by Laurence M. Vance
As a black conservative and Republican, Allen West is not your typical Tea Party member. West rode the Tea Party wave all the way to the U.S. House last November from Florida’s 22nd congressional district. He is the first black Republican to represent Florida since Reconstruction.
But in addition to being a member of both the Tea Party Caucus and the Congressional Black Caucus, Allen West is also a Tea Party statist.
Before his election to Congress, West was a lieutenant colonel in the army until his retirement after an investigation into his harsh interrogation techniques while fighting in the Iraq War resulted in a $5,000 fine. After his “service” in the military, West worked for a defense contractor as an advisor to the Afghan National Army. He run unsuccessfully in 2008 for the congressional seat he now holds. After speaking at CPAC in 2010 and being endorsed by Sarah Palin, West won the 2010 election against the same Democratic candidate who had earlier defeated him. He was the keynote speaker at the recent 2011 CPAC. West is a favorite of Tea Party members for his attacks on President Obama and government spending and his support for the military and the war on terror.
I have never been too impressed with the Tea Party movement, especially when it comes to issues like the war on drugs and U. S. foreign policy. And although most Tea Party supporters claim they are opposed to big government, in poll after poll a majority of Tea Party Republicans say they have a favorable view of former president George W. Bush. The George W. Bush who doubled the national debt, gave us the first trillion-dollar deficit, drastically expanded Medicare, and not only began two wars that unnecessarily shed American blood and drained the treasury, but waged another war on the domestic front””on the Bill of Rights.
I don’t know how West feels about Bush, but I do know that he is a Tea Party statist who supports the welfare state, the warfare state, and the national security state.
I want to briefly look at these in reverse order, focusing mainly on the welfare state that West would claim to oppose.
West voted in February three times in the affirmative on H.R. 514 to extend the PATRIOT Act. This is the nefarious legislation hurriedly passed soon after 9/11 with no debate in the House and only minimal debate in the Senate that Judge Napolitano called “the most abominable, unconstitutional governmental assaults on personal freedom since the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798″ and “the most unpatriotic of the things that the Bush administration and this Congress could have visited upon us.” Thank you Mr. West.
West is a huge proponent of the warfare state. According to his congressional website, he favors increasing the size of the military and sees threats to the United States all over the world:
Make no mistake, we are a nation at war against a totalitarian theocratic political ideology that glorifies death rather than celebrating life. To defeat it, we must stay on the offensive. From Afghanistan and Iraq to the Greater Middle East and South America, radical Islam is on the march. And while our attention is focused on combating global terrorism, we must not forget other looming threats just on the horizon in China, North Korea, Venezuela, Russia & Iran. These nations and their leaders represent the biggest threat to our great nation. As your Congressman, I will work to reestablish American Exceptionalism by growing and modernizing America’s Armed forces to ensure that we are prepared for the strategic challenges ahead. I believe that peace is best kept through a strong national defense.
Increasing the size of the military will naturally entail an increase in defense spending. But how much defense spending is enough? The United States already spends on defense as much as the rest of the world combined. The true amount of U. S. defense spending is already over $1 trillion a year. It should come as no surprise to see that Congressman West recently voted against H.J. Con. Res. 28, “Directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove the United States Armed Forces from Afghanistan.” Is there any U.S. war he wouldn’t support? Is there any U.S. military intervention he would oppose?
Make no mistake, the greatest threat to “our great nation” is not Afghanistan, Iraq, China, North Korea, Venezuela, Russia, or Iran. The greatest threat to the freedoms of Americans is not some country thousands of miles away; it is our own government. And as Founding Father James Madison said: “If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”
It is unfortunate that someone who rails against out-of-control government spending and promises to carry the torch of conservative, small government principles with him to Washington is also a supporter of the welfare state.
First of all, when West addressed CPAC, he said federal spending should be capped at 18 percent to 20 percent of GDP. But why? All this does is ensure that federal spending will be at 20 percent of GDP no matter what GDP is. The whole statistic is meaningless. There is no necessary connection between the two figures. Spending as a percentage of GDP is generally used just to defend increased government spending. According to the Office of Management and Budget, federal spending as a percentage of GDP was 23.8 percent for fiscal year 2010. Now, 20 percent is certainly more desirable than 23 percent, but it is still higher than federal spending as a percentage of GDP during five of the eight Clinton years. It would still entail multi-trillion dollar budgets bloated with unconstitutional spending.
Second, although West touts in a press release dated March 15 that he voted on that day against a three-week continuing resolution (H.J. Res. 48) to keep the government operating until April 8, back on March 1 he voted for a similar resolution (H.J. Res. 44) to fund the government through March 18. West also recently voted in favor of H.R. 1, the “Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011,” that appropriates billions of dollars to fund unconstitutional departments like the Departments of Labor, Agriculture, Health and Human Services, and Education, including $13.4 billion for well-known welfare programs like SSI and $81.7 million for little-known “Agricultural Programs, Agricultural Marketing Service, Marketing Services.”
And third, West announced in another press release dated March 16 the awarding of a $21 million federal grant to the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport in his district. The airport director was “very glad that Congressman West was able to help us make this happen.” It seems that the airport needed a “second commercial runway.” Yet, the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport “is ranked among the top 25 airports in the United States” and has “experienced 18 consecutive months of passenger growth.” It is also ranked “as one of the fastest growing major airports in the country.” With all this business, it seems as though the airport wouldn’t need a federal grant to expand. The real issue, though, is the federal government’s constitutional authority to fund airport expansions. According to the nature of our federal system of government, the enumerated powers of Congress in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, and confirmed by the Tenth Amendment, the federal government has absolutely no authority to fund the construction, development, maintenance, remodeling, or expansion of any airport or any other non-federal building, structure, or piece of land. If any entity besides the owner of the airport, the airlines that do business there, the customers that use the airport, individual philanthropists, or a group of investors is going to put money into the expansion of the airport it would have to be the state of Florida, not the federal government. Apparently, Allen West is opposed to out-of-control federal spending except when it benefits his district.
Get the New Book Today!
It is hard to tell how much more of the welfare state that Representative West supports. On his website he lists twelve issues: Congressional Issues, Defense and National Security, Economy and Jobs, Education, Energy, Financial Services, Foreign Affairs, Health, Spending Cuts and Debt, Tax Reform, Transportation, Veterans. Three of them have no links and six of them have links to a statement that says to contact his DC office for more information. Only the issues of Defense and National Security, Economy and Jobs, and Energy have links to his positions on these issues.
Allen West may be highly educated, he may be a decorated war veteran, he may be a devoted family man, he may be a courageous black man who identifies as a conservative, he may be better than all the Democrats in Congress, but he is still a Tea Party statist.
Laurence M. Vance [send him mail] writes from Central, FL. He is the author of Christianity and War and Other Essays Against the Warfare State and The Revolution that Wasn’t. His newest book is Rethinking the Good War. Visit his website.
Why has the 10th Amendment Center become a sponsor for personal attacks against conservative politicians? What the hell is your real mission?
Walt – questions for you…
a) what in the article is incorrect?
b) are you supporting the TAC because a democrat is president?
c) will you stop caring about the Constitution when a republican is in the white house?
There is no difference between a conservative politician who ignores the consitution or a liberal who does the same thing. Violations of the document cannot be tolerated simply because its "your guy." Please itemize those things in this article which are not true? We do not overlook blatant offense to our founding document simply because someone adheres or does not adhere to a certain political ideology. The only ideology that truly matters is the constitution, every issue, every time, no exceptions, no excuses.
I'm 100% for west & I don't aprecciate your negative attack on a true Patriot tis will be my last comment I'm cancelling & blocking your site
A good example of the greatest problem we face in this country today! This is a person that, when confronted with their celebrity politician doing something unconstitutional – hates the messenger, runs, and hides.
And most importantly – never demands that the politician follow the constitution.
If anyone wonders where Pelosi and the gang get their arrogance, it\’s from turning a blind eye like this for far too long.
I had the same question.
Wow. The problem is obvious… as the replies show us. So those of you that support this man are just fine with him violating your constitutional rights? And mine?? So we're still not voting based on substance huh. And obviously we STILL don't care about the constitution even though all I hear is how much you want our elected officials to support & follow it. I guess it's fine as long it's from your "team". When are you people gonna wake up and realize that these politicians don't give a rats ass about you and your party! Either side!! You are useful idiots to them, that's it.
And what do you think TAC does?? They exist to show us who the STATISTS are! These aren't personal attacks… they are facts about his record. And the attacks are against the citizens of this nation… by all these so called conservatives… who in reality are no better than Liberals.
His real mission is reestablishment of the Articles of Confederation…. if not the Confederacy….and this Republican thinks he's about as Republican as Jefferson Davis.
And for the sake of the Republic he should shut down his website, move out of his mom's basement, and get a real job at a 7/11 or something. Serving people coffee is far less dangerous to our freedoms than hyping a dead-letter amendment to the constitution. "Tenth Amendment Center" = "Eighteenth Amendment Center" or "Third Amendment Center." Only worse.
Dead letter amendment. Wow.
Have you even read the Articles of Confederation ? Or the Constitution for that matter? One of the most grievous offenses leading to our revolution were the Writs of Assistance-that is soldiers of the King writing their own search warrants without probable cause or judge's or grand jury consent. The Patriot Act brings this back in our time. Your position apparently reflects a greater belief in Allen West than the Constitution. How sad.
the article is picking and choosing facts and drawing incorrect inferences from them.the article is picking and choosing facts and drawing incorrect inferences from them.
The military is stretched thin, soldiers are over deployed. We need more combat troops, more defense spending to counter China and the obvious Muslim unrest throughout the entire world, even in latin America.
We have a divided government; you either have the Patriot Act or you have nothing; The Senate/President will not improve/reform the Patriot Act so you either vote for it's demise and leave the country without some of the protections needed or vote for it and hope goverment is no longer divided in the near future and reforms can be accomplished.
Announcing a new runway is not pork, as what was inferred by the writer. For God sakes, the runway is paid for with taxes from users; those taxes are to be used to upgrade Federal airports, duh. Florida is adding congressional districts because more people have moved here; duh, so runways have to be added/extended. No brainer, and i am sure the previous Congress had the hand in getting the $$ approved, he was just announcing the funding. If the runway $ was cancelled during his term, I'm sure all kinds of press would then blame West, but he gets none of the credit when it is approved???? Typical liberal tripe.
West is probably around 91% on the Tea Party scale, I'm proud of his representation of my district in Florida.
Patriot Act or Nothing? You liberals are all the same….either we have to be ok with your constitutional violations or bust.
Where, mind you, is the constitutional authority for feds to be using tax dollars to fund runways?
It's people like YOU that give Pelosi and Reid and the rest the excuses to expand power for themselves…because you're ok with it when done by a conservative. Thank you no – some of us are sick of it!
How would you get a significantly changed Patriot Act thru the Federal Govt?
I'm not defending the Patriot Act, I am defending West voting for it, as the lessor of two alternatives, which I clearly explained.
I will never defend Pelosi or Reid. there is a guy in the White House that will veto EVERYTHING a freedom loving Congress will ever pass until '12.
Return to reality #22 and help elect constitutional Senators and a President, and many more House of Reps! In the meantime, don't be attacking West, he's doing a great job~
This would likely NOT be the place to defend the patriot act…glad you are not…
The Tenth Amendment Center – unlike most orgs – is not a political party. It is our DUTY to point out violations of the constitution.
You are welcome to take that information and use it how you like. And no, we cannot spend everyday talking about obamacare…while awful, we have to cover the entire beast that DC has become.
And maybe – instead of spending time voting for more federal politicians in the hope that the federal government fixes itself – why not consider joining in with us and pushing for state nullification? It is happening right now all over the country..
All well and good Michael…how about having people that write at this website deal with reality instead of attacking Rep West?. There are LOTS of bigger fish to fry. It is my opinion that almost ALL systems in the USA are now failing to one degree or another, particularly the legal and judicial. We're close to Germany in the 1930's…it still can go either way.
Please pass onto your columnists to focus on the big fish and leave 91% of 100% Tea Party politicians like Lt. Col. West alone. I've helped elect Rick Scott, he's doing great work here in Florida
I can certainly appreciate that viewpoint. But – if you spent more time here at Tenth Amendment Center (you should, of course), you would notice that very little time is spent on pointing out the errors of staunch tea party politicians. We will continue to do so, however, in order to provide a constant balance of our coverage.
The question is, does he support Millennium Development Goals, and if not, what is his plan to rid our Country of them?
MILLENIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS:
MDGs and what some of the world thinks of Obama: http://blogs.america.gov/obama/2010/09/24/preside…
US EPA http://www.epa.gov/ncer/biodiversity/gsn.html
USAID-MDGs http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/mdg/
American support for MDGs: http://www.america.gov/st/develop-english/2010/Se… http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/0… http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/14879… http://www.state.gov/s/gwi/rls/rem/2010/146926.ht… http://www.mcc.gov/pages/activities/activity/mdgs http://www.mcc.gov/documents/reports/content-0831… http://www.state.gov/r/pa/plrmo/2010/147211.htm http://geneva.usmission.gov/2010/08/02/mdgs-us-st… http://www.un.org/partnerships/Docs/BCLC_Agenda.p… http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/ecosoc…
The question which must be asked now is, What are MDGs and where did they originate?
In September 2000, the United States committed to the United Nations Millennium Declaration, which contains goals for reducing poverty and hunger, strengthening access to education, and improving health, including combating major diseases, by 2015. http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/ http://www.un.org/esa/desa/desaNews/v13n03/global… http://www.un.org/en/ecosoc/julyhls/pdf/philanthr… http://www.un.org/en/ga/second/64/1210summary.pdf
Lets not forget the Sec Gen Ban Ki-Moon:
“I had an opportunity of meeting Senator John Kerry yesterday in Poznan and I was very much encouraged by meeting him. He is going to be the next Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate and he assured me that, as next Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, he will fully cooperate with the United Nations. And also it is my expectation that, again, the new Administration will be much more actively engaged with the United Nations, on climate change, the Millennium Development Goals, and many other major United Nations issues” http://www.un.org/apps/sg/offthecuff.asp?nid=1235
This approach of "reforming" laws that have NO constitutional basis is how the political establishment in the US have continued to push us down the path to ever-growing and intrusive government. Using this reasoning, any unconstitutional law can be justified; because it was used before, we "must" try to get reforms to the law, instead of abolishing it altogether.
ME TOO! I love West!
I support the reestablishment of the Tenth Amendment as the kind of "check" on the Federal Government that the States MUST HAVE in order to keep our system of government intact, solvent and to preserve our Constitutional Republic functional. As long as the Tenth Amendment Center focuses on that objective, I will support them.
This column, however, is nothing more than a political hit piece on an honorable man who served his country. The writer clearly is a Libertarian would eschews any kind of foreign military action, and seeks to undermine principled Conservatives who disagree with them on that issue. Additionally, he misrepresents the airport expenditures as "pork" when they are a required Federal expense.
While no candidate is perfect, the question arises, would Mr. Vance prefer to have a Liberal Democrat back in office? As a Conservative, I can say with conviction that I would rather have Representative West — with whom I may differ 10% of the time — in office, than a Liberal Democrat with whom I will disagree at least 95% of the time.
Posting this kind of article causes me to question the real objectives and the actual philosophy of those running the "Tenth Amendment Center."
"Posting this kind of article causes me to question the real objectives and the actual philosophy of those running the "Tenth Amendment Center."
Right on!!!
I hope so! We stand for the constitution, not political ideologies…
Dale: the real objective of the Tenth Amendment Center is quite simple. Follow the Constitution every issue, every time, no exceptions, no excuses.
I am curious as to where you draw the conclusion that an airport is a "required federal expenses." Where in the Constitution is funding city infrastructure a power delegated to Congress?
Mr. Maharrey — I concur. There is no explicit (nor implicit) justification for this kind of expenditure in the Constitution. Now, some question for you — and the other apparent "pie in the sky" idealists :
What would you have Rep. West and others in the House and Senate do, even IF they had a majority in both Houses tomorrow? Go "cold turkey" back to the STRICT Constitutional interpretation IMMEDIATELY?
That may sound good in an idealistic world, but we don't live in a vacuum. While drastic measures would be necessary, our nation couldn't SURVIVE a "cold turkey" switch. That would guarantee a Civil War. And I think some of you guys KNOW it. It would take a transition that would take a period of several years. Just as it would take several years to return to a Gold Standard, to end deficit spending, the end the FED, and so forth.
We DON'T disagree on objectives, but perhaps on methods of achieving those ends. I want the Constitution restored WITHOUT millions of people killed, the nation completely economically collapsed, and perhaps permanently divided. The chances of that happening are already slim. A SHOCK like you seem to be suggesting, without ANY transition BACK would ENSURE that disastrous outcome.
This is exactly what I keep saying. There MUST be an organization that points out the perfect constitutional principle. that is TAC.
What you do with that information – how you allow it to play out in your political decisions….well that is up to you. But people demand the 100% constitutional line from us, and we cannot waver from that. It is our duty.
I think Mr. Boldin summed it up perfectly. We are not politicians. We are a constitutional think-tank. Our job is to educate and advocate for the principle. I recognize that we can't go cold-turkey back to a the system the framers created and that we are fighting a long war that will only be won in incremental steps. But somebody has to point out the ultimate objective. Part of that is holding those in office accountable. By arguing the principle, we begin to shift the focal point of the argument back.
Look at it this way. The article published here won't drive West from office. What it may do is cause some of his constituents to put pressure on him to hold to principle. Maybe he'll read it and take certain parts of it to heart. Heck, some points may be flat out wrong and unfair, but that's OK too.
It will also serve to make people think. It's not a bad thing to read something you disagree with and even to get angry. Too many people (and I am not directing this at you, because you seem like an engaged, intelligent individual) walk around in zombie land never considering anything outside of what they hear on Rush or read in the Huffington Post. We want to break people out of the habit of thinking in terms of party and politics and begin considering principle and ideology.
We have but one Constitution as our rule of law. A Constitution that every legislator, elected and appointed official has taken an oath to preserve and protect. If they cannot live up to the principles and obligations as rendered in our Constitution then they have absolutely no business in public office.
Hear, Hear!
I think more and more people are on your side these days, Matt. And I for one am pretty happy that TAC exists! Otherwise, who is calling out anyone but the democrats these days?
That's the easy stuff. It takes courage to say no to all sides.
Yo, Lawrence (the writer)…why aren't you picking on the Speaker of the House??? he's not standing up for a balanced budget, defunding NPR and Planned Parenthood and ObamaCare ???? Why pick on West? He's not perfect but he's a LOT more on target than Boehner
We spend a TON of time on the others. I think people have a common misconception that if we oppose the unconstitutional votes of Allen West, somehow we do not for the others. If you would only see how many times Pelosi has been slammed on this website, or obamacare in general, or federal gun laws.
We are here to be purists, not politicians.
I would agree with you that Boehner and perhaps as many as 533 other members of the House deserve a spotlight article. The question is not one of being "on target" more than the next politician, the question is will any of these people, including Mr. West, Ms.Bachmann, Mr. Rubio, et.al. who claim to be contitutionalists, actually uphold it. If you are supporting tax money for spending not given to the general government in the constitution, if you support the Patriot Act which is a gross violation of the fourth amendment, and you believe that Congress can delegate its responsiblity regarding declaring war; and vote for laws supporting these, than you are violating the constitution. No one should be hero worshipped to the point where violating the law of the land is overlooked. This includes Allen West.
Obviously, some "Republicans" are not really as concerned with demanding adherence to our Constitution as they are with finding a "tool" with which to counteract Obama and the democrats. If Obama had an "R" beside his name, they would have completely backed everything he is doing. If it was called RomneyCare, or Bush's "War of aggression against Libya", they would be in full support. Big government is fine, as long as it's their big government.
Thats not true at all. I have an R beside my name as well, but I am unable to support the vast majority of candidates. I DIDNT support McCain even though I am currently in the military. Here is the problem you need to be aware of:
MILLENIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS:
MDGs and what some of the world thinks of Obama: http://blogs.america.gov/obama/2010/09/24/preside…
US EPA http://www.epa.gov/ncer/biodiversity/gsn.html
USAID-MDGs http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/mdg/
American support for MDGs: http://www.america.gov/st/develop-english/2010/Se… http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/0… http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/14879… http://www.state.gov/s/gwi/rls/rem/2010/146926.ht… http://www.mcc.gov/pages/activities/activity/mdgs http://www.mcc.gov/documents/reports/content-0831… http://www.state.gov/r/pa/plrmo/2010/147211.htm http://geneva.usmission.gov/2010/08/02/mdgs-us-st… http://www.un.org/partnerships/Docs/BCLC_Agenda.p… http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/ecosoc…
The question which must be asked now is, What are MDGs and where did they originate?
In September 2000, the United States committed to the United Nations Millennium Declaration, which contains goals for reducing poverty and hunger, strengthening access to education, and improving health, including combating major diseases, by 2015. http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/ http://www.un.org/esa/desa/desaNews/v13n03/global… http://www.un.org/en/ecosoc/julyhls/pdf/philanthr… http://www.un.org/en/ga/second/64/1210summary.pdf
Lets not forget the Sec Gen Ban Ki-Moon:
“I had an opportunity of meeting Senator John Kerry yesterday in Poznan and I was very much encouraged by meeting him. He is going to be the next Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate and he assured me that, as next Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, he will fully cooperate with the United Nations. And also it is my expectation that, again, the new Administration will be much more actively engaged with the United Nations, on climate change, the Millennium Development Goals, and many other major United Nations issues” http://www.un.org/apps/sg/offthecuff.asp?nid=1235
The Tea Party does not belong to statists. Nor to anyone else.
The Tea Party is a movement started by people from all political affiliations to DEMAND Restoration of Lawful Constitutional Governance.
We think that it is COUNTERPRODUCTIVE – DIVISIVE – and IRRESPONSIBLE to continue writing in this attack style.
While it is good to point out that Mr. Allan is a statist at heart. It is counter productive to so broadly attack the Tea Party and Tea Partiers as statist. If that was not your intent, it surely did come out that way.
It is difficult to educate people while calling them names. You have manage to insult a great many people and educate very few.
Hope you put the love back in the relovetion and from now on manage to criticize politicians and their statism without insulting a wide swath of people, contributing to the divisive atmosphere
http://dailyteaparty.com/2011/03/24/tea-party-fed….
This type of article was not in the best interests of the TAC. Why create true ill will for the TAC by attacking a true conservative and supporter of the Conststution because you disagree with a few votes that he made? Have you asked for an explanation from Cong. West? This type of attack article, especially against a person who is believed to be a true conservative and supporter of the Constitution by a LARGE number of people and who obviosly has not been properly vetted by the author is not very condusive to wide spread conservative support of the TAC. Think before you dive, the water could be very shallow.
The standard measure for an elected official is the Constitution. When they violate this, as Mr. West has done with his Patriot Act support for example, it doesnt matter if one is conservative or liberal, whatever those words even mean if anything. There is no overlooking violations because of ideology. Mr. West believes fourth amendment protections must take second place to some terrorist threat that may be out there somewhere, someplace. And so his take on Liberty by extension s that Liberty in the form of unalienable (non transferrable) rights are subservient to political dictates. When you allow Mr. West and so many others in Congress to have their way with one of the Bill of Rights, you now let them have their way with all of them. Constitutional violations are an evil in a free society. You cannot grade evil on a curve which is what you are doing when you allow your "heros" to violate the Constitution.
All or nothing, so far as support for our constitution goes. Anyone upset with this article may later reflect–for what's true is true and shall pervade.
I found this article to be well-written and informative. Thanks TAC.
While serving in Vietnam in 1968, it was common to see written on helmets and flak jackets "War is Good Business". Indeed it was. Looking back, we were only there to slaughter millions to protect the profits of our glorious military industrial complex and a few elite in this country. It was good business in Vietnam, it is good business in iraq it is good business in Afghanistan. All this in spite of our founders advocating "non-intervention in foreign affairs". In 2007 we had 735 global military bases…our own modern day Roman empire!
@ Edward
"This type of article was not in the best interests of the TAC. Why create true ill will for the TAC by attacking a true conservative and supporter of the Conststution because you disagree with a few votes that he made?"
Did you read how he voted?
Do you approve of the votes?
Do you believe that his votes were inline with the Constitution?
Mr. West is very well spoken and sounds great but he must judged on deeds not words. All 3 examples cited by the author point to one thing and one thing only; another politician voting for legislation not supported by the Constitution.
It only took West 2 months to violate his oath of office. The statists in the Tea Party should be proud.
The article is trash and is an attempt to split the Conservative Movement. If you cannot see this you are blind. Everything from his negative comments on Rep. West's military service, which was exceptional, to the author's comment on the Tea Party should tell you this. How do you think our professional polititions have stayed in power so long? They are experts at minipulating, dividing and using people to their advantage. This poor misguided author (or is he misguided?) will not succeed. We in the Tea Party Patriots have eaten up and spit out more people like this than I care to count. We are allive and well and will turn this nation around in spite of people like this and all you other doubters. Don't be taken in by these kinds of people. The main thing that I worry about is that I belive in the TAC and it's mission and do not want us sidetracked by garbage like this. Let's get back to work and ignor divisive people like this. Hopefully the TAC will refrain from printing divisive articles like this. It cannot help us!!!
Edward, I can't seem to understand why this article is a problem for you. Mr West is voting against the constitution. This is not an attempt to split anything. It is finding out who is truly in this movement because of principle and who is in this just because they hate democrats.
See some of us are in this to restore the Republic and Rep West does not pass Constitutional muster. We have stated the votes and statements that he has made that bring us to this conclusion. Why attack the messenger when you don't like the message? You either believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights or you don't.
Are you really getting angry with the TAC because YOU don't want to defend the 1st and 4th amendment against a representative who renewed a law to violate it? If so we are not in the same movement then.
I would also refrain from using threats like "We in the Tea Party Patriots have eaten up and spit out more people like this than I care to count. ". It is talk like that that does more to split the movement than this article. We should welcome debate and disagreements. It is people like you who want to censor someone that truly is the problem. Grow up and really try actually reading the Constitution for a change.
Edward. I also served in our nations military defending this country so Mr. Vance is able to express his opinion. I also served so you will be able to voice yours however misguided it is.
I agree!
Edward, I am a member of the TEA Party as well, but is the TEA party sharing this?
MILLENIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS:
MDGs and what some of the world thinks of Obama: http://blogs.america.gov/obama/2010/09/24/preside…
US EPA http://www.epa.gov/ncer/biodiversity/gsn.html
USAID-MDGs http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/mdg/
American support for MDGs: http://www.america.gov/st/develop-english/2010/Se… http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/0… http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/14879… http://www.state.gov/s/gwi/rls/rem/2010/146926.ht… http://www.mcc.gov/pages/activities/activity/mdgs http://www.mcc.gov/documents/reports/content-0831… http://www.state.gov/r/pa/plrmo/2010/147211.htm http://geneva.usmission.gov/2010/08/02/mdgs-us-st… http://www.un.org/partnerships/Docs/BCLC_Agenda.p… http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/ecosoc…
The question which must be asked now is, What are MDGs and where did they originate?
In September 2000, the United States committed to the United Nations Millennium Declaration, which contains goals for reducing poverty and hunger, strengthening access to education, and improving health, including combating major diseases, by 2015. http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/ http://www.un.org/esa/desa/desaNews/v13n03/global… http://www.un.org/en/ecosoc/julyhls/pdf/philanthr… http://www.un.org/en/ga/second/64/1210summary.pdf
Lets not forget the Sec Gen Ban Ki-Moon:
“I had an opportunity of meeting Senator John Kerry yesterday in Poznan and I was very much encouraged by meeting him. He is going to be the next Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate and he assured me that, as next Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, he will fully cooperate with the United Nations. And also it is my expectation that, again, the new Administration will be much more actively engaged with the United Nations, on climate change, the Millennium Development Goals, and many other major United Nations issues” http://www.un.org/apps/sg/offthecuff.asp?nid=1235
Mr. Kilgour:
Frankly, I am delighted to see a solid analysis calling out a "Tea Party" candidate on his hypocrisy in coloring inside the constitutional lines when it suits his political agenda, and then stepping outside those lines when it suits his purpose. Many of the new "Tea Party" candidates who were just elected because they touted themselves as constitutionalists are quite happy to step outside the Constitution to support completely unconstitutional endeavors like the Patriot Act. This is obscene!
Mr. Kilgore, it is the Tea Parties who are being manipulated to put blind faith in neoconservative candidates who will give lip service to true constitutional values and then do whatever their agenda requires, the Constitution be damned! They may be doing things with the best of intentions (or not), but as a wise person once said "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
The Tenth Amendment Center was 110% right in pointing out the hypocrisy of Mr. West's speech and actions. Hopefully Mr. West will learn the error of his ways and start on a path towards becoming a true constitutionalist who will stand for the Constitution, every time, every issue, no excuses. If not, he needs to be voted out and replaced with someone who will uphold the Constitution.
Whenever We the People allow our politicians to step outside the clear lines drawn by the Constitution, we lose our liberties and are a little less safe. This is why we need groups like the Tenth Amendment Center to always draw us back to the high ground of principled liberty as outlined in the Constitution.
Mr. Kilgour:
Frankly, I am delighted to see a solid analysis calling out a "Tea Party" candidate on his hypocrisy in coloring inside the constitutional lines when it suits his political agenda, and then stepping outside those lines when it suits his purpose. Many of the new "Tea Party" candidates who were just elected because they touted themselves as constitutionalists are quite happy to step outside the Constitution to support completely unconstitutional endeavors like the Patriot Act. This is obscene!
Mr. Kilgour, it is the Tea Parties who are being manipulated to put blind faith in neoconservative candidates who will give lip service to true constitutional values and then do whatever their agenda requires, the Constitution be damned! They may be doing things with the best of intentions (or not), but as a wise person once said "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
The Tenth Amendment Center was 110% right in pointing out the hypocrisy of Mr. West's speech and actions. Hopefully Mr. West will learn the error of his ways and start on a path towards becoming a true constitutionalist who will stand for the Constitution, every time, every issue, no excuses. If not, he needs to be voted out and replaced with someone who will uphold the Constitution.
Whenever We the People allow our politicians to step outside the clear lines drawn by the Constitution, we lose our liberties and are a little less safe. This is why we need groups like the Tenth Amendment Center to always draw us back to the high ground of principled liberty as outlined in the Constitution.
If "the movement" is split Edward, it will be split between those who believe in the Constitution, every issue, every time, no exception, no excuses; and those who do not. Think about what you are supporting here- You are elevating a man above our unalienable rights as codified in our Constitution. You are supporting the forfeiture of liberty to someone who has already shown they will not support your rights against illegal search and seizure, will not end unconstitutional spending of tax dollars or end illegal war. Surely you cannot support such a position.
I think West is OK but seems to have violated the Constitution,which makes him a target of this site. You can support him but still not like everything he does. There is no reason to be a offended when this website does exactly what it is aimed to do which is advocate state power to be more balanced with federal power. Voting for the unconstitutional Patriot act is def unconstitutional, however i have to say that even in my very limited view the interstate trade clause i can defend his airport funding. it is akin to building and maintaining the interstate highway system which very directly influences interstate trade.
I am surprised to see so many people upset with someone simply pointing out the facts. If there was someone to do this in 2000 when the Republican party decided to ignore all the promises they made (refrain from nation building, privatize social security, shrink govt. etc…) maybe Obama would not have been elected, the govt. would not have grown faster than at any period prior, and GWB would have lost in the primary in 2004, to allow a small govt. conservative who deserves the name to hold office. The Constitution sets out powers to be exercised by Congress. One of those powers is not to improve, or establish airports/infrastructure. One of those powers is to declare war before authorizing the President to engage in destructive warfare. The votes are listed in the article, and the reader is rightly left to judge for himself if these dubious votes really represent true fidelity to the Constitution.
Why is it when the wool is pulled away from some peoples eyes they cover them up again with their hands?
I read this and thought "this author is a liberal with an agenda" and I was right. To stand against West is to stand with the Communism and immoral democrats, that I simply refuse to do.
I'll stick with my liking of West, the Tea Party and Christians…at the very least we have some common sense and LOVE for our Constitution, Life, Liberty and FREEDOM!
There is so much ANTI-AMERICAN vile in this article, Obama lover!
Deborah, putting your strong emotions aside for a minute, what is communistic about not wanting any portion of the Bill of Rights violated??
Deborah:
I have trouble understanding why you believe that supporting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as the Founders intended is support for Communism? I find your assertion disingenuous, as our Constitution and Bill of Rights are clearly written to recognize the God-given rights that we human beings have as individuals, and Communism is a political system that attempts to suppress those rights.
It seems to me that you believe in Mr. West more than you believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and I find that very troubling.
Are you joking? I'm a free market right leaning libertarian and I am against west 100%. The man is an angry, violent, racist Republican hack who does nothing but tote the party line and regurgitate the hate for moderate Muslims created by popular beliefs in the military. He sees nothing but savagery in moderate, Americanized Muslims in this country, and has stated that he will "never let Israel down".
His supporters openly criticize Obama by accusing him of being a closet Muslim and an enemy of the republic. Of coursee, I don't support Obama, but the frothing hatred against all islamic religion and ethnic orientation is dispicable, especially when its perpetuated within the ranks of institutionalized military personnel. If west is elected, it will set a dangerous precurser for more hateful authoritarians to take office. Battlefield hatred has no place in American politics.
I'm a Constitutional and Bill of Rights supporter. You apparently have not investigated West on your own but clearly you listen to this type of reports. That is disturbing to me! You talk out one side of you mouth in favor of the Constitution and Bill of Rights but slam those that have fought for it with everything they have to keep them alive. Perhaps, you have more in common with the democrat liberals than you think…now that is a scary thought!
what votes listed in the article – IE the Patriot Act and funding a local airport – are constitutional in your view? Or, do you simply not mind that West violates the constitution?
I'm sorry but the person who wrote this article has no real understanding of politics….
He says, "The George W. Bush who doubled the national debt…"
The only reason why debt was doubled is because of two things; We had a surplus under Clinton only because he 'gutted' the military budget and made it look like a surplus….then 911 hit after Bush took office and we had to rebuild our military to fight terrorism.
"West voted in February three times in the affirmative on H.R. 514 to extend the PATRIOT Act." So what's the problem here?? He's a supporter of national security? I am too!! The writer also states that there was, “no debate in the House” about all this… WELL DUH!!….that because Democrats had the majority and did nothing but filibuster during that time.
Michelle, are you aware of the grievances the Founders had with illegal search and siezure? Do you understand the violations British soldiers were allowed to commit by having the power to write their own search warrants without benefit of a judge or jury? These are great offenses to natural law and property rights. The Patriot Act allows this behavior again in our time. The Constitution is not a Republican or Democrat thing…it is a Liberty thing. It is neither conservative or liberal but a restriction placed on the federal government. Why would you support actions that impede that Liberty, decrease it and in allowing such a violation in this instance, invite others in the future. Do you really believe in trading away the work of the Framers and Ratifiers simply to support one individual who is dead wrong in his position on this? If Allen West believes your 4th amendment rights should be violated indefinitely in the name of safety against some unnamed terrorist, what other violation will he inflict upon you for your own good? Think about what you are saying.
"West is a huge proponent of the warfare state. According to his congressional website, he favors increasing the size of the military and sees threats to the United States all over the world"
Uhhhhh….Yeeeahhhh and THANK GOD!!
And lastly…."And third, West announced in another press release dated March 16 the awarding of a $21 million federal grant to the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport in his district. The airport director was “very glad that Congressman West was able to help us make this happen.”
Again…I REALLY DON'T SEE A PROBLEM HERE EITHER….HE'S DOING THE JOB THAT HE WAS ELECTED TO DO BY HIS CONSTITUANTS.
I hate it when people get a platform to write and don’t know what the hell they are talking about.
I understand that a LOT of people do not understand or like the constitution. we do…and that was unconstitutional!
Yes, MICHELLE, I know what you mean….after reading your ignorant comments. Honestly it's people like you who support violating the US constitution because their team is doing so that are part of why this country is going down.
You do realize that the US constitution say common defense, which means that having our military throughout the world is a blatant violation. As is attacking countries when we have not been attacked. Further, if you ever actually pulled your head of the sand you would know that for a long time the military has been used an imperialistic tool for business interests. The military went to work killing the Indians to advance the railroads, it conquered the Philippines to give us easier access to Asia, we use it in the Middle East to make sure the oil flows.
I think the topic of idealism vs. pragmatism has been beautifully illustrated by both sides of the political aisle this week giving us a near perfect teachable moment.
First, Obama deploys US military in compliance with a UN no fly declaration. He totally skipped the constitutional process and angered even many democrats who elected him in part because they were against Bush's undelcared wars.
Next, Romney promises to use Executive Order (if elected president) to repeal Obamacare. While many conservatives were cheering for this bold statement, they seemed to miss a crucial point. Romney has just promised to ignore the constitutional process for repealing legislation, and in effect has just promised to ignore his oath of office.
If we want to be pragmatic and not idealistic then on what basis will we choose our leaders? On what basis will we hold them accountable if we are not exepecting strict adherence to the constitution? Both ends of the political spectrum are merely spouting off words to get voters behind them. The agenda of both parties seems to be centralizing power and ruining the currency and balance sheet of our country.
If that is pragmatic, then count me with the idealist. Every principle, every time….
JAXTAC, you are missing something very important, a president is not obligated to carry out an unconstitutional act passed contrary to limits imposed on the congress. In fact a president who did not make every effort against unconstitutional acts would himself be in violation of his constitutional obligation to uphold the US constitution.
Why even discuss such things as interposition or nullification as we do at this site, if we are only to rely on your "repeal" process?
I will say though that I am frankly tired of these "executive orders" which are nothing but another way of circumventing the presidential limitations. The US constitution is very clear….To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
It is the not the prerogative of the president to issue "executive orders".
Deborah, I think you may have over simplified things just a bit. It is entirely possible to be anti-communist, pro-christian, and to criticize west when he is wrong. In fact, since believers believe that words have meaning, they should be the ones leading the charge on holding West accountable.
His oath of office was to uphold and defend the constitution. It was not to keep civil order at the expense of the bill of rights.
The patriot act is against civil liberties and may one day be used to classify bible-believing Christians as terrorists. Once that is done, there will be no recourse, no accountability, no questions asked. Just raw power in the hands of the state with no protection for the citizens who dare to believe the politicially incorrect bible.
""West is a huge proponent of the warfare state. According to his congressional website, he favors increasing the size of the military and sees threats to the United States all over the world"
Uhhhhh….Yeeeahhhh and THANK GOD!! "
Wow, not sure even where to start. How about this. The constitution authorizes national defense. Our military spending is greater than the rest of the world combined. Who exactly are we defending against? Aliens? No, that kind of spending is "national offense" which is unauthorized and which the founders and many presidents warned us against standing armies.
Stop with the kool-aid. read the constitution and think for yourself.
I love to see the Bushahideens out in full force defending Wilsonian progressivism and Jacobin antics. The Tea Party will die faster than the Donner party.
It was inevitable that the establishment Republicans would infiltrate and take over the Tea Party. I am one who started out as a traditional conservative Republican, got involved with the Tea Party, and still will work with them when they support less government and more freedom. My journey of discovery began with the Tea Party, but hasn't ended yet. The more I read the more I find that I am a libertarian at heart. I attended CPAC ( and voted for Ron Paul in the straw poll). I heard Alan West speak, but left before it ended. When he touted $100 billion in cuts out of trillions in spending as something to be proud of, I had heard enough. There is nothing "Tea Party" about him. He just used us to get to a position of power, and will wield that power to continue to usurp our rights and our money. It really saddens me to read all these people who seem to have fallen victim to his fear mongering to justify shredding our freedoms at home and spilling our blood and treasure abroad. Maybe they will wake up one day, I know I did.
It's either duplicitous or ignorant to say that Allen West supports all wars. He is very skeptical of the current U.S. actions in Libya, due to: (1) the lack of a clear mission (he cites our disastrous experiences in Lebanon, Kosovo and Somalia as examples of what happens when the mission and strategy are undefined); (2) the vacillation and ill timing of Obama, which has undermined us before we even begin; and (3) serious concerns regarding the rebels and who their backers might be (there's already evidence of al-Qaeda involvement). There are probably other reasons too; those are the ones I remember him talking about.
West voted AGAINST the second engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. He's said many times that we can be responsible and effective in terms of both national security AND fiscal responsibility by being smart about defense spending, putting resources into what works and axing what's wasteful. Makes sense to me.
As for Afghanistan, do yourself a favor and watch this excellent speech he gave in 2009 about what works and what doesn't in that country. http://westforwestwing2012.com/2010/11/22/is-afgh…
He is an extremely astute military thinker. You will be amazed. And you will see that he is vehemently opposed to the "nation-building" strategy of GWBush.
I don't have the time to rebut all the other things I disagree with in your article — but I had to at least try to correct your errors regarding Allen West's statements and actions in the area of national defense.
Mr. Allen West is a far right wing authoritarian and an ethnocentric-ultranationalist. He wants to "cut government" so he can expand the military and invade more islamic countries using our tax dollars. He rallies hate against muslims and claims we are at war with a "totalitarian theocratic ideology which celebrates death rather than celebrating life". Oh wait, that describes fundamentalist Christianity as well. Ever read the old testament? He has stated that islamic extremism is sedition. Sedition laws have been considered unconstitutional and immoral by the supreme court for over 60 years. Apparently he's not a constitutional scholar, since he obviously hasn't read the first amendment or the supreme court rulings on the teaching of extremist ideologies. He also claims the preamble to the constitution states that "providing for the common defense" is the "primary mission of our government". Again, apparently he can't read. Dude is a hardcore extremist himself. He has claimed that his supporters can't be racist because he's black. Yea…
Either this article was written by socialist liberals badmouthing West as a inappropriately vetted conservative or he is one. It is up to West to show who he is…otherwise who are we to believe?
Wow, all the people here that claim they know the constitution, and " stand for the constitution" are blind to the fact that this country has been operating outside the constitution for decades. Allen West talks of returning to "first principles" and Constitutionally limited Government. I am a Tea Party member, and I am not a BUSH FAN. This article is a hit piece pure and simple. It paints with a broad brush, it attempts to paint most tea party folks as "statists" as well as Allen West. It would be great if the article had some FACTS to back it up, but ad hominem attacks are rarely FACT DRIVEN. I think the tenth amendment center would be better served looking at the unconstitutional mess our government and court systems are, and look for ways to challenge acts that are unconstitutional, and file suits.
Attacking a man with a record of upholding and defending the constitution is really lame. It almost seems like this place may be run by liberals, or Ron Paul nuts.
And remember, the mountain is high, there are violations all over the place, maybe working on those things instead of demagoging and engaging in smear tactics would be a better use of energy and resources. But its your show, that is my 2 cents
So all you West supporters here who are also for returning to constitutionally sound government agree on returning power to the states that is guaranteed in the constitution? Or are you all still making excuses as to why it's ok for the government to infringe on our rights to Liberty because those limits fall in line with your moral narratives? You're ready to let states decide on marijuana legislation? You're ready to let states decide who can marry whom? You're ready to let states decide what's best for their education systems? You're ready to repeal the patriot act which directly violates the rights of every citizen of every state? You're ready to allow states to enact whatever healthcare formats their citizens deem necessary withing the confines of their own jurisdiction? You're ready to allow states the Constitutionally protected rights states have as sovereign entities to pursue daily governance without the impediment of centralized government? No. No you are not. Therefore you are statists, just like Allen West.
Vance complains that West requested an earmark. Ron Paul is huge on earmarks and has always been a pork barrel spender in Congress. But, I guess that would never be mentioned because libertarian groups like this put a halo around Paul and never criticize, Instead they provide weak justifications. When you agree 100% with someone on everything, than youhave a personality cult on your hands. Think for yourselves.
Well, it appears Mr. West has most recently changed his mind on the unPatriot Act recently with his "no" vote. This is good…I plan to ask him this coming weekend as he's speaking at the NC GOP state convention
I was very glad to see that change of vote!
No, it’s ok to ignore the constitution as long as it is YOUR Party’s guy, doing the dissing. This is why Lee paint’s himself in a corner . I have never been “100%” behind ANY Politician and anyone that finds they agree with everything a Politician says, just told you, they are so infatuated with the guy, it clouds their objectivity . You can’t take people like Lee serious and Allen West would agree with me because I just asked him when he went to the Kitchen to get a beer. LEE! Allen say’s he ain’t your type and he ain’t perfect either so you better not be stalking him, he said. HA HA
Wrong. Ron paul NEVER voted for a spending bill. Now after they passed anyway he did get money for his district. I do not agree with Ron Paul on everything he says but at least I have the balls to tell the truth or to be as well informed as possible.
When you statist have a uninformed idea you always run to cut up Ron Paul. Ron paul is out of the discussion. He is retired and at home. So now you have to defend your statist posistion with facts.