Tag Archives: Michele Bachmann

Good News From Iowa

Straw polls are notoriously overrated.  This observation applies especially to the over-hyped one held most recently in Ames, Iowa over the weekend.

That said, for Americans concerned about national security and seized with  the necessity of electing as our next commander-in-chief a principled, competent leader, the outcome was heartening.

That is true first and foremost because Michele Bachmann garnered the most votes.  I have had the privilege of briefing and interacting with her on numerous occasions over the years that this Minnesota Republican has been in Congress.  She is a thoughtful, quick study with very sound instincts.  She embraces and would, if elected, surely apply Ronald Reagan’s strategy of “peace through strength.”

In fact, in 2010, Rep. Bachmann was among the candidates for office who signed onto a platform enumerating the principles she would be guided by in applying that strategy.  (An updated version featuring twelve, rather than the original 10, planks – “Twelve for ’12” – can be found at www.peacethroughstrength.com).

Among the principles to which Ms. Bachmann has pledged to adhere are:

•  A robust defense posture including: A safe, reliable effective nuclear deterrent, which requires its modernization and testing; the deployment of comprehensive defenses against missile attack; and national protection against unconventional forms of warfare – including biological, electro-magnetic pulse (EMP) and cyber attacks.

•  Preservation of U.S. sovereignty against international treaties, judicial rulings and other measures that would have the effect of supplanting or otherwise diminishing the U.S. Constitution and the representative, accountable form of government it guarantees.

•  A nation free of Shariah, the brutally repressive and anti-Constitutional totalitarian program that governs in Saudi Arabia, Iran and other Islamic states and that terrorists are fighting to impose worldwide.

•  Energy security, realized by exploiting to the fullest the natural resources and technologies available in this country.  We Americans must reduce our dependence for energy upon – and transfers of national wealth to – enemies of this country.

•  Borders secure against penetration by terrorists, narco-traffickers or others seeking to enter the United States illegally.  Aliens who have violated immigration laws should not be rewarded with the privileges of citizenship.

•  A foreign policy that supports our allies and opposes our adversaries.  It should be clearly preferable to be a friend of the United States, not its enemy.

The further good news out of Iowa is that, when taken together with Ms. Bachmann’s plurality of votes, those given to other candidates whose governing philosophy tracks with peace through strength – third place (and now former candidate) Tim Pawlenty, fourth place Rick Santorum and fifth place Herman Cain, the take-away for Republicans should be clear:  Voters in America are looking for leadership qualities in their next president that will keep them safe, as well as help curb the deficit and create jobs.   

Two contenders who did not compete in the Iowa straw vote – present Texas Governor Rick Perry and former Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts – appear to be positioning themselves on the right side of how to manage the national security portfolio, as well.  Mr. Perry is touting his service as an Air Force pilot and taking counsel from advisors deeply imbued with the Reagan philosophy.  

For his part, Mr. Romney staked out a position last year strongly opposing the defective New START Treaty with Russia.  Unfortunately, that accord was subsequently, and scandalously, approved by the Senate during its lame duck session.  Still, the Romney critique about the treaty’s unequal terms, unverifiability and negative implications for U.S. missile defense options tracked with conservative national security thinking.  It is also being vindicated by Vladimir Putin’s conduct with respect to Russia’s nuclear build-up and its obstructionism towards our anti-missile systems.

To be sure, there is some significant percentage of the electorate, including its Republican subset, that finds appealing the isolationist, come-home-America, use-defense-spending-as-the-billpayer-for-other-priorities platform of Congressman Ron Paul of Texas.  That unabashed champion of what might be called the “hope-for-peace-despite-U.S. weakness” strategy came in second in the Iowa straw poll.  

Such sentiments among the libertarian right track with those of like mind on the radical left, at least with respect to hollowing out the military.  As a result, the nation’s ability to maintain the strength that history has taught is necessary to preserve the peace will be up for grabs in November 2012.  

How it will all play out may depend critically on what happens internationally in the meantime, as enemies of this country take stock – and perhaps take action – in the face of what they rightly perceive to be declining American power and resolve under President Obama.

If we are to avoid a far more dangerous international environment for Americans and their interests in the future, we must elect a president next year who has what it takes to pursue peace through strength.  Let us hope that what began in Iowa this weekend is the precursor to such a necessary course correction.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy (www.SecureFreedom.org), a columnist for the Washington Times and host of the nationally syndicated program, Secure Freedom Radio, heard in Washington weeknights at 9:00 p.m. on WRC 1260 AM.

The Jacksonian Foreign Policy Option

Over the past several months, a certain intolerance has crept into the rhetoric of leading neoconservative publications and writers.

This intolerance has become particularly noticeable since February’s neoconservative-supported overthrow of Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, and President Barack Obama’s neoconservative-supported decision to commit US forces to battle against Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in March.

The basic concept being propounded by leading neoconservative writers and publications is that anyone who disagrees with neoconservative policies is an isolationist. A notable recent example of this tendency was a blog post published on Wednesday by Commentary magazine’s Executive Editor Jonathan Tobin regarding the emerging contours of Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s foreign policy views.

After listing various former Bush administration officials who are advising Perry on foreign affairs, Tobin concluded, "Perry might have more in common with the neoconservative wing of the Republican Party than the isolationists." While this is may be true, it is certainly true that the neoconservatives and the isolationists are not the only foreign policy wings in the Republican Party. Indeed, most Republicans are neither isolationists nor neoconservatives.

Isolationism broadly speaking is the notion that the US is better off withdrawing to fortress America and leaving the rest of the world’s nations to fight it out among themselves. The isolationist impulse in the US is what caused the US to enter both world wars years after they began. It is what has propelled much of the antiwar sentiment on the far Left and the far Right alike since September 11. The far Left argues the US should withdraw from world leadership because the US is evil. And the far Right argues that the US should withdraw from world leadership because the world is evil.

Neoconservatism broadly speaking involves the adoption of a muscular US foreign policy in order to advance the cause of democracy and freedom worldwide. Wilsonian in its view of the universal nature of the human impulse to freedom, neoconservatives in recent years have wholeheartedly embraced the notion that if given a chance to make their sentiments known, most people will choose liberal democracy over any other form of government.

Former president George W. Bush is widely viewed as the first neoconservative president, due to his wholehearted embrace of this core concept of neoconservativism in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. Aside from their belief that if given the choice people will choose to be free, neoconservatives argue the more democratic governments there are, the safer the world will be and the safer the US will be. Therefore, broadly speaking, neoconservatives argue that the US should always side with populist forces against dictatorships.

While these ideas may be correct in theory, in practice the consequence of Bush’s adoption of the neoconservative worldview was the empowerment of populist and popular jihadists and Iranian allies throughout the Middle East at the expense of US allies. Hamas won the Palestinian Authority elections in 2006. Its electoral victory paved the way for its military takeover of Gaza in 2007.

Hezbollah’s participation in Lebanon’s 2005 elections enabled the Iranian proxy army to hijack the Lebanese government in 2006, and to violently take over the Lebanese government in 2009.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s successful parliamentary run in Egypt in 2005 strengthened the radical, anti-American, jihadist group and weakened Mubarak.

And the election of Iranian-influenced Iraqi political leaders in Iraq in 2005 exacerbated the trend of Iranian predominance in post-Saddam Iraq. It also served to instigate a gradual estrangement of Saudi Arabia from the US.

THE NEOCONSERVATIVE preference for populist forces over authoritarian ones propelled leading neoconservative thinkers and former Bush administration officials to enthusiastically support the anti-Mubarak protesters in Tahrir Square in Cairo in January. And their criticism of Obama for not immediately joining the protesters and calling for Mubarak’s removal from power was instrumental in convincing Obama to abandon Mubarak.

Between those who predicted a flowering liberal democracy in a post-Mubarak Egypt and those who predicted the empowerment of radical, Muslim Brotherhood aligned forces in a post-Mubarak Egypt, it is clear today that the latter were correct. Moreover, we see that the US’s abandonment of its closest ally in the Arab world has all but destroyed America’s reputation as a credible, trustworthy ally throughout the region.

In the wake of Mubarak’s ouster, the Saudis have effectively ended their strategic alliance with the US and are seeking to replace the US with China, Russia and India.

In a similar fashion, the neoconservatives were quick to support Obama’s decision to use military force to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi from power in March. The fact that unlike Syria’s Bashar Assad and Iran’s ayatollahs, Gaddafi gave up his nuclear proliferation program in 2004 was of no importance. The fact that from the outset there was evidence that al-Qaida terrorists are members of the US-supported Libyan opposition, similarly made little impact on the neoconservatives who supported Obama’s decision to set conditions that would enable "democracy" to take root in Libya. The fact that the US has no clear national interest at stake in Libya was brushed aside. The fact that Obama lacked congressional sanction for committing US troops to battle was also largely ignored.

Neoconservative writers have castigated opponents of US military involvement in Libya as isolationists.

In so doing, they placed Republican politicians like presidential candidate Rep.

Michele Bachmann and former Alaska governor Sarah Palin in the same pile as presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan.

The very notion that robust internationalists such as Bachmann and Palin could be thrown in with ardent isolationists like Paul and Buchanan is appalling. But it is of a piece with the prevailing, false notion being argued by dominant voices in neoconservative circles that "you’re either with us or you’re with the Buchananites." In truth, the dominant foreign policy in the Republican Party, and to a degree, in American society as a whole, is neither neoconservativism nor isolationism. For lack of a better name, it is what historian Walter Russell Mead has referred to as Jacksonianism, after Andrew Jackson, the seventh president of the US. As Mead noted in a 1999 article in The National Interest titled "The Jacksonian Tradition," the most popular and enduring US model for foreign policy is far more flexible than either the isolationist or the neoconservative model.

According to Mead, the Jacksonian foreign policy model involves a few basic ideas. The US is different from the rest of the world, and therefore the US should not try to remake the world in its own image by claiming that everyone is basically the same. The US must ensure its honor abroad by abiding by its commitments and maintaining its standing with its allies. The US must take action to defend its interests. The US must fight to win or not fight at all. The US should only respect those foes that fight by the same rules as the US does.

THE US president that hewed closest to these basic guidelines in recent times was Ronald Reagan.

Popular perception that Reagan was acting in accordance with Jacksonian foreign policy principles is what kept the public support for Reagan high even as the liberal media depicted his foreign policy as simplistic and dangerous.

For instance, Reagan fought Soviet influence in Central America everywhere he could and with whomever he could find. Regan exploited every opportunity to weaken the Soviet Union in Europe. He worked with the Vatican in Poland.

He deployed Pershing short-range nuclear warheads in Western Europe. He called the Soviet Union an evil empire. He began developing the Strategic Defense Initiative. And he walked away from an arms control agreement when he decided it was a bad deal for the US.

Throughout his presidency, Reagan never shied away from trumpeting American values. To the contrary, he did so regularly. However, unlike the neoconservatives, Reagan recognized that advancing those values themselves could not replace the entirety of US foreign policy. Indeed, he realized that the very notion that values trumped all represented a fundamental misunderstanding of US interests and of the nature and limits of US power.

If a Jacksonian president were in charge of US foreign policy, he or she would understand that supporting elections that are likely to bring a terror group like Hamas or Hezbollah to power is not an American interest.

He or she would understand that toppling a pro-American dictator like Mubarak in favor of a mob is not sound policy if the move is likely to bring an anti-American authoritarian successor regime to power.

A Jacksonian president would understand that using US power to overthrow a largely neutered US foe like Gaddafi in favor of a suspect opposition movement is not a judicious use of US power.

Indeed, a Jacksonian president would recognize that it would be far better to expend the US’s power to overthrow Syrian President Bashar Assad – an open and active foe of the US – and so influence the nature of a post-Assad government.

For all the deficiencies of the neoconservative worldview, at least the neoconservatives act out of a deep-seated belief that the US is a force for good in the world and out of concern for maintaining America’s role as the leader of the free world. In stark contrast, Obama’s foreign policy is based on a fundamental anti-American view of the US and a desire to end the US’s role as the leading world power. And the impact of Obama’s foreign policy on US and global security has been devastating.

From Europe to Asia to Russia to Latin America to the Middle East and Africa, Obama has weakened the US and turned on its allies. He has purposely strengthened US adversaries worldwide, as part of an overall strategy of divesting an unworthy America from its role as world leader.

He has empowered the anti-American UN to replace the US as the arbiter of US foreign policy.

And so, absent the American sheriff, US adversaries from the Taliban to Vladimir Putin to Hugo Chavez to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are empowered to attack America and its allies.

In the coming months, Republican primary voters will choose their party’s candidate to challenge Obama in next year’s presidential elections.

With all the failings of the neoconservative foreign policy model, it is clear that Obama’s foreign policy has been far more devastating for US and global security.

Still, it would be a real tragedy if at the end of the primary season, due to neoconservative intellectual bullying, the Republican presidential nominee were forced to choose between neoconservativism and isolationism. A rich, successful and popular American foreign policy tradition of Jacksonianism awaits the right candidate.

Center’s multi-year effort to oppose Shariah acknowledged by the New York Times

On Sunday July 31, 2011, the front page of the New York Times featured a lengthy article– "The Man Behind the Anti-Shariah Movement"– that recounted the Center for Security Policy’s successful four-year educational campaign to educate the public on the anti-semitic, totalitarian, misogynistic doctrine of Shariah law (Islamic law), and Shariah’s threat to America’s national security and liberties.

This detailed New York Times article validates the success of the Center’s groundbreaking effort, started in 2007, to inform the public, media and policymakers about the growing threat of Islamic Shariah doctrine. There is a growing awareness across grassroots America that Shariah is a threat to our Constitution and way of life. With our team of policy experts on national security, Shariah law and the Constitutional law, the Center has published books on the terrorism-funding risks of Shariah Compliant Finance, the risks to our national security in Shariah: The Threat to America, and  the risks to our liberties in the study of fifty "Shariah-compliant" state court decisions.

The front-page article illustrates some of the great successes of the Center’s work to educate this fast-growing popular movement, attracting Tea Party Constitutionalists, pro-family conservatives, civil libertarians, feminists, legal experts and religious leaders.

Here are the key quotes from "Behind the Anti-Shariah Movement":

[Center for Security Policy General Counsel David] Yerushalmi began writing "American Laws for American Courts," a model statute that would prevent state judges from considering foreign laws or rulings that violate constitutional rights in the United States. The law was intended to appeal not just to the growing anti-Shariah movement, but also to a broader constituency that had long opposed the influence of foreign laws in the United States.  ….Anti-Shariah organizers are pressing ahead with plans to introduce versions of Mr. Yerushalmi’s legislation in half a dozen new states, while reviving measures that were tabled in others. …many of the statutes are worded neutrally enough that they might withstand constitutional scrutiny while still limiting the way courts handle cases involving Muslims, other religious communities or foreign and international laws.

[Center for Security Policy President Frank] Gaffney swiftly drummed up interest in the law, holding conference calls with activists and tapping a network of Tea Party and Christian groups as well as ACT for America, which has 170,000 members and describes itself as "opposed to the authoritarian values of radical Islam." The group emerged as a "force multiplier," Mr. Gaffney said, fanning out across the country to promote the law. The American Public Policy Alliance, a nonprofit organization formed that year by a political consultant based in Michigan, began recruiting dozens of lawyers to act as legislative sponsors…

A recent report by the Center for Security Policy, a research institute based in Washington for which Mr. Yerushalmi is general counsel, identified 50 state appellate cases, mostly over the last three decades. The report offers these cases as proof that the United States is vulnerable to the encroachment of Islamic law.

The message has caught on. Among those now echoing Mr. Yerushalmi’s views are prominent Washington figures like R. James Woolsey, a former director of the C.I.A., and the Republican presidential candidates Newt Gingrich and Michele Bachmann, who this month signed a pledge to reject Islamic law, likening it to "totalitarian control."

In the spring of 2008, Mr. Gaffney arranged meetings with officials at the Treasury Department, including Robert M. Kimmitt, then the deputy secretary, and Stuart A. Levey, then the under secretary for terrorism and financial intelligence. Mr. Yerushalmi warned them about what he characterized as the lack of transparency and other dangers of Shariah-compliant finance.

Mr. Yerushalmi argues that the problem lies with America’s Muslim institutions and their link to Islamist groups overseas. As a primary example, he and others cite a memorandum that surfaced in the federal prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, a Muslim charity based in Texas whose leaders were convicted in 2008 of sending funds to Hamas. The 1991 document outlined a strategy for the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States that involved "eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within." Critics emphasize a page listing 29 Muslim American groups as "our organizations and the organizations of our friends."

Also last fall, Mr. Gaffney’s organization released Shariah: The Threat to America, a 172-page report whose lead author was Mr. Yerushalmi and whose signatories included Mr. Woolsey and other former intelligence officials.

The movement against shariah in the United States is primarily educational, providing answers to the questions many in the press seem committed to obscuring. In the Middle East, it’s clear that proponents of shariah see it as opposed to secular, constitutional government, as it is in places like Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Sudan. While it covered last week’s massive demonstrations demanding strict shariah governance in Egypt, the Times is silent on what shariah actually is.

Our coalitions have presented literally hundreds of briefings, meetings, conferences, essays and seminars in over thirty states, with many more visits scheduled.  The result is salutary:  Americans are beginning to understand the threat of shariah law, and even better, to understand the strengths of their own Constitution to protect the rights of free speech, the right to free association and to freely exercise or leave a religion, the right to bear arms, the right to due process and equal protection under the law for women and children.  All those rights are threatened under the consensus decisions of Shariah legal authorities.

Thanks are due to the New York Times for highlighting the Center for Security Policy’s accomplishments in educating Americans about the threat of shariah laws and its doctrines to our Constitutional liberties.

Center issues Congressional Scorecard; Peace Through Strength Platform shows way forward on national security

2009-2010 National
Security Scorecard (PDF)

The Center for Security Policy today released its ninth National Security Scorecard evaluating the performance of members of the 111th Congress on matters of great importance to the security interests of the United States.  158 Members of the House of Representatives and 32 Senators received a score of 100% qualifying them as “Champions of National Security,” the full list of which appears below.

In an effort to advance the debate on the nation’s most vital national security issues, the Center today also launches a pre-election campaign for midterm election candidates to embrace the “Peace Through Strength Platform,” a ten-point program of national security priorities for America. The Center premieres its new web ad on the Peace Through Strength Platform today on its YouTube channel, Youtube.com/Securefreedom.

The Peace Through Strength Platform complements the 74-page National Security Scorecard as a way forward for candidates and elected officials. While the Scorecard looks back at decisive issues facing the last Congress, the Peace Through Strength Platform serves as guiding principles for the next Congress. To this end, the Center contacted candidates from both parties, including incumbents and challengers, to alert them to the score of each Member of Congress.

Watch the Center’s web ad for the Peace Through Strength Platform below.

In assessing the record of the 111th Congress, the Center has selected 12 roll call votes in the Senate and 8 roll call votes in the House of Representatives to show legislators’ positions in key foreign, defense and intelligence matters of direct relevance to America’s safety, sovereignty and freedoms.   Roll call votes were selected on the basis of their utility in revealing substantive differences on significant security policy issues.

Upon releasing the ninth National Security Scorecard, Center President Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. observed:

“The Center for Security Policy believes that the success of the American experiment fundamentally depends upon the quality of our representative government.   The public must be apprised of their representatives’ legislative records.”

“Toward that end, the Center takes pride in producing these National Security Scorecards for each congressional session as a means of educating the American people about their elected officials’ performance with respect to national security. The Scorecard also provides greater accountability for the most consequential votes of Senators and Members of the House of Representatives.  In this particular Scorecard, the Center has also sought to identify which legislators switched their votes on the fate of terrorist detainees currently held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.”

Mr. Gaffney added:

“Rarely has such performance and accountability been more important than today when we face dangerous and increasingly sophisticated enemies who threaten our safety and seek the destruction of our way of life.   The Center commends those in the Senate and House who have, in the face of these threats, distinguished themselves as “Champions of National Security,” and hopes that the numbers of such legislators will grow substantially in the 112th Congress and beyond.”

2009-2010 Champions of National Security

CHAMPIONS OF NATIONAL SECURITY:
U.S House of Representatives

Rep. Jo Bonner (R-Alabama)
Rep. Bobby Bright (D-Alabama)
Rep. Michael Rogers (R-Alabama)
Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Alabama)
Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Alabama)
Rep. Artur Davis (D-Alabama)*
Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska)
Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (D-Arizona)
Rep. Trent Franks (R-Arizona)
Rep. John Shadegg (R-Arizona)*
Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Arizona)*
Rep. John Boozman (R-Arkansas)
Rep. Wally Herger (R-California)
Rep. Dan Lungren (R-California)
Rep. Tom McClintock (R-California)
Rep. George Radanovich (R-California)*
Rep. Devin Nunes (R-California)
Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-California)*
Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-California)
Rep. Howard McKeon (R-California)
Rep. David Dreier (R-California)
Rep. Ed Royce (R-California)
Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-California)
Rep. Gary Miller (R-California)
Rep. Ken Calvert (R-California)
Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R-California)
Rep. John Campbell (R-California)
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-California)
Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-California)
Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-California)
Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colorado)
Rep. Mike Coffman (R-Colorado)
Rep. Jeff Miller (R-Florida)
Rep. Ander Crenshaw (R-Florida)
Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (R-Florida)*
Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Florida)
Rep. John Mica (R-Florida)
Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-Florida)
Rep. C.W. Bill Young (R-Florida)
Rep. Adam Putnam (R-Florida)*
Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Florida)
Rep. Connie Mack (R-Florida)
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Florida)
Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-Florida)*
Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Florida)
Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Georgia)
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Georgia)
Rep. Tom Price (R-Georgia)
Rep. John Linder (R-Georgia)*
Rep. Paul Broun (R-Georgia)
Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Georgia)
Rep. Charles Djou (R-Hawaii)*
Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Illinois)
Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Illinois)
Rep. Don Manzullo (R-Illinois)
Rep. Aaron Schock (R-Illinois)*
Rep. John Shimkus (R-Illinois)
Rep. Steve Buyer (R-Indiana)
Rep. Dan Burton (R-Indiana)
Rep. Mike Pence (R-Indiana)
Rep. Tom Latham (R-Iowa)
Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa)
Rep. Jerry Moran (R-Kansas)
Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-Kansas)
Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kansas)
Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Kentucky)
Rep. Geoff Davis (R-Kentucky)
Rep. Harold Rogers (R-Kentucky)
Rep. Steve Scalise (R-Louisiana)*
Rep. Anh Cao (R-Louisiana)*
Rep. John Fleming (R-Louisiana)
Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-Louisiana)
Rep. Charles Boustany (R-Louisiana)
Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Michigan)
Rep. Dave Camp (R-Michigan)
Rep. Fred Upton (R-Michigan)
Rep. Michael Rogers (R-Michigan)
Rep. Candice Miller (R-Michigan)
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-Michigan)

Rep. John Kline (R-Minnesota)
Rep. Erik Paulsen (R-Minnesota)
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minnesota)*
Rep. Greg Harper (R-Mississippi)
Rep. Todd Akin (R-Missouri)
Rep. Same Graves (R-Missouri)*
Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Missouri)*
Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-Missouri)*
Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Missouri)
Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Montana)
Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-Nebraska)
Rep. Lee Terry (R-Nebraska)
Rep. Adrian Smith (R-Nebraska)
Rep. Dean Heller (R-Nevada)
Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-New Jersey)
Rep. Scott Garrett (R-New Jersey)
Rep. Leonard Lance (R-New Jersey)
Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-New Jersey)
Rep. Peter King (R-New York)*
Rep. Bill Owens (D-New York)*
Rep. Christopher Lee (R-New York)
Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-North Carolina)
Rep. Sue Myrick (R-North Carolina)
Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-North Carolina)
Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio)*
Rep. Michael Turner (R-Ohio)
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio)
Rep. Robert Latta (R-Ohio)*
Rep. Steve Austria (R-Ohio)
Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio)
Rep. Patrick Tiberi (R-Ohio)
Rep. Steven LaTourette (R-Ohio)
Rep. John Sullivan (R-Oklahoma)*
Rep. Frank Lucas (R-Oklahoma)
Rep. Tom Cole (R-Oklahoma)
Rep. Mary Fallin (R-Oklahoma)
Rep. Greg Walden (R-Oregon)
Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-Pennsylvania)
Rep. Jim Gerlach (R-Pennsylvania)
Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pennsylvania)
Rep. Mark Critz (D-Pennsylvania)
Rep. Charles Dent (R-Pennsylvania)
Rep. Joseph Pitts (R-Pennsylvania)
Rep. Tim Murphy (R-Pennsylvania)
Rep. Todd Platts (R-Pennsylvania)
Rep. Henry Brown (R-South Carolina)
Rep. Phil Roe (R-Tennessee)
Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee)
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas)
Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas)
Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Texas)
Rep. Ralph Hall (R-Texas)*
Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas)
Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas)
Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas)
Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas)
Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas)
Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Texas)
Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas)
Rep. William Thornberry (R-Texas)
Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas)*
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas)*
Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas)
Rep. Kenny Marchant (R-Texas)
Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas)
Rep. John Carter (R-Texas)*
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas)
Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah)
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah)
Rep. Robert Wittman (R-Virginia)
Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Virginia)
Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Virginia)
Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Virginia)*
Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Virginia)
Rep. Shelly Capito (R-West Virginia)
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin)*
Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin)
Rep. Thomas Petri (R-Wisconsin)
Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyoming)

 

CHAMPIONS OF NATIONAL SECURITY:
U.S Senate

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama)*
Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Alabama)
Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Arizona)
Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona)
Sen. George LeMieux (R-Florida)*
Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Georgia)
Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Georgia)
Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho)
Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho)
Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa)
Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kansas)
Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kansas)
Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Kentucky)
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky)
Sen. David Vitter (R-Louisiana)
Sen. Scott Brown (R-Massachusetts)* 

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi)
Sen. Christopher Bond (R-Missouri)
Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Nebraska)*
Sen. Richard Burr (R-North Carolina)
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma)
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma)
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina)
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina)
Sen. John Thune (R-South Dakota)
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tennessee)
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas)
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas)*
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)
Sen. Robert Bennett (R-Utah)*
Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyoming)
Sen. Michael Enzi (R-Wyoming)

 

 

 

 

Note: Legislators with an asterisk next to their name, although not present for every scored vote, voted in a manner consistent with national security on every vote for which they were present. See page 38 of the scorecard for an explanation of the way in which absences were factored into the scores.

Disclaimer on the Peace Through Strength Platform: The Peace Through Strength Platform is a statement of principles, intended to educate the American public on explicit positions taken by candidates for elected office or current office-holders. Non-profit organizations, public figures and the general public are encouraged to sign on to the Platform regardless of political affiliation; indeed, a robust national security posture, regardless of party, is essential to America’s survival in the long run. Signatures by candidates for office or current office-holders to the Peace Through Strength Platform should not be construed as an endorsement by any of the other co-signers of those individuals or their political party.