Resource Categories

“UPDATED: 34 Senators Oppose Law of the Sea Treaty,” — Jim’s (Senator Jim DeMint) Blog, July 11, 2012

FFS: With the total number of senators who have publicly announced their opposition to the Law of the Sea Treaty hitting the threshold necessary to block ratification, news stories are widely announcing that LOST is dead for this session. But don’t be too sure.

Proponents have massive political clout at their disposal, including major corporate pressures, and the possibility of senators changing their position in December exists.

(Moreover, the internationalist architects and supporters of this UN power grab will certainly bring it up again, so more work is necessary to build informed public opposition.)

Recommended Action: Keep the pressure on your two U.S. Senators to oppose the treaty. Use the above link to discern which senators have announced opposition to the treaty. Also, read and share Masters of Deception to build informed opposition to the internationalist agenda.

“Despite Push, Sea Treaty Likely for Lame Duck” — CQ Today Online News, 5-22-12

FFS: A priority of the Obama administration (and internationalists in both parties) is to have the United States agree to the extremely dangerous “United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea” (UNCLOS). Opposition in the Senate has for decades prevented the subversive1982 treaty from coming up for a vote (a two-thirds vote is needed for ratification).

However, the latest strategy of the treaty’s supporters, including Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.), is to wait until after the November elections and bring the matter up in a lame duck session, when lame duck and surviving senators are more susceptible to internationalist pressure.

As one indication of the renewed Insider push to entangle the U.S. in this further step toward UN-administered world government, we point to a recent op-ed (“Time to Join the Law of the Sea Treaty”) in the Wall Street Journal by Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, James Baker III, Colin Powell, and Condoleezza Rice. All of these CFR authors served in the CFR-dominated post of secretary of state during Republican administrations.)

The opposition has cranked up as well. 27 GOP Senators have signed a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid promising to oppose the treaty if it comes to the senate floor for ratification. A May 25th article “Opposition to Law of the Sea Treaty heats up” by the Hill contains the full text of the letter and the 27 signers. 34 votes (7 more senators) are needed to block ratification.

Internationalist supporters of the Law of the Sea Treaty, which went into effect in 1994, are advancing clever arguments for ratification, replete with deceptions.   The treaty would give the United Nations unprecedented control over more that 70 percent of the earth’s surface. Seldom mentioned is the fact that the treaty is one internationalist strategy for providing the United Nations with its own independent source of revenue — royalties from mining the ocean’s seabeds.

While converting the U.S. to a “green economy” is not the answer to “sustained growth,” as the CFR’s Joseph Stiglitz and Fareed Zakaria would have us believe, there is great opportunity for U.S. technology, ingenuity, and capital to tap the enormous wealth of the seas.

Recommended action: Building sufficient pressure to overcome Insider support for this dangerous treaty requires time, so please get started now. Check the above article to see which senators have already come out in opposition to the treaty. Write your two senators, urging those who have announced their opposition to hang tough and urging the others to oppose the treaty publicly. Likewise inform and mobilize other Americans to register their opposition.

“The House voted Wednesday [May 9, 2012] to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank [H.R. 2072] for another three years, permitting the agency to continue providing hundreds of millions of dollars in trade assistance to U.S. firms....

“All 183 Democrats voted for the bill, along with 147 Republicans, but 93 GOP lawmakers voted against it.” — “Export-Import Bank reauthorized by House; Senate expected to act soon,” Washington Post (online) 5-9-2012

FFS: Similarly, on May 15th the Senate voted overwhelmingly (78 to 20) to send the House bill as passed to the president. No Democrats opposed the reauthorization. Republicans were split: 27 to 19 in favor.

The charter for the internationalists’ creation, the Export-Import Bank, was set to expire on May 31st. The Bank was also pushing against its authorized lending limit of $100 billion. In the past, the periodic renewal of the Bank has encountered little opposition, but this time considerable principled opposition arose.   Nevertheless, given the Insider influence on Congress, the outcome should not have been in doubt.

Congressional Quarterly Today’s description of the battle should have raised questions (such as why any Republicans would support a top priority of the Obama administration at this time):

“A top priority of the Obama administration, renewing the [Export-Import] bank’s charter divided Republicans who have been caught between their allies in the business community — who desire passage — and free market advocacy groups that oppose government-backed export financing as a form of corporate welfare.” — “Deal Sets Up Passage of Ex-Im Bill,” CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS, 5-14-2012

FFS: The above report and others referred to the pressure from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, which were supporting this federal intervention in the free market. But no mention was made of the fact that the Bank supports the internationalist agenda of boosting socialism abroad and has operated in the past to aid America’s enemies.

A prime example were the loans in the 1970s to the Soviet Union to finance the building of the world’s largest truck factory on the Kama River. At that time the Export-Import Bank joined with Chase Manhattan in an even split to finance 90 percent of the project, which subsequently produced trucks supporting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Neither was any mention made in much of the media coverage of the fact that the powers of the Ex-Im Bank are not authorized by the Constitution.

Although the dollar amount (the lending limit is scheduled to increase from $100 billion to $140 billion in stages), the votes are nevertheless revealing of the internationalist grip on Washington, which transcends party.

“Same-sex civil unions bill fails in Colorado” — Reuters, 5-9-2012

“North Carolina Voters Pass Same-Sex Marriage Ban” — New York Times, 5-8-2012

“Arizona bans funding of Planned Parenthood” — CNN, 5-5-2012

“Georgia bans most late-terms abortions, assisted suicide” — Reuters, 5-1-2012

FFS: Despite the recent good news in the culture war, the long-term outlook is bleak unless more Americans recognize the deceptions and true objectives of the Establishment organizations driving the revolution. Please see our May Action Report and Masters of Deception.

Note also: In an ABC interview on May 9th, President Obama came out in support of same-sex marriage. See below:

“Obama declares support for gay marriage” — ABC OTUS News, 5-9-2012

Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011
H.R. 1473 Roll Call 268 Final Results

FFS: On Friday April 8th, House Speaker John Boehner, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and President Barak Obama worked out a compromise agreement on appropriations for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2011. The last-minute agreement prevented a government “shutdown.”

According to Monday’s CQ Briefing: “The spending cuts will be $18 billion from mandatory programs and $20 billion from discretionary programs — although $12 billion of that had already been enacted in the last three short-term CRs [Continuing Resolutions].”

Early reports heralded the “compromise” as a victory for smaller government. However, other reports, including one from the Congressional Budget Office, soon questioned the reality of the cuts. The Washington Post (4-14-2011) noted: “A federal budget compromise that was hailed as historic for proposing to cut about $38 billion would reduce federal spending by only $352 million this fiscal year, less than 1 percent of the bill’s advertised amount, according to the Congressional Budget Office.”

On closer examination, some cuts appear to be legitimate, while many others are accounting gimmicks that will not show up as actual deficit reductions. Nevertheless, it was a lot of stir about little and massive unconstitutional government is still alive and well.

Good news, however, followed the “compromise”: Not all the House GOP “conservatives” went along with it (see above roll call #268). According to Roll Call: “Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) was forced to rely on 81 House Democrats to push through a six-month spending measure Thursday over the objections of his right flank — a stark political reality that could hurt him in future battles.... [Although a majority of GOP voted for it], the overall level of defections was significant and deeper than many senior aides expected.” (“Boehner Turns to Democrats to Pass CR After 59 GOP Defections,” 4-14-11)

FFS: On April 15th, the House approved the GOP’s Fiscal Year 2012 budget resolution. Chairman of the House Budget Committee Paul Ryan extolled the plan in the Wall Street Journal (“The GOP Path to Prosperity,” 4-5-11): “Our proposal brings federal spending to below 20% of gross domestic product (GDP), consistent with the postwar average, and reduces deficits by $4.4 trillion.” [Over ten years, compared to the deficits in President Obama’s budget!]

But Ryan’s “super-aggressive” plan merely “hopes” to get deficits down into the $400 billion range and not for at least six years! Typically, politicians seek to deceive the public with budgets that push the real discipline off to future Congresses, which inevitably repeat the ruse.

Moreover, Ryan’s suggestion that spending be limited to a specific share of America’s GDP accepts a very dangerous socialist vision of open-ended federal authority. The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to do whatever it claims will advance the social condition — as along as America can afford it. And since  mushrooming unconstitutional spending during the postwar period built the foundation for our current troubles, we certainly don’t want that level enshrined as a standard.  

What happened to the Constitution as a restraint? Although Ryan proposes to eliminate Obama’s grossly unpopular health care takeover, his proposal leaves decades of unconstitutional programs and departments intact, which sap our nation’s vitality. Ryan’s proposed “spending caps” will not prevent those programs from expanding once the voters tire of watching or demagogues generate some new spending pretext, such as another war. “Leadership” that throws in the towel to socialist gains can never restore America to prosperity and preserve our freedom.

America needs leadership in Congress now that will target all of the unconstitutional departments and programs that have sprung up since the New Deal.

H.J. Res. 48, Roll Call 179

FFS: In mid-March, 54 House Republicans rebuffed their party leadership and refused to support another continuing resolution (the sixth this year funding FY 2011) that included only minor spending cuts and no policy riders.

Although the CR passed the House, 271 to 158 (see roll call 179, above), and later the Senate and was signed by the president, it is encouraging to see so many House Republicans refusing to go along. Note: The list of Democrats (italics in the roll call) opposing the measure is not as informative, because many voted ‘no’ claiming the cuts were too deep.

CQ Roll Call Daily Briefing (3-16-2011) commented on the vote:

The 54 Republicans (including a quarter of the freshmen) who voted against the three-week measure can be counted on to vote against almost any spending deal that’s negotiated between Congress and Obama. If they didn’t like cutting $6 billion over three weeks, they’re surely not going to like a final bill that almost certainly will promise reductions at a shallower depth — and that has very little chance of including both of the policy riders (defunding the health care law and Planned Parenthood) they say are required to win their support.

FFS recommends that constituents compliment their representative if he or she voted ‘no’ on the above roll call for the right reason and insist their representative refuse in the future to fund programs not authorized by the Constitution.  (See our Congress: Just Vote the Constitution! campaign.)

"Psst. No shutdown during a 'government shutdown'" — Yahoo! News, 2-24-2011

“IMF calls for dollar alternative” — CNNMoney.com, 2-20-2011 

FFS:  The planning for the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund originated within a subgroup of the Council on Foreign Relations’ (CFR) War and Peace Studies Project during 1941-1942, with the final plan established at the international Bretton Woods conference in 1944. The IMF was ostensibly created to help stabilize currencies at the end of World War II and to control international exchange rates. However, it was intended from the beginning to evolve, at an opportune time, into a world central bank, issuing an international currency. At the Bretton Woods conference, Federal Reserve Board governor Mariner Eccles observed: “An international currency is synonymous with international government.”

World financial ministers have sought to use the 2009 global financial crisis to strengthen both the IMF and World Bank, in the guise of reform. In the above CNNMoney report, note the proposal by CFR heavyweight (and Trilateralist) C. Fred Bergsten, founder and director of the Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics. (The Peterson Institute is a globalist think-tank named after the former Chairman of the CFR, who replaced David Rockefeller in 1985.)Also, note the comments by Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the 10th Managing Director of the IMF and member of France’s Socialist Party.

"President George W. Bush Speaks to HUD Employees on National Homeownership Month" (June 18, 2002)

FFS: "We are here in Washington, D.C. to address problems," said President Bush in July 2002. (Regardless of constitutional limits on the federal role, we might add.) It is essential we make it easier for people to buy a home, not harder." (See above link to full text).

Building on the socialist mortgage programs and lending institutions created under previous administrations, President Bush launched massive new unconstitutional federal loan subsidies. He also encouraged the easy credit policies of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who tied their fortunes to uncontrolled immigration. Supported by Fed easy-money policies, the stage was set for the housing bubble, whose collapse helped bring on today's "Great Recession."

H.R. 2965 "Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010"

House Final Vote 12/15/10 (Roll no. 638)

Senate Final Vote 12/18/10 (Record Vote Number: 281)

Washington Post story following vote in Senate

FFS: During the "lame duck" session of Congress this past December, both the House and Senate allowed President Obama to deliver on his campaign payoff to the aggressive gay and lesbian "rights" lobby. Many voters would be surprised at some of the congressmen who went along with this outrageous assault on our nation's military. (Note: some face-saving caveats were included in the legislation, such as additional certification of no harm, before the change goes into effect — see Post story above.) The final votes from Thomas.gov are posted above.

"GOP likely to impede EPA efforts" — CQ staff, Congress.org, 1-3-2011

FFS: Informative article examines some precedents for the House to use its enormous leverage to block programs through appropriation bills. But the article only suggests part of the power held by the House (see, e.g., James Madison, Federalist No. 58). Moreover, in the interest of "balance," the article includes disparaging comments by some who oppose the aggressive use of this power (e.g., "mischievous policy sneak attacks").

http://pledge.gop.gov/

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy05/hist.html

See (i.e., download) Table 1.1 – Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits (-): 1789–2009 Interesting historical record of growth in federal spending and deficits.

“Secretary Salazar’s Remarks at FY 2011 Budget Press Conference” (February 1, 2010)

“Britain unveils ‘unavoidable’ austerity budget”  (CNN.com, June 22, 2010)

“Arizona immigration law sparks huge rallies” (CBC News (Canada), May 1, 2010)

“International response to European debt problems” (5/20/2010)

“Hawaii lawmakers pass civil unions bill” (CNN.com, 4/30/2010)

“Clinton draws parallels between upheaval of 1995, today” (Video clip:  CNN’s Wolf Blitzer interviews the former president for an April 16th edition of CNN’s “Situation Room.”)

“Expected Failure of Climate Bill Taints U.S. Image as Clean Energy Promoter” (CQ Politics, 5/03/10) <link error>

Don’t bet on the demise of global warming fright-peddling yet. While we welcome reports that public opinion has turned against the propaganda, the hoax in support of power-grabbing climate-change legislation and treaties has so much momentum worldwide that the internationalists will not readily let it die. If necessary, they will move it to the backburner until resistance has waned. 

Note: The above CQ report outrageously avoids the issue of whether there is any substance to the pretext for burdensome government action. Nor does it even touch the question as to why U.S. politicians are suddenly reluctant to address the phony crisis.

“‘Patriots’ dangerous to government?” (CNN.com, April 20, 2010)

In this video clip, CNN’s Drew Griffin interviews “three members of the ‘patriot movement’ regarding their anger toward government.”

“Hawaii lawmakers pass civil unions bill” (CNN.com, 4/30/2010)

“Senate Passes Bill Modifying New Health Care Law” (CQ Politics, 3/25/10) <link error>

“American’s Global Warming Concerns Continue to Drop” (Gallup, 3/11/10)

The public is becoming aware that many climate scientists dispute the Al Gore predictions of catastrophic man-made climate change.  However, the proponents of this pretext for a massive government power grab continue brazenly to push forward as though their case is solid.

“Rotten to the Core” (Boston Herald, 2/28/10) 

This devastating critique of the Common Core project for national education standards comes surprisingly from the Boston Herald Editorial Staff.  Nevertheless, it misses the key point:  The federal government has no proper role, constitutional or otherwise, in providing funding to education and prescribing standards.  In fact, a quick way to improve standards would be to get the federal government out of the education business.

“American’s Global Warming Concerns Continue to Drop” (Gallup, 3/11/10)

The public is becoming aware that many climate scientists dispute the Al Gore predictions of catastrophic man-made climate change.  However, the proponents of this pretext for a massive government power grab continue brazenly to push forward as though their case is solid.

“How they are turning off the lights in America” (Climate Physics, November 9, 2009) <link error>

Last year’s news, but significant!

“Obama, Republicans Square Off at Health Care Summit” (CQ Politics, 2/26/10) <link error>

With congressional elections just around the corner, Washington is responding to voter wariness over Democratic plans to “fix” health care. Article reports on latest partisan exchanges.

“Shrinking U.S. Labor Force Keeps Unemployment Rate from Rising” (Business Week, 1/8/10) <link error>

Despite a growing population and more families needing two earners to make ends meet, bureaucrats decide that our labor force is shrinking.

“That rock in the health-care road? It’s called the Constitution.” (The Washington Post, 1/14/10)

"Leans" toward a principled defense, but no mandate for action.

“New Documents Show IPCC Ignored Doubts About Himalayan Glacier Scare”  (Global Warming Policy Foundation, 1/24/10)

“Mandate to buy health insurance might not be constitutional” (The Seattle Times, 1/19/10)

Offers a weak defense of limited Republican government, but raises provocative arguments.

“Fasten Your Seatbelts: Bumpy Ride Ahead”  (Chicago Tribune January 5, 2010) 

A realistic, but unfortunately not principle-based analysis of the legislation being steamrolled through Congress.

Climategate.  "Climategate puts all global-warming research under a cloud" (Nashua Telegraph 12/13/2009)

Hypocrisy In Copenhagen.  "Dominic Lawson: Roll up, roll up for the great Copenhagen emissions-fest" (The Independent 12/08/09)

British op-ed questions sincerity of world leaders meeting in Copenhagen

Carbon Trading Scams Reveal Potential for Massive Corruption.  "Copenhagen climate summit: Carbon trading fraudsters in Europe pocket €5bn" (London Telegraph 12/10/2009)

A British Lord Raises Serious Questions about the Science of Climate Change and His Government's Response.  "Lord Turnbull Questions UK Climate Policy in the House of Lords" (GWPF 12/10/2009)  <link error>

EPA Brands Carbon Dioxide a Pollutant."EPA Determines that Greenhouse Gases Threaten Public" (CQ Today 12/07/2009) <link error>

Responding to “a 2007 Supreme Court Ruling that greenhouse gases fall within the Clean Air Act definition of air pollutants” the EPA action is timed to support the Obama administration in Copenhagen. But global-warming skeptics abound.  

Socialized Medicine: Are Payoffs to Politicians Preventing Tort Reform?  See "The President's Tort Two-Step" (WSJ 09/11/2009) 

Destructive Politics in Implementing Socialized Medicine: Taxes on Healthcare Innovation Would Subsidize More Expensive Health Care and Discourage Advances.  "The Innovation Tax" (WSJ 09/18/2009)

“FY 2011 Budget Press Conference Opening Remarks” (February 1, 2010)

FFS Letter to Members and Fellow Patriots—Oct. 2, 2008

Freedom First Society "Launch Special Report"

"Launch Special Report"