Which ones did she vote for?
Here are some examples:
https://www.thenewamerican.com/freedom-index
Dist.2: Tulsi Gabbard -
31%
[TABLE="class: cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table"]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 4"]
H RES 397: NATO[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_paddingleft"]Vote Date:
June 27, 2017[/TD]
[TD="class: cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_paddingleft"]Vote:
AYE[/TD]
[TD="class: cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_paddingleft"]
[/TD]
[TD]Bad Vote.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_paddingleft, colspan: 4"]This legislation (H. Res. 397) “solemnly reaffirms the commitment of the United States to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s principle of collective defense as enumerated in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.” Under Article 5, the member nations of the NATO military alliance “agree that an armed attack against one or more of them ... shall be considered an attack against them all.”
The House passed H. Res. 397 on June 27, 2017 by a lopsided vote of 423 to 4 (Roll Call 328). We have assigned pluses to the nays not only because the United States should stay clear of entangling alliances such as NATO, but also because the NATO provision that obligates the United States to go to war if any member of NATO is attacked undermines the provision in the U.S. Constitution that assigns to Congress the power to declare war. Moreover, the number of nations that the United States has pledged to defend under NATO has grown from 11 to 28 over the years, as the alliance itself has grown from 12 member nations (including the United States) when NATO was created in 1949 to 29 today. Although NATO was ostensibly formed to counter the threat from the Soviet bloc of nations, some of the nations the United States is now pledged to defend under NATO were once part of that bloc, including Albania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic (as part of Czechoslovakia), Hungary, Poland, and Romania.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="class: cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table"]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 4"]
H R 5293: Authorization for Use of Military Force[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_paddingleft"]Vote Date:
June 16, 2016[/TD]
[TD="class: cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_paddingleft"]Vote:
NAY[/TD]
[TD="class: cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_paddingleft"]
[/TD]
[TD]Bad Vote.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_paddingleft, colspan: 4"]During consideration of the Defense Appropriations bill (H.R. 5293), Representative Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) introduced an amendment to prohibit the use of funds in the bill for the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force Act. Enacted in the wake of 9/11, the AUMF authorized the president to “use all necessary and appropriate force” against the terrorists involved, as well as those who aided or harbored them. It was used as the authorization for U.S. military entry into Afghanistan in 2001, and over the years has also been invoked on other occasions by the executive branch to justify U.S. military intervention abroad.
The House rejected Lee’s amendment on June 16, 2016 by a vote of 146 to 274 (Roll Call 330). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because presidents have been able to claim broad authority to go to war whenever or wherever they choose under the AUMF, despite the fact that the Founding Fathers never intended for one man to make this decision, and under the Constitution only Congress may “declare war.”[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="class: cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table"]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 4"]
H R 4909: Use of Military Force[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_paddingleft"]Vote Date:
May 18, 2016[/TD]
[TD="class: cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_paddingleft"]Vote:
NAY[/TD]
[TD="class: cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_paddingleft"]
[/TD]
[TD]Bad Vote.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_paddingleft, colspan: 4"]During consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4909), Representative Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) introduced an amendment to repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) that was enacted in 2001 for the purpose of authorizing U.S. military intervention in Afghanistan in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks. Since then, however, the AUMF has been invoked numerous times by the executive branch for U.S. military intervention not only in Afghanistan but elsewhere.
The House rejected Lee’s amendment on May 18, 2016 by a vote of 138 to 285 (Roll Call 210). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because presidents have been able to claim broad authority to go to war whenever or wherever they choose under the AUMF, despite the fact that the Founding Fathers never intended for one man to make this decision, and under the Constitution only Congress may “declare war.”
[TABLE="class: cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table"]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 4"]
H RES 162: Calling on the President to provide Ukraine with military assistance to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_paddingleft"]Vote Date:
March 23, 2015[/TD]
[TD="class: cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_paddingleft"]Vote:
AYE[/TD]
[TD="class: cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_paddingleft"]
[/TD]
[TD]Bad Vote.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_paddingleft, colspan: 4"]Ukraine Military Aid.
House Resolution 162, which calls on the president "to provide Ukraine with military assistance to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity," allows President Obama to provide Ukraine with defensive weapons to defend against aggression from Russia.
The House adopted H. Res. 162 on March 23, 2015 by a vote of 348 to 48 (Roll Call 131). We have assigned pluses to the nays not only because foreign aid is unconstitutional but also because this bill would further interject the United States into a foreign conflict. Allowing the U.S. president to provide lethal arms to Ukraine in order to fight Russia is tantamount to waging a proxy war on Russia without the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war. The House, by giving such power to the president, is relinquishing one of its constitutional responsibilities.
[TABLE="class: cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table"]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 4"]
H R 4870: On Agreeing to the Amendment 51 to H R 4870[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_paddingleft"]Vote Date:
June 19, 2014[/TD]
[TD="class: cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_paddingleft"]Vote:
NAY[/TD]
[TD="class: cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_paddingleft"]
[/TD]
[TD]Bad Vote.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_paddingleft, colspan: 4"]Weapons to Syrian Rebels.
During consideration of the Defense Appropriations bill,
Representative Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb.) introduced an amendment that would have prohibited any funding in the bill from being used to provide weapons to Syrian rebels. Fortenberry noted on the House floor that "the rebel movement is a battleground of shifting alliances and bloody conflicts between groups that now include multinational terrorist organizations," that "sending our weapons into this chaotic war zone could inadvertently help these extremists," and that "it has already happened." He added: "The naive notion that we can deliver weapons to vetted, moderate opposition groups at war with other rebel militias gives no guarantee that our weaponry won't be seized or diverted."
The House rejected Fortenberry's amendment on June 19, 2014 by a vote of 167 to 244 (Roll Call 328). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because arming "moderate" rebels in a foreign country is tantamount to going to war, which would require a declaration of war by Congress. Also, the United States should follow the Founders' advice not to become involved in foreign quarrels[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="class: cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table"]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 4"]
H R 4152: To provide for the costs of loan guarantees for Ukraine[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_paddingleft"]Vote Date:
April 1, 2014[/TD]
[TD="class: cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_paddingleft"]Vote:
AYE[/TD]
[TD="class: cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_paddingleft"]
[/TD]
[TD]Bad Vote.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_paddingleft, colspan: 4"]Ukraine Aid.
This bill (H.R. 4152), as amended by the Senate (see Senate vote below), would provide $150 million for direct aid to Ukraine. It would also provide for loan guarantees (meaning that U.S. taxpayers would be stuck holding the bag if the loans are not paid). And it would impose sanctions on Russian and ex-Ukrainian officials deemed responsible for the crisis in the Ukraine.
[ The Senate version of this legislation - offered in the form of a substitute amendment to the House version, H.R. 4152 - would provide $150 million for direct aid to Ukraine. It would also provide for loan guarantees (meaning that the U.S. taxpayers would be stuck holding the bag if the loans are not paid). And it would impose sanctions on Russian and ex-Ukrainian officials deemed responsible for the crisis in the Ukraine. ]
The House voted for this legislation on April 1, 2014 by a vote of 378 to 34 (Roll Call 149). We have assigned pluses to the nays because foreign aid is unconstitutional. The rationale for providing U.S. aid to Ukraine is that the country needs our assistance to resist Russian hegemony and build "democracy." Yet the oligarchs wielding power in Ukraine are hardly "democrats," and (because money is fungible) U.S. assistance could effectively be funneled to Russia in the form of Ukrainian energy and debt payments.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
