Bills

Issue: H.R. 10 Success and Opportunity through Quality Charter Schools Act. Sponsor: Rep. John Kline (MN-2).

Result: Passed in House, 360 to 45, 27 not voting.   GOP and Democrats scored.

From the Congressional Research Service Summary:

(Sec. 4) Revises subpart 1 (Charter School Program) of part B (Public Charter Schools) of title V (Promoting Informed Parental Choice and Innovative Programs) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.

(Sec. 5) Replaces the current charter school grant program with a program awarding grants to state entities (state educational agencies, state charter school boards, Governors, or charter school support organizations) and, through them, subgrants to charter school developers to open new charter schools and expand and replicate high-quality charter schools….

Limits subgrantees to no more than one subgrant per charter school over a five-year period, unless the subgrantee demonstrates at least three years of improved educational results for students enrolled in the applicable charter school.

Requires the Secretary of Education and each grantee to use a peer review process to review applications for charter school grants and subgrants….

(Sec. 8) Requires states and LEAs to ensure that a student’s records are transferred as quickly as possible to a charter school or another public school when the student transfers from one such school to the other.

(Sec. 9) Allows charter schools to serve prekindergarten or postsecondary school students.

(Sec. 10) Reauthorizes appropriations under subpart 1 through FY2020.

Analysis:  The federal government has no constitutional authority for involvement with education or for a Department of Education. The Insider-foundation supported drive to control the education of our youth overcame that obstacle following Sputnik.

Federal control predictably followed federal funding and a further decline in public education ensued. The educational establishment has capitalized on that decline to promote its own remedies, such as Charter Schools, that merely continue dangerous federal control.

The efforts of the federal educational establishment to manage public education through Charter Schools can be seen in several of the provisions cited above.

In his April 25, 2014 open memo House Republicans, Majority Leader Eric Cantor detailed the GOP Spring Legislative Agenda and touted the benefits of H.R. 10:

“This bipartisan bill will modernize our current charter school programs by consolidating two federal programs into one. Through conservative reforms, we will reward high-performing charter schools at the state and local level and permit states more flexibility to allocate federal funds to start charter schools. Under this legislation, states also will have the ability to expand and replicate high-performing charter schools.” [Emphasis added.]

         The concept that the federal government should have any role in funding or authorizing states to start charter schools violates the separation of state and federal powers recognized in the Constitution.

Moreover, the suggestion that a bipartisan coalition that includes arch-liberal George Miller (a cosponsor) and House minority leader, Nancy Pelosi (voted Aye), could agree on a measure to substantially improve education reveals the dishonesty of the House Republican leadership.

We have assigned (good vote) to the Noes and (bad vote) to the Ayes. (P = voted present; ? = not voting; blank = not listed on roll call.)

Issue:  H.R. 2548 Electrify Africa Act of 2014. Sponsor: Ed Royce (D-Calif.).  Question:  On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended (2/3 vote required).

Result: Agreed to in House, 297 to 116, 17 not voting. GOP and Democrats scored.

From Congressional Research Service Summary:

(Sec. 5) Directs the President to establish a multiyear policy, partnership, and funding strategy to assist countries in sub-Saharan Africa develop an appropriate mix of power solutions to provide sufficient electricity access to people living in rural and urban areas in order to alleviate poverty and drive economic growth.

(Sec. 6) Expresses the sense of Congress that the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) should: (1) prioritize where loan guarantees to African financial institutions would facilitate involvement in African power projects, and where partnerships and grants would increase access to electricity; and (2) consider providing grants to develop national, regional, and local energy and electricity policy plans, and expand electricity access to the poorest.

(Sec. 8) Urges the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) to: (1) place a priority on supporting investment in the electricity sector of sub-Saharan Africa…. Amends the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to require OPIC’s Board of Directors to: (1) increase the loan, guarantee, and insurance programs, and financial commitments in sub-Saharan Africa, including through the use of an investment advisory council to assist the Board in developing and implementing policies, programs, and financial instruments with respect to sub-Saharan Africa; and (2) appoint an OPIC Inspector General.

Analysis: The Electrify Africa Act garnered massive bipartisan support for an incredible overreach of federal authority (only 1 Democrat — West Virginia’s Nick Rahall — opposed the measure, whereas Republicans were fairly evenly split —106 in favor to 116 against).

The Act would set development priorities for foreign nations and subsidize that development (through loans and loan guarantees).   There is absolutely no constitutional authority for such foreign meddling.

Moreover, the Act relies on two institutions, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the U.S. department that manages foreign aid, and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). Both organizations were created to allow Internationalists to use the wealth of U.S. taxpayers and the full faith and credit of the U.S. government to advance their subversive plans for the world.

It should be the responsibility of foreign nations to create a favorable environment to attract private investment. Instead, Establishment Insiders maintain their grip on other nations through their control of the massive international aid dispensing institutions — the World Bank and the IMF, as well as the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).   These institutions wield enormous leverage over many governments, whose nations are in debt to these institutions, and they often serve to keep cooperative corrupt regimes in power.

We have assigned (good vote) to the Nays and (bad vote) to the Yeas. (P = voted present; ? = not voting; blank = not listed on roll call.)

Issue: H.Con.Res. 96 Establishing the budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2015 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2016 through 2024.

Result: Passed in House, 219 to 205, 8 not voting.  Republicans scored.

From the Congressional Research Summary (emphasis added):

Title II: Recommended Long-Term Levels – (Sec. 201) Lists recommended revenue, spending, and deficit levels and amounts for FY2030, FY2035, and FY2040 as a percent of the federal gross domestic product (GDP) with respect to: (1) federal revenues, (2) budget outlays, (3) deficits, and (4) debt.

Title III: Reserve Funds – (Sec. 301) Authorizes a certain reserve fund to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the health care-related provisions of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (2010 health care laws).

(Sec. 302) Authorizes certain deficit-neutral reserve funds [partial list]:

• for rural counties and schools
• to reform policies and programs to reduce poverty and increase opportunity and upward mobility.

Analysis:  As GOP House leaders were drumming up support for their forthcoming budget, Washington’s Roll Call (3-21-14) reported:   “Majority Leader Eric Cantor is telling House Republicans they will produce a budget that adheres to [negotiated] spending limits and balances the budget in ten years.”

Unfortunately, each year the GOP leadership misleads gullible conservatives by championing a balanced budget — albeit far in the future. Adherence to the Constitution can produce major cuts in federal spending now, whereas setting goals for future Congresses to exercise more fiscal discipline is pure deception.

Moreover, as the provisions cited above show, the GOP proposed budget implicitly accepts unconstitutional programs, merely calling for reform or limiting federal spending to what America can ostensibly afford.

Pursuant to the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, this year’s budget resolution, sponsored by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, will not even bind appropriation committees to a ceiling, unless both the House and Senate agree to a compromise — not in the cards.

So the roll call was largely symbolic, allowing lawmakers an opportunity to showcase their spending priorities. The vote is nevertheless significant, because it identifies which GOP congressmen are adhering to their party leadership, as opposed to their oath to uphold the Constitution.

Perhaps the good news is that 12 Republicans broke with their party leadership and opposed the resolution: Georgia representatives Paul Broun, Phil Gingrey, Jack Kingston, and Austin Scott; Walter Jones (NC–3); Thomas Massie (KY–4); Rick Crawford (AR–1); Chris Gibson (NY–19); Ralph Hall (TX–4); David Jolly (FL–13); David McKinley (WV–1); and Frank LoBiondo (NJ–2).   Only the latter two, McKinley and LoBiondo, indicated they objected to the budget because specific cuts were too deep.

Although the GOP budget resolution did respect the established sequester caps, those caps, providing a minor, but welcome restraint on spending, were increased in the Bipartisan Budget Act enacted last December.   62 GOP representatives properly opposed that act, which was pushed through with Democratic help, but many of those 62 accepted the higher caps in supporting the Ryan budget resolution.

Of course, liberal Democrats howled that the cuts proposed by the Ryan budget resolution were too severe. (In fact, no Democrat supported it.) Nancy Pelosi called the GOP budget plan “a road to recession.” However, such opposition from prominent liberals simply provides the GOP with cover for continued destructive leadership.

Spending Caps

Federal spending in excess of revenue is only one part of America’s economic problems. The far bigger problem is the driver of out-of-control spending — a Congress willing to ignore constitutional restraints.

Even a balanced budget, if still bloated with unconstitutional spending that consumes America’s productivity, is no gift. Merely keeping the patient alive is not a sufficient goal; instead, America should seek to restore unprecedented economic vitality in the private sector. And it can do so, simply by putting the federal monster back in its cage —the Constitution.

Freeing up the private sector requires killing the driver of our financial mess — a long history of Congress trashing the constitutional limits on what the federal government should be involved in. In more recent times, the Establishment media has helped perpetuate that usurpation by keeping public attention focused on an entertaining partisan political debate over spending levels, while ignoring the important — the massive unconstitutional activity bloating the federal budget.

Without a more permanent public focus on the importance of constitutional restraints, any small victories in limiting spending today will be more than offset by further unconstitutional spending tomorrow, driven by new pretexts, when busy voters are asleep.

A better informed public must also insist that the House use its power of the purse aggressively to force the other branches to accept a roll back of unconstitutional programs.   Such tough medicine won’t be administered as long as the public tolerates the “conservative” House strategy of bringing big-spending liberals to the negotiating table.

We have assigned (good vote) to the Nays and (bad vote) to the Yeas. (P = voted present; ? = not voting; blank = not listed on roll call.)

Issue:  H.R. 2126 Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2014. (To promote energy efficiency, and for other purposes.) Sponsor: Rep. David D. McKinley (WV-1).   Question:  On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended (2/3 vote required).

Result:  Passed in House 375 to 36, 19 not voting. GOP and Democrat selected vote.

From the Congressional Research Service Summary:  

• Requires the Administrator of General Services (GSA) to develop and publish model leasing provisions for use in leasing documents that designate a federal agency as a landlord or tenant to encourage building owners and tenants to invest in cost-effective energy efficiency measures.

Requires the Administrator to: (2) make available such model leasing provisions and best practices to state, county, and municipal governments that manage owned and leased building space to encourage investment in such energy efficiency measures.

• [R]equires the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Assistant Secretary of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy to study the feasibility of: (1) significantly improving energy efficiency in commercial buildings through the design and construction of separate spaces with high-performance energy efficiency measures, and (2) encouraging owners and tenants to implement such measures in separate spaces. Requires the Secretary to publish such study on DOE’s website.

• Requires the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop a voluntary Tenant Star program within the Energy Star program to recognize tenants in commercial buildings that voluntarily achieve high levels of energy efficiency in separate spaces.

• Requires DOE’s Administrator of the Energy Information Administration to collect data on categories of building occupancy that consume significant quantities of energy and on other aspects of the property, building operation, or building occupancy determined to be relevant to lowering energy consumption.

Analysis: H.R. 2126 is a prime example of unconstitutional federal overreach in support of a subversive agenda. It is particularly disturbing to see such overwhelming bipartisan support for even a small building block in that agenda.

The federal government has no authority to promote domestic energy efficiency in buildings not occupied by federal agencies.   And the notion that the federal government must take the lead in promoting genuine economic efficiency in the marketplace is absurd. However, the greatest concern should be the real agenda driving such intervention.

For decades the federal government, with support from both parties, has supported unconstitutional programs that restrict America’s production of cheap, plentiful energy. There is no constitutional basis for a federal Department of Energy nor for an Environmental Protection Agency.   Contrary to their advertised objectives, both the DOE and EPA have been key participants in the subversive war to strangle and micromanage the American economy.

We have assigned (good vote) to the Nays and (bad vote) to the Yeas. (P = voted present; ? = not voting; blank = not listed on roll call.)

Issue:  H.R. 2642 Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013 (“Farm Bill”). (Sponsor: Rep. Frank D. Lucas (OK-3).)  Question:  On Agreeing to the House-Senate Conference Report.

Result:  Passed in House 251 to 166, 14 not voting. Became Public Law No: 113-79 (signed by the president 2-7-2014).  GOP selected vote.

Bill Summary: This nearly $1 trillion authorization measure sets farm policy for the next five years. It also reauthorizes “nutrition” programs, i.e., food stamps, provides rural community assistance, extends “food for peace” and much more.

Analysis: An early version of this legislation passed the House on a close 216–208 vote last July (see Scorecard, 113th Congress, Session 1 — Roll Call 353, 7-11-13). However, the House and Senate could not resolve their differences until further negotiations after the start of the new session (2014).

For all the hoopla over Congress getting something done, this bipartisan “compromise” is merely another victory for continuing massive unconstitutional government.   Even Establishment Republican Senator John McCain blasted the bloated measure in a February 3rd floor speech:

“How are we supposed to restore the confidence of the American people with this monstrosity? A few weeks ago we crammed down their throats a $1.1 trillion omnibus appropriations bill loaded with wasteful spending. Tomorrow we will wash the omnibus down with another trillion dollars. The only policy that gets bipartisan traction in Congress is Washington’s desire to hand out taxpayer money like it is candy.”

         The Wall Street Journal (1-28-14) called the “Farm Bill” “A Bipartisan Taxpayer Raid.”   This bipartisan “victory” demonstrates the unwillingness of the GOP-led House to deal seriously with unconstitutional programs and spending.

President Obama signed the farm bill into law at Michigan State University, the alma mater of Senate Agriculture Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., the lead negotiator on the Senate side. At the signing ceremony, the president proudly touted the many ongoing unconstitutional overreach programs in this massive piece of legislation.

As Obama pointed out, the measure addresses much more than just farming. The president described it as:

“A jobs bill, an innovation bill, an infrastructure bill, a conservation bill, a research bill. It’s like a Swiss Army knife.

“This bill helps rural communities by investing in hospitals and schools, affordable housing, broadband infrastructure – all the things that help attract more businesses and make life easier for working families. This bill helps support businesses that are developing cutting-edge bio-fuels like some of the work that’s being done here at Michigan State.” — Michigan Radio (2-8-14)

         Also present at the signing ceremony was U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, who praised Congress for keeping cuts to food stamps smaller than they might have been.

Nevertheless, many liberal Democrats in both the House and Senate postured as opponents to the measure because of the promised cuts in food stamp spending — really just “projected” savings over a 10 year period.   Fellow Democrat Stabenow defended the compromise against liberal criticism:

“We have done nothing that changes eligibility or eliminates anyone from food assistance help. We have gone after waste, fraud and abuse and we are tightening up this connection with [the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program.]” — Roll Call (1-27-14) “Farm Bill Is Latest Breakthrough for Congress”

         Associated press was surprisingly candid in its assessment of the measure:

“After more than two years of partisan squabbles over food and farm policy, the House passed and sent to the Senate Wednesday an almost $100 billion-a-year, compromise farm bill containing a small cut in food stamps and preserving most crop subsidies….

“For those seeking reform of farm programs, the legislation would eliminate a $4.5 billion-a-year farm subsidy called direct payments, which are paid to farmers whether they farm or not. But the bill nonetheless would continue to heavily subsidize major crops — corn, soybeans, wheat, rice and cotton — while shifting many of those subsidies toward more politically defensible [but still unconstitutional] insurance programs.” — AP (1-29-14) “House passes farm bill, crop subsidies preserved”

         Both House Republican and Democratic leaders supported the conference report. However, there were significant defections on both sides of the aisle.   According to Roll Call (1-29-14):

“The bill would not have been able to pass without Democratic support, with 63 Republicans voting no. Democrats were split nearly in half, with many opposing any cuts to the food stamp program.”

         Rather than give credit to liberals who voted correctly but for clearly the wrong reason we choose not to score the Democrats in either the House or Senate on this important measure.

We have assigned (good vote) to the Nays and (bad vote) to the Yeas. (P = voted present; ? = not voting; blank = not listed on roll call.)

Issue:  H.R. 3547 Latest Title: Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014.

Result:  Passed in House 359 to 67, 7 not voting. Became Public Law No: 113-76 (signed by the president 1-17-14).  GOP and Democrat selected vote.

Bill Summary:  H.R. 3547 was transformed into the FY2014 consolidated appropriation bill, comprising the12 annual appropriations bills.   Authorized $1.1 trillion in spending for the Fiscal Year ending September 30, 2014.

Analysis:   A month earlier (December 2013), Congress passed the so-called budget deal, raising the sequester caps for FY 2014 and FY 2015. (See last Scorecard selected vote in House — GOP only — and Senate for session 1.)

No Way to Spend the People’s Money

Once the budget deal established the FY 2014 spending level, four-dozen or so congressional appropriators from both parties and both sides of the Capitol were instructed to prepare a massive omnibus spending measure. They were given a January 15 deadline to avoid another government “shutdown.”

Their task was immense. In less than three weeks, they had to negotiate and write “legislation dictating all of the government’s discretionary spending for the final 37 weeks of this budget year.” — Roll Call (12-19-13)

The GOP’s Harold Rogers, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, and Democrat Barbara Mikulski, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, led the appropriators in drafting the bill behind closed doors as a take-it-or-leave it package deal.

The final $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill was revealed to the public less than 72 hours before it sailed through the House and Senate with large bipartisan majorities. Intimidated by the adverse media-generated reaction to the recent “government shutdown,” many representatives held their noses and voted yea, even though some acknowledged that they had not read the 1,582 page bill.

During the floor debate in the House, Harold Rogers argued:

“This bill is a reflection of the need for members of Congress, under the Constitution, to decide how and when and why money is spent by the executive branch. The people elected us to fulfill that duty, and this bill does just that.”

         Immediately after the vote, Rogers told reporters: “I think it’s a really good demonstration of the worthiness of trying to work across the aisle and across the dome…. It was a good exercise in bipartisanship and working together for the common good.”

We emphatically disagree. There was obviously no serious effort in this bill to roll back unconstitutional programs and spending, and so a responsible vote had to be no.

We have assigned (good vote) to the Nays and (bad vote) to the Yeas. (P = voted present; ? = not voting; blank = not listed on roll call.)

Issue: H.R. 3 Latest Title: Northern Route Approval Act. (To approve the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Keystone XL pipeline, and for other purposes.)

Result: Passed in House, 241 to 175, 1 present, 16 not voting. Democrats scored.

Bill Summary: H.R. 3 would overcome identified obstacles to the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Keystone XL pipeline, intended to move about 700,000 barrels per day of oil-like bitumen across the U.S.-Canadian border, from the Alberta oil sands to Texas refineries.

Analysis: Of course, passage of H.R. 3 does not overcome these two critical obstacles: the Senate and the President, both of which are subservient to the environmental lobby.

Accordingly, this bill is more about image building for GOP campaigning than it is about helping the U.S. economy. We therefore score only the Democrats on this roll call, giving credit to those 19 who ignored their party’s leadership and voted for the bill.

The arguments in favor of building the pipeline have focused exclusively on rebutting the phony issues raised by the environmentalists — a purely defensive strategy ultimately doomed to defeat, even if the Keystone project is allowed to go forward. What America needs is an offensive strategy that recognizes the environmentalists’ attack for what it is —an attack on the means of support for a healthy, modern economy.

An adequate offensive strategy must expose the real agenda of the environmentalist movement and the agenda of its Establishment sponsors (see, for example, Steve Milloy, Green Hell, Regnery 2009). Given the power and influence of the Establishment media, this is something that almost all politicians refuse to do. Instead, they mislead Americans into thinking that purely partisan politics can solve our problems by posturing against outrageous symptoms.

The Keystone battle

Well organized environmental groups such as the heavily funded Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club made it a major priority to stall the Keystone approval process by raising several concerns. Then, in January of 2014, the U.S. State Department released its environmental impact study.

According to Forbes (2-12-14), “Keystone XL Opposition: All Cause, No Benefit”:

“The study’s key finding: building and maintaining Keystone would have virtually no effect on global carbon emissions…. And like that, the Obama administration’s public justification for stalling approval of the project collapses….

“For his part, President Obama has delayed a decision on Keystone XL pipeline for five years, choosing instead to conduct study after study… While his delaying tactics may have helped to shore up his base, and even reward donors, the president can no longer refuse to choose the best energy option for America’s future.”

We are not so sure. The Forbes article proceeds from the false assumption that our modern presidents really want to do what’s best for America. Forbes totally ignores the Internationalist agenda that has long had a grip on the Executive branch, the two major political parties and the major media.

Forbes also suggests that a pipeline to carry Canadian crude to Texas refineries will likely be built in any event. Environmental groups sought an injunction to halt construction of a different pipeline from Flanagan, Illinois to Cushing, Oklahoma, which does not cross the U.S. Canadian border and therefore does not require federal approval. But a federal court refused the injunction.

Even without the State Department study, credible opposition to Keystone had become so weak, that a year earlier even the Establishment’s Washington Post (1-23-13) came out in favor of the project, while still supporting the phony environmentalist agenda:

 “After years of federal review, there was little question last year that construction of the pipeline … should proceed….

“Mr. Obama should ignore the activists who have bizarrely chosen to make Keystone XL a line-in-the-sand issue, when there are dozens more of far greater environmental import. He knows that the way to cut oil use is to reduce demand for the stuff, and he has begun to put that knowledge into practice, setting tough new fuel-efficiency standards for cars and trucks. That will actually make a difference, unlike blocking a pipeline here or there.”

However, the environmentalists could also look to the Establishment for strong support. In a New York Times May 9, 2012 op-ed, NASA climate scientist James Hansen charged:

“If Canada proceeds [with its plans to exploit the oil in its vast tar sands reserves], and we do nothing, it will be game over for the climate.”

 In its November 2012 issue, Foreign Policy magazine named Hansen one of its Top Global Thinkers that year “for sounding the alarm on climate change, early and often.” In 2008, The Washington Post Company purchased Foreign Policy from the Establishment’s Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.”

Nevertheless, even Michael Levi, the director of the CFR’s program on energy security and climate change, couldn’t quite embrace the severity of Hansen’s doomsday predictions. (See Washington Post Opinions (1-18-2012) “Five myths about the Keystone pipeline.”

All of this illustrates how easy it is to get distracted from the real issue — the campaign of top Insiders, including the inner core of the CFR, to use whatever pretext they can to create scarcity and gain the power to regulate human action. (See Freedom First Society’s, Masters of Deception.)

We have assigned (good vote) to the Ayes and (bad vote) to the Noes. (P = voted present; ? = not voting; blank = not listed on roll call.)

Issue:  H.R. 4152 Support for the Sovereignty, Integrity, Democracy, and Economic Stability of Ukraine Act of 2014. (To provide for the costs of loan guarantees for Ukraine.)  Question: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Concur in the Senate Amendment (2/3 required).

Result:  Passed in House 378 to 34, 19 not voting. Became Public Law No: 113-95 (signed by president, 4-3-2014).  GOP and Democrats scored.

From Congressional Research Service Summary: (Sec. 4) Makes available to Ukraine for loan guarantees specified funds under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 and funds under prior Acts for the Department of State, foreign operations, and related programs.

States that such amounts shall not be considered “assistance” for the purposes of law limiting assistance to Ukraine.

(Sec. 6) Directs the Secretary of State to: (1) improve democratic governance and anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine, (2) support Ukrainian government efforts to foster national unity, (3) assist in diversifying Ukraine’s economy and energy supplies, (4) strengthen democratic institutions and political and civil society organizations in Ukraine, (5) expand free access to independent media in Ukraine and assist with the protection of journalists and civil society activists, (6) support political and economic reform initiatives by Eastern Partnership countries, and (7) support efforts to enhance the economic and political empowerment of women in Ukraine and to address violence against women and girls in Ukraine. [Emphasis added.]

Authorizes FY2015 appropriations for such activities.

Analysis:   International media reports of the violence in Kiev, leading to the 2014 Ukrainian revolution and the ouster of President Yanukovych, generated understandable American sympathy for the protestors and the new government. That sympathy increased when Russian forces seized control of the Crimea region of the Ukraine and threatened the new government.

However, there is strong evidence the Internationalists have been working both sides of the street and using an orchestrated conflict to advance their agenda.   Council on Foreign Relations influence can be seen both in the Euromaidan protest movement demanding closer ties between the Ukraine and the European Union and in the new government in the Ukraine.

A February 24th article in the Establishment’s New York Times, entitled “Ukrainian Protesters See Too Many Familiar Faces in Parliament After Revolution,” confirmed the old saying that the more things change the more they stay the same.

Even without the evidence of direct Insider orchestration of the events in the Ukraine, representatives should have refused to support H.R. 4152. H.R. 4152 calls for an unconstitutional meddling in the Ukraine’s affairs.   The purported justification for such intervention in violation of the U.S. Constitution is the need for Washington to help enforce “international law” and support the Ukrainian people.   Following an earlier House roll call (#114) on the measure, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor released the following statement:

“Today, House Republicans acted swiftly to provide the Administration with authority to issue loan guarantees to Ukraine. Russia’s invasion of a sovereign nation is a violation of international law and its legal commitments. Our actions today demonstrate that the United States stands in support of the Ukrainian people and their government. Time is of the essence, and I urge my colleagues in the Senate to pass this bill swiftly so we can provide the President with the tools he needs to help stabilize Ukraine.” [Emphasis added.]

         Incredibly, the Republican leadership would have us believe that it’s the president’s role to “help stabilize the Ukraine.”

Ever since World War II, the U.S. State Department has been under control of the Insiders who run the private Council on Foreign Relations. Accordingly, U.S. Secretaries of State and their Deputies and Assistant Secretaries have served the Internationalist agenda, whether or not as in many cases, they were actual members of the CFR.

Considering that the internationalist Insiders supported the Communist takeover of China and numerous other totalitarian governments, it is naive at best to expect the U.S. State Department to support the interests of freedom-loving Ukrainians. Recall also that the Establishment media, led by Walter Duranty of the New York Times, covered up Russia’s orchestration of the Ukrainian famine genocide in 1932 to 1933.

The intervening years have compounded that track record of duplicity. Americans have been fooled repeatedly by carefully chosen phrases to justify U.S. intervention that has actually favored tyranny around the world. (Example: the Carter State Department, while supposedly championing “human rights,” betrayed the Shah of Iran in favor of the Ayatollah Khomeni.)

Don’t expect anything different from the Obama State Department. Insider-supported NGOs — “civil society” in internationalist newspeak — have been heavily involved in the Ukraine. Americans should be concerned when H.R. 4152 openly calls on the Secretary of State to “strengthen democratic institutions and political and civil society organizations in Ukraine.”

We have assigned (good vote) to the Nays and (bad vote) to the Yeas. (P = voted present; ? = not voting; blank = not listed on roll call.)

Issue: H.R. 5759 Preventing Executive Overreach on Immigration Act of 2014. 

Result: Passed in House, 219 to 197, 3 voted present, 15 not voting.  Democrats scored.

From the Congressional Research Service Summary:  

Prohibits the executive branch of the government from:

• exempting or deferring from removal, by executive order, regulation, or any other means, categories of aliens considered under the immigration laws to be unlawfully present in the United States;
• treating such aliens as if they were lawfully present or had a lawful immigration status; or
• treating them other than as unauthorized aliens.

States that such prohibition shall not apply:

• to the extent prohibited by the Constitution;
• upon the request of federal, state, or local law enforcement agencies for purposes of maintaining aliens in the United States to be tried for crimes or to be trial witnesses; or
• for humanitarian purposes where the aliens are at imminent risk of serious bodily harm or death.

Background: On November 20, 2014, President Obama announced that he would act dictatorially to “fix” America’s “broken immigration system” — because Congress hadn’t done so.

The President’s plan, such as issuing work permits to undocumented workers without supporting legislation from Congress, immediately drew fire from GOP leaders, who termed it a “brazen power grab.” It was. However, the real danger lies in what the public was not being told.

Not surprisingly, leaders of both parties, as well as the Establishment media, ignored the real source of our immigration problem — the subversive agenda of an Insider Conspiracy. And no solution is possible unless it addresses that reality.

The President spoke of progress in enforcing our borders, but both parties refuse to mention the Establishment-supported open borders agenda, exemplified in the Wall Street Journal’s editorial for July 2, 2001, entitled “Open NAFTA Borders? Why Not?” In that editorial, the late Robert L. Bartley wrote: “Indeed, during the immigration debate of 1984 we suggested an ultimate goal to guide passing policies — a constitutional amendment: ‘There shall be open borders.’”

Bartley, the editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal from 1972 to 2002, posed as a conservative free-market Republican and used the Journal to promote internationalism (NAFTA, WTO, the IMF and World Bank) to its mostly conservative readership. Bartley joined the CFR in 1979 and showed up on the membership roles of David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission.

Party leaders also refuse to explain why government has failed to enforce our borders or why previous “reform” legislation, in particular the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, signed into law by President Ronald Reagan, simply made matters worse.

How About Five Years From Now?

For decades, politicians promoting immigration “reform” have sought to reassure voters with talk about getting tough on illegal immigration — “from this day forward.” And Obama was no exception.   But Americans should not be fooled again.

In describing his offer to free millions of illegal immigrants temporarily from the threat of deportation, such as those who had been in the country illegally for more than five years, President Obama emphasized: “This deal does not apply to anyone who has come to this country recently. It does not apply to anyone who might come to America illegally in the future. It does not grant citizenship, or the right to stay here permanently, or offer the same benefits that citizens receive — only Congress can do that.”

Analysis: In the wake of President Obama’s unconstitutional executive orders that changed U.S. immigration policy, the GOP-led House introduced legislation to nullify the president’s action. Of course, everyone knew the Senate would ignore this legislation and that it would never even make it to the president’s desk. But as with so many roll calls the primary purpose was to allow House members to go on record as objecting to the president’s action.

Accordingly, we do not score the House GOP for their easy posturing “yea” votes, but we give credit to the three Democrats who broke with their party’s leadership and stood for the Constitution.

We have assigned (good vote) to the Yeas and (bad vote) to the Nays. (P = voted present; ? = not voting; blank = not listed on roll call.)

Issue: H.J. Res. 124 Making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2015, and for other purposes.

Result: Passed in House, 319 to 108, 4 not voting. Became Public Law 113-164 (signed by the president, 9-19-14). GOP and Democrats scored.

From the Congressional Research Service Summary:  Provides continuing FY2015 appropriations to federal agencies at the current annual rate until December 11, 2014, or enactment of specified appropriations legislation.

(Sec. 101) Appropriates funds to federal agencies for continuing projects and activities at the rate and under the authority and conditions provided in the applicable divisions of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014:

***

(Sec. 147) Extends the operating authority of the Export-Import Bank through June 30, 2015.

***

The joint resolution also authorizes the Secretary of Defense (DOD) to provide assistance in Syria.

Analysis:   This appropriations measure illustrates that, despite GOP posturing, there really is little will in Washington to limit government. Once again, the House “postponed” tough action, blowing another opportunity to use its power of the purse to reduce unconstitutional spending.

The continuing resolution extended federal spending thru December 11, 2014 at the same level and for the same unconstitutional programs as the Congress had approved in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014 (see FFS Scorecard, House Roll Call 21, January 15, 2014).

The Export-Import Bank      

Buried within the continuing resolution was another extension, for one year, of the Export-Import Bank charter, due to expire on September 30th.   The Obama administration had sought a five-year reauthorization of the 80-year old bank and an increase in its lending cap from $140 billion to $160 billion.

In recent years, the Bank had become the target of weak conservative opposition, which merely characterized the Bank as a “bad idea”, as “promoting corporate welfare,” and as “crony capitalism.” In reality, the Export-Import Bank has served the internationalist Conspiracy for decades as a workhorse, funding America’s enemies and advancing internationalist objectives.

Earlier this year, political hype speculated that the House might refuse to renew the Bank’s charter.   This was nonsense, as any serious effort to force the Bank’s retirement would have to recognize the Conspiracy’s influence in Washington, something few politicians are willing to do.

Establishment Domination   

When considering the appropriations resolution, the primary issue debated by the House was neither federal spending nor the Ex-Im Bank renewal but an amendment to authorize the Obama administration to train and arm Syrian rebels.

On September 17, the House approved H.J. Res.124 with sizeable bipartisan majorities: Republicans voted in favor, 176 to 53, and Democrats, 143 to 55. The Senate approved the measure the next day (Senate vote 270) by a vote of 78 to 22, and President Obama signed it into law the following day.

When the Insider-Establishment agenda beckons, the president, senators, and congressmen, irrespective of party, dutifully fall in line.

We have assigned (good vote) to the Noes and (bad vote) to the Ayes. (P = voted present; ? = not voting; blank = not listed on roll call.)