PDA

View Full Version : Dave Brat Votes For NDAA 2016




jeffro97
05-15-2015, 08:14 PM
Today, the House apparently voted on the National Defense Authorization Act for 2016. HR 1735 (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr1735) has already passed out of the House, and is now moving onto the Senate. The vote (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/114-2015/h239) went 269 in favor, and 151 in opposition, with 12 not voting. There isn't much out, but this has a summary of what in it for 2016 (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/05/13/ndaa-cuts-military-personnel-slots-could-add-illegal-aliens-to-service-force/).

Moving back to Mr. Brat, here is what he had to say on his Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/davebratforcongress/photos/a.495946863848090.1073741828.485787344864042/743054275804013/?type=1&theater) page.



https://scontent-mia.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xat1/v/t1.0-9/10646828_743054275804013_7745545682988677916_n.jpg ?oh=44ff6cd9e9af0a7222f6f7d53806ed71&oe=56068D66

I voted with a majority in the House to pass the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which fulfills Congressís constitutional obligation to provide for the common defense.

The funding authorization:
--improves our missile defense capabilities, including authorizing money for the design of an East Coast missile defense site,
-- strengthens our cyber defenses by funding the U.S. Cyber Command and Military Service,
-- increases troop pay and benefits,
-- reinforces our mission to defeat ISIS by authorizing funds for security assistance to Iraqi forces,
-- provides aid to Ukraine to better defend itself against Russian aggression, and
--cuts waste and reallocates funds to more urgent priorities.

Congress is tasked with providing our troops with the resources they need, within the limitations that our national debt places on our ability to fund national defense. This year's NDAA funds our armed forces while complying with the balanced budget plan recently approved by the House and Senate.

At first glance through where I thought Sec. 1021 would be, it wasn't there, which was a bit of a shock. Maybe I have the wrong section. Maybe they actually took it out. Maybe they just moved it elsewhere. I'd like to say that it's alright for this to pass, but at this point, I'm honestly not sure. Also, if I messed up on what the vote actually was for, tell me. I'd really like for this to just be some sort of procedural thing.

ctiger2
05-15-2015, 08:42 PM
Looks like Brat is a BIG GOVERNMENT lover just like the rest of them...

Mr.NoSmile
05-15-2015, 09:35 PM
Of all the votes to single out...

Christian Liberty
05-15-2015, 09:39 PM
Just say you're "supporting the troops" and people will believe you. SMH

Sola_Fide
05-15-2015, 09:56 PM
Haha....Here's what happens when there is a "liberty candidate" that idiots out there think can change things, and he never gets questioned about the important things.

This is one of the reasons I will support Rand Paul. He understands these things. If Rand for some reason came out and went John Stossel on us and said the surveillance state is not important, I would denounce him and fight to make sure he never gets elected.

The Northbreather
05-15-2015, 10:26 PM
Haha....Here's what happens when there is a "liberty candidate" that idiots out there think can change things, and he never gets questioned about the important things.

This is one of the reasons I will support Rand Paul. He understands these things. If Rand for some reason came out and went John Stossel on us and said the surveillance state is not important, I would denounce him and fight to make sure he never gets elected.

do you mean ending the surveillance state is not important'

Spikender
05-15-2015, 10:37 PM
do you mean ending the surveillance state is not important'

I think he means that Rand Paul goes out and says "it's not important" as in we shouldn't worry about it.

Brian4Liberty
05-16-2015, 01:50 PM
I'd wager that Brat voted for it in exchange for removing the amnesty provisions.


Rep. Dave Brat (R-VA) is now testifying in favor of the Brooks amendment. Brat won his election in 2014 thanks in large part to now former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor backing the exact same policy — amnesty for DREAMers in the NDAA — and Brat said that the defense bill should not be the place for immigration matters.
...
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/05/13/live-updates-house-rules-committee-debates-defense-bill-putting-illegal-aliens-ahead-of-americans-in-us-military/

Voluntarist
05-16-2015, 02:38 PM
xxxxx

Sola_Fide
05-16-2015, 02:45 PM
do you mean ending the surveillance state is not important'

Yes.

Brett85
05-16-2015, 03:55 PM
I don't see the issue with this. Most libertarians believe that national defense is a necessary and Constitutional function of government. As far as I know there weren't any indefinite detention provisions in this NDAA.

Christian Liberty
05-16-2015, 08:43 PM
I don't see the issue with this. Most libertarians believe that national defense is a necessary and Constitutional function of government. As far as I know there weren't any indefinite detention provisions in this NDAA.

Yeah, but the thing is, these budgets aren't just for defense, and they're spending more money than any other country in the world by a factor of four [at least]. We could cut our military budget by 75% and still defend the country anyway. But the ultra-nationalist "support our troops" people don't want to hear this. People say they want to have more than we need "just in case", but the thing is, you are stealing from people to pay for that, and it ends up getting used for offensive wars. The US needs military cuts, and I really wish these politicians would vote "no" until then. I'm not sure if anything can be changed with politics or not. But, if you aren't willing to try, you shouldn't bother going into office.

Christian Liberty
05-16-2015, 08:43 PM
Got it: Removing amnesty turns "funding to fight ISIS in the Middle East" into pro-liberty legislation.

Why are we against amnesty anyway? Restricting immigration is statist and unbiblical.

Brett85
05-17-2015, 04:57 PM
Yeah, but the thing is, these budgets aren't just for defense, and they're spending more money than any other country in the world by a factor of four [at least]. We could cut our military budget by 75% and still defend the country anyway. But the ultra-nationalist "support our troops" people don't want to hear this. People say they want to have more than we need "just in case", but the thing is, you are stealing from people to pay for that, and it ends up getting used for offensive wars. The US needs military cuts, and I really wish these politicians would vote "no" until then. I'm not sure if anything can be changed with politics or not. But, if you aren't willing to try, you shouldn't bother going into office.

I would probably vote against these defense spending bills because of all of the war funding they contain, but I'm just saying I don't recall Brat ever claiming to be some kind of hardcore anti war person. So I don't see why people would be surprised.

Matt Collins
05-17-2015, 05:14 PM
Does the OP have a link one can pass around?

kcchiefs6465
05-17-2015, 05:36 PM
I don't see the issue with this. Most libertarians believe that national defense is a necessary and Constitutional function of government. As far as I know there weren't any indefinite detention provisions in this NDAA.
I would wager that one, he had not read and digested the bill and that two, buried some 30,000 words into the bill are some very bad things. Maybe by March, when the bill is actually examined and amended laws are looked at, we might find out which way we were fucked because of it.

Christian Liberty
05-17-2015, 06:56 PM
I would probably vote against these defense spending bills because of all of the war funding they contain, but I'm just saying I don't recall Brat ever claiming to be some kind of hardcore anti war person. So I don't see why people would be surprised.

We need more hardcore anti-war people.

Peace&Freedom
05-17-2015, 08:20 PM
Why are we against amnesty anyway? Restricting immigration is statist and unbiblical.

Amnesty does not restrict legal immigration, it simply ensures the RESPONSIBILITY for completing the existing immigration process stays with the individual. It is not the government's job to waive the lawful process, via amnesty, when the individual has made no effort to formally change the country of their allegiance.

Christian Liberty
05-17-2015, 08:58 PM
Amnesty does not restrict legal immigration, it simply ensures the RESPONSIBILITY for completing the existing immigration process stays with the individual. It is not the government's job to waive the lawful process, via amnesty, when the individual has made no effort to formally change the country of their allegiance.

Why does the government have the right to regulate who can cross the border? How is this pro-liberty in any way? What's the Biblical basis for this?

(And Sola_Fide, if you're still reading this thread, this is yet another example where I'm less "statist" than the average minarchist. But of course, in today's society, even for libertarians, the "right" to be a pervert matters way more.)

Brett85
05-17-2015, 09:27 PM
After reading what Ron wrote about this bill, it does sound pretty bad. I stand corrected. I'm a big supporter of a strong national defense, of legitimate defense, but they always add so many terrible things to these "defense" bills that have absolutely nothing to do with defense.

Peace&Freedom
05-17-2015, 10:58 PM
Why does the government have the right to regulate who can cross the border? How is this pro-liberty in any way? What's the Biblical basis for this?


Legitimate government has the power, delegated to it by the people, to protect their rights to life, liberty and property, but no legitimate powers beyond that minimum. So government has a proper defensive role with regards to its borders, as part of its delegated power to defend life, liberty and property. All people have rights, but a particular government's obligation to honor or protect those rights can be reasonably restricted to those persons or families who have voluntarily made themselves participants, or citizens, under that government though acts of allegiance, such as completing a naturalization or resident process. Biblically, this understanding is consistent with the structure of ancient Israel, where strangers were welcomed or tolerated, but not considered citizens under the covenant of Mosaic law.

A foreigner who is visiting the country is not a citizen, nor is a foreign worker with an expired visa a citizen, nor is an invading soldier a citizen, simply because he is physically 'here.' None have undertaken to switch allegiance to the country, so as to oblige the government to provide automatic access to its protections and resources. So there are victims in illegal immigration, namely the native allegiant citizens, who are expected to involuntarily support (through their delegated government) a population who has not entered into voluntary allegiance to that government. Their non-performance of the legal process makes them aliens and aggressors until they rectify the situation, every bit as much as people taking up residence on other people's property without entering into a lease agreement are not legal tenants, but trespassers.

jeffro97
05-18-2015, 09:36 PM
http://i.imgur.com/GQ59hFc.gif

Wow, I missed a lot on this thread. I leave for three days and I see all this. I posted my concerns, and got a lot more activity than what I thought would come back.

I will say I like Peace&Freedom's above post. Other than that, I honestly don't know what happened here, and how.

Christian Liberty
05-18-2015, 09:51 PM
Legitimate government has the power, delegated to it by the people, to protect their rights to life, liberty and property, but no legitimate powers beyond that minimum. So government has a proper defensive role with regards to its borders, as part of its delegated power to defend life, liberty and property. All people have rights, but a particular government's obligation to honor or protect those rights can be reasonably restricted to those persons or families who have voluntarily made themselves participants, or citizens, under that government though acts of allegiance, such as completing a naturalization or resident process. Biblically, this understanding is consistent with the structure of ancient Israel, where strangers were welcomed or tolerated, but not considered citizens under the covenant of Mosaic law.

A foreigner who is visiting the country is not a citizen, nor is a foreign worker with an expired visa a citizen, nor is an invading soldier a citizen, simply because he is physically 'here.' None have undertaken to switch allegiance to the country, so as to oblige the government to provide automatic access to its protections and resources. So there are victims in illegal immigration, namely the native allegiant citizens, who are expected to involuntarily support (through their delegated government) a population who has not entered into voluntary allegiance to that government. Their non-performance of the legal process makes them aliens and aggressors until they rectify the situation, every bit as much as people taking up residence on other people's property without entering into a lease agreement are not legal tenants, but trespassers.

I'm not talking about citizenship, only residency.

With that said, if I want to hire someone who lives in a foreign country, and he wants to work for me, there are no "victims" in that scenario. There is no wickedness going on that would fall under Romans 13. Such laws are senseless and not moral.

We aren't talking about invading soldiers here, obviously.

Peace&Freedom
05-19-2015, 06:34 AM
I'm not talking about citizenship, only residency.

With that said, if I want to hire someone who lives in a foreign country, and he wants to work for me, there are no "victims" in that scenario. There is no wickedness going on that would fall under Romans 13. Such laws are senseless and not moral.

We aren't talking about invading soldiers here, obviously.

Lack of permission creates victims, and in this case involves more than two parties. There's a difference between knocking on the door and asking for a cup of sugar, versus coming in uninvited and just taking it. Residency and work visa situations are different from full citizenship, yes, but even for those circumstances there is an existing procedure for obtaining that status, before enjoying the country's resources. You don't have residency unless you have the consent, which happens after completing the process. So the lawful framework is moral, as it protects the consent of the people.

It is the personal responsibility of those seeking those arrangements to complete that process to have that status, not the obligation of others to treat them as such regardless of whether or not they have done so. If you want to get across the street, walk across it. Don't expect others to carry you across the road because you won't walk, yet expect everyone to consider you a walker nonetheless.