Skip to comments.SO YOU THINK THE ECONOMY IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE?WHAT ABOUT NATIONAL SECURITY?
Posted on 07/28/2011 11:47:15 AM PDT by seekthetruth
AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION: Amendment requires that the rules of engagement allow any military service personnel assigned to duty in a designated hostile fire area to have rules of engagement that fully protect their right to proactively defend themselves from hostile actions.
AMENDMENT PURPOSE: An amendment numbered 38 printed in House Report 112-88 to require that the rules of engagement allow any military service personnel assigned to duty in a designated hostile fire area to have rules of engagement that fully protects their right to proactively defend themselves from hostile actions.
On agreeing to the Mica amendment (A018) Agreed to by recorded vote: 260 - 160 (Roll no. 354).
(Excerpt) Read more at thomas.loc.gov ...
National Security and our Economy are tied together. Think about what we had after 9/11! We not only have our Military under "rules of engagement" which put them in danger in facing the terrorists, we also have terrorists infiltrating and planning attacks here in America!
Time to get on your phone and computer and call and write the members of Congress from your state who obviously believe our Military on active duty do NOT have the right to defend themselves! if they believe their lives are in danger!
Go to the roll call link at he link above and look up your Representatives in the US House. Ask those who voted NO, why they voted against allowing our Military to defend themselves? In other words if you are in the Military you don't have 2nd amendment rights???
Please bring this National Security issue to all you know! Thanks!
National Security/border control
The amendment passed the House, but among the 160 House members who voted NO are the following House members from Florida.
The Florida Democrats In US House Who Voted NO: (The 6 we MUST vote out in 2012!)
Corrine Brown - (D) -District 3
Castor, Kathy - (D) - District 11
Deutch, Ted - (D) - District 19
Hastings, Alcee L. - (D) - District 23
Wasserman-Schultz,Debbie - (D) - District 20
Wilson, Frederica - (D) - District 17
The Florida Republican US House Members Who Voted NO - (WE MUST ASK THEM WHY!)
Ander Crenshaw - (R) - District 4
Dan Webster - (R )- District 8
Of course, we expect the leader of the Marxist Democrat Party, Dizzie Debbie, to vote NO, and not surprising that the other 5 Marxist DEMS in Florida would follow Debbie!
Seeing a NO vote from Congressman Crenshaw and Congressman Webster has made me VERY UPSET! They will be hearing from me today, tomorrow, the next day and the next day until I find out WHY they voted against our troops!
That’s all we need. Individual troops starting an international incident. Or worse yet, troops in a domestic designated hostile-fire area deciding to open fire on Americans “for self defense” (Janet Reno, anyone?)
No, what we need is the government to start acting responsibly when putting troops into hostile-fire areas, not just leaving them as targets.
Right now the most important issue IS the economy. What threat do we suffer under that can wipe us out as a nation if not economic?
How do you stop the like of major Hassan, the military psychologist, by beefing up military expenditures? Or for that matter people entering the country with legitimate visa’s, such as all of the 911 terrorists?
We are currently borrowing 42 cents for every dollar spent by the federal government. Half of that borrowing is from foreigners! We owe Trillions to China alone!
So why are we spending huge sums of money in middle-east wars protecting oil supplies to China with borrowed money from China? I can’t think of anything more stupid!
Then we are spending hundreds of Billions on Homeland security. Add all the hours wasted by airline passengers getting frisked and groped by TSA. It is all so asinine.
We can’t have an economy by borrowing 42 cents on every dollar spent. There are much more economical methods of fighting WOT & illegal immigration.
Voter fraud is the number one issue. All other issues can be resolved.
If you don’t pay your troops, you don’t have national security.
People seem to forget that the final straw for the Soviet Union was inability to issue paychecks.
I thank my friend for yielding.Mr. SMITH of Washington:
My objection, respectfully, to this amendment is it supplants the decision of the commander in the field with the judgment of the Congress. I frankly agree that there are very, very few circumstances I could imagine where we would not want our troops in the field to be fully armed to their complete comfort and satisfaction level. And so it's hard for me to imagine a circumstance where that's not the case.
But it's easy for me to understand a circumstance where the person in the field who is charged with the responsibility of achieving the mission and achieving maximum protection of his or her troops should have the authority to make that decision.
So my objection to this is not the intent. I think we share it. My objection is the fact that the amendment supplants the judgment of that commander in the field and replaces it with the judgment we are making here thousands of miles away based on facts that we could not possibly foresee.
So although I share the gentleman's intent, for that reason I would respectfully encourage the Members to vote ``no'' on the amendment.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition for a very simple reason. As the gentleman said in his opening remarks in favor of the amendment, he does not wish to micromanage what goes on in the field. I think there can be no more blatant micromanaging than this. Having Congress insert itself into the debate about what the rules of engagement should be in the field of operations for the military is micromanaging in the absolute worst way. We should trust our commanders in the field to make those decisions, and those decisions are and always will be controversial, both ways, in terms of what the rules of engagement should be.
I will simply make the very clear statement that I want our trained commanders in the field to make the decision on what the rules of engagement should be in any given environment, not the United States Congress. This is not a debate that we should insert ourselves into, and I believe that we should defeat this amendment and leave the authority with the commanders, where it belongs.
I yield back the balance of my time.
I cannot get the link to work.
Barry soetoro aka Barak Hussein Obama II has succeeded beyond expectations at fundamentally changing the United States—Our Economy is trashcanned since he took Office— our National Security likewise. and the american people are kept divided and distracted by all the dam brush fires this Hitler youth keep having his community organizers set. The Army trained us to look to -to study the founding documents to best train to oppose the enemy foreign or domestic-and holding our elected officials accountable to those documents is key to maintaining our Constitutional Republic.
Also on FR here:
So you think our American troops would start an international incident by defending themselves in a “designated hostile fire area” like in the Middle East?
Should they walk around without armament too?
Oh, I failed to see the part where it said that this was restricted to designated hostile fire areas like the Middle East.
Please point out that part in the amendment.
And, please let me know why you think it's okay to allow our troops to make pre-emptive strikes (i.e., "proactively defend") without their commanders having any say.
Congressman Smith - Washington - Democrat
Congressman Andrews - New Jersey - Democrat
Need I say more??
“Another 9/11 = Economic collapse.”
The first one didn’t.
I would hate to think what an attack like 9/11 would do now.
Here is a link to learn about the dangers we face with National Security:
9/11 didn't cause those things. The CRA and the DemocRATS did.
Send treats to the troops...
Great because you did it!
Did you expect them to be non-Democrats?!?!
Sorry, but just because they were smart on this doesn’t mean I’m going to start thinking that much of what they do is right.
Plus, there were many who crossed party lines.
I don’t see “economy” on ol’ Abe Maslow’s pyramid... could it be that it’s not there, and that it’s just a means to obtaining the others?
And that without an economy, you have no security?
And heck, you can’t even meet physiological needs without a sufficiently strong economy.
I would think that “Economy” would be in the next layer after safety, in “social needs”, but you DO have a point.
"In actual fact, it is the State, i.e. the taxpayer, who has become responsible to private enterprise. In Fascist Italy the State pays for the blunders of private enterprise. As long as business was good, profit remained to private initiative. When the depression came, the Government added the loss to the tax-payer's burden. Profit is private and individual. Loss is public and social."
[. . . discussion of bailouts of banks, auto manufacturers, etc. . . .]
"In December 1932 a Fascist financial expert, Signor Mazuchelli, estimated that more than 8.5 billion lire had been paid out by the Government from 1923 to 1932 in order to help depressed industries (Rivista Bancaria, December 15th, 1932, p.1,007). From December 1932 to 1935 the outlay must have doubled."--Under the Axe of Fascism, by Gaetano Salvemini (1936).
First, you buy your food. Then safety. Without those, you don't hit the bar and socialize. Etc.
Makes sense. However, in a primitive society, one still has to feed oneself, either as a hunter-gatherer or as a farmer. And this even simple life becomes impossible if your life is plagued by thundering hordes of marauding barbarians on a regular basis. Only when you are safe from these raids, can you start thinking about developing an economy that is more advanced than the subsidence level.
That was the basis of my thesis.
However, hitting the bar and socializing sounds like a good idea at this point! LOL!
And then of course, there are the hermits and ascetics who aim right for the tip top of the pyramid without bothering with those pesky lower layers! LOL!
Ok, I see where you're coming from -- and prolly where you're going.
Send treats to the troops...
Great because you did it!
Here in Florida, our 6 US House members lead by Debbie Schultz voted NO.
Only 2 of our 19 Florida Republican US House members voted NO. They are Congressman Ander Crenshaw and Congressman Dan Webster. I will be contacting them soon to find out why.
No. It's the same economics used by FDR, and as Salvimini points out, just because FDR was using this framework of economics, he wasn't a fascist. Similarly, George W. Bush isn't a fascist despite using Corporatist economics.
But the terrific failure of them for FDR's America and Mussolini's Italy should have been a warning.
I checked into all the NO votes, and of the 160 NO votes, 143 were Democrats and 17 were Republicans. And as far as I am concerned, 17 Republicans crossing party lines to vote NO is TOO MANY!
Pinging Virginia Freepers here so they can see their members of Congress who voted against our Military. Sure they will want to call them and ask them why they think our troops should not be allowed to defend themselves if they feel their lives are in danger!
Virginia US House Members Who Voted NO:
Moran, James D - 202-225-4376
Scott, Robert C. D - 202-225-8351
Pinging my list of Maryland Freepers so they will know about the US House members who voted against our Military.
Sarbanes, John P. D - 202-225-4016
Edwards, Donna F. D - 202-225-8699
Hoyer, Steny H. D - 202-225-4131
Van Hollen, Chris D - 202-225-5341
Cummings, Elijah D - 202-225-4741
AKA “The Usual Suspects”.
[can Western MD *please* secede, now?!?]
And this list is a surprise, why, exactly?
Economic collapse is a national security calamity.
Ultimately we need both tended to.
Maryland is such an embarrassment.
Thats all we need. Individual troops starting an international incident.
I dont see that happening although insurgents in both Iraq and Afghanistan have tried to create them. Insurgents tend to carry off weapons after a firefight. Our troops have been accused of murdering innocent civilians because no weapons were found with the dead. For over 40 years our Rules of Engagement have moved more towards protecting the enemy and away from protecting our troops.
My thoughts in listing those who voted NO and provide phone numbers was in hopes that folks would call and ask why they voted NO and why the Military Rules of Engagement were such that an amendment allowing our troops the right to defend themselves was necessary!
Don’t feel bad, they are DEMS after all. You should see the list from California!
California US House Members Who Voted Against Our Military:
Thompson, Mike D - 202-225-3311
Matsui, Doris O. D - 202-225-7163
Woolsey, Lynn D - 202-225-5161
Miller, George D - 202-225-2095
Pelosi, Nancy D - 202-225-4965
Lee, Barbara D - 202-225-2661
Garamendi, John D - 202-225-1880
McNerney, Jerry D - 202-225-1947
Speier, Jackie D - 202-225-3531
Eshoo, Anna G. D - 202-225-8104
Honda, Mike D - 202-225-2631
Lofgren, Zoe D - 202-225-3072
Farr, Sam D - 202-225-2861
Cardoza, Dennis D - 202-225-6131
Capps, Lois D - 202-225-3601
Sherman, Brad D - 202-225-5911
Berman, Howard D - 202-225-4695
Schiff, Adam D - 202-225-4176
Waxman, Henry D - 202-225-3976
Becerra, Xavier D - 202-225-6235
Chu, Judy D - 202-225-5464
Bass, Karen D - 202-225-7084
Roybal-Allard, Lucille D - 202-225-1766
Waters, Maxine D - 202-225-2201
Richardson, Laura D - 202-225-7924
Napolitano, Grace D - 202-225-5256
Sanchez, Linda D - 202-225-6676
Baca, Joe D - 202-225-6161
Sanchez, Loretta D - 202-225-2965
Davis, Susan D - 202-225-2040
Stark, Fortney Pete D - 202-225-5065
McKeon, Buck REPUBLICAN - 202-225-1956
Yes, we do need both attended to. We know our economy is certainly in danger with ANY major attack. There are many conserns I have, but National Security issues are top on my list.
The Wisconsis list of House members voting against our Military was really surprising to me. Looks like some Republican members followed others. Only 17 Republicans voted NO nation wide, with most from Wisconsin!
Wisconsin US House Members Who Voted Against Our Military.
Baldwin, Tammy D - 202-225-2906
Moore, Gwen D - 202-225-4572
Ryan, Paul REPUBLICAN 202-225-3031
Sensenbrenner, F. James REPUBLICAN - 202-225-5101
Petri, Thomas REPUBLICAN - 202-225-2476
Duffy, Sean P. REPUBLICAN 202-225-3365
I wasn’t familiar with this amendment until you posted it—thanks.
My immediate thought, however, is that though this should of course be the norm, it really ought to be enforced through the military itself, rather than by the force of law. I can imagine certain highly sensitive operations where special ops forces, for example, must put themselves at risk in a fashion that this law might override.
Good intentions, but like most common sense put into law, it’s that 3% that over-legislating really mucks up.
Thanks for the bump. The Lame stream ghoulishly reported casualties under Bush everyday. Now casualites are worse and not a peep.
In a war zone if it moves, kill it!!!
There is no such thing as a civilian in a war zone!
Puzzling to me is how an amendment passed in May can generate any level of attention months later when our National Security is being shown to be directly undermined by political operatives in the highest levels of government.
Anyone see a gunrunning reference here?
Issa’s Fast and Furious hearings should be the number one subject of discussion from coast to coast. It should be explored as the best opportunity to reclaim our Nation.
Instead we are fed yesterday’s news.