Bentivolio Votes AYE for NDAA!!!

[EBounding]

Someone please tell me if I'm misunderstanding something....

He voted for the Smith-Gibson amendment (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll228.xml) but then he backed down and voted for the NDAA!!!

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll244.xml


"A fool and his money are soon parted"

That's me. I'm a fool for donating and supporting this guy. Just making this thread as a reminder to myself.

Bentivolio's explnation: https://www.facebook.com/repkerryb/posts/378659748904653

[cajuncocoa]

*whistles*

[TaftFan]

Not really a bad vote. It didn't have indefinite detention in it.

[sailingaway]

THIS NDAA supposedly has an amendment to limit executive power. I haven't read it so I don't know if it actually increases it by implication, but I would look into that.

[John F Kennedy III]

Apparently it's fine to vote for the final bill since it didn't contain indefinite detention. I don't understand that reasoning, but it's likely the defense you'll get.

[sailingaway]

Apparently it's fine to vote for the final bill since it didn't contain indefinite detention. I don't understand that reasoning, but it's likely the defense you'll get.

All of these contain plenty of bad things to vote against. However, I heard this one has something Obama has threatened to veto, which would limit (or clarify limitation) of executive power, so I'm holding off my conclusions until I find out more about this.

[John F Kennedy III]

Not really a bad vote. It didn't have indefinite detention in it.

I need to look at this bill. It can't possibly be anywhere near tyranny free.

[John F Kennedy III]

All of these contain plenty of bad things to vote against. However, I heard this one has something Obama has threatened to veto, which would limit (or clarify limitation) of executive power, so I'm holding off my conclusions until I find out more about this.

I'm doing the same.

[muh_roads]

So this is essentially a vote for a weaker NDAA than what we had before?

She's learning from Rand how to play "Trojan horse" ball.

[Brian4Liberty]

FYI, the GOP members that voted against:


Here's the final vote. These are the GOP members who voted "NAY", either through dedication to limited government, or they were given permission by party leadership.

Voted No on final passage:
--------------------------
Amash
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Gibson
Gohmert
Gosar
Griffith (VA)
Labrador
Lummis
Massie
McClintock
Mulvaney
Radel
Rohrabacher
Salmon
Schweikert
Stockman
Yoho

Not voting:
-----------
Bachmann
Campbell
Poe (TX)

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll244.xml

[Antischism]

Given that Massie and Amash voted 'No," I'm not giving Bentivolio the benefit of the doubt here.

[Brian4Liberty]

To save retyping, here's my .20 from another thread. Most are responses, other thread has the details.


There is obviously something wrong with a system where so many in Congress feel it is necessary to vote for an imperfect bill. Congress should vote no just because the bill is too big. The system is being rigged. They create huge, omnibus bills, wait till the last minute, and claim the world will end if it is not passed. This is the definition of a rigged game. Voting yes under these circumstances is complicit to the scam.


Absolutely there are many reasons! (To vote against final passage)

I might want to add protections against indefinite detention, instead of leaving ambiguity. I would want to break it down, so that it's not a huge bill. These huge bills are nothing more than a trick to constantly expand government. If it's an important issue, it can be voted on separately. I would not be funding wars of aggression, policing the world, or military aid for other countries.



I would also vote against them. (All NDAAs as currently written)

The thing about collective "national defense", is that we aren't doing the basics. The most basic and simple purpose of a shared defense is to prevent invasion. This is natural. Even in an anarchist Utopia, people would band together for self-defense from greater forces. How big should that defensive perimeter be? Obviously, it has always included all of the States, united in mutual self-defense.

Instead, we have a government that encourages (unarmed) invasion. Let's bring a million refuges from Syria. And as many cheap laborers as possible. A "national defense" that does not address the most basic and fundamental national defense issue is a fraud. Building a jet that can bomb China is meaningless if a million Chinese can move to America and fundamentally transform our neighborhoods, cities, States, and nation.

[Warlord]

Voting FOR an NDAA is hardly a sin. Not many of them will vote NO to every bill or every pet bill of yours. The big votes are the debt ceiling, budget etc. and you need to examine their records after at least 12 months to get an accurate picture (and pay attention to the scorecards)

[Warlord]

>I would also vote against them. (All NDAAs as currently written)

Yes but each congressman faces their own circumstances and trade off's with leadership. Kerry is voting with the party here and that gives him a few brownie points to avoid Boehner's wrath. Kerry did not win a primary and he's an accidental congressman. This makes it hard for him to be principled so i'd expect him to have a lot of terrible votes. He is not and never has been one of us. I dont know how he got a forum here but dont expect much from him... maybe he'll make it in the top 15 if you're lucky.

[EBounding]

Here's his explanation (https://www.facebook.com/repkerryb/posts/378659748904653)


By passing the National Defense Authorization Act, I voted to keep America safe while also maintaining our personal liberties under the Constitution. Last night, I voted for the Goodlatte Amendment (Amendment 11) and the Radel-Amash-Massie-Salmon Amendment (Amendment 12) to the National Defense Authorization Act. Both amendments passed, strengthening civil liberties in the bill, allowing me to vote ‘yes’ on the final passage. This is exactly how we should be governing. Last night proved that you can protect people’s rights while also promoting the defense of this nation.

Here is a summary of the amendments:

Goodlatte (R–VA) Amendment No. 11 – Requires the government, in habeas proceedings for United States citizens apprehended in the United States pursuant to the AUMF, to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the citizen is an unprivileged enemy combatant and there is not presumption that the government's evidence is accurate and authentic.

Radel (R-FL), Amash (R-MI), Massie (R-KY), Salmon (R-AZ) Amendment No. 12 - Requires the Department of Defense to submit to the Congress a report every year containing: (1) the names of any U.S. citizens subject to military detention, (2) the legal justification for their continued detention, and (3) the steps the Executive Branch is taking to either provide them some judicial process, or release them. Requires that an unclassified version of the report be made available, and in addition, that the report must be made available to all members of Congress.


SMH

What's a report going to do, especially when the "legal justification" is the problem to begin with? Any thoughts?

[Warlord]

Here's his explanation (https://www.facebook.com/repkerryb/posts/378659748904653)



SMH

What's a report going to do, especially when the "legal justification" is the problem to begin with? Any thoughts?

My thoughts are Kerry will be an average congressman... maybe in the top 20 if you're lucky. Dont get your hopes up with him. Most of congress is hopelessly lost.

[Brett85]

In my opinion, the final vote on the NDAA isn't as important as some of the votes on amendments, and Bentivilio made a few bad votes on those as well. He voted against striking the Syria language from the bill, which essentially called for a lot more intervention in Syria.

[Warlord]

We seem to have a somewhat viable prospect from Mich. who is posting on the forum:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?417220-Candice-Miller-%28Republican%29-10th-District-MI-%28RINO-Neocon%29-Voting-Record

Josh/Bryan need to look into that and consider giving him a forum. If we can get one or two more Amash/Massie's in there that's a win. However there's still about 425 losers. Congress will always be corrupt until America is bankrupt and they're forced to start fixing stuff.

[TaftFan]

Some Congressmen have a hard time explaining to their constituents why they voted to defund the troops without ending the conflict. Frankly, that is something I am not comfortable with.

[Michigan11]

Well. I'm done with Bentivolio as the Original Poster is here, and we win some we lose some as they say. Luckily most are wins. This is a learning experience, and Kerry hasn't been as bad as most house members. So it is what it is. But yeah I'm going to have to recalculate where my funds head in the future.

I think we should all be giving to Ben Swann to be honest for now.

[sailingaway]

Here's his explanation (https://www.facebook.com/repkerryb/posts/378659748904653)



SMH

What's a report going to do, especially when the "legal justification" is the problem to begin with? Any thoughts?

My thought is that Ron's way, which Amash and Thomas are following, is the way to go. Vote to amend a bill to make it better but vote against it if it is bad. If it had something earthshaking in protecting the Constitution in it, I might forgo condemnation, as with Rand's vote on NDAA 2013 when he was under the impression there was something ending indefinite detention for citizens in the bill. (I think he was relying on Lee's analysis, which I believe relied on a tea party House analysis which was absolutely incorrect, but I believe Rand BELIEVED the amendment did that.)

However a report is not earth shaking, so I absolutely agree with Amash and Thomas's votes.

[sailingaway]

Well. I'm done with Bentivolio as the Original Poster is here, and we win some we lose some as they say. Luckily most are wins. This is a learning experience, and Kerry hasn't been as bad as most house members. So it is what it is. But yeah I'm going to have to recalculate where my funds head in the future.

I think we should all be giving to Ben Swann to be honest for now.

Honestly, he may just be an idiot, but the result is the same.

[sailingaway]

>I would also vote against them. (All NDAAs as currently written)

Yes but each congressman faces their own circumstances and trade off's with leadership. Kerry is voting with the party here and that gives him a few brownie points to avoid Boehner's wrath. Kerry did not win a primary and he's an accidental congressman. This makes it hard for him to be principled so i'd expect him to have a lot of terrible votes. He is not and never has been one of us. I dont know how he got a forum here but dont expect much from him... maybe he'll make it in the top 15 if you're lucky.

He was a delegate for Ron at some stage of in the primary process, as I understand it, and was thought to be one of us. He espoused our issues.

Lack of record makes it a bit of a crap shoot.

[EBounding]

In my opinion, the final vote on the NDAA isn't as important as some of the votes on amendments, and Bentivilio made a few bad votes on those as well. He voted against striking the Syria language from the bill, which essentially called for a lot more intervention in Syria.

That's a good point. He basically voted for this:


SEC. 1205. AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT ACTIVITIES TO ENHANCE THE CAPABILITY OF CERTAIN FOREIGN COUNTRIES TO RESPOND TO INCIDENTS INVOLVING WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN SYRIA AND THE REGION.

(a) Authority- The Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, may provide assistance to the military and civilian response organizations of Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Iraq, Turkey, and other countries in the region of Syria in order for such countries to respond effectively to incidents involving weapons of mass destruction in Syria and the region.

(b) Authorized Elements- Assistance provided under this section may include training, equipment, and supplies.

(c) Availability of Funds for Activities Across Fiscal Years- The Secretary of Defense may use up to $4,000,000 of the funds made available to the Department of Defense for operation and maintenance for a fiscal year to carry out the program authorized in subsection (a) and may provide assistance under such program that begins in that fiscal year but ends in the next fiscal year.

[Warlord]

He was a delegate for Ron at some stage of in the primary process, as I understand it, and was thought to be one of us. He espoused our issues.

Lack of record makes it a bit of a crap shoot.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?417220-Candice-Miller-%28Republican%29-10th-District-MI-%28RINO-Neocon%29-Voting-Record

this guy looks more interesting and is posting here.

[sailingaway]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?417220-Candice-Miller-%28Republican%29-10th-District-MI-%28RINO-Neocon%29-Voting-Record

this guy looks more interesting and is posting here.

don't know him, although I saw him post. I'll have to look into him.

[jkr]

http://www.theweddingfeasts.com/hp_wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Crown-Yeshua.jpg

[John F Kennedy III]

To save retyping, here's my .20 from another thread. Most are responses, other thread has the details.

Great posts bro. And thus it should have been a chorus of 435 NAYS!

[Anti Federalist]

Last night proved that you can protect people’s rights while also promoting the defense of this nation.

LOL

[John F Kennedy III]

Here's his explanation (https://www.facebook.com/repkerryb/posts/378659748904653)



SMH

What's a report going to do, especially when the "legal justification" is the problem to begin with? Any thoughts?

The first sentence contained two false statements. NDAA does not keep us safe or maintain our personal liberties.

[John F Kennedy III]

My thought is that Ron's way, which Amash and Thomas are following, is the way to go. Vote to amend a bill to make it better but vote against it if it is bad. If it had something earthshaking in protecting the Constitution in it, I might forgo condemnation, as with Rand's vote on NDAA 2013 when he was under the impression there was something ending indefinite detention for citizens in the bill. (I think he was relying on Lee's analysis, which I believe relied on a tea party House analysis which was absolutely incorrect, but I believe Rand BELIEVED the amendment did that.)

However a report is not earth shaking, so I absolutely agree with Amash and Thomas's votes.


Amen SA :)

[John F Kennedy III]

LOL

Right? Kerry is just another we need to vote out.

[PatrickHenry1]

Right? Kerry is just another we need to vote out.

Agreed.

1) Bentivolio voted to raise the debt ceiling.
2) He co-sponsored the Full Faith and Credit Act and;
3) Voted for the NDAA despite the fact that the amendments that reject indefinite detention failed.

I've been done with him ever since he voted to raise the debt ceiling and those are the only three votes of his that I've really paid attention to. I'm sure there are plenty of others that are disgraceful.

[Cowlesy]

I won't be surprised if Bentivolio ends up on Kevin McCarthy's Whip Team at some point. What a water carrier for Boehner.