Why did Justin Amash vote for H.R. 4133?

"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.
 
"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.

(4) Allocate additional weaponry and munitions for the forward-deployed United States stockpile in Israel.

(5) Provide Israel additional surplus defense articles and defense services, as appropriate, in the wake of the withdrawal of United States forces from Iraq.

(6) Strengthen efforts to prevent weapons smuggling into Gaza pursuant to the 2005 Agreement on Movement and Access following the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and to protect against weapons smuggling and terrorist threats from the Sinai Peninsula.

(7) Offer the Israeli Air Force additional training and exercise opportunities in the United States to compensate for Israel’s limited air space.

(8) Expand Israel’s authority to make purchases under the Foreign Military Financing program on a commercial basis.

(9) Seek to enhance the capabilities of the United States and Israel to address emerging common threats, increase security cooperation, and expand joint military exercises.

(10) Encourage an expanded role for Israel within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), including an enhanced presence at NATO headquarters and exercises.

(11) Support extension of the long-standing loan guarantee program for Israel, recognizing Israel’s unbroken record of repaying its loans on time and in full.

(12) Expand already-close intelligence cooperation, including satellite intelligence, with Israel.

(b) Report on Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge-

(1) STATEMENT OF POLICY- It is the policy of the United States--

(A) to help Israel preserve its qualitative military edge amid rapid and uncertain regional political transformation; and

(B) to encourage further development of advanced technology programs between the United States and Israel given current trends and instability in the region.

(2) REPORT- Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate a report on the status of Israel’s qualitative military edge in light of current trends and instability in the region.

(c) Reports on Other Matters- Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report on each of the following:

(1) Taking into account Israel’s urgent requirement for F-35 aircraft, actions to improve the process relating to Israel’s purchase of F-35 aircraft to improve cost efficiency and timely delivery.

(2) Efforts to expand cooperation between the United States and Israel in homeland security, counter-terrorism, maritime security, energy, cybersecurity, and other appropriate areas.

(3) Actions to integrate Israel into the defense of the Eastern Mediterranean.

(d) Definitions- In this section:

(1) APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES- The term ‘appropriate congressional committees’ means--

(A) the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Armed Services, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives; and

(B) the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Armed Services, and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate.

(2) QUALITATIVE MILITARY EDGE- The term ‘qualitative military edge’ has the meaning given the term in section 36(h)(2) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2776(h)(2)).

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.
 
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. :rolleyes:
 
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. :rolleyes:

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'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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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?
 
Last edited:
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?
 
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.
 
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

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.
 
Back
Top