National Defense Authorization Act Vetoed

National Defense Authorization Act Vetoed

National Defense Authorization Act Vetoed

The National Defense Authorization Act was vetoed by President Trump this afternoon. He outlined very specific reasons for his veto. 

The utilization of political correctness and critical race theory to rename ten military installations

Restriction of the President’s ability to determine levels of troop withdrawals from around the world 

Limitations on the amount of military construction funds, which, in times of strife can be a national security threat

Slow rollout of 5G

Failure to override Section 230

The reaction is quite something. The media has an interesting take on reporting this move. The Washington Post:

“In his veto message, Trump complained that the legislation includes “provisions that fail to respect our veterans’ and military’s history” — a seeming reference to instructions that the Defense Department change the names of installations commemorating Confederate leaders. He also scorned the bill as a “ ‘gift’ to China and Russia,” slammed the bill for restricting his ability to draw down the presence of U.S. troops in certain foreign outposts, and excoriated lawmakers for failing to include an unrelated repeal of a law granting liability protections to technology companies that Trump has accused, without significant evidence of anti-conservative bias.”

The New York Times:

“The veto is the latest sign that Mr. Trump, in his last weeks in office, is ready to challenge lawmakers in his own party, forcing them to chose between fealty to him and loyalty to their congressional leaders and, for some, their ideals.”

First of all, social media companies ARE biased against conservatives. That’s verifiable fact given how many conservative outlets have been demonetized from YouTube, shadow-banned or banned altogether from Twitter for no reasons whatsoever, and more. Not only that, but with Facebook and Twitter engaging in putting warnings on any election information that is critical of anyone named Biden, plus Twitter banning the New York Post for two weeks over the Joe/Hunter Biden story – the bias is absolutely prevalent. 

Secondly, that whole fealty bit from the New York Times is a load of crap. Every elected official owes their fealty to our Constitution and to the American people they serve. Period. And there are tons of Americans out there who do NOT want our military bases renamed because of idiotic social justice crap.

Furthermore, social media has taken Section 230 way too far down the road to the detriment of people’s privacy and yes, our national security. When social media jumps to China’s bidding yet refuses to protect Americans or anyone else around the world, then Section 230 needs to be revised.

Below is a bit of an explainer to Section 230.

Meanwhile others aren’t happy with President Trump’s veto. 

The President and First Lady have long been major fans of our nation’s military. They have done so much for our military on multiple levels. So, barrister’s statement is ludicrous to say the least. 

First of all, the military will be funded. Secondly, the President has long made it known that Section 230 needs to be addressed elsewhere and changed. Third, the military does not and SHOULD not be engaging in political correctness and sweeping history under the rug. Fourth, reducing foreign influence, especially China’s influence over 5G networks is paramount to our national security, yet the bill shunted that aside. 

““Numerous provisions of the Act directly contradict my Administration’s foreign policy, particularly my efforts to bring our troops home,” Trump explained. “I oppose endless wars, as does the American public. Over bipartisan objections, however, this Act purports to restrict the President’s ability to withdraw troops from Afghanistan, Germany, and South Korea.”

“Not only is this bad policy, but it is unconstitutional,” the president argued. “Article II of the Constitution makes the President the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States and vests in him the executive power. Therefore, the decision regarding how many troops to deploy and where, including in Afghanistan, Germany, and South Korea, rests with him. The Congress may not arrogate this authority to itself directly or indirectly as purported spending restrictions.””

Other folks believe this veto was done out spite. Seriously?? It’s spite to be looking out for our country’s national security and our troops? It’s spite to be informing Congress that political correctness has no place in the military. Wow. 

All of these issues are highly concerning, and in my opinion should either not be included in this Act or revised.

Feature Photo Credit: Army helmet by DZackCulver via Pixabay, cropped and modified

Written by

1 Comment
  • GWB says:

    for restricting his ability to draw down the presence of U.S. troops in certain foreign outposts
    Which would be patently un-Constitutional. These people. *smh*

    I would love to see an amendment that would…
    1. require all bills to be single purpose, without “riders” of any sort or any kind of “omnibus”,
    1a. that all appropriations bills could only be voted on per agency (yes, that would mean separate bills for the Army and Navy, imo),
    2. that all bills require 1 legislative day per 5 pages of legislation (printed in accord with whatever guidelines the Archives or the GAO uses), in the same legislative session, from the official publishing of the bill until the floor vote on said legislation,
    3. ban “continuation” appropriations,
    4. that any appropriations bill for an already extant agency, that is not funded by the beginning of its fiscal year (or the end of its last appropriation, if not actually sunsetted), is funded directly from the White House and Congressional (both houses) appropriations, with initial amounts coming from elected positions’ pay, followed by staffs’ pay, followed by operating budgets, until such time as that well runs dry,
    5. all appropriations bills will detail who requested each individual appropriation line (from the agency, from the White House, or which Congressperson), and a by-name vote is required to pass an appropriations bill.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Subscribe
Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner
gisonboat
rovin_readhead