# Liberty Movement > Defenders of Liberty > Justin Amash Forum >  Amash Votes No On PATRIOT Act Renewal

## Zatch

http://www.facebook.com/repjustinama...86234158074572

*sigh*...a reminder of why Glenn Beck sucks:




> OK..Now what and how are you going to help defend this country? The muslim brotherhood and the many groups that are out there are still hell bent on hurting us! You just can't vote NO on everything and think you are doing a good job!


Same commenter: 




> Islamic flood coming to U.S.?
> 
> Israel National News recently reported that the Obama administration has decided to allow Islamic professor Tariq Ramadan to enter the United States. Ramadan, an Egyptian who currently lives in Switzerland, is a...... leading member of Europe's Muslim Brotherhood branch and is the grandson of the movement's founder. He was invited to teach at the University of Notre Dame in 2004, but the Bush administration revoked his visa because of donations he made to a blacklisted charity.
> 
> However, the Obama administration has now decided to lift the ban and possibly allow Ramadan and Adam Habib, another Muslim professor, onto U.S. soil.
> 
> "I'm sure you've heard many times that Washington, DC, is now flooded with Muslims in very high positions in the U.S. administration, and these Muslims already control the gates," notes Avi Lipkin, an Israeli scholar and author who has traveled throughout the U.S. to warn Americans about the threat of Islam. "The floodgates are open. The Muslims are coming in in tremendous numbers into the U.S."
> 
> But he warns that the floodgates will only get worse when illegal aliens gain their amnesty.
> ...

----------


## rp08orbust

As did Walter Jones, John Duncan, Tom McClintock, and Dr. Paul Broun (the "Ron Paul from Georgia").

----------


## sailingaway

He voted against the motion to recommit which would have expedited Constitutional violation determinations, and voted for a streamlined procedure which  meant it couldn't be amended.

That is pretty poor for a so called Constitutionalist, if you ask me.

And a LOT of people have noticed it.  What is his reasoning on the motion to recommit?

----------


## Brett85

> He voted against the motion to recommit which would have expedited Constitutional violation determinations, and voted for a streamlined procedure which  meant it couldn't be amended.
> 
> That is pretty poor for a so called Constitutionalist, if you ask me.
> 
> And a LOT of people have noticed it.  What is his reasoning on the motion to recommit?


Republicans are expected to vote with their party on these meaningless, procedural votes.  The fact that people are bashing Justin when he voted TWICE against the actual bill is simply ridiculous.  Only two Republicans voted against the motion to recommit, while 27 voted against the actual bill.  People need to understand the customs and traditions of the house.

----------


## low preference guy

> He voted against the motion to recommit which would have expedited Constitutional violation determinations, and voted for a streamlined procedure which  meant it couldn't be amended.
> 
> That is pretty poor for a so called Constitutionalist, if you ask me.
> 
> And a LOT of people have noticed it.  What is his reasoning on the motion to recommit?


I agree. It feels like he was promised something in exchange.

----------


## malkusm

> Republicans are expected to vote with their party on these meaningless, procedural votes.  The fact that people are bashing Justin when he voted TWICE against the actual bill is simply ridiculous.  Only two Republicans voted against the motion to recommit, while 27 voted against the actual bill.  People need to understand the customs and traditions of the house.


Yeah, I don't know the details on whatever is being discussed here, but the fact that certain people on this forum said "Well, I don't know why you guys trusted him so much, he's just another politician" after his vote in favor of a roll call vote is pretty ridiculous. If I were in Congress, I'd be voting "YES" on most proposals to bring Bill X, Y or Z up for a vote because (1) It gets everyone on record supporting/opposing a bill, and (2) Voting is a time-consuming process, and if they are voting on reauthorizing existing laws, or voting on bills that are not as detrimental as other bills in the pipelines, then they are potentially stalling further damage from being done.

----------


## hazek

> People need to understand the customs and traditions of the house.


Because that is such a sure road to freedom and prosperity right?

----------


## Bergie Bergeron

If you have issues with him, go ask him on his Facebook page. He'll answer you.

----------


## rp08orbust

> People need to understand the customs and traditions of the house.


What would have been the harm in flaunting those "customs" along with Ron Paul and Walter Jones?

----------


## Brett85

> What would have been the harm in flaunting those "customs" along with Ron Paul and Walter Jones?


He probably would have lost a committee position or had something else taken away from him.  Ron and Walter Jones can vote that way since they've been there forever.  It's different for a freshman rep.

----------


## enrique

The risk (especially for a freshman congressman facing redistricting) on fighting procedural votes against his own leadership is foolish. Frankly, the votes to kill the Patriot Act aren't there right now in Congress. It's up to us to get more elected like those 27 Republicans to start reading the Constitution. Focusing our anger towards someone who voted against the act twice when there are hundreds of GOP congressman who claim to be conservative or Tea Partiers doesn't make sense. Besides, had the procedural vote failed then it would have only delayed the Act's passage by maybe a few weeks. Ultimately, we need more no votes and we don't have them right now.

----------


## economics102

Right on. Some people on these boards are making it sound like Amash is some kind of fake liberty candidate snake or something. We as a movement have a very small number of legitimate representatives in Congress. Mr. Amash is already going to be somewhat marginalized because of his views on civil liberties, the federal reserve, the wars, etc. If all we want is for Mr. Amash to vote as we would on every motion, even the less important ones, he'll go from "somewhat marginalized" to "full marginalized" and casting "nay" votes is the ONLY thing he'll get to do.

This is not helpful to us at this juncture. We need Amash to be someone who gets to make some viral video speeches on the House floor. We need him to spread the message. He shouldn't be willing to compromise his votes on passage of bills, and he's thus far shown that he won't. But to say he should do battle on every procedural vote, this is not in our best interest.

You could make a similar argument about Rand Paul. Rand could place holds on and filibuster every single bill he didn't like (which means, pretty much every bill ). The result would be his colleagues would do everything in their power to marginalize him. Instead, we see Rand is doing his best to get along -- while still always voting on principle -- and the result is that he has an opportunity for dialogue, for media exposure, and a chance to spread the message.

When Rand introduced his bill to cut FAA spending by $2 billion, all 46 of his Republican colleagues joined him in the vote. That's because they're actually listening to Rand, because he's trying to be reasonable instead of gum up the works entirely.

Ron Paul said in an interview once, in speaking of the House leadership, (this is from memory) "they know I won't change my vote, so they don't even bother asking, but if they're really in a bind, I might occasionally be persuaded to vote 'present' instead of 'nay'"

There's been no shortage of debates in these forums about the virtue or non-virtue of playing the political game a little bit. But the problem in Washington is not that procedural votes are for sale -- it's that the votes on the actual bills are for sale.

Botom line, as far as we can see, Amash is in our corner. This feels to me a lot like the way people expressed skepticism of Rand Paul during the campaign. It's great and understandable that we're very cynical and distrustful of politicians, but sometimes the approach needs to be "trust but verify." I'm sure we can all agree in hindsight that Rand Paul's performance so far in the Senate has been amazing.

I, for one, thank Justin Amash for his votes against the PATRIOT Act and for his other votes and speeches he's made since coming to the House. And I also thank him for all the relationships he's hopefully building in the House that may lead to future success for the liberty movement.

And remember: not everyone in the house is totally corrupt. Some of them simply don't agree with us on things! Having people like Ron Paul and Justin Amash there can eventually lead to others being persuaded that we're right on various issues. So just being a wrench in the gears is not necessarily what we want our liberty candidates to be!

----------


## sonofshamwow

Slow clap for two guys who get it.  (enrique and economics102).

----------


## lx43

> Right on. Some people on these boards are making it sound like Amash is some kind of fake liberty candidate snake or something. We as a movement have a very small number of legitimate representatives in Congress. Mr. Amash is already going to be somewhat marginalized because of his views on civil liberties, the federal reserve, the wars, etc. If all we want is for Mr. Amash to vote as we would on every motion, even the less important ones, he'll go from "somewhat marginalized" to "full marginalized" and casting "nay" votes is the ONLY thing he'll get to do.
> 
> This is not helpful to us at this juncture. We need Amash to be someone who gets to make some viral video speeches on the House floor. We need him to spread the message. He shouldn't be willing to compromise his votes on passage of bills, and he's thus far shown that he won't. But to say he should do battle on every procedural vote, this is not in our best interest.
> 
> You could make a similar argument about Rand Paul. Rand could place holds on and filibuster every single bill he didn't like (which means, pretty much every bill ). The result would be his colleagues would do everything in their power to marginalize him. Instead, we see Rand is doing his best to get along -- while still always voting on principle -- and the result is that he has an opportunity for dialogue, for media exposure, and a chance to spread the message.
> 
> When Rand introduced his bill to cut FAA spending by $2 billion, all 46 of his Republican colleagues joined him in the vote. That's because they're actually listening to Rand, because he's trying to be reasonable instead of gum up the works entirely.
> 
> Ron Paul said in an interview once, in speaking of the House leadership, (this is from memory) "they know I won't change my vote, so they don't even bother asking, but if they're really in a bind, I might occasionally be persuaded to vote 'present' instead of 'nay'"
> ...


I agree.  I don't see what the big deal is to vote in favor of a procedural vote to bring the main bill up for debate and voting.    The real meat of the vote is how he voted on the actual bill when its brought before the entire House.  Gudos for voting AGAINST the Patriot Act!!

----------

