Sunday, October 28, 2012

Holding Congressional Communists in check

The Conservative Center for Security Policy has released their ranking of all 535 members of Congress.


The center rated all 535 members of the Congress on eight issue votes taken in the Senate and 22 in the House this year, including a measure to defund the U.S. wars on terrorists (a “nay” vote was promoted by the organization) to a bill that would define terrorists as enemy combatants and try them by military tribunal (the center recommended a “yea” vote). The center gave 195 members of Congress 100 percent “champion” ratings on the issues, including one Democrat, Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.) and one Independent, Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.) The 74 members receiving a 0% rating were all Democrats.” -- Human Events

8 of the 22 bills put forth in the House for vote were drafted by Communists who are, or were at the time of the votes members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. All 8 were rejected. They were the following subject matter:

Eliminate U.S. funding for Iraqi Security Forces
Reduce funding to anti-ballistic missile defense
Decrease funding to nuclear weapons activities
Decrease funding to nuclear weapons activities
Withdraw from Afghanistan
Cutting funding/delaying development of nuclear bomber
Cutting funding for missile defense
Restricting funding for land-based missiles

Can anyone see the trend here? I am sure Russia, China, Venezuela, Cuba and Iran are excited to see so many in Congress share their vision of a severely crippled American capability.  I have posted the detail of the bills that were rated and the votes (to include who drafted and put forth the bills).  I have bolded the bills put forth by the CPC membership, all of which were voted down.

1. Eliminate U.S. funding for Iraqi Security Forces. The Holt Amendment (D-NJ), sought to eliminate $1.5 billion in funding for the Iraqi Security Forces Fund. Pronational security vote: NO; REJECTED 299-133, 1 not voting (Roll call vote 48; Amdt. #A008 to H.R. 1; Feb. 16th, 2011)

2. Reauthorization of expiring intelligence gathering provisions. The FISA Sunsets Extension Act (Rep. Sensenbrenner, R-WI) extended two expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act and one provision of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act concerning access to business records, individual terrorists as agents of foreign powers, and roving wiretaps. Pro-national security vote: YES; AGREED TO: 279 – 143, 11 not voting (Roll call vote 66; Bill # H.R. 514 (on motion that House agree to Senate amendment); Feb. 17th, 2011)

3. Allow detainees to be tried in the U.S. federal courts. The Smith Amendment (DWA), sought to limit use of funds to transfer detainees who are not United States citizens or members of the Armed Forces to the United States until 45 days after the President has submitted a plan to Congress for the disposition of each detainee who is proposed to be transferred to the United States. The amendment also sought to hold open the use of federal civilian courts as a means of trying such detainees when they are transferred to the United States. Pro-national security vote: NO; REJECTED 253-165, 13 not voting (Roll call vote 356; Amdt. #A022 to H.R. 1540; May 26th, 2011).

4. Define terrorists as enemy combatants to be tried by military tribunal. The Buchanan Amendment (R-FL) required that any foreign nationals who engage in a terrorist attack inside the United States, or on U.S. personnel/property outside the United States, and are subject to trial by military commission for the attack, be tried only by military commission, not in the civilian court system. Pro-national security vote: YES, AGREED TO 246 – 173, 12 not voting (Roll call vote 357; Amdt. #A023 to H.R. 1540; May 26th, 2011).

5. End the Authorization for the Use of Military Force against Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and Associated Forces. The Amash Amendment (R-MI) sought to strike section 1034 of 17 the FY 2012 National Defense Authorization Act. Section 1034 authorized the use of military force against, and affirmed our engagement in armed conflict with, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and Associated Forces. Pro-national security vote: NO; REJECTED 234-187, 10 not voting, (Roll call vote 361; Amdt. #A027 to H.R. 1540; May 26th 2011).

6. Reduce funding to anti-ballistic missile defense. The Sanchez Amendment (D-CA) sought to reduce the funding for Ground-based Midcourse Defense systems by $100,000,000. Pro-national security vote: NO; REJECTED: 234-184, 13 not voting (Roll call vote 369; Amdt. #A036 to H.R. 1540; May 26th, 2011).

7. Decrease funding to nuclear weapons activities. The Welch Amendment (D-VT) sought to increase the amount for energy efficiency and renewable energy by $491,000,000 and decrease the National Nuclear Security Administration weapons activities account by a similar amount. Pro-national security vote: NO; REJECTED 300-123, 8 not voting (Roll call vote 546; Amdt. #A024 to H.R. 2354; July 12th, 2011).

8. Decrease funding to nuclear weapons activities. The Holt Amendment (D-NJ) sought to increase the Department of Energy's Office of Science account by $42,665,000 and reduce the Weapons Activities account under the National Nuclear Security Administration by a similar amount. The intent of the amendment was to restore funding for the DOE Office of Science to Fiscal Year 2011 levels to help funding for the implementation of the America COMPETES Act. Pro-national security vote: NO; REJECTED 261-164, 6 not voting (Roll call vote 576; Amdt. #A038 to H.R. 2354; July 14th, 2011).

9. Withdraw from Afghanistan. The Lee Amendment (D-CA) sought to end the war in Afghanistan by limiting funding to the “safe and orderly withdrawal” of U.S. troops and military contractors. Pro-national security vote: NO; REJECTED 303-113, 15 not voting. (Roll call vote 264; Amdt. #A005 to H.R. 4310; May 17, 2012)

10. Foreign terrorist trials by military commissions only. The Rooney Amendment (RFL) required that any detained foreign national who has engaged in terrorist attacks against the United States and is subject to trial by military commission, be tried only by military commission and not by an Article III civilian court. Pro-national security vote: YES; AGREED TO, 249-171, 11 not voting. (Roll call vote 266; Amdt. #A007 to H.R. 4310; May 17, 2012) 18

11. Cutting funding/delaying development of nuclear bomber. The Markey Amendment (D-MA) prohibited Department of Defense funding for the development of a long-range penetrating bomber aircraft for fiscal years 2013-2023, and reduced related Air Force research and development funding by $292 million. Pro-national security vote: NO; REJECTED 308-112, 11 Not voting. (Roll call vote 268; Amdt. #A011 to H.R. 4310; May 17, 2012)

12. Cutting funding for missile defense. The Polis Amendment (D-CO) reduced funding for the ground-based midcourse missile defense system by $403 million, with the reduction to be derived from the East Coast Missile Defense location. Pro-national security vote: NO; REJECTED 252-165, 14 Not voting (Roll call vote 269; Amdt. #A012 to H.R. 4310; May 17, 2012)

13. Providing constitutional protections to detained terrorists. The Smith Amendment (D-WA) deleted provisions requiring automatic military custody of foreign Al Qaeda terrorists, and eliminated indefinite military detention for any person detained under the Authorization of the Use of Military Force (AUMF) inside the United States by providing immediate transfer to trial in federal or state court. Pro-national security vote: NO; REJECTED 238-182, 11 Not voting. (Roll call vote 270; Amdt. #A029 to H.R. 4310; May 18, 2012)

14. Prohibiting unilateral reduction of nuclear weapons. The Price Amendment (R-GA) prohibited the president from reducing nuclear weapons beyond what is required under the New START treaty, unless such a further reduction is required by a Senate-ratified treaty or specifically authorized by an Act of Congress. Pro-national security vote: YES; AGREED TO, 241-179, 11 Not voting. (Roll call vote 280; Amdt. #A024 to H.R. 4310; May 18, 2012)

15. Halting sequestration. The Rigell Amendment (R-VA) halted the FY 2013 portion of defense “sequestration”, the $500 billion automatic, across-the-board cuts to the defense budget over ten years as required by the Budget Control Act of 2011, provided that Congress were to enact a reconciliation bill or other legislation that offsets the cuts over five years; also requires a report from the Department of Defense on the impact of sequestration before it occurs. Pro-national security vote: YES; AGREED TO 220-201, 10 Not voting (Roll Call vote 281; Amdt. #A025 to H.R. 4310; May 18, 2012) 19

16. Prohibiting funding for United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty organizations. The Duncan Amendment (R-SC), prohibited funding for any institution or organization established by the United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty; Pro-national security vote: YES; AGREED TO 229-193, 9 Not voting (Roll call vote 283; Amdt. #A030 to H.R. 4310; May 18, 2012) 1

17. Restricting funding for New START nuclear reductions. The Rehberg Amendment (R-MT) prohibited funding for the Department of Defense to implement New START delivery vehicle reductions unless the President can certify that Russia must make a similar reduction under New START and that Russia is not developing strategic delivery systems not covered by New START and capable of reaching the United States. The amendment also restricted funding for the Department’s nuclear reductions if such reductions would result in eliminating a leg of the nuclear triad. Pro-national security vote: YES; AGREED TO 238-162, 31 Not voting (Roll call vote 288; Amdt. #A042 to H.R. 4310; May 18, 2012)

18. Restricting funding for land-based missiles. The Markey Amendment (D-MA) prohibited funding to be used to operate or maintain more than three hundred land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles. Pro-national security vote: NO; REJECTED 283-136, 12 Not voting (Roll call vote 482; Amdt. #A028 to H.R. 5856; July 18, 2012)

19. Prohibiting funding for nuclear reductions. The Turner Amendment (R-OH) prohibited funding for the implementation of the President’s nuclear reduction strategy, and provided that any nuclear reductions the President seeks with a foreign nation have to be done in accordance with the Arms Control and Disarmament Act, which requires approval by treaty or an Act of Congress. Pro-national security vote: YES; AGREED TO 235-178, 18 Not voting (Roll call vote 491; Amdt. #A047 to H.R. 5856; July 19, 2012)

20. Prohibiting funding for nuclear reductions. The Berg Amendment (R-ND) prohibited funding for reducing the number of nuclear weapons delivery vehicles, including heavy bomber aircraft, air-launched cruise missiles, nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and intercontinental ballistic missiles. Pronational security vote: YES; AGREED TO 232-183, 16 Not voting (Roll call vote 493; Amdt. #A050 to H.R. 5856; July 19, 2012)

21. Reauthorizing Intelligence-Gathering on Foreign Nationals Overseas. The FISA Amendments Act Reauthorization Act of 2012 (Rep. Lamar Smith, R-TX) reauthorized 20 for five years 2008 legislation establishing procedures for gathering intelligence on non-U.S. citizens located outside the United States, including clarification that a court order was not required for conducting surveillance on foreign targets outside the United States. Pro-national security vote: YES; AGREED TO 301-118, 10 Not voting (Roll call vote 569; Bill # H.R. 5949; Sept. 12, 2012)

22. Preventing Sequestration. The National Security and Jobs Protection Act (Rep. Allen West, R-FL) provides that any enacted legislation that replaces Fiscal Year 2013 sequestration with alternative spending reductions achieving the same level of savings over five years would automatically cancel sequestration. The Act also requires the President to submit within these parameters his own plan by 15 October 2012 to prevent sequestration, due to activate in January 2013 unless reversed. Pro-national security vote: YES; AGREED TO 223-196, 10 Not voting (Roll call vote 577; Bill # H.R. 6365; Sept. 13, 2012)

I find it telling that the 74 members that received a “0” ranking were all Democrats. I have also included the CPC membership roll and found that it has 76 members. Of the 76 members in the CPC 6 did not show up in the adverse ranking. Of those 6, 1 is a Senator (Bernie Sanders) and did not vote in the House and 2members are “non-voting” representatives Donna Christensen (D - Virgin Islands) and Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC). Only three members did not have an adverse national security voting record while all of the other 70 members of CPC received the “0” ranking. 74 members received the “0” rating and of those 74, 70 were CPC members.

So, my detractors will say that I am participating in “hyperbolic” and “guilt by association” in labelling the CPC members, as Allen West does, communist. So to be fair, I will throw them a bone. The sole Republican of the 74 members that received the “0” ranking was in fact one of the ones who wanted to be President of the United States during the primaries. That Republican was Ron Paul.













4 comments:

  1. "I find it telling that the 74 members that received a “0” ranking were all Democrats."

    I don't. I find it completely within the bounds of expectation that a partisan organization rank their political opposition as they did.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "The Center for Security Policy is a non-profit, non-partisan national security organization that specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that are vital to American security and then ensures that such issues are the subject of both focused, principled examination and effective action by recognized policy experts, appropriate officials, opinion leaders, and the general public.

    The Center was founded in 1988 and has worked to great effect since then in the establishment of successful national security policies through the use of all elements of national power – diplomatic, informational, military, and economic strength.

    The philosophy of "Peace through Strength" is not a slogan for military might but a belief that America's national power must be preserved and properly used for it holds a unique global role in maintaining peace and stability.


    Mission of the Center for Security Policy:
    To identify challenges and opportunities likely to affect American security, broadly defined, and to act promptly and creatively to ensure that they are the subject of focused national examination and effective action.

    Today's national security threats compel us to ensure we are strong and prepared. We as a nation must also work to undermine the ideological foundations of totalitarianism and Islamist extremism with at least as much skill, discipline and tenacity as President Reagan employed against Communism to prevail in the Cold War.

    The role of the Center for Security Policy is to help our government, countrymen and other freedom-loving nations conceptualize, conduct and succeed on this front. The Center's dedicated staff, associates and advisors constitute the Special Forces in this war of ideas – equipped with the experience, imagination, expertise, agility and drive not just to advance strategies for victory, but to get them adopted and implemented.

    You notice the "non-profit, non-partisan" opening from the organizations' about us page?

    You sound as though this report labled these communists based on partisanship when in fact it scored them based on the way they voted on the record.

    I think the only partisan group in this study, were the communists. They voted as a block in total opposition to the security needs of the United States. Their votes were (as well as the bills they drafted and were voted on) indicative of "anti-war" and "anti-nuclear". I don't know about you, but when Obama whispered in the Russian President's ear to give him more time until after the election because he would have more flexibility, it was done knowing these anti-American miscreants have his back in handing the keys to the big bad bear.....

    ReplyDelete
  3. Nobody is more concerned about national security than I. After 22 years of uniformed service, I work in the intelligence community as a contractor.

    That being said, every bill or proposal proffered by the GOP is not by rule, in pursuit of sound national security.

    "You notice the "non-profit, non-partisan" opening from the organizations' about us page?"

    I did. I also noticed when you wrote:


    "The Conservative Center for Security Policy ........"

    My question for is, given that you've limited yourself with rhetorical labeling, what do you call an actual Communist?

    ReplyDelete
  4. The Conservative Center for Security Policy was borrowed by me from the "Human Events" article. I opened with it to highlite the conservative nature of national security studies. Even though it is non-partisan, I think as my opinion, national security is something most Democrats have a skewed vision for.

    Not all Democrats are communist, just the Democrats who are members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. You and I have already gone through this point on a prior post of mine regarding the CPC.

    An actual communist are those CPC members.

    ReplyDelete