Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

SO YOU THINK THE ECONOMY IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE?WHAT ABOUT NATIONAL SECURITY?
US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES - AMENDMENT ^ | July 28, 2011 | SeekTheTruth

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 ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; War on Terror; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; micromanagement; military; nationalsecurity; powergrab; waronterror
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last
While we all focus on the economy and the big vote coming up on the debt limit, lets realize this: IF WE DO NOT HAVE A SECURE NATION, WE WILL NOT HAVE AN ECONOMY!

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!

1 posted on 07/28/2011 11:47:21 AM PDT by seekthetruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: seekthetruth

National Security/border control


2 posted on 07/28/2011 11:49:48 AM PDT by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin! (look it up))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: seekthetruth; maine-iac7; youscreamIscream99; manc; wymck; ghost26; PJammers; myuval; ...
FLORIDA ACTION REQUIRED NOW!
We must thank Florida Congressman John Mica for offering this amendment! The fact that such an amendment was EVEN NECESSARY just shows you what our troops are going through under this supposed Commander in Chief!

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
http://www.house.gov/corrinebrown/

Castor, Kathy - (D) - District 11
http://castor.house.gov/

Deutch, Ted - (D) - District 19
http://deutch.house.gov/

Hastings, Alcee L. - (D) - District 23
http://alceehastings.house.gov/

Wasserman-Schultz,Debbie - (D) - District 20
http://wassermanschultz.house.gov/

Wilson, Frederica - (D) - District 17
http://wilson.house.gov/

The Florida Republican US House Members Who Voted NO - (WE MUST ASK THEM WHY!)

Ander Crenshaw - (R) - District 4
http://crenshaw.house.gov/

Dan Webster - (R )- District 8
http://webster.house.gov/

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!

3 posted on 07/28/2011 11:57:57 AM PDT by seekthetruth (Florida and the Nation needs Colonel Mike McCalister in the US Senate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: seekthetruth

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.


4 posted on 07/28/2011 12:02:04 PM PDT by Gondring (Going d'Anconia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: seekthetruth

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?


5 posted on 07/28/2011 12:03:15 PM PDT by Grunthor (Faster than the speed of smell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: seekthetruth

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.


6 posted on 07/28/2011 12:06:25 PM PDT by repub4ever1 (Capitalism is not perfect, but it beats all other systems hands down.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: seekthetruth

Voter fraud is the number one issue. All other issues can be resolved.


7 posted on 07/28/2011 12:07:19 PM PDT by The Toll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: seekthetruth

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.


8 posted on 07/28/2011 12:08:13 PM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: seekthetruth
Here's the discussion against it:



Mr. ANDREWS of New Jersey:
I thank my friend for yielding.

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. SMITH of Washington:

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.

9 posted on 07/28/2011 12:14:12 PM PDT by Gondring (Going d'Anconia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: seekthetruth


Security trumps economy even in First year Nursing School.
10 posted on 07/28/2011 12:22:28 PM PDT by left that other site (Psalm 122:6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: seekthetruth

I cannot get the link to work.


11 posted on 07/28/2011 12:27:05 PM PDT by FourPeas ("Maladjusted and wigging out is no way to go through life, son." -hg)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: seekthetruth

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.


12 posted on 07/28/2011 12:31:41 PM PDT by StonyBurk (ring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FourPeas; All
PLEASE USE THIS LINK:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:hz318:

13 posted on 07/28/2011 1:01:17 PM PDT by seekthetruth (Florida and the Nation needs Colonel Mike McCalister in the US Senate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: seekthetruth; PrezUSA222; All
And here is another link of interest in support of our Military:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/07/code-pink-commies-harass-john-bolton-outside-congressional-building-video/

Also on FR here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2754256/posts

14 posted on 07/28/2011 1:10:46 PM PDT by seekthetruth (Florida and the Nation needs Colonel Mike McCalister in the US Senate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Gondring; All
That’s all we need. Individual troops starting an international incident.

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?

15 posted on 07/28/2011 1:28:39 PM PDT by seekthetruth (Florida and the Nation needs Colonel Mike McCalister in the US Senate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: seekthetruth
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?

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.

16 posted on 07/28/2011 1:49:42 PM PDT by Gondring (Going d'Anconia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Gondring; PrezUSA222; AnyStreetFL; Jim Robinson; All

Congressman Smith - Washington - Democrat

Congressman Andrews - New Jersey - Democrat

Need I say more??


17 posted on 07/28/2011 1:51:26 PM PDT by seekthetruth (Florida and the Nation needs Colonel Mike McCalister in the US Senate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Gondring
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.

Commanders are also part of the "troops". Most of the times in combat it comes down to seconds of deciding if one should fire or not and self-preservation and defense of your buddies takes over. Neither Congress nor commanders in offices can ever guess or decide for the combat troops.
18 posted on 07/28/2011 2:15:31 PM PDT by AnyStreetFL (www.AnyStreet.org - Conservative Community Organizing, ACORN without the evil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Gondring
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.

So is it your assumption that our troops will engage in random pre-emptive strikes? Do you actually believe them to lack the training and the morals of knowing when to shoot and what to shoot at? I am quite puzzled ...
19 posted on 07/28/2011 2:18:01 PM PDT by AnyStreetFL (www.AnyStreet.org - Conservative Community Organizing, ACORN without the evil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Gondring
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.

Because it is my right as an American to "proactively defend" myself if I feel my life is in danger (i.e.,2nd Amendment). Those who defend my freedoms in combat (i.e.US Military) should have that right too!
20 posted on 07/28/2011 2:19:10 PM PDT by seekthetruth (Florida and the Nation needs Colonel Mike McCalister in the US Senate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Grunthor
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?

Another 9/11 = Economic collapse.
21 posted on 07/28/2011 2:26:28 PM PDT by seekthetruth (Florida and the Nation needs Colonel Mike McCalister in the US Senate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: seekthetruth

“Another 9/11 = Economic collapse.”

The first one didn’t.


22 posted on 07/28/2011 2:33:51 PM PDT by Grunthor (Faster than the speed of smell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Grunthor
The first one DID cause a great deal of economic problems which lead to bail outs, tarp, and on and on....

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:

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/

23 posted on 07/28/2011 3:02:37 PM PDT by seekthetruth (Florida and the Nation needs Colonel Mike McCalister in the US Senate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: seekthetruth
The first one DID cause a great deal of economic problems which lead to bail outs, tarp, and on and on....

9/11 didn't cause those things. The CRA and the DemocRATS did.

----

Send treats to the troops...
Great because you did it!
www.AnySoldier.com

24 posted on 07/28/2011 3:15:09 PM PDT by JCG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: seekthetruth

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.


25 posted on 07/28/2011 6:39:34 PM PDT by Gondring (Going d'Anconia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: left that other site

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.


26 posted on 07/28/2011 6:43:10 PM PDT by Gondring (Going d'Anconia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

I would think that “Economy” would be in the next layer after safety, in “social needs”, but you DO have a point.


27 posted on 07/28/2011 6:51:35 PM PDT by left that other site (Psalm 122:6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: JCG
TARP was George W. Bush and all the other Corporatists. This is the same form of economics used by Fascist Italy, where private ownership is maintained in name, but tax funds are used to prop up poorly run businesses...

"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).

28 posted on 07/28/2011 6:59:04 PM PDT by Gondring (Going d'Anconia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: left that other site
I think economics are entirely outside the pyramid...look at the pyramid as the order in which you would use your money (or economy) to meet your needs.

First, you buy your food. Then safety. Without those, you don't hit the bar and socialize. Etc.

29 posted on 07/28/2011 7:01:49 PM PDT by Gondring (Going d'Anconia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

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!


30 posted on 07/28/2011 7:36:05 PM PDT by left that other site (Psalm 122:6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

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!


31 posted on 07/28/2011 7:46:26 PM PDT by left that other site (Psalm 122:6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Gondring
Bush the fascist, eh?

Ok, I see where you're coming from -- and prolly where you're going.

----

Send treats to the troops...
Great because you did it!
www.AnySoldier.com

32 posted on 07/28/2011 7:50:29 PM PDT by JCG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

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.


33 posted on 07/28/2011 7:53:22 PM PDT by seekthetruth (Florida and the Nation needs Colonel Mike McCalister in the US Senate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: JCG
Bush the fascist, eh?

Ok, I see where you're coming from -- and prolly where you're going.

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.

34 posted on 07/28/2011 8:54:31 PM PDT by Gondring (Going d'Anconia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: seekthetruth
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.

Oh, I KNOW you'll be calling on Webster LOL
35 posted on 07/29/2011 6:52:06 AM PDT by AnyStreetFL (www.AnyStreet.org - Conservative Community Organizing, ACORN without the evil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Gondring; All
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.,br>,br>

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!

36 posted on 07/29/2011 10:34:00 PM PDT by seekthetruth (Florida and the Nation needs Colonel Mike McCalister in the US Senate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: AnyStreetFL; Gopher; MAKnight; crobnson; Romanov; jneesy; AfghanJohn; Bulldog1967; ...
Yes, Webster and Crenshaw from Florida will be hearing from me. I want them to explain why they believe our Military should not have the right to defend themselves if they feel their lives are in danger.

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

37 posted on 07/29/2011 10:54:03 PM PDT by seekthetruth (Florida and the Nation needs Colonel Mike McCalister in the US Senate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: seekthetruth; rllngrk33; 2yearlurker; HRoarke; MrFreeper; Evi Tavres Noc; Marylandsreb; ...

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


38 posted on 07/29/2011 11:25:40 PM PDT by seekthetruth (Florida and the Nation needs Colonel Mike McCalister in the US Senate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: seekthetruth

AKA “The Usual Suspects”.

[can Western MD *please* secede, now?!?]


39 posted on 07/30/2011 2:41:56 AM PDT by Salamander (I'm your pain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: seekthetruth

And this list is a surprise, why, exactly?


40 posted on 07/30/2011 3:37:19 AM PDT by markomalley (Nothing emboldens the wicked so greatly as the lack of courage on the part of the good-Pope Leo XIII)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: seekthetruth

Economic collapse is a national security calamity.

Ultimately we need both tended to.


41 posted on 07/30/2011 3:40:33 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: seekthetruth

Maryland is such an embarrassment.


42 posted on 07/30/2011 4:28:57 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (It's the Tea Party's fault!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Gondring
That’s all we need. Individual troops starting an international incident.

I don’t 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.

43 posted on 07/30/2011 5:02:40 AM PDT by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
Really isn't a surprise as we expect the DEMS to vote against our Military. However, many DEMS did vote YES on the amendment. Any Democrat or Republican member of Congress who voted NO needs to held accountable!

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!

44 posted on 07/30/2011 5:46:11 AM PDT by seekthetruth (Florida and the Nation needs Colonel Mike McCalister in the US Senate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks; Marse; Marthon; martifr77; marviec; Mask316; MASS-2 FAC; Master of None; ...

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


45 posted on 07/30/2011 5:59:26 AM PDT by seekthetruth (Florida and the Nation needs Colonel Mike McCalister in the US Senate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker; 10Ring; 13yearconservative; 53543freedom; 62pc62; aesop64; afraidfortherepublic; ...

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


46 posted on 07/30/2011 6:13:18 AM PDT by seekthetruth (Florida and the Nation needs Colonel Mike McCalister in the US Senate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: seekthetruth

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.


47 posted on 07/30/2011 6:39:10 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: seekthetruth

Thanks for the bump. The Lame stream ghoulishly reported casualties under Bush everyday. Now casualites are worse and not a peep.


48 posted on 07/30/2011 7:07:29 AM PDT by Nateman (If liberals are not screaming you are doing it wrong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnyStreetFL

In a war zone if it moves, kill it!!!

There is no such thing as a civilian in a war zone!


49 posted on 07/30/2011 8:03:24 AM PDT by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: seekthetruth

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?

http://repcloakroom.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=243040

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.

Another opinion.


50 posted on 07/30/2011 9:23:45 AM PDT by MurrietaMadman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson