Bills

Issue:  H.R. 152 Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013.  (Making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, to improve and streamline disaster assistance for Hurricane Sandy, and for other purposes.)

Result:  Passed in House 241 to 180, 11 not voting. Became Public Law No: 113-2 (signed by the president 1-29-2013).  GOP and Democrat selected vote.

Freedom First Society: This supplemental appropriations bill authorized $60 billion for disaster relief agencies.   Nothing in the Constitution authorizes the federal government to provide state and local disaster aid.

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.)

Read more

Senate Vote 219 (10-16-13) H.R. 2775 as amended. Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014. An act making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and for other purposes.

Passed 81 to 18, 1 not voting. Became Public Law No: 113-46 (signed by the President 10-17-13).   GOP and Democrat selected vote.

Bill Summary: This final version of H.R. 2775 (amended by the Senate) makes continuing appropriations through January 15, 2014, thus ending the government shutdown, and increases the debt limit for essential borrowing through February 7, 2014.

The final version also retains the household-income verification requirement for Obamacare subsidies that was the substance of the original version of H.R. 2775 passed by the House on September 12, 2775 (Roll Call 458) as the “No Subsidies Without Verification Act.”

Analysis: This Senate-forged “compromise” continued federal spending at the levels both parties had agreed to under the Budget Control Act of 2011. Liberals especially continued to scream that those cuts were deep and intolerable. In commenting on the final passage of this measure, the Establishment’s Washington Post (10-16-13): reinforced that illusion, thus giving many Americans concerned over out-of-control spending a false sense of comfort:

“Meanwhile, federal agencies are funded through Jan. 15, when they might shut down again unless lawmakers resolve a continuing dispute over deep automatic spending cuts known as the sequester.” [Emphasis added.]

A more honest view was expressed by Alabama’s Senator Jeff Sessions, one of the 18 GOP senators to vote against the amended H.R. 2775. In a prepared statement, Sessions, the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, correctly decried the lack of federal restraint:

“In the last five years, Washington spent more than $15 trillion and added more than $6 trillion to the debt. Never has so great a sum been spent for so little in return. Despite this huge stimulus spending, wages are lower than in 1999 and nearly 60 million working-age Americans aren’t working. Fewer people are employed today than in 2007.”

Sessions was joined in his opposition by fellow Alabama Senator Richard Shelby, vice chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Shelby also “firmly opposed” the legislation:

“We should fund the government and safeguard the full faith and credit of the United States. We should do both, however, by putting our nation on a more responsible fiscal path. This legislation fails to do so. Once again, we are kicking the can down the road. In the meantime, the spending continues and our national debt grows unabated. The American people deserve better.”

We agree with Shelby and Sessions, up to a point. Continuing federal spending and racking up debt are certainly prescriptions for disaster. And choosing between business-as-usual and shutting down the government or defaulting on government debt are false alternatives.

However, our problems won’t be solved by political leadership that refuses to recognize the forces that have taken America off course and the real agenda driving their power grab. What is needed is leadership that takes the offensive and works to reverse the unconstitutional, socialist inroads destroying the American dream.

Even when House and Senate leaders present their members with the tough choice members had in this Roll Call (or Senate Vote) and the Establishment media places responsibility for the shutdown on congressmen unwilling to compromise, congressmen should still remember their oath to support the Constitution. They simply cannot in good conscience vote for continued spending on unconstitutional programs.

What is necessary to put America on a sound fiscal path is a “more responsible constitutional path.” Unconstitutional programs must be phased out and eliminated. Compromise with socialists won’t preserve either freedom or prosperity.

Pressure for such a change in course must come from outside Congress. Once that outside informed pressure builds a majority in either the House or Senate committed to upholding the Constitution, that majority can refuse omnibus bills and play strategic hardball: Present the other branches with the tough choice of accepting a responsible rollback of smaller packages of government programs or refusing to allow any of the 12 regular appropriations bills to fund any department of government at reduced levels.

In the absence of such a majority, a responsible senator will still set the example and not buckle to false alternatives.

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:  S. 744 Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act. (A bill to provide for comprehensive immigration reform and for other purposes.) (Sponsor: Charles Schumer, D-NY.)

Result:  Passed in Senate, 68 to 32, 0 not voting. GOP and Democrats scored.

Bill Summary:  S. 744 would make broad changes to U.S. immigration law.   It would allow most of the country’s estimated 11 million illegal immigrants to gain legal status and eventual citizenship. At the same time, it seeks to enhance border security by adding high-tech surveillance equipment, constructing double-layer fencing, and doubling the number of border patrol agents. It also makes substantial changes to the existing system of legal immigration. And it creates a $1.5 billion youth jobs program.

Some of the specifics include:

• The bill would make many of an estimated 11 million illegally in the United States eligible to apply for a new legal Registered Provisional Immigrant (RPI) status. To be eligible, they must have been physically present in the U.S. continuously since December 31, 2011. To receive RPI status they would need to pay a $500 fine and fees, any back taxes owed, learn English, and pass a background check. Those with RPI status could work lawfully in the United States.   RPI status would be good for 6 years and renewable for another 4 years.
• After 10 years, immigrants who have RPI status can apply for permanent resident status (green cards), provided other border security triggers in the bill are met. After 13 years, if those same triggers are met, the immigrants can apply for citizenship.
• The bill includes the DREAM Act and the AgJOBS Act. The DREAM Act (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act of 2013) provides for adjusting the immigration status of illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as minor children.
• S. 744 would require all employers to use an upgraded version of the E-Verify system, equipped with a photo matching system, to determine the eligibility of their employees to work in the United States. This requirement would be phased in over five years based on company size. All job applicants (including U.S. citizens) would be required to show their employers an official photo ID, and employers would need to compare the photo with the photo provided in the E-Verify database.

Analysis:  The Senate’s comprehensive immigration “reform” bill, S. 744, was written and negotiated by a bipartisan group of U.S. Senators — 4 Democrats and 4 Republicans — often referred to as the “Gang of Eight.”

S. 744 was introduced by radical Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), a member of the group, and cosponsored by the other seven members: Michael Bennet (D-CO); Richard Durbin (D-IL), Jeff Flake (R-AZ); Lindsey Graham (R-SC), John McCain (R-AZ), Bob Menendez (D-NY); and Marco Rubio (R-FL).

Before we highlight our objections to specific provisions of the package, it is important to look at the big picture —to understand the forces and agendas that have encouraged and permitted the massive illegal immigration invasion. We will find that the same forces that have fomented the problem in the first place, for subversive purposes, are currently gatekeepers for the “solution” we are now supposed to accept.

Deception rules

Americans are generally unaware that the Internationalist Establishment has supported the massive U.S. immigration invasion — legal, illegal, and legalized through amnesty — of the past several decades.

We can point to the Insider-supported open borders movement (see, for example, the Wall Street Journal’s call for open borders in an editorial entitled “Open NAFTA Borders? Why Not?” for July 2, 2001), Ford foundation funding of revolutionary immigrant organizations and legal challenges to border enforcement, and even the Conspiracy’s support for revolution and poverty in Mexico.

The internationalists see the immigration invasion as a prime opportunity to destroy America’s middle class and transform our nation into something easier to merge into their new world order.

In 1996, syndicated columnist Georgie Ann Geyer wrote Americans No More: The Death of Citizenship.   Her book should have been a wake-up call, as it included admissions against interest by someone with both radical liberal and Establishment credentials.   Georgie Ann Geyer was (and is) a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and an open disciple of the late Marxist and radical organizer Saul Alinsky. Let’s see what Geyer had to say.

Geyer’s book described how radicals were following the strategy of infiltration advocated by Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci to render impotent every tenet of our culture. Geyer claims that, in pursuit of this strategy, Marxists have infected “American universities, unions, churches, bureaucracies, and corporations…. Three whole generations, often its best students and thinkers and even labor leaders, were formed with a Marxist component to their thoughts and actions, often without even knowing it.”

Americans No More didn’t just focus on the visible activists.   Geyer documented how Insider tax-exempt foundations had helped to create ethnic grievance groups. She even provided personal testimony. In the early 1980s, Geyer met with “two representatives of one of the major and supposedly representative ‘Hispanic’ groups, the National Council of La Raza.” When Geyer asked, “How many members do you have?,” one of the representatives admitted, “Well, we don’t have members.”

An incredulous Geyer demanded to know how an organization without members could fund and support its activities. The representatives replied, almost in unison, “The Ford Foundation!” As Geyer tells the story: “The two smiled as though they did not have a care in the world, and, indeed, financially, they did not. To promote and push through their programs and policies, they needed no elections, no campaign strategies, and none of that bothersome business of fund-raising or member-seeking. At the same time, of course, they basically suffered accountability neither to disparate sources of funding nor to the fickle interests of individuals.” With such support, La Raza could boast 150 organizations in 36 states!

By examining the flow of funds, one quickly discovers that the Ford Foundation virtually created the radical Chicano movement, which seeks open borders, uncontrolled immigration from Mexico, and the de facto reconquest by Mexico of the Southwest portion of the United States (termed Atzlan by the radicals).

The revolutionary/Insider agenda driving the immigration “reform” movement was apparent in the nationwide May Day demonstrations in 2013. In Los Angeles, for example: “Police and downtown commuters braced Wednesday for clogged streets and blocked intersections as tens of thousands of immigration supporters planned to march in annual May Day demonstrations.” (latimes.com 5-1-13)

The mainstream media never informs the public how these demonstrations are organized. Neither is the public told of the socialist/Communist significance of May Day demonstrations, what the organizers expect their demonstrations to accomplish, and certainly not why the organizers are really demanding immigration “reform.”

Specific objections

Although S. 744 provides for increased border security as a precondition for allowing illegal aliens to earn either permanent resident status or citizenship, skepticism is well justified. Those familiar with the history of U.S. border enforcement over the past several decades, the frequent amnesties and political promises not kept, and the “open borders” agenda of the Establishment should regard these provisions as merely bait that will be circumvented later.

Incredibly, Charles Schumer revealed the lack of Democratic commitment to border security: “Schumer said the [Boehner proposed] strategy of passing smaller-scale bills would not work. He said, for instance, that Democrats would not support an enforcement bill without the promise of a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.” — Foxnews.com (6-30-13)

We also strongly object to the effort to shift the blame for the refusal of the federal government to carry out its constitutionally authorized function of securing our borders on to the backs of employers and turn employers into federal enforcers. The proposed E-Verify system mandate on employers would require all employees, citizens or not, to receive approval from the government before they could work in the United States.

This is an incredibly dangerous power grab by Big Brother government.

Even though we regard the ACLU’s support for civil liberties as a deception, we have to agree with their analysis of the proposed system:

“In an attempt to stop the tiny percentage of those starting jobs in the United States each year who are unauthorized workers, E-Verify would force everyone to obtain affirmative permission from government bureaucracies before engaging in the core life functions of working and earning a living.”

The fact that the goals of S. 744 have the support of the Obama White House should also alarm.

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:  Thune (R-SD) Amdt. No. 1197 to S. 744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act (Immigration “Reform”). (Bill sponsor Charles Schumer (D-NY)).  Question: On the Thune amendment (3/5 required).

Result:  Amendment rejected 39 to 54, 7 not voting. GOP and Democrats scored.

Bill Summary. Would amend S. 744 to require the completion of additional border fencing before any changes in the status for illegal immigrants can take place. Specifically, the Thune amendment would:

• Require the completion of the 350 miles of reinforced, double-layered fencing described in section 102(b)(1)(A) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 before registered provisional immigrant status may be granted; and

• Require the completion of 700 miles of such fencing before the status of registered provisional immigrants may be adjusted to permanent resident status (green cards).

Analysis: In a June 18 press release issued following the defeat of the his proposed amendment, Senator John Thune (R-S.D.) stated:

“Unfortunately, each time Congress has tried to fix our immigration system, promises to secure our border are never upheld. The completion of the fence required by current law would be a tangible demonstration that Congress and this administration are serious about border security. I am disappointed the Senate missed this important opportunity to communicate to the American people that we are serious about securing our border and enforcing the laws that we pass.”

The press release further noted:

“Of the 700 miles of fencing required by current law, less than 40 miles of the reinforced, double-layer fencing required by the Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 have been constructed to date, despite this requirement being reiterated by the Secure Fence Act of 2006.”

Although we applaud the amendment, Thune should have known it was an uphill battle against Establishment influence in Congress. The Establishment and its foundations (such as the Ford Foundation) have long supported open borders, not secure borders.

Consider just one Establishment figure, the late Robert L. Bartley, who served as the editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal for 30 years (from 1972 to 2002).   Adopting the image of a conservative free-market Republican, Bartley would use the Journal to promote internationalism (NAFTA, WTO, the IMF and World Bank) to its mostly conservative readership.

Bartley was invited to join the CFR in 1979. He also showed up on the membership roles of the even more selective Trilateral Commission and attended the internationalist Bilderberg meetings.

In later years, Bartley would become even more open in his advocacy of internationalist goals: In an editorial for July 2, 2001, entitled “Open NAFTA Borders? Why Not?” Bartley wrote:

“Reformist Mexican President Vicente Fox raises eyebrows with his suggestion that over a decade or two NAFTA should evolve into something like the European Union, with open borders for not only goods and investment but also people. He can rest assured that there is one voice north of the Rio Grande that supports his vision. To wit, this newspaper….

“Indeed, during the immigration debate of 1984 we suggested an ultimate goal to guide passing policies — a constitutional amendment: ‘There shall be open borders.’”

Even after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the federal government refused to enforce our southern border.

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:  S. 954, Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2013 (Farm bill), as amended. An original bill to reauthorize agricultural programs through 2018. (Sponsor: Debbie Stabenow, D-MI.)

Result:  Passed 66 to 27, 7 not voting. GOP and Democrats scored.

Bill Summary: This massive, complex measure would set agriculture, food, conservation, and forestry policy for the federal government for 5 years. Here is a sample of the provisions as described in a lengthy Congressional Research Summary:

• Makes adverse market payments available for the 2014-2018 crop years to producers on farms where the actual price for a covered commodity is less than the reference price for such commodity.

• Establishes the agriculture risk coverage program for crop years 2014-2018 to make payments to producers for each planted crop when actual farm or county-wide crop revenue is below the agriculture risk coverage guarantee.

• Authorizes: (1) nonrecourse marketing assistance loans, (2) loan deficiency payments, (3) payments in lieu of loan deficiency payments for grazed acreage, (4) programs for upland cotton and extra long staple cotton, (5) assistance for peanuts, and (6) recourse loans for high moisture feed grains and seed cotton.

• Establishes a dairy production margin protection program under which participating dairy operations are paid: (1) basic production margin protection program payments when production margins are less than threshold levels, and (2) supplemental production margin protection program payments if purchased by a participating dairy operation.

• Extends the environmental quality incentives program through FY2018.

• Extends specified programs and authorizations of appropriations under the Food for Peace Act through FY2018. Prohibits assistance to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea).

• Amends the Rural Electrification Act of 1926 to reauthorize through FY2018 guarantees for bonds and notes issued for electrification or telephone purposes as well as expansion of 911 access.

• Amends the Rural Electrification Act of 1926 to reauthorize through FY2018 guarantees for bonds and notes issued for electrification or telephone purposes as well as expansion of 911 access.

Analysis: Congressional wrangling over a new farm bill provides important lessons in how conservatives are being deceived into relying on a political solution in Washington.

Background

Congress sets agriculture, food, conservation, and forestry policy for the federal government every five years or so with an omnibus measure commonly called the “farm bill.” Since the seventies, these bills have included mandatory spending for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), more commonly known as food stamps.

The 2008 farm bill (the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008) expired on September 30, 2012, although some programs continued through the end of the year.   By the end of 2012, Congress had failed to agree on a replacement bill, so as part of the “fiscal cliff” agreement in January, a partial extension of then current farm law was approved for the balance of the 2013 crop year.

Ever since the Great Depression, farm bills have been full of unconstitutional federal welfare and counterproductive intervention in the economy. One subdivision, the “Food for Peace Act,” has even been used to provide substantial aid to America’s enemies.

The “Food for Peace” program continues to this day in each of the farm bills introduced in this session of Congress.

The U.S. farm program has enjoyed the support of Democratic and Republican administrations alike — even those the Establishment would have us believe are conservative.   In December 1985, President Reagan signed the costliest farm bill in our nation’s history up to that time. The bill called for $169 billion in spending over five years, including $85 billion for income and support payments to farmers.

Although President Reagan insisted that he wanted to get farming free of the “heavy hand of government,” he nevertheless “reluctantly” signed the measure, because it “provides new hope for America’s hard-working farmers and our rural communities.”

Modern farm bills have been designed as temporary replacements to permanent law, so that if Congress fails to pass a new farm bill when the old one expires then farm policy reverts to earlier permanent law. The suspended permanent law, enacted primarily in 1938 and 1949, as subsequently amended, is quite different from today and would be particularly disruptive. This system forces Congress to pass new legislation (or extend prior legislation).

Reauthorization in 2013

On June 10th, the U.S. Senate took the lead in passing its version of a Farm Bill (this Senate vote).

On June 20th, House GOP leaders brought their version of a farm bill (H.R. 1947) to the floor, expecting passage. It was defeated by conservative who wanted more cuts and Democrats who objected to the bill’s cuts in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) more commonly known as “food stamps.”

The defeated House bill, H.R. 1947, was tagged at $500 billion over 5 years, a reduction in spending of a mere $3.8 billion annually. The Senate bill offered only a $2.4 billion reduction annually. Neither bill provided any real challenge to established unconstitutional programs and each proposed new ones.

On July 11, House leaders brought a new version, H.R. 2642, to a vote. The new version was very similar to H.R. 1947, but to win conservative support, the new version separated out the food stamp (SNAP) program. Many realized that this was just a ruse to get to conference. However, H.R. 2642 squeaked by 216 to 208.

The Senate’s response to H.R. 2642 was to replace it with its own version and send it back to the House. With more back and forth, the two versions were never reconciled.

Ignoring the real game plan

Socialist proponents of U.S. farm policy argue that the federal government must provide financial assistance to farmers and rural America for these groups to prosper. Many politicians have difficulty challenging that fundamental fallacy.

However, merely advocating correct principles, while ignoring the tune to which politicians are marching, won’t get the job done.   Too many groups labeled as “conservative” simply portray our problems as stemming from bad policies that can be corrected individually by reasonable men.

This deception is deadly. Instead, Americans must be told why unconstitutional government has been fastened on us in the first place, if we hope to reverse the tide.

It’s not naive humanitarianism that drives socialist rhetoric and the expansion of unconstitutional government programs. The ultimate driver is a power-seeking Conspiracy that targets our freedoms.   Groups organized to oppose the socialist forces in Washington as though this Conspiracy does not exist ultimately deceive Americans, whether they intend to or just don’t care.

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:  S. 601 Water Resources Development Act of 2013, As Amended. (A bill to provide for the conservation and development of water and related resources, to authorize the Secretary of the Army to construct various projects for improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States, and for other purposes.) (Sponsor: Barbara Boxer, D-CA.)

Result:  Passed 83 to 14, 3 not voting. GOP and Democrats scored.

Bill Summary: A comprehensive water development authorization bill consisting of 13 Titles including: Title I: Water Resource Projects; Title II: Water Resources Policy Reforms; Title VII: Inland Waterways; Title VIII: Harbor Maintenance; Title IX: Dam Safety; and Title XII: National Endowment for the Oceans.

Analysis: According to the Congressional Budget Office, S. 601 would authorize $12.2 billion in spending over the Fiscal Years 2014 thru 2023.

This Act would continue the federal practice of using federal tax dollars to pay for projects that are properly the responsibility of state and local entities (and even the private sector) and should be decided at those levels.

S. 601 would prohibit Congress from reducing the budget for the Civil Works Program below the level for the previous year. In addition to respecting the Constitution, the federal government needs to live within its means. Making more spending areas immune to budget cuts undermines that responsibility.

We also take particular exception to Title XII The National Endowment for the Oceans. Title XII would authorize the executive branch to a permanent endowment fund making grants to the States for federally approved programs within the scope of the Act. In the previous century, Congress created the Federal Reserve with the unconstitutional power to finance federal deficits through monetary inflation. In the intervening years, the federal government has made the States dependent on its “deep pockets” and thereby greatly undermined our system of federalism and its checks and balances.

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:  S. 47 As Amended; A bill to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act of 1994.

Result: Passed 78 to 22. Became Public Law 113-4 (signed by the president 3-7-13). GOP and Democrat selected vote.

Bill Summary: When it became public law, S. 47 revived and expanded the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA), which had lapsed in 2011.

According to Wikipedia: “The [2013] Act provides $1.6 billion toward investigation and prosecution of violent crimes against women, imposes automatic and mandatory restitution on those convicted, and allows civil redress in cases prosecutors chose to leave un-prosecuted. The Act also establishes the Office on Violence Against Women within the Department of Justice.”

In addition, VAWA reauthorized numerous grants for training of those dealing at the community level with all stages of the problem and for services for the victims.

Analysis:   The Violence Against Women Act is a good example of a federal power grab driven by revolutionary pressure from below. Under the guise of humanitarian concern over a very real problem — mistreatment of women — revolutionaries have long sought to advance the ambitions of a power hungry elite that seeks to dominate every aspect of human society. As with numerous other organized campaigns, they demand that the federal government assume dangerous new authority to solve a problem.

The original 1994 Act was drafted by the office of then-Senator Joe Biden and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. But support for the act had been developed by organized pressure from below. The revolutionary objectives of the organized movement supporting VAWA can be seen clearly in a much earlier initiative — the UN’s Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).

CEDAW example

The UN General Assembly adopted CEDAW in 1979. President Jimmy Carter signed the treaty for the United States and submitted it to the Senate for consideration. However, the U.S. has never ratified CEDAW. In the intervening years, revolutionary and internationalist pressures have coerced numerous national governments into signing the convention, but the signatories have often insisted on qualifying their approvals with serious reservations of authority and exceptions.

A 1979 U.S. State Department memorandum analyzing CEDAW noted that several provisions would “reach into the areas that are not regulated by the federal government.” For example, Article Two would require Congress to pass “appropriate corrective legislation” to regulate “membership in private clubs and organizations”; Article Five requires signatory nations “to modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women” and to monitor the content of “family education.” And Article Ten demands that the federal government take responsibility for the “elimination of any stereotyped concept of the roles in men and women at all levels and in all forms of education.”

Revolutionaries are forced to advance most of their objectives in stages (as with nationalizing health care and education). Years may elapse before they have the right opportunity and support to gain national attention and go to the next level.   That has certainly been the case with U.S. ratification of CEDAW.

In 2010, for example, activists organized to bring renewed pressure on the U.S. Senate to ratify the treaty. On November 18, a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law responded by holding hearings. Most of the testimony was pro-CEDAW and outside the hearing room a long line of women formed up wearing pink “Ratify CEDAW” stickers. Apparently, the Senators were not sufficiently impressed and soon turned to other matters.

Not surprisingly, President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have both indicated their support for CEDAW. However, at the moment neither seems inclined to push ratification to the forefront of their agendas.

Back to VAWA

In a 2000 case, the U.S. Supreme Court narrowly ruled against one of the provisions in the 1994 Violence Against Women Act as an intrusion on states rights (allowing victims the right to sue their attackers in federal court). However, major parts of the measure are clearly unconstitutional federal overreach into state matters. Federal dominance is often achieved through the strings attached to unconstitutional federal grants to the states.

More significantly, the revolutionary supporters of VAWA clearly regard the federal meddling as merely a steppingstone toward providing the federal government with the power and opportunity to restructure society to their liking.

Following typical revolutionary strategy, the 2000 and 2005 reauthorizations of the Violence Against Women Act have expanded its application. Originally VAWA focused on domestic violence and sexual assault. However, the reauthorized acts expanded the focus to include dating violence and stalking.

The 2013 reauthorization further expands federal “protections” to include “underserved populations” — in particular, gays, lesbians, transgender individuals, Native Americans and even “undocumented” immigrants who, as victims of violent crimes, may qualify for temporary visas (U-visas).

The Senate bill was also expanded to include the reauthorization of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. Broadening the scope of VAWA to include some legitimate federal concerns helped to undermine political opposition to the Act.

Although the House rejected the Senate version the year before, in 2013 the House overwhelmingly approved the 2013 Senate version without amendment. 87 Republicans sided with 199 Democrats to pass the measure. No House Democrat voted in opposition, and, although the majority of House Republicans opposed VAWA, 87 of their colleagues helped the Democrats carry the day.

In the Senate, Democrats voted 53 to 0 in support of the measure (more than enough for passage). All opposition came from the GOP (22 senators voting nay), however 23 GOP senators gave the measure bipartisan support.

The revolutionary agenda is always advanced in pieces so that the public does not become aware of its destination. And it uses appealing sophistry to justify ignoring the Constitution, historical experience, and religion-based morality.

The techniques employed in collectivist strategy are not new. Nineteenth-century French statesman Frederic Bastiat wrote that governments seek to increase their power by “creating the poison and the antidote in the same laboratory” — that is, by using government resources to exacerbate problems which can then be used to justify statist “solutions.”

In his 1969 book, Journey into Darkness, John Douglas, legendary FBI profiler and expert on the criminal personality, concluded:

“Unfortunately, no matter what we do with our criminal justice system, the only thing that is going to cut down appreciably on crimes of violence and depravity is to stop manufacturing as many criminals…. [T]he real struggle must be where it has always been: in the home.”

And the home has been the target of Establishment Insiders and the revolutionary agenda for decades. So, too, have been the religious and moral supports for a free and productive society.

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. 325, No Budget, No Pay Act of 2013.   A bill to ensure the complete and timely payment of the obligations of the United States Government until May 19, 2013, and for other purposes.

Result:  Passed 64 to 34, 2 not voting. Became Public Law 113-3 (signed by the president 2-4-2013). GOP and Democrat selected vote.

Bill Summary: The “No Budget, No Pay Act” temporarily suspended the United States debt ceiling from February 4, 2013 until May 18, 2013. Under the Act, on May 19 the debt ceiling would be reset to a level “necessary to fund commitment incurred by the Federal Government that required payment.”

The Act also required the withholding of congressional pay after April 15 in any house that had not agreed to a concurrent budget resolution for FY2014.

(Note: The potential congressional “No Pay” restrictions were overcome prior to April 15. On March 21, the House passed a FY 2014 budget, which was rejected by the Senate. On March 23, the Senate passed its own 2014 budget. The House refused to vote on the Senate budget.)

Analysis: The National Debt Ceiling has a long history dating back to World War I. Previously, Congress directly authorized each individual borrowing on the credit of the United States. With the Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917, Congress modified the method by which it authorized debt to the present system, whereby it would establish an aggregate limit.

Prior to the “No Budget, No Pay Act” the ceiling had been set at $16.4 trillion (in 2011). As authorized by this Act, on May 19 the debt ceiling was reinstated at just under $16.7 trillion to reflect borrowing during the three-and-a-half-month suspension period. The treasury was then forced again to resort to “extraordinary measures” to avoid default.

The next change (another suspension) in the debt ceiling came in October with the enactment of H.R. 2775, the Continuing Appropriations Act of 2014, to end the government “shutdown.” See Senate Vote 219 (10-16-13) and House Roll Call 550 (10-16-13).

The constitutional authority provided to Congress to borrow money on the credit of the United States (Article I, Section 8) does not prevent Congress from allowing the federal government to incur obligations or to run deficits that require additional borrowing. And so the requirement for debt authorization is not, by itself, an adequate instrument for politicians to enforce fiscal discipline. This has been particularly true once the Federal Reserve was created with the power to inflate the money supply while purchasing government debt.

However, requiring Congress to approve any increases in the debt ceiling does provide a very visible reminder to the American public that government spending is out of control. In the process, the debt ceiling puts needed public pressure on Congress and the president to confront the mounting debt.

Government spending and particularly unconstitutional government are seriously out of control. Together, they are the root cause of America’s recession, are destroying America’s middle class, are a threat to our freedom, and, if not soon brought under control, will produce a much greater financial crisis. While we don’t advocate that the federal government default on its obligations, responsible congressmen must use any leverage they can find to force government to change course.

President Obama has frequently sought to sway public opinion by arguing that is improper for the Congress to attach strings to raising the debt ceiling. He insists that the debt must be increased unconditionally to pay for whatever spending has been previously agreed upon. However, previously established budgets must often be revised when there is greater will or financial clarity.

Clearly, there is little determination in Washington to deal constructively with our debt problem and the partisan “compromises” in appropriations supporting it.   Liberal Democrats even argue that more government spending is the route to helping the poor, not less.

However, there is a much more serious problem preventing a true solution. The much-hyped partisan political charade obscures the fundamental collusion by both parties at the top in developing and sustaining Big Brother. The Establishment media constantly reinforces the false premise that we got into this mess as a result of compromise by political adversaries who merely differ in their views of what’s best for America. And that somehow compromise with socialists is not only a necessity but also a virtue.

In the House, both parties supported the final measure — the GOP by a vote of 199 to 33 and the Democrats 86 to 111, 3 not voting. Many of the most liberal House Democrats (e.g., Nancy Pelosi, John Conyers, George Miller) weren’t satisfied with a short-term increase (even though President Obama would sign the bill) and voted “no.” And so we do not score the House Democrats on this one (right vote, wrong reason).

In the Senate, the same bill carried by a vote of 64 to 34 with all but 1 (Manchin) of the “no” votes coming from Republican senators who properly wanted further spending cuts to accompany an increase in the limit. 12 GOP senators joined the Democrats in supporting the 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. 152, Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013. (Making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, to improve and streamline disaster assistance for Hurricane Sandy, and for other purposes.)

Result:  Passed 66 to 32, 2 not voting (3/5 required). Became Public Law No: 113-2 (signed by the president 1-29-2013). GOP and Democrat selected vote.

Bill Summary: This supplemental appropriations bill authorized $60 billion for disaster relief agencies. It is comprised of Division A: Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 and Division B: Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013.

Analysis: Nothing in the Constitution authorizes the federal government to provide state and local disaster aid.   At one time in our nation’s history, that was understood. In one of his most famous vetoes, President Grover Cleveland rejected the “Texas Seed Bill” on constitutional grounds. The bill would have provided minimal disaster assistance to a number of drought-stricken Texas counties.

On February 16, 1886, President Grover Cleveland delivered his veto message on the “Texas Seed Bill” to the House of Representatives. The following excerpt speaks to principles long ignored by today’s collectivist-oriented media:

“I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadily resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the Government, the Government should not support the people.

“The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.”

         Instead of asserting an unconstitutional responsibility to provide disaster aid, government’s main responsibility should be to get us out of the unconstitutional mess it has created.

False advertising

Putting aside the constitutional objections for a moment, let’s look at the massive $60 billion package itself. Although this package was pushed through the House in the name of providing urgent relief to the victims of Hurricane Sandy, most of the spending (about 10 percent of the federal government’s likely domestic discretionary spending for the year) was anything but urgent. Moreover, the package was inflated to pay for other programs such as community development or modernizing Amtrak’s Northeast corridor having nothing to do with disaster relief.

After H.R. 152 had cleared the House, Heritage Action, the Establishment-recognized and necessarily shallow conservative advocacy group, called for a “no” vote in the Senate:

“The Senate will soon vote on the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013 (H.R. 152), which would provide $50.507 billion in “emergency” funding intended for disaster assistance for Hurricane Sandy relief.

“While Hurricane Sandy was a major disaster, the majority of the funds originally requested by the Obama Administration were to be spent beyond FY 2014.  Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that just 30% of the outlays in the House-passed bill would be spent over the next 20 months.  Even in 2021 estimated outlays are over a billion dollars.

“Furthermore, far too much of the funding goes toward superfluous programs that are not related to Hurricane Sandy relief, from repairs to the Smithsonian Institution to upgrades to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration airplanes to more funding for the federal government’s epic educational failure known as Head Start,  among myriad other extraneous items.  The inclusion of $16 billion in wasteful community development funds is also concerning, especially because the Department of Housing and Urban Development estimated it would need a comparatively much smaller $5.2 billion for its “unmet needs.”

         While the facts presented by Heritage Action are compelling, its limp-wrist conclusion that “using a natural disaster to spend more taxpayer money” proves “how irresponsible Washington has grown” irresponsibly understates and mischaracterizes the problem.

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.J. Res. 59. Became vehicle for the “Budget Deal.” Includes the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 and the Pathway for SGR Reform Act of 2013.  Question: On the Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment.

Result:  Agreed to, 64 to 36. Became Public Law 113-67 (signed by the president 12-26-2013). GOP and Democrats scored.

Bill Summary: Title I raises the sequester caps for certain categories of security and non-security discretionary spending for FY2014 and FY2015. Title I also sets forth the congressional budget for the federal government for FY2014, including appropriate budgetary levels for FY2015-FY2023.

Other Titles (II thru VII) modify several other federal programs, including: Natural Resources (Title III); Federal Civilian and Military Retirement (Title IV); Higher Education (Title V); and Transportation (Title VI). Also included: the Pathway for SGR [sustainable growth rate] Reform Act of 2013, which prevents a scheduled payment reduction for physicians and other providers who treat Medicare patients from taking effect on January 1, 2014.

Analysis: The House passed the so-called budget deal brokered by House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Senate Budget Chairwoman Patty Murray (D-Wash.) with huge bipartisan majorities. Republicans supported the deal 169 to 62, whereas Democrats came on board 163 to 32.

A week later, the Senate concurred 64 to 36 (all 36 nays came from the GOP), and the day after Christmas President Obama signed the measure into law. The legislation amended the 2011 Budget Control Act that gave us the sequester cuts. The new plan raised the $967 billion sequester level to $1.012 trillion for FY2014 and $1.014 trillion for FY2015.

Although the increase was far less than what many Democrats wanted, the bipartisan deal still moved spending in the wrong direction. The sequester cuts themselves only came about because astute politicians knew that much of the public regarded excessive federal spending as a major problem.

Not surprisingly, House Speaker John Boehner defended the deal: “[T]he budget agreement Ryan helped orchestrate — which reduces the deficit, balances the budget in 10 years and doesn’t raise taxes — in no way compromises core conservative principles.” — Roll Call (12-12-13)

Some GOP Senators, however, were unusually candid about the typically misleading “conservative” spending agreements coming out of Washington. Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) stated:

“It’s the same old thing where …we’ll go ahead and spend the money now and in years nine and ten down the road we hope someone else will not.”

         And Senator Jeff Flake, R-Ariz. described the measure as “kind of the age-old spend now, save later.”

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.)

Read more