Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The 217 Representatives Who Voted To Keep NSA Spying On All Your Data

page: 1
11

log in

join

posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 01:22 PM
link   

The 217 Representatives Who Voted To Keep NSA Spying On All Your Data


www.techdirt.com

We already talked about the Amash Amendment being voted down very narrowly (217 - 205). While it didn't pass, this was still a huge victory, because a few weeks ago (hell, even last week) people predicted that this amendment had no chance at all and might not even be debated. To come within seven votes of passing shows you why the NSA, the White House and the Senate's primary NSA enablers went absolutely ballistic in going all out against the amendment.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Here's a list of all those 217 Congressional Representatives, who basically gave two big FAT MIDDLE FINGERS to the 4th amendment, and Reps that should be voted out of office at all cost. Call them, e-mail them, send them letters, tell others, and vote them out of office.

Here you go: Aderholt, Alexander, Andrews, Bachmann, Barber, Barr, Barrow (GA), Benishek, Bera (CA), Bilirakis, Bishop (GA), Bishop (NY), Boehner, Bonner, Boustany, Brady (TX), Brooks (AL), Brooks (IN), Brown (FL), Brownley (CA), Bucshon
Butterfield, Calvert, Camp, Cantor, Capito, Carney, Carter, Castor (FL), Castro (TX), Cole, Collins (GA), Collins (NY), Conaway, Cook
Cooper, Costa, Cotton, Crawford, Crenshaw, Cuellar, Culberson
Davis (CA), Delaney, Denham, Dent, Diaz-Balart, Duckworth, Ellmers, Engel, Enyart, Esty, Flores, Forbes, Fortenberry, Foster, Foxx, Frankel (FL), Franks (AZ), Frelinghuysen, Gallego, Garcia, Gerlach, Gibbs, Gingrey (GA), Goodlatte, Granger, Graves (MO), Green, Al, Grimm, Guthrie, Gutierrez, Hanabusa, Hanna, Harper, Hartzler, Hastings (WA), Heck (NV), Heck (WA), Hensarling, Higgins, Himes, Hinojosa, Holding, Hoyer, Hudson, Hunter, Hurt, Israel, Issa, Jackson Lee, Johnson (GA), Johnson, E. B., Johnson, Sam, Joyce, Kaptur, Kelly (IL), Kelly (PA), Kennedy, Kilmer, Kind, King (IA), King (NY), Kinzinger (IL), Kirkpatrick, Kline, Kuster, Lance, Langevin, Lankford, Larsen (WA), Latham, Latta, Levin, Lipinski, LoBiondo, Long, Lowey, Lucas, Luetkemeyer, Maloney, Sean, Marino, Matheson, McCarthy (CA), McCaul, McIntyre, McKeon, McKinley, McNerney, Meehan, Meeks, Meng, Messer, Miller (FL), Miller (MI), Murphy (FL), Murphy (PA), Neugebauer, Noem, Nunes, Nunnelee, Olson, Palazzo, Paulsen, Payne, Pelosi
Peters (CA), Peters (MI), Peterson, Pittenger, Pitts, Pompeo, Price (NC), Quigley, Reed, Reichert, Renacci, Rigell, Roby, Rogers (AL), Rogers (KY), Rogers (MI), Rooney, Ros-Lehtinen, Roskam, Royce, Ruiz, Runyan, Ruppersberger, Ryan (OH), Ryan (WI), Schakowsky, Schneider, Schwartz, Scott, Austin, Scott, David, Sessions, Sewell (AL), Shimkus, Shuster, Simpson, Sinema, Sires, Slaughter, Smith (NE), Smith (TX), Smith (WA), Stivers, Stutzman, Terry, Thompson (CA), Thornberry, Tiberi, Titus, Turner, Upton, Valadao, Van Hollen, Vargas, Veasey, Visclosky, Wagner, Walberg, Walden, Walorski, Wasserman Schultz, Webster (FL), Wenstrup, Westmoreland, Whitfield, Wilson (FL), Wittman, Wolf, Womack, Woodall, Young (FL), Young (IN)

This list should laminated and put on your wall somewhere in your house to remind you daily that these people are against the citizens of the U.S and should be kicked out of office.

www.techdirt.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Every American member should be all over this list, I already wrote the Oregon rep that voted to keep it that he would not be getting my vote and that I would do all I could to make sure his constituents know that he thinks the government should be spying on them.

ETA: My contribution,

edit on 25-7-2013 by benrl because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by dominicus
 


Was this bill not connected to the Defense Appropriation Bill of 2014? I'm under the impression that if they if they wanted to vote the NSA Amendment down they would essentially have to vote the Defense Appropriation Bill of 2014 down as a whole....

If I'm not mistake wouldn't all of this get cut in addition to the amendment?



Bill Highlights: Ongoing Military Operations – The bill contains $85.8 billion for ongoing military operations in Afghanistan. This is a reduction of $1.5 billion compared to the previous year’s level, due to the strategic drawdown of forces overseas. This funding will provide the needed resources for our troops in the field, including funding for personnel requirements, operational needs, the purchase of new aircraft to replace combat losses, combat vehicle safety modifications, and maintenance of facilities and equipment.




Military Personnel and Pay – The legislation includes $129.6 billion to provide for 1,361,400 active-duty troops and 833,700 reserves. This funding level is $2.1 billion above the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. The bill fully funds the authorized 1.8 percent pay raise for the military, instead of 1 percent as requested by the President.




Operation and Maintenance – Included in the legislation is $175 billion for operation and maintenance – $124 million below the request and $1.5 billion above the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. This contains essential funding for key readiness programs to prepare our troops for combat and peacetime missions, flight time and battle training, equipment and facility maintenance, and base operations. Within this funding, the bill includes $922 million to restore unrealistic reductions in the request to facility sustainment and modernization, $536 million for a fuel shortfall (estimated by GAO), and full funding for the Tuition Assistance program at $570 million. Additionally, the bill fully funds Sexual Assault Prevention and Response programs at $157 million, and it adds $25 million to expand sexual assault victim assistance programs.




TextResearch and Development – The bill contains $66.4 billion – $3.5 billion below the fiscal year 2013 enacted level and $1.1 billion below the President’s request – for research, development, testing, and evaluation of new defense technologies. This basic and applied research, system development, and testing will help to advance the safety and success of current and future military operations, and will help prepare our nation to meet a broad range of potential security threats. Included in this funding is continued research and development of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the KC-46A tanker program, the P8-A Poseidon, the new Air Force bomber program, the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, the Navy’s Future Unmanned Carrier-based Strike System, the Ohio-class submarine replacement, the Army and Marine Corps Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, the Army Ground Combat Vehicle, the Israeli Cooperative Programs, and other important development programs.




TextEquipment Procurement – The legislation provides a total of $98.4 billion – $2 billion below the fiscal year 2013 enacted level and $750 million below the President’s request – for equipment and upgrades. This funding is necessary to ensure our nation’s military readiness, and will provide the necessary platforms, weapons, and other equipment our forces need to train, maintain our force, and conduct successful operations. For example, the bill includes $15 billion to procure eight Navy ships, including fully funding two SSN-774 Attack Submarines; $5.1 billion for 29 F-35 aircraft; $1.9 billion for 21 EA-18G Growlers; $2.2 billion for 73 UH-60 Blackhawk and 37 MH-60S/R helicopters; $1.5 billion for the National Guard and Reserve Equipment Account; $1.8 billion for five Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles; $1.5 billion for 18 C-130J variants; and $220 million for the Israeli Cooperative Program – Iron Dome.




Guantanamo Bay – The legislation prohibits funding for transfers of Guantanamo detainees to the U.S. or its territories, prohibits funding to modify any facility in the U.S. to house detainees, and places conditions on the release of detainees to other countries. These provisions are similar to language contained in the fiscal year 2013 Defense Appropriations legislation.




Textavings and Reductions to President’s Request – The bill reflects common-sense decisions to save taxpayer dollars where possible in areas that will not affect the safety or success of our troops and missions. Some of these reductions include: $1 billion in anticipated excess funding; $437 million for the proposed civilian pay raise; and $2.1 billion in savings from rescissions of unused prior-year funding.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 02:20 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Like every rep in the state of Florida is listed.
That's why we're biggest police state in the US, and the testing ground for new surveillance technology. That's why we were Real ID Compliant with almost no effort.
You ever wonder why Florida is always in the news, there's your answer right here.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by chrismarco
Was this bill not connected to the Defense Appropriation Bill of 2014? I'm under the impression that if they if they wanted to vote the NSA Amendment down they would essentially have to vote the Defense Appropriation Bill of 2014 down as a whole....

If I'm not mistake wouldn't all of this get cut in addition to the amendment?

That's how they get all these illegal surveillance bills through office.
Look how they push through the Real ID Act... Attached it to a bill for buying the troops body armor.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by chrismarco
 


Here is an example from an article written that stuff is put into bills in the hopes the that bigger issue will push it through...


ongress Trying To Regulate Certain Wireless Spectrum Issues... In A Payroll Tax Bill? from the politics-at-work dept We've all seen how Congress sneaks controversial issues into larger "must pass" bills. The folks over at Public Knowledge are highlighting how our elected officials are trying to sneak three questionable policies -- all related to wireless technologies and access -- into a single "must pass" payroll tax bill, that has absolutely nothing to do with wireless technologies:

No Net Neutrality Protections. Forget your feelings about the FCC’s formal Open Internet Rules. An amendment by Rep. Marsha Blackburn would prevent any restrictions on network management, block any requirements to make connectivity available on a wholesale basis (which would increase competition), and stop the FCC from passing a rule allowing users to attach any non-harmful device to the network. As a result, the winner of the spectrum auction would be able to throttle, block, and discriminate however it sees fit – something that runs counter to any definition of network neutrality.

No Safeguards Against Further Consolidation. It is no secret that one of the reasons that there are only four nationwide wireless carriers (and two dominant ones) is that only a few companies control most of the available spectrum in the United States. This amendment would prevent the FCC from making sure that new spectrum goes towards new or under-provisioned competitors instead of being further consolidated by AT&T and Verizon. That’s probably why AT&T is pushing so hard for this amendment.

No Super-Wifi. One of the greatest boons of the transition from analog to digital TV broadcasting was supposed to be the creation of unlicensed “whitespaces” or “super-wifi.” This new spectrum – which is much better at communicating long distances and through walls than current wifi spectrum – would be used cooperatively by everyone and usher in a new era of wireless devices. However, a third amendment would destroy the FCC’s power to allocate some of this great spectrum for unlicensed uses. That means that opportunity would simply pass us by.


I think in this case Rep. Amash knew that this was just political posturing and the bill had no chance of getting voted down. It's not often you see Redumicans and Donkeycrats voting so closely together. Those who voted down the amendment will be applauded by the less informed but this was just a ruse to satisfy the population that the some in the government care...but then again what do I know?



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Exactly! So lets not be fooled that our best interests are being considered by either isle...it's all just slight of hand



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   
REMEMBER Justin Amash, he is the new Ron Paul of the house of reps.

#STANDwithAMASH


I call him the ANTI-BOEHNER now.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by chrismarco
reply to post by chrismarco
 


Here is an example from an article written that stuff is put into bills in the hopes the that bigger issue will push it through...


ongress Trying To Regulate Certain Wireless Spectrum Issues... In A Payroll Tax Bill? from the politics-at-work dept We've all seen how Congress sneaks controversial issues into larger "must pass" bills. The folks over at Public Knowledge are highlighting how our elected officials are trying to sneak three questionable policies -- all related to wireless technologies and access -- into a single "must pass" payroll tax bill, that has absolutely nothing to do with wireless technologies:

No Net Neutrality Protections. Forget your feelings about the FCC’s formal Open Internet Rules. An amendment by Rep. Marsha Blackburn would prevent any restrictions on network management, block any requirements to make connectivity available on a wholesale basis (which would increase competition), and stop the FCC from passing a rule allowing users to attach any non-harmful device to the network. As a result, the winner of the spectrum auction would be able to throttle, block, and discriminate however it sees fit – something that runs counter to any definition of network neutrality.

No Safeguards Against Further Consolidation. It is no secret that one of the reasons that there are only four nationwide wireless carriers (and two dominant ones) is that only a few companies control most of the available spectrum in the United States. This amendment would prevent the FCC from making sure that new spectrum goes towards new or under-provisioned competitors instead of being further consolidated by AT&T and Verizon. That’s probably why AT&T is pushing so hard for this amendment.

No Super-Wifi. One of the greatest boons of the transition from analog to digital TV broadcasting was supposed to be the creation of unlicensed “whitespaces” or “super-wifi.” This new spectrum – which is much better at communicating long distances and through walls than current wifi spectrum – would be used cooperatively by everyone and usher in a new era of wireless devices. However, a third amendment would destroy the FCC’s power to allocate some of this great spectrum for unlicensed uses. That means that opportunity would simply pass us by.


I think in this case Rep. Amash knew that this was just political posturing and the bill had no chance of getting voted down. It's not often you see Redumicans and Donkeycrats voting so closely together. Those who voted down the amendment will be applauded by the less informed but this was just a ruse to satisfy the population that the some in the government care...but then again what do I know?


What do you know? apparently very little. Look at Justin Amash's RECORD, don't just sit there and make up conspiracy theories because the amendment lost by 12 votes. Maybe you should've helped to call your congressman and demand a vote but it is much easier to just say it is a "ruse to satisfy the population". What satisfying? the amendment LOST.

Amash Constitutionally explains every single one of his votes on his facebook page, I wonder if that is a ruse and political posturing as well.


Yea...totally a ruse...

edit on 25-7-2013 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 06:28 PM
link   
I wonder just how much dirt the NSA had on these 217 politicians? Heck, if I will refer to them as Representatives when don't vote the will of the people.



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by chrismarco
 


This is why we need the line item veto (of course with that and if the bill had passed I'm sure Obama wouldn't have vetoed anything...). We also need restrictions on what Congress can attach to a pending bill. Like make it so that bills have to be split up and voted separately. This would prevent Congress from being able to add fluff to many bills causing good things to be voted down because of that one fluff item. Then with line item veto, even if fluff was passed, the pres could still say no on it.





new topics




 
11

log in

join