# Liberty Movement > Defenders of Liberty > Justin Amash Forum >  Why did Justin Amash vote for H.R. 4133?

## bluesc

Someone should ask him, because it's a horrible bill. I can't imagine a reason why a "liberty candidate" would support it.

Bill info: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr4133

Votes: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/112-2012/h225

----------


## RonRules

That one sure was on the fast track!

Introduced	Mar 05, 2012
Referred to Committee	Mar 05, 2012
Passed House	May 09, 2012

----------


## bluesc

> That one sure was on the fast track!
> 
> Introduced	Mar 05, 2012
> Referred to Committee	Mar 05, 2012
> Passed House	May 09, 2012


AIPAC demanded it. Amash delivered.

----------


## lib3rtarian

Ron Paul voted NAY. The only other NAY was Dingell, John.

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

Amash doesn't give into special interests. I am sure he voted for it based on his beliefs. 

I agree with parts of the text, disagree with others. I have stated before that I do personally support Israel, but do not when it comes to government.(Don't want to argue-don't divert the thread). I also do view Iran as a threat that I might possibly allow preventive force against in a rare exception, but this bill has little to do with the national security of the United States. (Don't want to argue about those points either or divert the thread).

Overall, I would not have voted for this bill. 

However it is the least of my concerns. I will always support Amash regardless of his foreign policy, especially considering he is fighting the NDAA as we speak.

----------


## RonRules

Amash is a second generation Arab-American of *Palestinian* Christian and Syrian Christian descent. That makes it even more interesting.

----------


## bluesc

> Amash is a second generation Arab-American of *Palestinian* Christian and Syrian Christian descent. That makes it even more interesting.


And the fact that he directly attacked Newt when Newt called Palestinians an "invented people". You could tell he has strong feelings on the subject. Now he has directly funded attacks on the people he was defending.

----------


## bluesc

> Amash doesn't give into special interests. I am sure he voted for it based on his beliefs. 
> 
> I agree with parts of the text, disagree with others. I have stated before that I do personally support Israel, but do not when it comes to government.(Don't want to argue-don't divert the thread). I also do view Iran as a threat that I might possibly allow preventive force against in a rare exception, but this bill has little to do with the national security of the United States. (Don't want to argue about those points either or divert the thread).
> 
> Overall, I would not have voted for this bill. 
> 
> However it is the least of my concerns. I will always support Amash regardless of his foreign policy, especially considering he is fighting the NDAA as we speak.


It's more about how he broke his principles to vote for it. He stuck to the establishment line. There was clearly huge pressure to pass the bill, and he fell to that pressure. 

Worrying, to say the least.

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

> Amash is a second generation Arab-American of *Palestinian* Christian and Syrian Christian descent. That makes it even more interesting.


So he probably puts religion above race, though he is Orthordox and I am not really sure how they view Israel.

----------


## Tod

Normally Amash explains his reasons for his votes on his FB page.

Someone has asked that question of him an hour ago, with no reply as of yet.

Will check later this evening.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> AIPAC demanded it. Amash delivered.


Wait a minute.  You clearly do not know why he voted for it.  You admitted that in your initial post.  So, before you jump to conclusions, why don't you ask him?   He has been very, very good.  He deserves that, at the very least.

----------


## bluesc

> Wait a minute.  You clearly do not know why he voted for it.  You admitted that in your initial post.  So, before you jump to conclusions, why don't you ask him?   He has been very, very good.  He deserves that, at the very least.


You misunderstood. I didn't say he voted for it _for_ them. I said he helped deliver the bill that AIPAC demanded.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> You misunderstood. I didn't say he voted for it _for_ them. I said he helped deliver the bill that AIPAC demanded.


Ok.  Do you have any proof that he did that?

----------


## bluesc

> Ok.  Do you have any proof that he did that?


He voted for it?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> He voted for it?


lol.  But, you do not know why; nor do you know AIPAC has anything to do with it. There have been all kinds of times that I did not particularly like how RP voted.  Before I jumped to a conclusion, I called and found out why he voted like he did.  For example, when he voted to give Red China most favored nation status.  I did not agree with that then, nor do I now.  But, at least I know his rationale.

----------


## Michigan11

> Ron Paul voted NAY. The only other NAY was Dingell, John.


That doesn't mean much, John Dingell is the biggest sell out in congress

----------


## Michigan11

Let's not be so quick to judge our own.

----------


## trey4sports

Amash is great and it would take a LOT to worry me. Im sure hell get around to explaining his vote soon.

----------


## anewvoice

Dingell?

----------


## Michigan11

> Dingell?


hahaha, exactly.

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

> Dingell?


Interestingly, Amash posted about him having an interesting conversation with Dingell the other day.

He has been in office since 1955, and if he stays in Congress by June 8th of next year he will be the longest serving member of Congress in history.

----------


## nano1895

> Interestingly, Amash posted about him having an interesting conversation with Dingell the other day.
> 
> He has been in office since *1955*, and if he stays in Congress by June 8th of next year he will be the longest serving member of Congress in history.


wow...

----------


## Michigan11

> wow...


The positive: When he retires, we slip in a liberty candidate and take the next 55


edit: 57?

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

> wow...


Oh yeah, and isn't Amash the youngest in Congress?

----------


## ExPatPaki

Murdering Palestinian babies is the ONLY way to salvation according to evangelical Jesus. Can you just feel the Christian love?

----------


## sonofshamwow

Let me get this straight...

Amash has been with us on SOPA, CISPA, the NDAA, and the Patriot Act...

He opposed a bill involving sanctioning Iran. He opposed a resolution that was one-sided in favor of Israel against the Palestinians...

He has never voted to raise the debt ceiling. He has fought tirelessly for a balanced budget amendment...

He's the most open and transparent representative ever, explaining all of his votes on his Facebook page...

And yet, before we even hear his explanation for this vote, some people on this forum are ready to throw him under the bus as a puppet for a special interest group? Are you kidding me? That kind of mindset will keep the liberty movement from ever succeeding on an even bigger scale than Ron Paul.

----------


## Michigan11

> Let me get this straight...
> 
> Amash has been with us on SOPA, CISPA, the NDAA, and the Patriot Act...
> 
> He opposed a bill involving sanctioning Iran. He opposed a resolution that was one-sided in favor of Israel against the Palestinians...
> 
> He has never voted to raise the debt ceiling. He has fought tirelessly for a balanced budget amendment...
> 
> He's the most open and transparent representative ever, explaining all of his votes on his Facebook page...
> ...



That's correct!

----------


## trey4sports

> Let me get this straight...
> 
> Amash has been with us on SOPA, CISPA, the NDAA, and the Patriot Act...
> 
> He opposed a bill involving sanctioning Iran. He opposed a resolution that was one-sided in favor of Israel against the Palestinians...
> 
> He has never voted to raise the debt ceiling. He has fought tirelessly for a balanced budget amendment...
> 
> He's the most open and transparent representative ever, explaining all of his votes on his Facebook page...
> ...


word

----------


## angelatc

> Interestingly, Amash posted about him having an interesting conversation with Dingell the other day.
> 
> He has been in office since 1955, and if he stays in Congress by June 8th of next year he will be the longest serving member of Congress in history.


That's largely because his district is protected.

----------


## angelatc

> Oh yeah, and isn't Amash the youngest in Congress?


No, second youngest.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

There's a good chance Amash won't be re-elected, as he is not serving the establishment.  Hope the haters are satisfied.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

only 2 votes nay?  So if Amash had voted against it, it would have been 410-3.  Sounds to me like Amash may have duped the neocons.

----------


## sonofshamwow

> Let me get this straight...
> 
> Amash has been with us on SOPA, CISPA, the NDAA, and the Patriot Act...
> 
> He opposed a bill involving sanctioning Iran. He opposed a resolution that was one-sided in favor of Israel against the Palestinians...
> 
> He has never voted to raise the debt ceiling. He has fought tirelessly for a balanced budget amendment...
> 
> He's the most open and transparent representative ever, explaining all of his votes on his Facebook page...
> ...


Let me keep going...

He voted against the budget and sequester replacement because the GOP refused to reduce military spending...

He voted to withdraw troops from Afghanistan...

He AUTHORED the amendment to defund the Libya war...

Yes, this sounds like a guy whose principles we should still be questioning.

----------


## angelatc

> There's a good chance Amash won't be re-elected, as he is not serving the establishment.  Hope the haters are satisfied.


It isn't as much the establishment as it is seniority.  Amash is the new kid on the block, so the redistricting affected him more than most.  You know, if he's a savvy politician, he'll be able to win some Dems over on his civil rights record, and he'll win re-election.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Justin has been amazing.  I sure hope we help him when he runs for reelection.  It would be a sad day for our movement if he lost.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Yet no one cares about the "United States-United Kingdom Enhanced Security Cooperation Act"... 

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ooperation-Act

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

> Murdering Palestinian babies is the ONLY way to salvation according to evangelical Jesus. Can you just feel the Christian love?


Stop being a liar. 

The only way to salvation is accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior. Out with the Louis Farrakhan propaganda.

----------


## bluesc

> Let me get this straight...
> 
> Amash has been with us on SOPA, CISPA, the NDAA, and the Patriot Act...
> 
> He opposed a bill involving sanctioning Iran. He opposed a resolution that was one-sided in favor of Israel against the Palestinians...
> 
> He has never voted to raise the debt ceiling. He has fought tirelessly for a balanced budget amendment...
> 
> He's the most open and transparent representative ever, explaining all of his votes on his Facebook page...
> ...


Who is ready to throw him under the bus?

The people who try to silence any criticism and questions about our "liberty candidates" are just as bad as the establishment and their establishment candidates. GTFO.

----------


## ExPatPaki

> The only way to salvation is accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior.


Yes, and Jesus said to support the Israeli murder of Palestinian babies.



> Out with the Louis Farrakhan propaganda


What's a Louis Farrakhan?

----------


## Brett85

"Assisting in the defense of Israel" could simply mean selling weapons to them, which is just a form of free trade.  This particular bill doesn't necessarily authorize any foreign aid from what I can see.  So why should Justin have voted "no" on this?

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> "Assisting in the defense of Israel" could simply mean selling weapons to them, which is just a form of free trade.  This particular bill doesn't necessarily authorize any foreign aid from what I can see.  So why should Justin have voted "no" on this?


Free trade is people selling stuff to people, not government killing squads sending equipment made with stolen funds to other government killing squads purchasing their tools with stolen funds.

----------


## bluesc

> "Assisting in the defense of Israel" could simply mean selling weapons to them, which is just a form of free trade.  This particular bill doesn't necessarily authorize any foreign aid from what I can see.  So why should Justin have voted "no" on this?





> (2) To provide Israel the military capabilities necessary to deter and defend itself by itself against any threats.





> (3) To veto any one-sided anti-Israel resolutions at the United Nations Security Council.





> (4) To support Israel’s inherent right to self-defense.





> (6) To assist Israel with its on-going efforts 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 to encourage Israel’s neighbors to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.





> SEC. 4. UNITED STATES ACTIONS TO ASSIST IN THE DEFENSE OF ISRAEL AND PROTECT AMERICAN INTERESTS.
> 
>     (a) Sense of Congress- It is the sense of Congress that the United States should take the following actions to assist in the defense of Israel:
> 
>         (1) Provide Israel such support as may be necessary to increase development and production of joint missile defense systems, particularly such systems that defend the urgent threat posed to Israel and United States forces in the region.
> 
>         (2) Provide Israel assistance specifically for the production and procurement of the Iron Dome defense system for purposes of intercepting short-range missiles, rockets, and projectiles launched against Israel.
> 
>         (3) Provide Israel defense articles and defense services through such mechanisms as appropriate, to include air refueling tankers, missile defense capabilities, and specialized munitions.
> ...


Why should he have voted "yes" on this?

A good question is this: How would the founding fathers have voted on this bill, if given the chance?

Answer: The same way Ron Paul did.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Why should he have voted "yes" on this?
> 
> A good question is this: How would the founding fathers have voted on this bill, if given the chance?
> 
> Answer: The same way Ron Paul did.


Did you ask him yet?  Or, are you still blathering on here, flinging accusations without even giving him the common courtesy of asking?  Yeah, we know the answer.

----------


## bluesc

> Did you ask him yet?  Or, are you still blathering on here, flinging accusations without even giving him the common courtesy of asking?  Yeah, we know the answer.


I've already told you, his rationalizations are irrelevant. 

Didn't we already discuss the fact that all politicians have convincing rationale for voting for all horrible bills, and if I were to listen to them, I wouldn't be interested in this movement?

And yes, many people have already asked, and there was no answer.

----------


## nano1895

> I've already told you, his rationalizations are irrelevant. 
> 
> Didn't we already discuss the fact that all politicians have convincing rationale for voting for all horrible bills, and if I were to listen to them, I wouldn't be interested in this movement?
> 
> And yes, many people have already asked,* and there was no answer.*


i'll ask again, if people wanna hop over to his facebook page and comment+like it so it'll get his attention.

----------


## Brett85

> Why should he have voted "yes" on this?
> 
> A good question is this: How would the founding fathers have voted on this bill, if given the chance?
> 
> Answer: The same way Ron Paul did.


Ok.  I didn't actually read all that.  I support some of the language contained in the resolution, and oppose other parts of it.  Amash probably should've voted "no" on it, but he would've taken a lot of heat and would've been only the 3rd "no" vote.  I'm not sure if that would've accomplished anything.

----------


## bluesc

> Ok.  I didn't actually read all that.  I support some of the language contained in the resolution, and oppose other parts of it.  Amash probably should've voted "no" on it, but he would've taken a lot of heat and would've been only the 3rd "no" vote.  I'm not sure if that would've accomplished anything.


Slippery slope. Ron was the lone "no" vote all that time, yet we are all here and he is accomplishing so much. Amash will fade into obscurity as yet another "yes" vote.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Amash has been great.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I've already told you, his rationalizations are irrelevant. 
> 
> Didn't we already discuss the fact that all politicians have convincing rationale for voting for all horrible bills, and if I were to listen to them, I wouldn't be interested in this movement?
> 
> And yes, many people have already asked, and there was no answer.


You blathered, yes.  But, it doesn't make any more sense now than it did then.

----------


## bluesc

> Amash has been great.


And where is anyone denying that? You're doing it again, LE.

----------


## bluesc

> You blathered, yes.  But, it doesn't make any more sense now than it did then.


ME = BRAIN

ME = HOLD OWN OPINION ON BILLS

THIS MOVEMENT = BASED ON THINKING FOR OURSELVES

----------


## LibertyEagle

> And where is anyone denying that? You're doing it again, LE.


Are you unable to look back through your posts in this very thread?




> ME = BRAIN
> 
> ME = HOLD OWN OPINION ON BILLS
> 
> THIS MOVEMENT = BASED ON THINKING FOR OURSELVES


This movement is based on getting the facts.  Something that you seem to not care about.  Who needs them, just proceed, make up your own and vomit them all over this forum.




> AIPAC demanded it. Amash delivered.

----------


## bluesc

> Are you unable to look back through your posts in this very thread?


Where did I say "Justin Amash is a terrible congressman"?




> This movement is based on getting the facts.  Something that you seem to not care about.  Who needs them, just proceed and make up your own.


The facts are that it is a terrible bill and he voted for it.

As for your edit that includes a previous post of mine in this thread.... Your point?

----------


## LibertyEagle

I made my point.  You have jumped to conclusions about Rand, Amash, the campaign, etc. these last couple of days and spread that garbage all over this forum.  You won't lift a finger to find out the facts.  It's all very suspicious that someone who is interested in furthering this movement would act like that.

Clear enough for you?

----------


## bluesc

> I made my point.  You have jumped to conclusions about Rand, Amash, the campaign, etc. these last couple of days and spread that garbage all over this forum.  You won't lift a finger to find out the facts.  It's all very suspicious that someone who is interested in furthering this movement would act like that.
> 
> Clear enough for you?


No, you took a post of mine (which I already explained in this very thread) and implied I meant something else by it.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

Can someone just ask him already? I'd actually like to know before throwing him under any moving vehicles.

----------


## bluesc

> Can someone just ask him already? I'd actually like to know before throwing him under any moving vehicles.


Many people asked him. No answer.

No one is throwing him under the boss, don't listen to LE's strong language.

----------


## tbone717

bluesc

I usually don't have a beef with you, but if you are ready to discount someone because of one vote, then you are never going to be satisfied.  What the liberty movement is looking for is people we agree with most of the time, not 100% on all issues all the time.  Heck, there are differences of opinion on various bills among us all from time to time, but what unites us is that we agree with each other on 95% of the things.

----------


## bluesc

> bluesc
> 
> I usually don't have a beef with you, but if you are ready to discount someone because of one vote, then you are never going to be satisfied.  What the liberty movement is looking for is people we agree with most of the time, not 100% on all issues all the time.  Heck, there are differences of opinion on various bills among us all from time to time, but what unites us is that we agree with each other on 95% of the things.


What the liberty movement is looking for is people who don't accuse others of "discounting" or "throwing candidates under the bus" for simple criticism and questions.

Say it with me in 3...2...1... Justin Amash did indeed vote for a horrible bill. It doesn't mean I'm calling him a neocon terrorist, it just means he voted for a horrible bill. People deserve to know. 

That was easy.

----------


## Revolution9

> Murdering Palestinian babies is the ONLY way to salvation according to evangelical Jesus. Can you just feel the Christian love?


You misspelled "avengelical".

HTH
Rev9

----------


## LibertyEagle

> No, you took a post of mine (which I already explained in this very thread) and implied I meant something else by it.




Everyone can read for themselves how you acted.  They can decide for themselves.

----------


## bluesc

> Everyone can read for themselves how you acted.  They can decide for themselves.


It doesn't really seem like anyone cares, except for you and a couple of others.

Most people acknowledged that he voted for a $#@!ty bill, and moved on. Some may watch him closer for a while (as I will), but no one who previously supported him is throwing him under the bus.

You're the one blowing this up.

----------


## angelatc

> Can someone just ask him already? I'd actually like to know before throwing him under any moving vehicles.


Here's a thought - we could even call his office Monday.

----------


## bluesc

> Here's a thought - we could even call his office Monday.


A wild strong independent conservative woman appears!

----------


## alucard13mmfmj

he might have voted yes to fool the neocons so he can stay in office a little longer to fight for us on other issues. 

it was one of those issues where amash probably was better off taking one for the team so he wont get picked on. it was like 400 vs 2. would you want amash to vote no.. so it would be 400 vs 3, but then he gets bullied out by the establishment? u sometimes gotta learn when to retreat so u can fight another day. 

ron has been voting the way he said he would and he wont be seeking re-election in congress... so of course he will vote no =P.

----------


## Krzysztof Lesiak

Pressure from the Israel lobby is extremely strong, I think he just doesn't want to be kicked out after one term for distinguishing himself by standing up to AIPAC.

----------


## alucard13mmfmj

> Pressure from the Israel lobby is extremely strong, I think he just doesn't want to be kicked out after one term for distinguishing himself by standing up to AIPAC.


yep. i rather have him take one for the team so he can fight another day. 

it is like a guy sacrificing himself to a horde of zombies so he can buy his group some time.. but the group tries to talk him out of it, thus negating the time that the guy is trying to buy. its pointless!

rather have him vote yes for israel.. so he can vote no against stuff like SOPA, NDAA, CISPA, and other things in the long term. although, i'd probably watch him to see how much he is compromising to stay in the game.

----------


## papitosabe

> it was one of those issues where amash probably was better off taking one for the team so he wont get picked on. .


I don't think I like the sound of that....

----------


## eproxy100

> he might have voted yes to fool the neocons so he can stay in office a little longer to fight for us on other issues. 
> 
> it was one of those issues where amash probably was better off taking one for the team so he wont get picked on. it was like 400 vs 2. would you want amash to vote no.. so it would be 400 vs 3, but then he gets bullied out by the establishment? u sometimes gotta learn when to retreat so u can fight another day. 
> 
> ron has been voting the way he said he would and he wont be seeking re-election in congress... so of course he will vote no =P.


Ron has always voted no when it was against his principles, regardless of whether sought re-election or not. Your statement is therefore misleading.




> yep. i rather have him take one for the team so he can fight another day. 
> 
> it is like a guy sacrificing himself to a horde of zombies so he can buy his group some time.. but the group tries to talk him out of it, thus negating the time that the guy is trying to buy. its pointless!
> 
> rather have him vote yes for israel.. so he can vote no against stuff like SOPA, NDAA, CISPA, and other things in the long term. although, i'd probably watch him to see how much he is compromising to stay in the game.


When you vote to support israel you're stirring up a lot of anger in the middle east. That's why you have all these terrorist attacks. You can't have freedom under those conditions.

If everybody here gave in to a few issues then we'd end up just like the democrats and republicans. Some would give in to welfare and others would give in to "security".

----------


## alucard13mmfmj

well then.. theres 400 statesmen to replace.

----------


## Matt Collins

Interesting to look at history

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Interesting to look at history


Yes, very interesting.

----------


## Champ

If memory serves correctly, he got hit pretty hard on his Facebook feed for this vote.  He apologized and said he saw the error in his ways, not something a principled statesmen would do.  He likely succumbed to the pro-Israeli foreign policy trap and agreement every single congressman is forced to sign upon entering the House, lest they never be supported again on any bills of consequence for the rest of their term(s) in office.  

Interesting seeing even back then, people scrambling to attack or defend him on this one.  Either way, this is a great moment in history looking back, now that we have seen the direction he has taken.

----------

