for bringing up Iraq. Same thing. Iraq did nothing to the US. One difference however; Congress, voted to give away its power to decide to go to war to Bush. Senator Hillary Clinton voted to do so. While the move was contrary to the Constitution, at least Congress had a say. Obama just started bombing Libya by executive fiat. He didn’t even ask Congress for permission.

      • James Foley

        It was an expression. Libya and Iraq are different how as far as bombing people who did nothing to us?
        Okay this Whole Hillary Clinton red herring just needs to stop. I could care less about Hillary Clinton for two very important reasons. 1) While Hillary Clinton did vote to go to war, she did vote to do so based on false information provided to the CIA By the Bush administration and then passed out by the Bush administrations chosen spokespeople. and 2) Clinton has since come out and said emphatically that it was a grave error on her part, something Bush has never done.
        Bush rightfully said thqt mistakes were made, conveniently leaving his part out of it.

      • strayaway

        There were people like Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul who weren’t fooled as you claim Hilary was. Why should we elect a fool as president? One other point you are missing is that only Congress is authorized by the Constitution to declare wars. In effect, Hillary and every other Senator who voted to give their war declaration power to the president violated their oath of office in doing so. As Secretary of State, Hillary supported the disastrous overthrow of Khaddafi, mucked thins up in Ukraine, and supported bombing Syria.

      • James Foley

        You’re making the two wrongs makes a right argument. you can’t fix one mistake by making another. Hillary and many senators, republican and democrat had misgivings about Saddam Hussein having WMD but it was widely considered as speculation. Not until AFTER they were given cherry picked information by the Bush Jr. administration did they even begin to think the threat was real.

      • strayaway

        Those who fell for it were fools and shouldn’t be rewarded with reelections. As I previously mentioned, there were some in Congress who weren’t fooled. I feel sorry for Colin Powell being used. He otherwise had a respectable career.

      • James Foley

        Oh I’m not votin for that bimbo! Don’t get me wrong man. I hate what Bush Jr. did, but that doesn’t meet I’m going to vote for that walking tramp stamp out of spite 😉

  • Nemisis

    I’m not surprised that Allen West got on national TV and conveyed fiction.

    Here is a little A. West history.

    West was born in Georgia and joined the United States Army in 1983. He was deployed to Kuwait in 1991 and Iraq
    in 2003. In 2003, West was charged in an incident that involved the
    beating and simulated execution of an Iraqi police officer. West was
    fined $5,000, accepted a Non-judicial punishment and allowed to retire as a lieutenant colonel after an Article 32 hearing.

    West was more recently a one term congressman 2008-2010.

    His relevance as a expert is quickly fading so he must say these things.

    • Iceneedle

      What is strange is he won his district in 2010. West should have won his district again in 2012. By the way, this is the district that former speaker of the house, Tom Foley is from. Foley actually counseled West on cooling the rhetoric. West would hear none of it. He lost his seat in 2012.

      • Kathryn Ryder

        Yeah it really says something about West that he was only elected to one term in his gerrymandered district before being fired by his constituents !!! He is a LOSER. !!!

    • Paul Julian Gould

      Narcissistic need for attention… see: Cruz, Rafael Eduardo, Jr.

    • Roguewave1

      You forgot to mention the part where threatening the Jihadi conspirator by shooting a gun over his head and telling him the next one would be in him persuaded the Jihadi to spit out information of a planned attack that was thus foiled and saved American lives most probably. But then the saving of troops’ lives is too much to bear if the cost is intimidating or scaring a brave Jihadi or so you progs believe.

      • R W

        “Probably” is the operative word in your post. Someone fearing death will say anything you fool.

      • Jodie

        Actually, the information he got was determined to be useless. There was no foiled attack.

      • Nemisis

        I only scratched the paint.

      • deckbose


  • forpeace

    Except for Fox and its followers no one cares about what Allen West has to say. After what he did in the army, and after he threatened FAU Students on Facebook and Twitter, he is still Fox’s hero.

    Allen West belongs in a highly secure mental institution.

    Allen West was relieved of command by the Army after use-of-force incident concerning an Iraqi policeman, by saying “This is it, I’m going to count to five again, and if you don’t give me what I want, I’m going to kill you,” then fired a shot “a foot” over the detainee’s head.”

    After that he was charged with violating Articles 128 (assault) and 134 (general article) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice after he abused an Iraqi detainee, he was fined $5,000, and relieved of command by the Army. He accepted the judgment and retired with full benefits (on taxpayers dime) in the summer of 2004.

    • JonEdHil

      Republicans LOVE assholes; Oliver North comes immediately to mind.

  • Inspiridos

    West is the Charlatan. A retired half-bird … is that because they are a bird brain; and West has proved this time and again.

  • Steve Brains



    THERE JUST AINN’T enough marines.

  • Paul Julian Gould

    I’ve said it many times before, and I’ll say it again. Those people such as West, a good number of trolls across Disqus and the intellectual slobs infesting Facebook have so internalized their hatred of this President that it’s become a nervous tic.

    He could cure cancer and they’d fault him for putting oncologists out of work; he could walk on water and they’d bitch that he doesn’t know how to swim.

  • txthinker

    When is that thoroughly worthless Allen West going to be arrested and charged with TREASON and SEDITION for encouraging the military to defy their Commander in Chief???

    • strayaway

      The First Amendment’s protection of speech?

      • Andy Kinnard

        Inciting actual treason IS actual treason and is one of the few exceptions to the 1st amendment.

      • strayaway

        “Congress shall make NO law…abridging the freedom of speech.” -1st Amendment (no exceptions)

        Article III, Section 3, “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”

        West didn’t levy war and I think that “enemies” is more like anyone we are warring with like Saddam Hussein, possibly IS, and probably doesn’t include political pundits exercising free speech or Republicans.

      • Andy Kinnard

        SCOTUS disagrees with you (about the “no exceptions” part you through in there). You see, navigating the collisions among right and between rights and things like public safety is the Supreme Court’s job; so, we should probably leave that to them.

      • strayaway

        Congress can make NO law abridging free speech is what the Constitution says. I realize that isn’t what the grafters and Pharisee class want us to believe. Am I supposed to believe the Emperor has a wondrous set of clothes too?

      • Andy Kinnard

        Again, SCOTUS disagrees with you.

      • strayaway

        The meaning of English words disagrees with you. No means no, none, nada, no exceptions.

      • Andy Kinnard

        Now you’re just ranting, and , no, this isn’t about me.

      • deckbose

        Why do so many people misunderstand the First Amendment? If West makes his seditious comments, then his freedom of speech has not been abridged. The Constitution does protect people from the consequences of their speech. In such a case, West’s recommending that officers defy their Commander-in-Chief constitutes the incitement of rebellion against the government and is tantamount to giving aid to the enemy. He has committed treason and should be appropriately prosecuted.

      • strayaway

        I agree with your first thee sentences. Your argument is with Andy who says SCOTUS says otherwise and there are exceptions to Congress making laws to abridge freedom of speech. What, specifically did West say to recommend that officers defy their commander in chief? I must have missed that part of the article. So before you launch a campaign to bring back sedition acts, at least spell out what West said recommending that officers defy their Commander-in-Chief.

      • deckbose

        From Americans Against the Tea Party (I’d give you the link, but this site won’t allow it)

        “Allen West is at it again. The Fox News regular is now imploring members of the military to disobey orders from their Commander in Chief. West, whose antics includeattacking a disabled veteran Congresswoman for working on the select Benghazi Committee, as well as multiple calls for impeachment of President Obama, is living up to his modus operandi.

        In a vitriolic Facebook post, West reacted like a child to the expansion of the Military Accessions Vital to National Interest (MAVNI) program.

        MAVNI, which was was created in 2008 under the Bush administration, “allows recruiters to target foreign nationals with high-demand skills, mostly rare foreign language expertise or specialized health care training.” The new expansion opens the program to immigrants who came to the United States with their parents before the age of 16 and are approved under the 2012 Deferred Action for Child Arrivals (DACA) policy. Under MAVNI, an immigrant can become a naturalized U.S. citizen after 10 weeks of boot camp. West, who apparently has a huge problem with more legal avenues for immigrants to obtain citizenship had this to say:

        “Morning folks. While you were sleeping, Barack Hussein Obama took out his pen and ordered our Military to enlist illegal aliens. In other words, this charlatan has allowed those who have disrespected our Constitution and are not citizens to take an oath to support and defend the very document, our rule of law, of which they are in violation. Obama has no constitutional authority to make any laws or rules concerning naturalization as stated in Art I Sect 8 Clause 4. This is an illegal order and should not be followed by our Military. As well, we are pink-slipping men and women in uniform, Americans, and Obama wants to enlist illegals. We are already outsourcing our national security to Syrian Islamists. This is intolerable and just another reason why we must flip the Senate and begin to reverse Obama’s tyranny. Any Democrat supporting this illegal order needs to be voted out!”

        18 U.S. Code § 2385 – Advocating overthrow of Government

        “Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
        Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
        Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—
        Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.”

      • strayaway

        Congratulations on your research. I assume it is correct. Indeed, West made a statement not in the article suggesting this illegal order should not be followed by the military. I disagree with West on that point. It is up to Congress, as he also points out, to rid our Country of presidents who violate the Constitution. Military personnel suffer the consequences of conscientiously objecting to orders. When they join the military they agree to give up some rights. The way to go about this is to impeach President Obama but that won’t happen because it requires a 2/3 vote of the Senate. I would rather keep Obama in office as an inspiration to not vote Democrat although most Republicans are just as bad.

        Regarding the US Code: I think its a bit of a stretch to claim that West’s call to disregard unconstitutional orders constitutes “overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States”. I doubt that the US government would be destroyed or overthrown by some military people who refused one order. At any rate, West didn’t suggest overthrowing the government of the US “by force or violence”

        That leaves it up to you to support the creation of a new sedition act for peacetime. I just looked up the history of sedition acts. The first peace time sedition act was in 1940. There is a precedent. “In March 1942, the government charged George W. Christians, founder of the Crusader White Shirts, with violating the Smith Act by attempting to spread dissent in the armed forces” which is essentially what West did. First you need to make a peacetime sedition act a plank in the Democratic Party.

      • mk4524

        and he has violated the oath he took as a commissioned officer of the United States.

      • deckbose

        Absolutely correct, mk. West apparently believes that his personal standards trump the military code of ethics.

  • R W

    Allen West is a tool and his drivel is more inane than the spew that dribbles from Palin’s pie hole.

  • David Kiefer

    So Bush Open the door, and Obama opened it even wider. Sounds like a great idea to let illegals service in our arm forces. I know most would rather live off this government rather than join but a great idea from Bush.

    • epazote

      There are no “illegals” serving in the USA military.
      Non citizen LRA’s (Legal Resident Aliens or Green Card holders) do, and have been permitted to do so for many, many decades.
      Actually non citizens have been serving in the USA military since the founding of the country.

    • mk4524

      Sounds like you never served. If you had, you would have known we don’t really allow illegals into our armed forces.

  • Marchio

    A man who was forcibly “retired” after torturing an Iraqi detainee (who was innocent) should not be taken seriously when it comes to military policy.

    • mk4524

      For an officer, that’s almost like a court-martial. What a disgraceful way to leave the military as an officer.

  • rossbro

    West is a dipshit ! Too stupid to realize he’s toast when a white man gets elected President. Can you say, ‘Token’ ?

  • Huck Finn

    You notice this Doofus talks about President Bush allowing”Legal Immigrants!” not as Obummer with,”Illegal Immigrants or what he deems”Dreamers!”

    Hey Dip Weed! a half truth is still a whole lie in America!
    So keep on shilling and lying! You fit right in with the Sal Alinsky crowd! Lie and cover up,don’t worry about telling the truth!
    Spin! Spin! Spin! Oh what a tangled, lying web these progressives weave!

  • Rick Williams

    Slightly expand, huh? Just slightly? From LEGAL aliens to ILLEGAL aliens. I guess if that’s slightly, then printing counterfeit money is “slightly” changing monetary policy. From legal to illegal, right? That thinking is so flawed it’s hardly believable. Normally it would be a joke. But people are believing this. Unreal…
    Before you start believing politifact

  • pjluckyman

    Allen West was correct. We have allowed LEGAL aliens to join the military. What Obama did was open it up to ILLEGAL aliens which no President has done prior. I posted a link but not sure if they will allow it.

    Undocumented = ILLEGAL!

  • Jon Dimitroff

    I do not have the degree in Political Science that Mr. Clifton has, but I do believe that he is wrong about one thing in his piece, and that is where he claims people are being disrespectful to the president by using Mr. Obama, or using his whole name, but leaving off his title “in a blatant show of disrespect for who he is.” I say this because a title, like President of the United States expresses What he is, not who he is, by using his name, they are making their comments personally directed towards the man, not the Office which he holds. There is a slight, but significant difference. Barrack Obama holds the position of President of the US, but that is not WHO he is. If someone asks who is the POTUS, one would answer currently Mr. Obama holds that position. When his term is over, someone else will hold that title, and Obama will be former president, but he will always be Mr. Obama, there is no disrespect in using that as a form of address as THAT is WHO he is. It really seems that someone with a degree in PoliSci should know something so basic; but since it seems to help his case by showing how menacing and disrespectful these people are and since they do not show proper respect, we should just discount everything they say, etc, etc. If this is the best argument this guy can come up with, perhaps he should ask whatever college he attended for his money back, or perhaps just take a few minutes to consider his words more wisely. He writes this “Here’s my suggestion for a new slogan for the GOP: Republicans, we’ll try to blame everything on President Obama – even if it’s a policy that was passed during the Bush administration” at the end of his piece like it was an original thought, but those of us with an interest n politics, and how they affect us, we have noticed this for years. This is nothing new to anyone who has paid attention for the past several years.

  • BkDodge42

    Lets fact check your article, and for my source, I’ll use your article. The Military Accession Vital to National Interest under Bush was open to legal aliens with special skills and was set to expire September 30th 2014 so yes all the Obama administration did was extend the program. Now for the little lie that you’re trying to pass off. The program was only open to legal aliens here in the country. Now the program has been changed to include those who are not legally in this country. Big difference, but not to someone who lies when they try to point to someone else as being a liar.

  • mike

    i think the program under bush specifies LEGAL aliens, while the program that obama “extended” specifies ILLEGAL aliens. NOT the same!

  • jazkeys

    An ignorant, illiterate, worthless, lying, bottom-feeding, bigoted, self-hating moron in the Republican Party? Gee — what a big fucking surprise.

  • Steve Zakszewski

    I love when a war criminal criticizes the President.

  • surfjac

    mr. west is a unindicted war criminal. Whatever he spews goes nowhere with me. I have no respect for the man, never will.

  • Frank Tillman

    u r nucking futts