The Amash Conyers Amendment

[No Elephants]

Republican Amash and Democrat Conyers sponsored a bill to de-fund mass surveillance.

Before the vote, Obama and Carney warned that the mass surveillance was necessary to protect the American people.

A combination of House Republicans and House Democrats defeated the bill 217 to 205, with 12 not voting.

There are at least two ways to look at the vote.

One of the ways people are looking at it is that the vote was kabuki. Under this theory, de-funding was never going to happen. By making it seem like a close vote, however, the impression is given that Congress is actively overseeing the Executive. Also, should the mass surveillance go to the Supremes, the SCOTUS will be looking at the will of Congress--or at least the will of the House- that the program continue, and not only the Executive's decision on the matter. (Of course, Roberts appoints the FISA judges, so the fix is in anyway.)

Another view is that it was a wholly legitimate vote and a coalition of Democrats and libertarian Republicans almost defeated the will of the President. However, when a sitting President asks his party to do something, he is very likely to get the vote he wants, even from people who would likely have voted the other way had a Republican President made the request.

How can one tell which view is correct? I have no clue. All I know for certain is that Amash Conyers never made it out of the House.

Assuming it was a legit vote, I was happy to note that my former Rep, Capuano, and my current Rep, Lynch, both voted to defund.

I was, however, sad to note that Kennedy vote against defunding (as did House Democratic leaders Hoyer and clean tables Pelosi, and current DNC head Wasserman-Schultz, but that is not a surprise).

Again assuming a legit vote, had a few more Democrats supported Amash-Conyers, it would have passed the house because he had significant Republican support, though not a majority of Republicans.

[Enthusiast]

1. It's disappointing.

I share your position. And I don't know for sure which view is correct. How can we know when we are up against a multi-billion dollar misinformation mechanism? The propaganda effort is the equal of the surveillance effort. Hard to wrap your head around, I know.

[No Elephants]

2. Propagandizing Americans is legal now. (Hard to believe it was ever illegal, isn't it? I've

been propagandized my whole life.)

I remember being told, as a high school freshman that the ease with which the North Koreans were able to brainwash and undermine the morale of our troops who were taken prisoner was studied. Supposedly, it was learned that they were able to do so just by telling them things that they had never been taught in school, like slavery, what the US did to First Nations, etc. Supposedly, they had never heard about things like that before. So, when the Koreans proved to them that such things existed, they lost all trust.

I find that hard to believe that. I remember as a kid, before even hitting kindergarten "Lincoln freed the slaves" was a retort kids used amongst themselves when told to do something they did not feel they should be expected to do. And certainly movies depicted slavery. So, I don't know what to believe about POWs in Korea.

I do know, however, that I was propagandized. Pledge of Allegiance every morning. Patriotic assemblies, etc. Patriotic movies. Never, even in Sunday School, was I told specifically that God (or your own morals) must supersede nationalism. For that matter, I was never taught about nationalism (as opposed to patriotism).

"For God and country," as though the two were equivalents.

[Enthusiast]

3. "They" are pushing this ultra-nationalism

paving the way to OFFICIAL Fascism.