Amash explains his vote on HR 4133

[Son of Detroit]

As others have said, no one is perfect. Our Founding Fathers were flawed in many ways, and some of their actions and beliefs may be considered as "statist" by many posters here. But you know what, I would give my left leg to have a current congress full of George Washingtons, Thomas Jeffersons, and James Madisons despite their flaws.

I look at a candidate's overall outlook on government. Amash has repeatedly voted for a small government, and his rhetoric matches his votes. Will he have a couple of votes or positions I may not agree with? Of course. I disagree with Ron Paul on a few issues as well. In the big picture, however, Justin is one of a few people in Washington fighting for liberty and it would be a mistake to try to run him out of town like many people seem to be doing.

[specsaregood]

Meanwhile, the Law of the Sea Treaty is going to come up for another try at ratification, very soon, and the all powerful "freedom fighters" on RPFs don't seem to give a damn.

There are 2 threads about this asking for people to call their senators. This treaty, if ratified, will hand complete control of our seas over to the UN.

For the lazy:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...law+sea+treaty

[Mini-Me]

Yeah, I know. I am always torn when these little quarrels come up: I love it that many of us are so steadfast that we will absolutely, positively, 100% never waver an inch from our principles and hold everyone else to them too...but I hate it that so many of us are so quick to crucify anyone who does stray from perfection for even a second.

People are complicated, and they make mistakes, and they do stupid things, and they rationalize them with stupid reasons. It happens. Some people are even mostly principled but occasionally utilitarian. It happens.

I really wish more of us would show more restraint and patience in the way we expressed disappointment, instead of viciously denouncing allies on the front lines for their occasional transgressions and telling them that they've lost a supporter. Principled libertarianism - taken as far as voluntaryism - relies on concrete moral principles, but we need to remember that these principles are an ideal that we strive toward and hold each other to, not a "fail once, die in a fire" trial, where every day is judgment day.

When we take the judgment and condemnation too far, we're not acting like reasonable, empathetic libertarians. Instead, what we're really acting like is "a woman scorned," except the nerd rage version thereof. Worse, I could say we act like emo teens with borderline personality disorder, who see everything in black and white and put people on a pedestal...until they slip up, after which point we drag them through the dirt for daring to shatter our worlds around us.

The NAP is so easy to interpret and leaves so little room for equivocation on most issues that it's very easy for principled libertarians to fall into this kind of strict judgmental attitude, but it's really unhealthy and destructive to eagerly condemn people who are clearly doing their best for individual liberty, despite their occasional missteps. I think we'd be better off if we just did our best to follow the NAP and gently guide others to do the same, and pick each other up when one of us stumbles instead of using it as an excuse to write them off or distance ourselves as morally superior. We need to start remembering who our actual enemies are, and tear into them as badly as we tear into each other.

We always eat each other alive whenever this stuff happens, and I understand the frustrations on both sides of the argument, but I really wish we would all just take a chill pill and remember that we're still brothers and sisters in arms...or in keyboards...or whatever.

[mac_hine]

Statement on US-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act of 2012

Statement on H.R.4133 -- United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act of 2012

Rep. Ron Paul, M.D.

May 9, 2012

Mr. Speaker: I rise in opposition to HR 4133, the United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act, which unfortunately is another piece of one-sided and counter-productive foreign policy legislation. This bill's real intent seems to be more saber-rattling against Iran and Syria, and it undermines US diplomatic efforts by making clear that the US is not an honest broker seeking peace for the Middle East.

The bill calls for the United States to significantly increase our provision of sophisticated weaponry to Israel, and states that it is to be US policy to "help Israel preserve its qualitative military edge" in the region.

While I absolutely believe that Israel – and any other nation -- should be free to determine for itself what is necessary for its national security, I do not believe that those decisions should be underwritten by US taxpayers and backed up by the US military.

This bill states that it is the policy of the United States to "reaffirm the enduring commitment of the United States to the security of the State of Israel as a Jewish state." However, according to our Constitution the policy of the United States government should be to protect the security of the United States, not to guarantee the religious, ethnic, or cultural composition of a foreign country. In fact, our own Constitution prohibits the establishment of any particular religion in the US.

More than 20 years after the reason for NATO's existence – the Warsaw Pact – has disappeared, this legislation seeks to find a new mission for that anachronistic alliance: the defense of Israel. Calling for "an expanded role for Israel within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), including an enhanced presence at NATO headquarters and exercises," it reads like a dream for interventionists and the military industrial complex. As I have said many times, NATO should be disbanded not expanded.

This bill will not help the United States, it will not help Israel, and it will not help the Middle East. It will implicitly authorize much more US interventionism in the region at a time when we cannot afford the foreign commitments we already have. It more likely will lead to war against Syria, Iran, or both. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

[S.Shorland]

Well your country can't have been against alliances per se as you accepted french help to kick us out.I was just wondering if he subscribed to 'the war on terror' as this would give some explanation.Also,I was unaware that he had arab ancestry but that then begs the question,is he afraid of the israeli lobby.It's outrageous that he was called a terrorist but if the israeli lobby has their eye on him,it's still important for him to vote his conscience.Only he knows whether he did and if he didn't,do better next time.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

Well your country can't have been against alliances per se as you accepted french help to kick us out.I was just wondering if he subscribed to 'the war on terror' as this would give some explanation.Also,I was unaware that he had arab ancestry but that then begs the question,is he afraid of the israeli lobby.It's outrageous that he was called a terrorist but if the israeli lobby has their eye on him,it's still important for him to vote his conscience.Only he knows whether he did and if he didn't,do better next time.

Actually, He is of Syrian and......Palestinian descent.

[TheTexan]

I guess he knows he made a mistake.

If he admits it.. he would earn about 1000 respect points in my book.

[RPforPrez.]

If he admits it.. he would earn about 1000 respect points in my book.

And then people would find a reason to complain about him not being as consistent as Ron in his beliefs.

[TheTexan]

And then people would find a reason to complain about him not being as consistent as Ron in his beliefs.

I don't think that's true. This has been a learning process for all of us. It's ok to make mistakes, as long as you recognize the mistake and learn from it.

[Spoa]

What if he doesn't believe he made a mistake? Should he come out and lie and say that he made a mistake, even if he doesn't really think he did?

[TheTexan]

What if he doesn't believe he made a mistake?

Then hopefully people keep (respectfully) hounding him about it. It was a mistake... about 5 or 6 different mistakes, really. The most important IMO is the "not yours to give" argument. Has he addressed that at all?

Should he come out and lie and say that he made a mistake, even if he doesn't really think he did?

Of course not

[KingNothing]

Amash has already done enough to win my respect, admiration and faith.

If he votes for something, I'm POSITIVE that he has real, logical, Constitutional reasons to do so.

[Mini-Me]

What if he doesn't believe he made a mistake? Should he come out and lie and say that he made a mistake, even if he doesn't really think he did?

In that case, he will have made three mistakes:

• His vote
• Failing to recognize his vote was a mistake
• Lying about it being a mistake, when it really was, and he just doesn't realize it

Some states have three strikes laws, too...

Now that I realize Amash's ancestry is both Syrian and Palestinian, his vote is making more sense to me as a self-preservation measure. I would have voted differently regardless, even in his situation (stubborn like that), but I can empathize: Everyone knows the Israel/Palestine relationship, and Ron Paul warned of this particular bill's impact on Syrian relations...I get the feeling Amash knows he made a bad vote, but he felt he had no choice and is unable to declare his true motivations this time for obvious reasons. In this particular case, I have a hard time blaming him: With that particular ancestry, voting against the bill might have created the perfect storm neocons needed to brand him an anti-American/anti-Israeli terrorist, and successfully primary him. I suspect he felt he had to vote for this bill - when he knew voting against it wouldn't keep it from passing - simply to ensure he didn't give them that kind of ammunition, so he could be around to make good votes in the future. "Live to fight another day," basically. I could be wrong of course, but Amash always struck me as someone who understands principles well, which is why this vote came as such a shock to everyone in the first place.

[RPforPrez.]

Then hopefully people keep (respectfully) hounding him about it. It was a mistake... about 5 or 6 different mistakes, really. The most important IMO is the "not yours to give" argument. Has he addressed that at all?



Of course not

I think thats the whole point though. People arent being respectful about it.

[TheTexan]

he has real, logical, Constitutional reasons

That may be enough for you, but not enough for me. Decisions should be driven by an underlying set of principles, and not by a piece of paper. It just happens that this piece of paper is mostly consistent with those principles.

[Brett85]

I'm neither fond of the utilitarian folks, or the relativistic folks. My answer to you is: So? Why does it matter how many people voted on the bill? What this means to me is that there are only a handful of principled folks in DC. Go along to get along is about as self-defeating and idiotic as it can get. I imagine you have no problem with Amash voting purely on the basis of who has the majority. Some principles. That's ok, you are an anomaly on this site, so I don't have to worry about it too much.

I probably would've voted against the bill and would've been prepared to take the heat for it. But, I'm just not going to criticize Justin for voting in favor of a minor bill that had a lopsided vote. We have much bigger fish to fry.

[KingNothing]

That may be enough for you, but not enough for me. Decisions should be driven by an underlying set of principles, and not by a piece of paper. It just happens that this piece of paper is mostly consistent with those principles.

Dude, if Amash isn't good enough for us we're never -and I mean never- going to win anything meaningful.

[TheTexan]

Dude, if Amash isn't good enough for us we're never -and I mean never- going to win anything meaningful.

We're not going to win a meaningful election?

There is no such thing as a meaningful election.

[wrestlingwes_8]

Amash considers resigning over heat from pro-Israel vote...this was posted on his FB page but he deleted it...I saw it on the comment from a fan who got a Facebook e-mail notification about it

"Justin Amash also commented on their status update.
Justin Amash wrote: "The responses here have led me to reconsider whether there's a place for me in Congress. Many of you have made clear that you could do without me. I poured my heart and soul into protecting persons from indefinite detention without due process under the NDAA, with ZERO Republican help (I'm not talking about votes or statements--I'm talking real work to convince the public and my colleagues). I was called a terrorist by people on the Armed Services Committee. I was slandered at every turn. I stood practically alone against the war in Libya. I led the charge against H R 347. I'm one of the only Reps in either party who has voted multiple times AGAINST bills that AIPAC was pushing. And I'm the first congressman in history to explain EVERY vote I take--that's the only reason most of you are even here. But it's apparent that very little of that matters because we have a disagreement on one nearly inconsequential bill. I am genuinely contemplating . . ."
Reply to this email to comment on this status. "

What a baby.."Oh poor me, my supporters are ridiculing me because I made a very bad decision." Seriously, grow up, admit you are wrong and promise never to vote for an unconstitutional bill again.

Every day it becomes more and more apparent that Ron Paul is indeed a rarity.

[Kluge]

We're not going to win a meaningful election?

There is no such thing as a meaningful election.

Then why are you complaining, and why are you supporting Ron Paul for president?

[TheTexan]

Then why are you complaining, and why are you supporting Ron Paul for president?

A government is only a representation of its people. Winning elections does not change how people think. Campaigns, on the other hand, certainly can.

Which is why I still support Ron Paul's run, and why I continue to donate to liberty minded candidates. This is also why I'll generally hold candidates to a higher standard than most.

[Kluge]

A government is only a representation of its people. Winning elections does not change how people think. Campaigns, on the other hand, certainly can.

Which is why I still support Ron Paul's run, and why I continue to donate to liberty minded candidates. This is also why I'll generally hold candidates to a higher standard than most.

So you'll donate to Ron Paul and.....................nobody. And trust me, your standards are hardly higher than mine, nice try at being condescending though.

[TheTexan]

So you'll donate to Ron Paul and.....................nobody. And trust me, your standards are hardly higher than mine, nice try at being condescending though.

oh?

Donation $50.00 1 $50.00

Additional Comments For liberty!

[Brett85]

Seriously, grow up, admit you are wrong and promise never to vote for an unconstitutional bill again.

What exactly makes this bill unconstitutional? A bill can be bad without being unconstitutional.

[Kluge]

oh?

You donated to anonymous?

[TheTexan]

You donated to anonymous?

If you follow the little blue arrow in the quote you'd see it's in the kwiatkowski forum

[Kregisen]

It's time for people to come together and support Amash. He obviously got the flack of the Ron Paul community for the vote, but now it's time to encourage him to go out there and continue his history of 99% good voting. Attacking him so much over one thing considering EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN FEDERAL OFFICE besides Ron Paul is much worse, is just flat out stupid. So if any of you are still attacking him on his facebook for it, it's time to knock it off.


Thanks.

[Danke]

In that case, he will have made three mistakes:

• His vote
• Failing to recognize his vote was a mistake
• Lying about it being a mistake, when it really was, and he just doesn't realize it

Some states have three strikes laws, too...

Now that I realize Amash's ancestry is both Syrian and Palestinian, his vote is making more sense to me as a self-preservation measure. I would have voted differently regardless, even in his situation (stubborn like that), but I can empathize: Everyone knows the Israel/Palestine relationship, and Ron Paul warned of this particular bill's impact on Syrian relations...I get the feeling Amash knows he made a bad vote, but he felt he had no choice and is unable to declare his true motivations this time for obvious reasons. In this particular case, I have a hard time blaming him: With that particular ancestry, voting against the bill might have created the perfect storm neocons needed to brand him an anti-American/anti-Israeli terrorist, and successfully primary him. I suspect he felt he had to vote for this bill - when he knew voting against it wouldn't keep it from passing - simply to ensure he didn't give them that kind of ammunition, so he could be around to make good votes in the future. "Live to fight another day," basically. I could be wrong of course, but Amash always struck me as someone who understands principles well, which is why this vote came as such a shock to everyone in the first place.

Then how about have prior engagements or abstain?

[Kluge]

If you follow the little blue arrow in the quote you'd see it's in the kwiatkowski forum

Ah. So how's her voting record so far on NDAA, CISPA, Patriot Act, etc?

[TheTexan]

Ah. So how's her voting record so far on NDAA, CISPA, Patriot Act, etc?

Perfect