Dave Brat Votes For NDAA 2016

[jeffro97]

Today, the House apparently voted on the National Defense Authorization Act for 2016. HR 1735 has already passed out of the House, and is now moving onto the Senate. The vote went 269 in favor, and 151 in opposition, with 12 not voting. There isn't much out, but this has a summary of what in it for 2016.

Moving back to Mr. Brat, here is what he had to say on his Facebook page.

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

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

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

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

 

[ctiger2]

Looks like Brat is a BIG GOVERNMENT lover just like the rest of them...

 

[Mr.NoSmile]

Of all the votes to single out...

 

[Christian Liberty]

Just say you're "supporting the troops" and people will believe you. SMH

 

[Sola_Fide]

Haha....Here's what happens when there is a "liberty candidate" that idiots out there think can change things, and he never gets questioned about the important things.

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

 

[The Northbreather]

Haha....Here's what happens when there is a "liberty candidate" that idiots out there think can change things, and he never gets questioned about the important things.

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

do you mean ending the surveillance state is not important'

 

[Spikender]

do you mean ending the surveillance state is not important'

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

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I'd wager that Brat voted for it in exchange for removing the amnesty provisions.

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

 

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

 

[Sola_Fide]

do you mean ending the surveillance state is not important'

Yes.

 

[Brett85]

I don't see the issue with this. Most libertarians believe that national defense is a necessary and Constitutional function of government. As far as I know there weren't any indefinite detention provisions in this NDAA.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I don't see the issue with this. Most libertarians believe that national defense is a necessary and Constitutional function of government. As far as I know there weren't any indefinite detention provisions in this NDAA.

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

 

[Christian Liberty]

Got it: Removing amnesty turns "funding to fight ISIS in the Middle East" into pro-liberty legislation.

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

 

[Brett85]

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

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

 

[Matt Collins]

Does the OP have a link one can pass around?

 

[kcchiefs6465]

I don't see the issue with this. Most libertarians believe that national defense is a necessary and Constitutional function of government. As far as I know there weren't any indefinite detention provisions in this NDAA.

I would wager that one, he had not read and digested the bill and that two, buried some 30,000 words into the bill are some very bad things. Maybe by March, when the bill is actually examined and amended laws are looked at, we might find out which way we were fucked because of it.

 

[Christian Liberty]

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

We need more hardcore anti-war people.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

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

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

 

[Christian Liberty]

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

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

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

 

[Brett85]

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