# Liberty Movement > Defenders of Liberty > Justin Amash Forum >  Amash explains his vote on HR 4133

## tsai3904

http://www.facebook.com/repjustinama...97409766965102




> I voted "yes" on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H R 4133, United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act of 2012. The bill reaffirms the U.S.-Israel security relationship, supports the continued development of a joint missile defense system and the production of the Iron Dome defense system, pledges to assist Israel to "forge a peaceful, negotiated settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that results in two states living side by side in peace and security," and temporarily extends an existing line of credit to Israel's government, which may not be used for activities outside of the 1967 borders. (This is constitutional in connection with Congress's power to raise and support Armies.)
> 
> My father is Palestinian and my mother is Syrian. Israel is far from perfect. Some of its policies and actions violate deeply held American principles of liberty and justice. But Israel is our closest friend in a very troubled region. Our national defense benefits from Israel's ability to defend itself and to serve as a check against neighboring authoritarian regimes and extremists. Assisting with training and the development of Israel's military capacity allows the U.S. to take a less interventionist role in the region. I am hopeful that American troops soon can leave the region and Israel and its neighbors can live in peace without U.S. aid or involvement. It passed 411-2-9.



Amash's response to comments:

http://www.facebook.com/repjustinama...l_comments=132




> I understand and respect the views of everyone posting here (and Ron Paul's perspective). But I believe many of you are overlooking the actual views and actions of the Founders. They clearly did not view military alliances as unconstitutional, even when our country extended loans to others. Thomas Jefferson warned about "entangling" alliances, not alliances. Some of you may view this as an entangling alliance, and I think that's a fair debate. But to suggest that I have somehow abandoned the Constitution, the Founders, and all reason is an extraordinary stretch. The House has taken around 1,250 votes this term. I have voted against the Patriot Act, SOPA, CISPA, the NDAA, H R 347, the war in Libya, Iran sanctions, and I have voted to pull our troops out of Afghanistan and Europe. Think carefully before you go wild on me or others who might not agree with Ron Paul on every vote. (I could highlight a few of his votes that would drive you mad, but I won't.) We're all on the same team, fighting for liberty.

----------


## brandon

Glad he at least mentioned it, but it's a pretty weak explanation IMO.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> (This is constitutional in connection with Congress's power to raise and support Armies.)


Perhaps my grasp of the meaning & intent of the US Constitution is inadequate, but I was under the impression that Congress' authority to "raise and support Armies" had to with raising & supporting *American* armies ... in *America* ...

(I can only assume that the "joint missile defense system" nostrum is the hinge on which this "explanation" swings.)

----------


## angelatc

He wrote this in the comments: 


> I understand and respect the views of everyone posting here (and Ron Paul's perspective). But I believe many of you are overlooking the actual views and actions of the Founders. They clearly did not view military alliances as unconstitutional, even when our country extended loans to others. Thomas Jefferson warned about "entangling" alliances, not alliances. Some of you may view this as an entangling alliance, and I think that's a fair debate. But to suggest that I have somehow abandoned the Constitution, the Founders, and all reason is an extraordinary stretch. The House has taken around 1,250 votes this term. I have voted against the Patriot Act, SOPA, CISPA, the NDAA, H R 347, the war in Libya, Iran sanctions, and I have voted to pull our troops out of Afghanistan and Europe. Think carefully before you go wild on me or others who might not agree with Ron Paul on every vote. (I could highlight a few of his votes that would drive you mad, but I won't.) We're all on the same team, fighting for liberty.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> He wrote this in the comments: [...]


Much better. He should have said a lot of that to begin with.

It probably wouldn't have prevented a hate-alanche, but it would have greatly clarified things for those of us who DO remember all the good he's done - and who appreciate all the good he'll do in the future.

(Still, though ... when it comes to US-Israel relations, I just don't  see how that alliance could possibly get any more "entangled" ...)

----------


## angelatc

> (Still, though ... when it comes to US-Israel relations, I just don't see how that alliance could possibly get any more "entangled" ...)


Yes, somebody said that in the comments too.  :P

----------


## V3n

"development of a joint missile defense system and the production of the Iron Dome defense system" and extending a line of credit.

How much does all of that costing us?  Even if he believes in some "alliances" the vote should have been NO if only based on economy.

----------


## angelatc

> "development of a joint missile defense system and the production of the Iron Dome defense system" and extending a line of credit.
> 
> How much does all of that costing us?  Even if he believes in some "alliances" the vote should have been NO if only based on economy.


Somebody wrote that too.  And somebody pointed out that his ancestry would have made a "No" vote red meat for the dogs of war.  The bill was going to pass regardless.....I don't like the vote, but I'm not going to screech that we shouldn't ever support him ever again.  99% of the time I agree.  Hell, that's more than my husband gets.

----------


## Cowlesy

> Somebody wrote that too.  And somebody pointed out that his ancestry would have made a "No" vote red meat for the dogs of war.  The bill was going to pass regardless.....I don't like the vote, but I'm not going to screech that we shouldn't ever support him ever again.  99% of the time I agree.  Hell, that's more than my husband gets.


I'm the same way.  His justification for the vote is a hilarious stretch of logic in my opinion.  But if he voted no, he'd get boiled alive by the lobby and the blogs.  Once Ron Paul is gone, he'll be the #1 outstanding congressman, by far, in my opinion.

----------


## tsai3904

I wish everyone who commented on his Facebook explanation would also go hassle their own Congressman.

----------


## V3n

> Somebody wrote that too.  And somebody pointed out that his ancestry would have made a "No" vote red meat for the dogs of war.  The bill was going to pass regardless.....I don't like the vote, but I'm not going to screech that we shouldn't ever support him ever again.  99% of the time I agree.  Hell, that's more than my husband gets.


I agree.  There's only one Ron Paul and that bar is set mighty high.  I respect him for facing the hate-alanche and putting it on Facebook.  I won't be screeching either.

----------


## mac_hine

I posted this on his FB:

More stolen money given to the racist, apartheid state of Israel. Very disappointing  Justin. To vote in favor of giving foreign aid to any country is wrong. To give foreign aid to a country that attacked us (USS Liberty) and spied on us repeatedly is unforgivable. You just lost a supporter.

----------


## mosquitobite

> I wish everyone who commented on his Facebook explanation would also go hassle their own Congressman.


+1

----------


## puppetmaster

weak......not happy with him

----------


## aksmith

As he points out, Ron has made some questionable votes over the years. Not necessary to point them out. But overall, we would likely agree that Ron has been a great congressman, regardless. 

I will give Amash the benefit of the doubt. In fact, I am not a fan of those governments surrounding Israel. It would be interesting to see how comfortable Americans would be living in an atmosphere like Israel does. Mexico is barely a threat to us at all, and how many of us are peeing our collective pants over the Mexican horde taking over the country? In a world where moronocracies and kleptocracies run virtually every country or territory surrounding Israel, maybe Amash is more correct than we'd like to admit that providing some balance isn't a bad idea. Making Israel the only "bad guy" in that region is beyond dishonest.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> As he points out, Ron has made some questionable votes over the years. Not necessary to point them out. But overall, we would likely agree that Ron has been a great congressman, regardless. 
> 
> I will give Amash the benefit of the doubt. In fact, I am not a fan of those governments surrounding Israel. It would be interesting to see how comfortable Americans would be living in an atmosphere like Israel does. Mexico is barely a threat to us at all, and how many of us are peeing our collective pants over the Mexican horde taking over the country? In a world where moronocracies and kleptocracies run virtually every country or territory surrounding Israel, maybe Amash is more correct than we'd like to admit that providing some balance isn't a bad idea. Making Israel the only "bad guy" in that region is beyond dishonest.


Beyond the fact that Amash destroyed the principle of private property via his vote to give money and property not of his own, and of worse, guaranteeing resolute future endowments from the labor and value of individuals whom vehemently disagree with supporting foreign-States of any and all stripes, he surreptitiously voted to embroil American lives and fortunes based on the actions of a Foreign-State. In event, Israel is running the US Foreign Policy in that region of the world. I'm not too keen on letting foreign-Nationals be the beacon of whether or not American lives and fortunes are set abroad to kill, destroy, and wage war which are notoriously based on avarice, deceit, power, and aggrandizement. 

Nevermind the fact that the rationalization and justification Amash gave is one of the worst I've ever seen and could have come straight out of AIPAC. I'm often reminded of the lone farmer, the greatest minority - the individual, assailed by the State to take from him what was never theirs, to give for good intentions, whether insignificant, or large, who confronted Davy Crockett on his seemingly benign vote. 

Amash should really take a listen:




AMASH: NOT YOURS TO GIVE!

----------


## tsai3904

He's gotten 160 comments on his explanation and more than 90% of the comments are opposed to his vote.  He gets it that we're not happy with the vote.  Hopefully he reflects on all the comments and changes his viewpoint.

Now why don't we now turn that anger onto the other Congressmen who voted for the bill instead of trying to tear down one of our closest allies in the House?

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> He's gotten 160 comments on his explanation and more than 90% of the comments are opposed to his vote.  He gets it that we're not happy with the vote.  Hopefully he reflects on all the comments and changes his viewpoint.
> 
> Now why don't we now turn that anger onto the other Congressmen who voted for the bill instead of trying to tear down one of our closest allies in the House?


Because we expect Fascists and Statists to vote for it. Accountability means holding those closest to us to our principles that guide our lives. So, yes, we should be giving Amash hell on this issue. Giving him a pass would be tantamount to tacit support. Only the insecure cannot take criticism especially critically thought out and logically persuasive missives. This is one aspect which I am very enthusiastic about the movement - we do not waver from principles and we hold those closest to us to the highest of ethical standards.

----------


## tsai3904

> Because we expect Fascists and Statists to vote for it. Accountability means holding those closest to us to our principles that guide our lives. So, yes, we should be giving Amash hell on this issue. Giving him a pass would be tantamount to tacit support. Only the insecure cannot take criticism especially critically thought out and logically persuasive missives. This is one aspect which I am very enthusiastic about the movement - we do not waver from principles and we hold those closest to us to the highest of ethical standards.


Did I say to not hold him accountable?  I said he's gotten 160 comments already and unlike other politicians, he actually reads the comments.  I think he gets it that the liberty movement is upset with his vote.  What more do you want to do...vote him out of office?  Create a website that says Amash voted to support Israel?

We've held him accountable and now let's move on to hold others accountable...

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> Did I say to not hold him accountable?  I said he's gotten 160 comments already and unlike other politicians, he actually reads the comments.  I think he gets it that the liberty movement is upset with his vote.  What more do you want to do...vote him out of office?  Create a website that says Amash voted to support Israel?
> 
> We've held him accountable and now let's move on to hold others accountable...


I would say voicing our disagreement on this particular issue is sufficient. I took your post as to have said that we shouldn't have even said anything because of all the other great things he has done so far. If I misinterpreted, which it looks as if I have, then we're not really in any disagreements - though I do disagree that voicing criticism is 'tearing down'. I think I took umbrage at that remark especially.

----------


## tsai3904

> I would say voicing our disagreement on this particular issue is sufficient. I took your post as to have said that we shouldn't have even said anything because of all the other great things he has done so far. If I misinterpreted, which it looks as if I have, then we're not really in any disagreements - though I do disagree that voicing criticism is 'tearing down'. I think I took umbrage at that remark especially.


Yea I didn't mean to not saying anything and I wasn't really directing my comment at you.  If you read a lot of the 160 comments, you can easily tell a lot of those comments are from Ron Paul supporters (due to their logo) and many have said they will no longer support Amash.  That's what I meant by "tearing down".  Look at comment #12 in this thread for an example.

----------


## Kluge

I know Amash's vote was lame, his response was just as lame, but I think that many people are forgetting that we actually need to keep him in Congress.

Hold the gains. 100% "purity" will not work yet, or at any time in the near future, especially on this topic. In fact, I'm going to donate to him and send a message that while I'm not happy, I do understand.

And I know that even those who I consider friends here will be irked about that. Oh well.

----------


## Kregisen

It's a vote I wouldn't have made, but he is by far the best besides Paul. As he points out, even Ron has made some questionable votes in the past. Nobody will vote perfectly libertarian when there are 1200 bills a year or whatever he said. And on a practicality level, it might be a good idea to vote for something like that that is already passing by a 99% yes vote in order to stay elected and fighting for freedom on every other issue, instead of getting kicked out for voting no on a bill that was passing with flying colors and getting a statist in who tries to outlaw pornography or ice cream.

----------


## row333au

Lets view it this way......

Remember Scott Brown was elected as the U.S. senator from Massachusetts by the influence of the Tea Party, in few weeks later he disappointed those people who elected him like voting to extend the national debt with China loans, voted to allowing Obamas $15 billion jobs bill, voted in favor of Obamacare, voted in favor of Don't ask Don't tell, in favor of Iran war......




> Tea Party activists hesitated at first during the Massachusetts Senate race to throw their full support behind Brown, but ultimately went out on a limb for him after a calculated decision that he could be the 60th vote against health care.


The Boston Globe reported that Tea Party groups in Massachusetts are seriously considering challenging Scott Brown in the 2012 Republican US Senate primary with maybe under a campaign slogan, "Scott Brown is a tea party fake".

But what is also clear that came out was that whether any newcomer from the real grassroots could wage a serious fight against Brown and his $6.8 million war chest support of the neocon Republicans which is going to be thrown to Tea Party zion zealots career lobbyist who did undermined the grassroots just like they did in 2010.

Also along with his so-called tea party Senators Pat Toomey, Scott Brown, Orrin Hatch and Jim DeMint who were prolific on the house floor campaigners in pushing for NDAA..... Really they should be ashamed of the outright betrayals and the voters should hold them accountable.

----------


## Spoa

I have an important question: How many of you want Justin Amash defeated in the general election? 

With respect, some of you seem so angry that you would rather he be defeated by his Democratic opponent. I wish you liberty fighters the best of luck with achieving liberty in our country and finding representatives who support your views 100% (you won't find one). Our founding fathers wanted a governing branch filled with men (and women) who are answerable to their constituents. But that doesn't give any of us constituents the right to scream at them as if they're some dog (I bet that some of you treat your dog with more respect than you treat your congressman...no wonder they don't want to listen to you). I've read the comments posted on Justin Amash's page...some agree (to those people, I personally agree with you), some respectfully disagree (to those, thank you), but several scream at him with such disrespect that I can barely read on. Think about how the representative must feel reading those comments. Before you post something on his page, think about how this will impact the rest of the good work he is doing: fighting against the Patriot Act, the NDAA, wasteful spending, etc. I've noticed we scream at our representatives more than we thank them when they do what is right...I find that pitiful. Thanks.

----------


## Krzysztof Lesiak

Damn it, I'm really disappointed in him for this. This just goes to show there will never be another Ron Paul. But I guess he's just trying to save his ass from the Israeli lobby. A peep against Israel and you can kiss your reelection goodbye.

----------


## Spoa

I propose that people like Jim Demint, Rand Paul, Pat Toomey, Mike Lee, Justin Amash, and all tea party representatives should quit and let's see how well liberty goes in this country. Let's see how liberty people that only want 100% perfection feel as they watch people like Mitch McConnell, Lisa Murkowski, Lindsey Graham, Fred Upton, etc. run our country. I look for people that support liberty most of the time. Would I like to see "perfection"? Sure, but I know that in our current environment, that is quite difficult...also nobody is perfect.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I posted this on his FB:
> 
> More stolen money given to the racist, apartheid state of Israel. Very disappointing  Justin. To vote in favor of giving foreign aid to any country is wrong. To give foreign aid to a country that attacked us (USS Liberty) and spied on us repeatedly is unforgivable. You just lost a supporter.


Well, look at it this way, you still have another foot to shoot.

Ron Paul's don't grow on trees.  Amash is pretty damned good.  If we lose him, our movement will take a significant step backward.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I have an important question: How many of you want Justin Amash defeated in the general election? 
> 
> With respect, some of you seem so angry that you would rather he be defeated by his Democratic opponent. I wish you liberty fighters the best of luck with achieving liberty in our country and finding representatives who support your views 100% (you won't find one). Our founding fathers wanted a governing branch filled with men (and women) who are answerable to their constituents. But that doesn't give any of us constituents the right to scream at them as if they're some dog (I bet that some of you treat your dog with more respect than you treat your congressman...no wonder they don't want to listen to you). I've read the comments posted on Justin Amash's page...some agree (to those people, I personally agree with you), some respectfully disagree (to those, thank you), but several scream at him with such disrespect that I can barely read on. Think about how the representative must feel reading those comments. Before you post something on his page, think about how this will impact the rest of the good work he is doing: fighting against the Patriot Act, the NDAA, wasteful spending, etc. I've noticed we scream at our representatives more than we thank them when they do what is right...I find that pitiful. Thanks.


1.  Keep in mind that this forum represents a tiny snapshot of a select group of people in this movement.
2.  Most doers are out doing.

----------


## Cowlesy

I still wholeheartedly support Amash.  I hope I can get cleared to give to his Leadership PAC this summer, as he's having a hard time raising money compared to the legions of PAC-suckers in Congress.

My goodness.  Of the 435 other house members, Amash is not only great, but is clearly better than 99% of them.

----------


## angelatc

> Lets view it this way......
> 
> Remember Scott Brown was elected as the U.S. senator from Massachusetts by the influence of the Tea Party, in few weeks later he disappointed those people who elected him like voting to extend the national debt with China loans, voted to allowing Obama’s $15 billion jobs bill, voted in favor of Obamacare, voted in favor of Don't ask Don't tell, in favor of Iran war......


Scott Brown rejected the TEA Party label before he won the election.  When asked if he considered himself a "Tea Party Republican," he said "I am a Scott Brown Republican."  The only promise that he made was to vote against Obamacare, which he has done repeatedly.

----------


## Pisces

//

----------


## specsaregood

> Now why don't we now turn that anger onto the other Congressmen who voted for the bill instead of trying to tear down one of our closest allies in the House?


because that is what Ron Paul supporter's do.  bunch of douchebags they are, for the most part.  --  not you guys though, I love all of you.

----------


## lib3rtarian

I don't agree with Amash on this, but I still support him seeing how good he usually is on our issues. We have been spoiled silly by Ron Paul that we have set impossible benchmarks for the others, who unlike Dr. Paul, are mere mortals. Amash needs a reassuring hug now, not a kick on the shin. I guess he knows he made a mistake.

Oh yeah, and hats off to my hero Ron Paul to have the balls to vote NO to this. Is this guy one in a million or what?

----------


## qh4dotcom

> But to suggest that I have somehow abandoned the Constitution, the Founders, and all reason is an extraordinary stretch.


He also has abandoned his duty to defend the natural born citizen requirements of the Constitution. It's his duty to get involved in the Obama eligibility issue.

----------


## rp08orbust

> It's a vote I wouldn't have made, but he is by far the best besides Paul. As he points out, even Ron has made some questionable votes in the past. Nobody will vote perfectly libertarian when there are 1200 bills a year or whatever he said. And on a practicality level, it might be a good idea to vote for something like that that is already passing by a 99% yes vote in order to stay elected and fighting for freedom on every other issue, instead of getting kicked out for voting no on a bill that was passing with flying colors and getting a statist in who tries to outlaw pornography or ice cream.


He could have voted "present" in that case.

----------


## MJU1983

I too disagree with his vote and his explanations.  I wonder why he really voted for it?  I don't see how Israel is any of our business, at all.

I like Dr. Scheuer's take on Israel much more than Amash's assessment.  I'm not off his bandwagon though and I'll most likely donate money towards his reelection campaign.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> I propose that people like *Jim Demint*, Rand Paul, *Pat Toomey*, Mike Lee, Justin Amash, and all tea party representatives should quit and let's see how well liberty goes in this country. Let's see how liberty people that only want 100% perfection feel as they watch people like Mitch McConnell, Lisa Murkowski, Lindsey Graham, Fred Upton, etc. run our country. I look for people that support liberty most of the time. Would I like to see "perfection"? Sure, but I know that in our current environment, that is quite difficult...also nobody is perfect.


We'd actually accomplish more if those nitwits weren't considered liberty warriors.

----------


## row333au

> Scott Brown rejected the TEA Party label before he won the election.  When asked if he considered himself a "Tea Party Republican," he said 
> 
> "I am a Scott Brown Republican."  The only promise that he made was to vote against Obamacare, which he has done repeatedly.


Nevertheless he campaigned under the Tea Party platform, as he rallied and courted for support and to get him elected

Fox Video of Scott Brown being Tea Party poster boy
http://video.foxnews.com/v/3972101/b...or-scott-brown







Scott Brown - The Tea Party's First Electoral Victory

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/...ctoral-victory

Scott Brown Threw Tea Party 'Under The Bus'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_843863.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/...w-us-under-bu/

----------


## qh4dotcom

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. "

----------


## John F Kennedy III

I don't like this.

----------


## chudrockz

Okay, I weighed in and sent Justin Amash a message on Facebook. It went like this:

"I've been reading  about the controversy over your recent  vote for cooperation with Israel. While I do disagree with your vote, I appreciate your presence in Congress and openness in discussing those votes. Thank you!"

That's pretty much how I feel about it. It's a bad vote, yes. But he's one of the good guys. The only person on EARTH who agrees with me 100% is... me.

----------


## S.Shorland

I can't imagine a more tangled alliance than your country's with Israel.Although Saudi Arabia comes close.

...and it seems a bit of a stretch that your founders considered supporting foreign armies.What are his views on 'the war on terror'?

----------


## chudrockz

> I can't imagine a more tangled alliance than your country's with Israel.Although Saudi Arabia comes close.


I could be wrong, but I think that when Thomas Jefferson said

"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations-entangling alliances with none."

That he didn't mean that "alliances" were fine, but "entangling" alliances were not. I believe he meant, and I think he was correct, that ALL alliances are entangling and should be avoided.

----------


## ds21089

Want to send money to Israel, Amash? Send it out of your own pocket. Don't you dare force people who are opposed to it to work their asses off for money to be spent wastefully abroad. Does Amash believe in abortion? Does he know money sent over there will be used for it on top of other things which wont even benefit the people there? Amash must see how corrupt our government is here and how they manage money horribly, does he truly think Israel wouldn't do the same? I'm very disappointed with his vote on this. I wonder if he did it to save face with the others or if he truly feels we should be helping them.

----------


## ds21089

> I could be wrong, but I think that when Thomas Jefferson said
> 
> "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations-entangling alliances with none."
> 
> That he didn't mean that "alliances" were fine, but "entangling" alliances were not. I believe he meant, and I think he was correct, that ALL alliances are entangling and should be avoided.


I see this as being true. If you are taking an alliance with somebody vs another, it's pretty clear that the other person now sees you as an enemy, therefor you just entangled yourself in the situation and put a target on your back.

----------


## cindy25

there is only one Ron Paul.

----------


## Brett85

It seems hilarious that people are hating on Justin so much for voting "yes" on a bill in which only two reps voted "no."  What would a 3rd "no" vote actually accomplish?  It wouldn't have changed the outcome of the vote.  For people to go nuts over this just shows how misplaced people's priorities are.

----------


## Brett85

The federal government is trying to indefinitely detain American citizens without even giving them a trial, and people are focused on a bill that might account for .0001% of the federal budget.  Please get your priorities straight, people.

----------


## pacu44

we are so far down the rabbit hole...

----------


## Kluge

> It seems hilarious that people are hating on Justin so much for voting "yes" on a bill in which only two reps voted "no."  What would a 3rd "no" vote actually accomplish?  It wouldn't have changed the outcome of the vote.  For people to go nuts over this just shows how misplaced people's priorities are.





> The federal government is trying to indefinitely detain American citizens without even giving them a trial, and people are focused on a bill that might account for .0001% of the federal budget.  Please get your priorities straight, people.


Agree 100%.

----------


## chudrockz

I also read (and just noticed there's another thread) that says Amash is considering resigning over the flack he got from that vote. That would be tragic.

----------


## EBounding

If this vote was remotely close, I doubt he would have voted yes.  Paul has always had nothing to lose with his voting record, but even he has done things like this for survival (see AUMF Afghanistan).

----------


## realtonygoodwin

> I posted this on his FB:
> 
> More stolen money given to the racist, apartheid state of Israel. Very disappointing  Justin. To vote in favor of giving foreign aid to any country is wrong. To give foreign aid to a country that attacked us (USS Liberty) and spied on us repeatedly is unforgivable. You just lost a supporter.



Way to be part of the problem.

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

Paul supporters apparently eat their own.

----------


## RPforPrez.

> Paul supporters apparently eat their own.


Apparently No one But Paul applies to liberty candidates

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> It seems hilarious that people are hating on Justin so much for voting "yes" on a bill in which only two reps voted "no."  What would a 3rd "no" vote actually accomplish?  It wouldn't have changed the outcome of the vote.  For people to go nuts over this just shows how misplaced people's priorities are.


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.

----------


## LibertyEagle

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.

But, just sit here and keep whining about Justin Amash.  That's the ticket.

----------


## Mini-Me

Amash seems to be having a bad day due to the backlash.  It would indeed be tragic if we lost him, but it would be similarly tragic if we refused to call him out for it in fear that he'd throw in the towel.  He was right to point out that we're only able to criticize him because he alone has the courage and stamina to explain every vote and let himself be eternally tied to that rationale, so it's worth keeping in mind that the criticism isn't so much "keeping him honest" as "making sure he knows that this is not okay with us."  He's being somewhat defensive at the moment, but hopefully in time he will understand why the vote was a big deal (and a big disappointment) to a lot of his biggest supporters, and he'll reverse his poor stance on this issue in the future.

Meanwhile, as LibertyEagle said...we do have bigger fish to fry.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Amash seems to be having a bad day due to the backlash.  It would indeed be tragic if we lost him, but it would be similarly tragic if we refused to call him out for it in fear that he'd throw in the towel.  He was right to point out that we're only able to criticize him because he alone has the courage and stamina to explain every vote and let himself be eternally tied to that rationale, so it's worth keeping in mind that the criticism isn't so much "keeping him honest" as "making sure he knows that this is not okay with us."  He's being somewhat defensive at the moment, but hopefully in time he will understand why the vote was a big deal (and a big disappointment) to a lot of his biggest supporters, and he'll reverse his poor stance on this issue in the future.


Did you see some of the comments?  They were horrible.  Holding someone accountable is one thing, but this is another.

----------


## 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 voteFailing to recognize his vote was a mistakeLying 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 voteFailing to recognize his vote was a mistakeLying 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

----------


## Kluge

> Perfect


Because she has none.

And I'm sure that if she gets office, she will never, ever disappoint or make a vote you disagree with. If she does? OFF WITH HER HEAD, even if she's 99% good.

----------


## TheTexan

> Because she has none.
> 
> And I'm sure that if she gets office, she will never, ever disappoint or make a vote you disagree with. If she does? OFF WITH HER HEAD, even if she's 99% good.


She believes in NAP.  As does Paul.  It's very difficult for a NAP believer to disappoint me.

----------


## Kluge

> She believes in NAP.  As does Paul.  It's very difficult for a NAP believer to disappoint me.


Even RP has disappointed me on occasion. So when she disappoints you, I hope you'll support massive amounts of vitriol directed towards her. I won't.

----------


## TheTexan

> Even RP has disappointed me on occasion. So when she disappoints you, I hope you'll support massive amounts of vitriol directed towards her. I won't.


Again, for me I don't care about being in 100% agreement.  If they can justify their disagreements with a liberty explanation it's fine.  A constitutional explanation does not cut it.  Just about anything can be justified by twisting the words of the constitution.

If Amash has a liberty defense of his vote, I won't hold his vote against him.  But that seems unlikely.

----------


## Kluge

> Again, for me I don't care about being in 100% agreement.  If they can justify their disagreements with a liberty explanation it's fine.  A constitutional explanation does not cut it.  Just about anything can be justified by twisting the words of the constitution.
> 
> If Amash has a liberty defense of his vote, I won't hold his vote against him.  But that seems unlikely.


Just as there's a few votes RP has made that don't have a liberty defense.

I hope, at least, you had the class to not heap massive vitriol on Amash.

----------


## Spoa

+ rep

Exactly what I was thinking. To bxm042: Who is your congressman/woman? Have you ever thought about complaining to him/her? And if Justin Amash is your congressman, I can tell you that you have one of the best in this country...so you should thank him rather than attack him!

----------


## Crotale

Actually, I think it's good that the liberty movement remains pure. The establishment is corrupt, not the R3VOLUTION. If we bow down to compromise and lose our morals, then we will no longer be a movement worth anything.

If this serves as an example to all liberty candidates to not compromise on their beliefs and always remain true to principle, it's a good thing. We need to be completely honest to be effective. Don't give in to the temptation of supporting short-term political gains because it damages the integrity of this movement in the long run.

----------


## Mini-Me

> Actually, I think it's good that the liberty movement remains pure. The establishment is corrupt, not the R3VOLUTION. If we bow down to compromise and lose our morals, then we will no longer be a movement worth anything.
> 
> If this serves as an example to all liberty candidates to not compromise on their beliefs and always remain true to principle, it's a good thing. We need to be completely honest to be effective. Don't give in to the temptation of supporting short-term political gains because it damages the integrity of this movement in the long run.


I agree, for the most part...I don't take issue with "pushing for purity" at all.  I like purity, and it pains me to see when a liberty candidate acts contrary to libertarian principles.  However, I'm concerned with the WAY in which some of us push for purity, and I'm not a fan of the "burn the heretics" reactions when someone screws up...I feel like there has to be a way to continually sway liberty candidates toward purity without eating them alive and using absurd hyperbole ("You're no different from the neocons!") the moment someone strays an inch.  It seems to me that too many libertarians have no middle ground ("tolerate and influence to become better") between "fully accept" and "fully reject with the harshest of condemnation."  I mean, do you guys treat your family and friends this way when they breach the NAP?  (Molyneux fans, please don't answer this one. )

This "all or nothing" dichotomy doesn't even seem to apply only to hardcore libertarians either:  In the case of Rand Paul, there's very little cautious optimism or ambivalence from anyone...just a huge clash between unconcerned cheerleaders and brutal critics.  Some people turn a blind eye COMPLETELY to his flaws, and others who disagree with him refuse to give quarter or empathize in the least.  If we don't find a more constructive way to deal with this schism, we are not just going to tear all of our remaining liberty candidates apart but each other as well.

----------


## July

> I feel like there has to be a way to continually sway liberty candidates toward purity without eating them alive and using absurd hyperbole ("You're no different from the neocons!") the moment someone strays an inch.


Maybe just by trying to be mindful of angst...be firm and clear, but not quite so fatalistic, and give them a chance to listen to our criticism and correct their mistakes, before writing them off. I think it's really just in the presentation of the criticism. Maybe some of us are so used to not trusting our politicians and expecting the worst, we sometimes have more extreme reactions when we feel like that trust has been betrayed? That's why I think that Justin's reaction the other day about resigning was good for us to see, in a way, because it shows that he is human too, and not some emotionless and detached politician.

----------


## jj-

> If we don't find a more constructive way to deal with this schism, we are not just going to tear all of our remaining liberty candidates apart but each other as well.


In my case, I don't consider myself a brutal critic, but I might seem that way because the cheerleaders are truly becoming like cult followers when they say things like an endorsement isn't an endorsement if he doesn't release a press statement with the word "endorsement". I expect overall that Rand will have a positive influence. That doesn't mean I'll support him, as he chose to alienate people like me. And he wouldn't be surprised. If you read his actions carefully you'll notice that he is already betting on winning with the votes of the Hannity/Levin types, so my support doesn't make a difference in his changes. I do wish him success with his strategy, which is one I wouldn't use, but I don't claim it makes him a bad person.

----------


## July

> In my case, I don't consider myself a brutal critic, but I might seem that way because the cheerleaders are truly becoming like cult followers when they say things like an endorsement isn't an endorsement if he doesn't release a press statement with the word "endorsement".


And people make an effort to point that kind of thing out, maybe, because they feel there are such strong reactions on the other end....so the two feed into each other, the offensive and the defensive reactions. I know I stated something similar to that about Rand's "endorsement", and it was really just a round about way of saying I didn't think it was the end of the world, that's all...not that I don't have a critical view of Rand, or that I hold him up on a pedestal or anything.

----------


## tsai3904

Amash is responding to a lot of people on his Facebook page.  Here are some of his responses:




> It's fair to have a debate on this issue, but the facts should be clear. The bill simply does not increase military aid to Israel. The article's premise is false. The ONLY substantive thing it does is extend an EXISTING line of credit for about three more years. I understand people's concerns, and it's a worthy debate, but this bill has been blown completely out of proportion. There are much more significant foreign policy bills, e.g., Iran sanctions (I voted "no"), lowering the threshold at which we would go to war with Iran (I voted "no").
> 
> Moreover, Americans--from the Founders on--have always understood the Constitution to authorize aid and support for military alliances as a necessary and proper correlate of the power to raise and support Armies. The Founders did not oppose alliances, certainly not in practice, even if Jefferson spoke against "entangling" alliances. He was the biggest proponent of an alliance with the French.





> I don't agree with Ron Paul that foreign MILITARY aid is unconstitutional (though it is usually unwise); that is, aid that the U.S. considers beneficial to OUR defense is constitutional. I disapprove of other forms of aid (even Ron Paul supported aid to Haiti after the earthquake). America's Founders certainly considered military aid and alliances constitutional as a necessary and proper correlate of the power to raise and support Armies. Given the amount of turmoil in the Middle East, I don't think it is wise to make dramatic, unexpected policy changes with respect to Israel/Palestine. For example, both Ron Paul and I voted "no" on an effort to eliminate aid to the Palestinians last year. I certainly would look at this vote (and that vote) very differently a couple years from now.





> he [Ron Paul] said in an interview that he supported sending the military to Haiti to assist. That is no different than financial aid. It's just aid in the form of people.





> And nobody respects Ron Paul more than I do. I just want people to recognize how overblown this issue is.





> I'm confident AIPAC would not agree with your opinion that I'm "in bed" with them. In fact, the AIPAC lobbyist for my district refused to continue working with me over disagreements.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

And he just gets worse.

Sorry, Justin, Ron voted against sending aid to Haiti. You voted for more death and destruction. It's not an equivalence, and your horrid reasoning for continuing aid to an apartheid state with the express purpose of continuing in such a fashion is nothing short of appalling.

Ron Paul, on Haiti:




> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EyL9ql1vus


His House speech:




> I rise in reluctant opposition to this resolution. Certainly I am moved by the horrific destruction in Haiti and would without hesitation express condolences to those who have suffered and continue to suffer. As a medical doctor, I have through my career worked to alleviate the pain and suffering of others. Unfortunately, however, this resolution does not simply express our condolences, but rather it commits the US government “to begin the reconstruction of Haiti” and affirms that “the recovery and long-term needs of Haiti will require a sustained commitment by the United States….” I do not believe that a resolution expressing our deep regret and sorrow over this tragedy should be used to commit the United States to a “long-term” occupation of Haiti during which time the US government will provide for the reconstruction of that country.
> 
>     I am concerned over the possibility of an open-ended US military occupation of Haiti and this legislation does nothing to alleviate my concerns. On the contrary, when this resolution refers to the need for a long term US plan for Haiti, I see a return to the failed attempts by the Clinton and Bush Administrations to establish Haiti as an American protectorate. Already we are seeing many argue that this kind of humanitarian mission is a perfect fit for the US military. I do not agree.
> 
>     Certainly I would support and encourage the efforts of the American people to help the people of Haiti at this tragic time. I believe that the American people are very generous on their own and fear that a US government commitment to reconstruct Haiti may actually discourage private contributions. Mr. Speaker, already we see private US citizens and corporations raising millions of dollars for relief and reconstruction of Haiti. I do not believe the US government should get in the way of these laudable efforts. I do express my condolences but I unfortunately must urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution committing the United States government to rebuild Haiti.


Nice try, Justin, but you failed. You're just digging a deeper hole at this point. Justifying your actions by the mistakes of others - or worse, contorting the words of someone else to mean something they didn't - is extremely childish and petty. And horrifically, terribly wrong. Literally everything the government does is justified with this defense.

----------


## tsai3904

> Sorry, Justin, Ron voted against sending aid to Haiti.


Justin acknowledged that Ron voted against sending aid to Haiti.  He mentioned that Ron supported sending the military to Haiti to assist in a tv interview.

----------


## DanConway

You are anywhere from ignorant to a lunatic if you call Israel an apartheid state.  There are more Arabs in the Knesset than there would be Jews in a Palestinian state, or than there currently are in most Arab countries.  That's apartheid.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Justin acknowledged that Ron voted against sending aid to Haiti.  He mentioned that Ron supported sending the military to Haiti to assist in a tv interview.


I posted the interview, that's not his position.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> You are anywhere from ignorant to a lunatic if you call Israel an apartheid state.  There are more Arabs in the Knesset than there would be Jews in a Palestinian state, or than there currently are in most Arab countries.  That's apartheid.


More relativism. Lovely.

----------


## tsai3904

> I posted the interview, that's not his position.


The first 12 seconds of the interview seems like he's ok with sending military aid under certain circumstances.

----------


## TheTexan

> For example, both Ron Paul and I voted "no" on an effort to eliminate aid to the Palestinians last year.


I can't find an actual vote record of this, but what he seems to be referring to is this: http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPol...aspx?id=240434




> US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta attacked a Congressional decision to withhold $200 million in civic financial assistance to the Palestinian Authority during a Monday press conference.


If he did indeed vote not to withhold, it was likely because the funds were already allocated for that purpose, and would have simply been frozen, and not eliminated:




> The funds had been approved by Congress as part of its fiscal 2011 budget which granted the Palestinians $400 million in civic assistance and $1.5 billion for security needs.


As for Haiti... no, Ron Paul made it fairly clear I think he was _against_ sending troops to Haiti

----------


## TheTexan

> Nice try, Justin, but you failed. You're just digging a deeper hole at this point. Justifying your actions by the mistakes of others - or worse, contorting the words of someone else to mean something they didn't - is extremely childish and petty. And horrifically, terribly wrong. Literally everything the government does is justified with this defense.


I have to admit, it's getting harder and harder to overlook his mistake on this.  I'm trying, I really am... but damn

----------


## Spoa

> I have to admit, it's getting harder and harder to overlook his mistake on this.  I'm trying, I really am... but damn


Mistake? He doesn't believe its a mistake, and what I really think is a mistake is all of you people trying to force him to apologize for something he doesn't believe is wrong. He has already stated his view loud and clear...if you don't like it, I suggest you go donate to one of his opponents: http://www.votepestka.com/ or http://www.trevorforcongress.com/ . As for me...I'm sticking with Justin Amash: http://amashforcongress.com/ ! 

Also...he didn't break any promises with his vote on this bill. He stated when he was running for congress: 


> I share former President George W. Bush's vision of two independent states, Israel and Palestine--two peoples, living side by side in peace and security. Israel's borders must be secure, recognized, and defensible, and it must be free to respond to hostilities that threaten its people. A future state of Palestine must be viable, contiguous, sovereign, and independent. The use of incitement, violence, unnecessary force, or terror to achieve political goals must be abandoned.


President Bush would have supported this bill, and Rep. Amash supported President Bush's policy on Israel. If you think this is such a huge issue, you should have done better vetting in 2010. I stand with Rep. Amash whether I agree with him or not. I hope that more people will join me in supporting Rep. Amash and getting back to more important issues! Thanks.

----------


## Spoa

> And he just gets worse.
> 
> Sorry, Justin, Ron voted against sending aid to Haiti. You voted for more death and destruction. It's not an equivalence, and your horrid reasoning for continuing aid to an apartheid state with the express purpose of continuing in such a fashion is nothing short of appalling.
> 
> Ron Paul, on Haiti:
> 
> 
> 
> His House speech:
> ...


Mr. Peska or Thomas...I've found you a supporter. This person thinks Justin Amash has failed so I'm sure you can a donation from this person! Only, this person is looking for a perfectionist so you better promise perfection. 

With all due respect, Justin Amash has been on your side 99% of the time. If you are looking for perfection, I want you to contact me when you find a perfect candidate...because I don't think there is one out there!

----------


## TheTexan

> Mistake? He doesn't believe its a mistake, and what I really think is a mistake is all of you people trying to force him to apologize for something *he doesn't believe is wrong.*


That doesn't make his mistake any better.




> Also...he didn't break any promises with his vote on this bill. He stated when he was running for congress:


Which is why I'm reluctantly willing to let this issue go.  But when he attaches his name to Paul, and justifies his actions by saying "Ron Paul did these things too", or worst, _lying_ about that [haiti], it makes it much harder to overlook.

I'd much prefer if he just sticks to his wrong guns and says "this is what *I* feel is right" instead of basically making excuses for his actions

----------


## Spoa

I agree that he shouldn't have made excuses and instead just said that he believes in what he believes in...period.

----------


## July

Well he has now just posted he is reconsidering any bill like this in the future. I think folks have swayed him.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Well he has now just posted he is reconsidering any bill like this in the future. I think folks have swayed him.


Excellent! I'll be sure to remind him if I catch wind of one in the future, like the US-England one.

----------


## Spoa

If that's what he truly believes, I have no problem with his decision. If he's doing it only because of the rude, threatening, disgusting remarks made by people who are supposedly his allies...I apologize and am deeply sorry that he had to make this decision. I hope that this storm will calm, and we will be reunited in our fight for liberty. 

While we were all here fighting and screaming at one another, the US Senate is planning to take up the Law of the Sea Treaty!: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/24/wo...ill-again.html

Friends, we cannot waddle around here and fight over Justin Amash. He opposes this treaty, and we need to support him in this fight as he will be going up against some powerful people like liberal Senator Kerry and RINO Senator Lugar. Senators Paul, DeMint, Lee, and others are fighting hard against this bill, but they need our support.

CONTACT YOUR REPRESENTATIVES AND URGE THEM TO VOTE NO ON THIS TREATY!!! We fight hard against each other, at least we should be able to fight just as viciously against liberals and RINOs! FOR LIBERTY!!!

----------


## BrooklynZoo

From his Facebook page: 


"I have reconsidered my support for any bill like H.R. 4133, as it pertains to ANY country, in the future.

 I recognize that there is a lot of misinformation about this bill. It does only one genuinely substantive thing: It extends an existing line of credit for about three more years. This is not additional funding and certainly not "unlimited aid."

 I also disagree with commenters who believe that foreign MILITARY aid and alliances are unconstitutional. If the U.S. government concludes that they are beneficial to OUR defense, then they certainly are constitutional as a Necessary and Proper correlate of Congress's power to raise and support Armies. This has been the view in our country from the Founders on.

 However, as a policy matter, I believe that the U.S. should not extend credit (or aid) to another country on an ongoing basis through legislation. It's time for the U.S. to stop acting as a bank to the rest of the world. After all, with Congress and the President refusing to make any substantial changes to our spending policies, our government simply doesn't have any money to lend."

----------


## TheTexan

> I have reconsidered my support for any bill like H.R. 4133, as it pertains to ANY country, in the future.  .... However, as a policy matter, I believe that the U.S. should not extend credit (or aid) to another country on an ongoing basis through legislation.


As long as he means this, and stays true to this, Amash just earned about 1000 respect points here IMO.

----------


## Crotale

> I agree, for the most part...I don't take issue with "pushing for purity" at all.  I like purity, and it pains me to see when a liberty candidate acts contrary to libertarian principles.  However, I'm concerned with the WAY in which some of us push for purity, and I'm not a fan of the "burn the heretics" reactions when someone screws up...I feel like there has to be a way to continually sway liberty candidates toward purity without eating them alive and using absurd hyperbole ("You're no different from the neocons!") the moment someone strays an inch.  It seems to me that too many libertarians have no middle ground ("tolerate and influence to become better") between "fully accept" and "fully reject with the harshest of condemnation."  I mean, do you guys treat your family and friends this way when they breach the NAP?  (Molyneux fans, please don't answer this one. )
> 
> This "all or nothing" dichotomy doesn't even seem to apply only to hardcore libertarians either:  In the case of Rand Paul, there's very little cautious optimism or ambivalence from anyone...just a huge clash between unconcerned cheerleaders and brutal critics.  Some people turn a blind eye COMPLETELY to his flaws, and others who disagree with him refuse to give quarter or empathize in the least.  If we don't find a more constructive way to deal with this schism, we are not just going to tear all of our remaining liberty candidates apart but each other as well.


Post of the thread.

----------

