Forum Post: List of traitors in the Senate
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 30, 2011, 2:33 a.m. EST by EXPOSED
(222)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
This is a list of senators that voted AGAINST a Constitutional ammendment invalidating the National Defense Authorisation Act (Act which was sponsored by neocons John McCain (R-ARI) and Carl Levin (D-MI)):
Alexander (R-TN), Ayotte (R-NH), Barrasso (R-WY), Blunt (R-MO), Boozman (R-AR), Brown (R-MA), Burr (R-NC), Casey (D-PA), Chambliss (R-GA), Coats (R-IN), Coburn (R-OK), Cochran (R-MS), Collins (R-ME), Conrad (D-ND), Corker (R-TN), Cornyn (R-TX), Crapo (R-ID), DeMint (R-SC), Enzi (R-WY), Graham (R-SC), Grassley (R-IA), Hagan (D-NC), Hatch (R-UT), Heller (R-NV), Hoeven (R-ND), Hutchison (R-TX), Inhofe (R-OK), Inouye (D-HI), Isakson (R-GA), Johanns (R-NE), Johnson (R-WI), Kohl (D-WI), Kyl (R-AZ), Landrieu (D-LA), Lee (R-UT), Levin (D-MI), Lieberman (ID-CT), Lugar (R-IN), Manchin (D-WV), McCain (R-AZ), McCaskill (D-MO), McConnell (R-KY), Moran (R-KS), Nelson (D-NE), Portman (R-OH), Pryor (D-AR), Reed (D-RI), Risch (R-ID), Roberts (R-KS), Rubio (R-FL), Sessions (R-AL), Shaheen (D-NH), Shelby (R-AL), Snowe (R-ME), Stabenow (D-MI), Thune (R-SD), Toomey (R-PA), Vitter (R-LA), Whitehouse (D-RI), Wicker (R-MS)
(full votes) http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00210
I want those phones ringing tomorrow demanding to not turn the US into a giant surveillance state!
A nation can survive its fools, even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within ... for the traitor appears not to be a traitor ... he rots the soul of a nation ... he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist.
-- Marcus Tullius Cicero
Here is the Traitors video
http://youtu.be/RJfff5I__WU
,
Thanks for posting the names. They are copied to my WordPad. They should be shunned and confronted at every town hall they dare to attend.
Agree. Hi HitGirl. Hope all is well with you. Best Regards, Nevada
Hi Nevada.
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/196427-senate-ready-for-showdown-with-obama-over-detainees
Yes, this bill will most likely pass tomorrow. I am so disgusted. Everyone of those senators that voted against the Udall amendment are traitors. Correction: The Feinstein and Rand Paul amendments may or may not be voted on before this bill reaches final vote. These amendments would try to uphold our constitutional rights over those two sections of the bill that are a complete violation of those rights.
I will be calling my Senators and I will be calling these traitors scolding them for their betrayal of the American people. SHAME ON THEM!
The bill is full of legislation. What specific part says this? I'm having trouble finding has the bill is MASSIVE
Obviously I haven't read the massive bill but I;ve read several stories about it:
"The provisions would dramatically change broad counterterrorism efforts by requiring law enforcement officials to step aside and ask the Department of Defense to take on a new role they are not fully equipped for and do not want," said Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., who added that the legislation would make the military "police, judge and jailer."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/29/detainee-policy-senate-defense-authorization_n_1119296.html
Also Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) spoke about the bill:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rghhz_t5POo&feature=player_embedded
I've been reading different aspects of the bill. It includes putting sanctions on other countries and doing things that lead to bad relations with others.... potentially war. I have yet to find the bill text that mentions the imprisoning of US citizens in times of war and such... but I am nowhere even near 15% into it. I keep reading different segments as time goes on. Parts of the American Jobs Act are in there under the parts about water quality. I thought that was interesting.
Scroll to the bottom and click on Water Quality.. The Jobs Act is in there.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:SN01867:@@@J
I would also like to add that I have no doubt that it's in there, as it has been mentioned by credible sources such as congressmen and the ACLU. Plus they already did the patriot act and gave the president dictatorial power to have people assassinated..
What in the world is going to prevent anyone at all being arrested and accused of terrorism, held "forever" without a lawyer or a court date?!?
Guess who is a "terrorist" threat to the USA-- anyone in OWS.
I hope my liberal brothers & sisters are reconsidering their stance on the 2nd Amendment and gun control.
my trigger finger is twitching.
sick-turds..just sick
I am surprised but none of them are from my state. But yeah hopefully some calls get started as this is a pretty messed up situation.
Please note: Leahy and Sanders do not appear on that list.
I vote for these guys.
This is a clear example of why I vote for these guys.
Is this the bill? http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-1540
Will call Portman from OH here. But doesn't surprise me, he is a world class Fuckstick.
"Sponsored by neocons John Mccain (R-ARI) and Carl Levin (D-MI)"
Seriously??
Do you know what a neocon is??
Yes... and their in both parties, the conservative part of the name means shit!
Neither are. Neoconservative refers to a rather limited of group of people following the principles of the original Neoconservatives, which were a group a Trotskyists in the Young Peoples' Socialist League, became writers in the New York Intellectuals and made radical changes in their views from the far-left to the far-right.
It's not just a term you throw around at politicians you dislike. It has a definition and, despite not liking their views, I'm quite familiar with what it is and find its history interesting. You might as well call McCain and Levin JACOBINS or TECHNOCRATS. It means more than "politicians I disapprove of".
"Among [McCain's advisers] are several prominent neoconservatives, including Robert Kagan . . . Max Boot . . . John R. Bolton . . . [and] Randy Scheunemann. "It may be too strong a term to say a fight is going on over John McCain’s soul," said Lawrence Eagleburger . . . who is a member of the pragmatist camp, . . . [but he] said, "there is no question that a lot of my far right friends have now decided that since you can't beat him, let's persuade him to slide over as best we can on these critical issues."
McCain is a neocon since 2008, he went to "that side".
As for Levin: "Read it twice, I had to. But Carl Levin has endorsed my longstanding proposal to go after terrorist training camps and weapons assembly facilities in Syria and Iran….. Yeah, Carl Levin, the newly minted neocon from Michigan. My kinda guy. Just read it and cheer. It’s from hearings yesterday. -Michael Ledeen
Whoever advocates for the war policies of Wolfowitz, Bolton, Ledeen, Rumsfeld, Boot, Kristol and the likes (The AIPAC think tank) are neocons.
I don't care who you think are neocons, a neocon is what a neocon does, this vote proves it again...
Alright, maybe you are familiar?
I looked up the one with McCain(among others I found) and I agree with you to an extent. It was during the 2008 election when he went from being a maverick to a complete ideological whore in order to appeal to the Republican base as much as possible.(Which, I think is worse than a Neocon).
As for Levin, I found that article from February, 2007 and also saw his quotes.
I would think that whether you agree with the Iraq War or not (and neither of us do), that supporting measures to prevent neighboring countries from bringing weapons across the border to insurgents is something most of us non-neocons can agree with.
Ya I agree with that but the proposed ammendment which was voted down has no impact on that whatsoever, it was about the detainee provisions. Not sure what your point is.
Nah, I was just addressing your use of the word "Neocon".
As for the bill and those that voted against the Udall Amendment, assuming Obama will follow through with his veto threat (maybe I'm gullible?) I hope it goes through Congress as-is.
The attention from the veto may help those that voted for the amendment and help us identify who to punish in the next primaries.
Well there's the list of those to punish. Also, there's another ammendment similar to this one which was rejected that is going to be pushed by Sen Rand Paul (R-KY). We have to keep an eye on that, call our representative and urge them to support the ammendment.
Too bad Rand Paul is wasting Senate's time on crap like this
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00211
Just a few hours after the vote you posted..
Its stated purpose:
"To repeal the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002."
What a complete waste of time!! I wouldn't put any faith in this clown proposing ridiculous notional amendments to retroactively take away Bush's authorization to invade Iraq 9 years after it happened.
Like I said though. I want to see this bill on Obama's desk so it gets more exposure. Even if he signs it, he's done. We'd officially know that he was never on our side.(but I don't think he will)
Err, the bill's not about that:
"The war in Iraq cannot be considered definitively concluded if Congress does not reclaim its constitutional power to declare war by repealing the underlying authorization. Until Congress takes this action, the President would still possess the legal authority to move troops into Iraq or to conduct kinetic operations within its borders, agreements with the Iraqi government notwithstanding.
“On several occasions this year, Congress has been ignored or remained silent while the President committed our forces to combat. It is my intention to urge Congress to reclaim its constitutional authority over the decision to go to war, or to end a war – it is one of the body’s most important powers,” Sen. Paul said. “It is right that we wrest it back from a President who has shown he cannot be trusted to obey the Constitution or powers prescribed to Congress in it.”
The President has ordered withdrawal of most forces by the end of the year, and Sen. Paul’s amendment continues the spirit of that decision by formally ending the war. Sen. Paul will push for a vote on this measure during consideration of the Defense bill. Under existing laws, necessary actions to protect U.S. personnel in Iraq (such as at the embassy) will still be allowed."
http://www.randpaul2010.com/2011/11/senator-paul-introduces-resolution-to-end-war-in-iraq/
That bill was an attempt to redeem congress constitutional powers on starting and ending wars. Obama said he would withdraw at the end of the year. This bill was a formal ending of the war like it is precribed in the constitution when ending a war. Only congress has the power to start and end wars. Not a waste of time a all.
Perhaps you should have researched what the purpose of that bill was for, it had nothing to do with "retroactively take away Bush's authorization to invade Iraq 9 years after it happened"...
Trotskyites are conservatives? I'm confused. I understand that 'conservative' can mean many different things but I always thought the neo-cons were the anti-tax, anti-government social spending folks from the 1980s and after. I thought that Reagan got elected because of the neocons and such.
The Neoconservatives are characterized mostly by their hawkish foreign policy views(so hawkish, that they don't care about international laws).
Irving Kristol (Bill Kristol's father) was basically the founder and even shortly before he died, he claimed he never rejected his trotskyist roots.
The Neocons, in my belief, had a lot in common with Trotsky's views and still do.
Notice their preoccupation with destroying Stalinism(Trotsky's worst enemy that betrayed the revolution).
If you read about his theory of "permanent revolution", it's very consistent with their foreign policy of preemption and refusal to acknowledge the sovereignty of other countries.
As for their "anti-tax, anti-government social spending"...
I have 2 theories for this:
They were willing to advocate anything to manipulate the old Republican Party (which was non-interventionist) into the trigger-happy bunch they are today.
Or they realize that Communist revolutions have only ever succeeded in countries that were vastly unequal and militaristic (Russia, China, Korea, Cuba).
Notice how conservatives always complain about FDR's New Deal and other Progressive reforms?? So did Trotsky.. He felt it was a plot by the wealthy to keep the poor from overthrowing the country for a Communist state(which he felt was the inevitable course of history)
That is interesting. So basically they are just power hungry extremists bent on a different sort of totalitarianism? I always thought that FDR and his New Deal saved capitalism from a full blown socialist revolution so that does make some sense to me. Thanks for the info. Someday I'm going to take the time to learn more about Trotsky.
"That is interesting. So basically they are just power hungry extremists bent on a different sort of totalitarianism?"
I take it your accepting my 2nd theory??
I think you may be misinterpreting it, though..
Bear in mind, you need to resist the urge to vilify them (I know it's hard) and come to such quick conclusions if you accept that theory because it implies other things..
They feel horribly betrayed by Stalinist totalitarianism "stealing" the revolution from Trotsky. That would imply that their vision for the future isn't totalitarian.(not that they're good people)
In their minds, these foreign invasions are their only means of spreading revolution by replacing moderate leaders(Allende in Chile, Mossadegh in Iran) with hard right-wing leaders(Pinochet, Shah Pahlavi) because they want they need to give the Proletariat no other choice but to overthrow and create their own communist state.
Most importantly, they wouldn't adopt the strategy I accuse them of if they wanted to rule these countries themselves for self-serving purposes. They would be driven solely by an ideological vision(Marx's Modes of production) that they are driving these countries to make leaps into their inevitable future and the casualties of war are justified because it will spare the Proletariat from decades of prolonged suffering by hastening the inevitable revolution.
While I don't agree with Communist ideas, this theory of mine (if true) would actually admonish them (to an extent) of how I view them otherwise.
Sometimes I agree with communist ideas. Sometimes I don't. Sometimes I consider myself something of a Marxist. Other times I just think of him as an influence about as much as someone like Rouseau. I don't ever just stick with one thing really so I don't know how I was interpreting your theories but I do find them interesting. They actually kind of remind me of some of the ideas in the Illuminatus Trilogy (I know. I know. Its fiction.)
I'm curious how you would think the economic theories of someone like Milton Friedman would fit into this.
Milton Friedman played a large part in the repressive Pinochet regime in Chile. I have no doubt that Friedman believes in the things he says.
My view (or analogy) is that it's like a really heavy pendulum. Before, Communists and Progressives were pushing it to the Left(with people like me) and succeeding while Conservatives and Libertarians were pushing it to the right. The Trotskyists realized that Progressives will not help push the pendulum too far to the left, so they decided the only way they can get it to the far left is to push it as far right as possible so they can swing it to the far left.(I stole the pendulum theory from Jon Stewart and added my own stuff)
People like Friedman believe that once the pendulum moves to the far right(or whatever direction Libertarians are) it will stay there and we will all realize utopia.
Neocons(under my theory) believe the far right will be so reprehensible that everyone will push it back to the extreme left, where they believe we will all realize utopia.
Both sides have opposite views of what utopia is, but they agree what direction they want to push it in..(for now)
This is why I'm always skeptical of both groups. Because they're both dazzled by visions of utopia, while the rest of us choose practical living over pursuing utopian visions.
Also, you might want to watch this documentary involving Friedman.
http://vimeo.com/14847387
It's called "Shock Therapy" and it became my 2nd favorite documentary a couple weeks ago. It strongly relates to the policies OWS is fighting.
That makes a lot of sense actually. I have thought about that before. That there are some pieces in this game that are playing the opposite role in order to discredit it and enable their real goals even though it could take many years and long after they are gone for it to work itself out. I think it definitely happens on a small scale in politics currently. I've considered what it would be like to actually infiltrate the far right and try to enact this so its probable people with large influence and brains have actually done it and I think it more likely that it would be somebody playing the right in order to win the left but maybe that is just ignorant or naive of me. There are probably people on both sides doing this to some extent.
I am actually quite familiar with the shock doctrine and the documentary. I read it about a year ago and have noticed several aspects already coming true. It could wind up being one of the most important books so far in this century.
I knew Bernie wouldn't be on that list.