Bills

Issue: 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. Question: Resolving differences — House actions: On motion that the House agree to the Senate amendments.

Result: Agreed to, 285 to 144, 3 not voting. Became Public Law 113-46 (signed by the president 10/17/13). GOP and Democrats scored.

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 congressman 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: H.R. 2848 Department of State Operations and Embassy Security Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2014. Question: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended (2/3 required).

Result: Passed in House, 384 to 37, 10 not voting. Died in Senate. GOP and Democrats scored.

Bill Summary: Section 101 (of Title I) authorizes FY2014 appropriations for the expenses of the Department of State and the Foreign Service, including personnel costs; worldwide security protection; information technology systems; the construction, maintenance, and security of U.S. embassies and overseas facilities; educational and cultural exchange programs; conflict stabilization operations; the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor; protection of foreign missions and officials; and for the Office of the Inspector General.

Other sections authorize assessed contributions to International Organizations (Section 102) of $1.4 billion; contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities (Section 103) of $1.9 billion; funding for International Commissions (Section 104); and full funding ($118 million) is authorized for the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) (Section 105).

Analysis: According to the executive summary posted on the GOP.gov’s website, “H.R. 2848 authorizes overall reduced appropriations for the Department of State at fiscally responsible levels, while fully funding critical embassy security enhancements.” [Emphasis added.]

In light of the Benghazi fiasco, H.R. 2848 does place a proper emphasis on improving embassy security. However, embassy security is only one component of the vast internationalist operation run by the State Department.

Although conducting foreign affairs is a proper function of the federal government, authorized by the Constitution (Article II, Section 2), much of the State Department’s program is unconstitutional. With the outbreak of World War II, the Establishment’s Council on Foreign Relations was able to take working control of the State Department and has maintained that control ever since. (See Freedom First Society’s Masters of Deception.) Following the War, the State Department has expanded primarily to support the Internationalist agenda of making the U.S. subservient to Insider-dominated “world authorities” (such as the CFR’s creation, the United Nations) — in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

National Endowment for Democracy

The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) receives only a minor part of the spending authorized in this act for unconstitutional internationalist purposes. However, the overwhelming bipartisan acceptance of the internationalist, leftist NED demonstrates that our current political leadership is deceiving America.

The National Endowment for Democracy was created in 1983 by an act of Congress as a bipartisan, private, non-profit corporation, ostensibly to promote democracy abroad. The U.S. government would provide the primary funding for NED through annual appropriations.

The NED was structured to perform as a grant-making foundation to provide support to other private NGOs. Half of its funding goes to four U.S. organizations: the American Center for International Labor Solidarity (ACILS), the Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE), the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI), and the International Republican Institute (IRI) (formerly the National Republican Institute for International Affairs). The NED awards the other half of its funding to hundreds of NGOs abroad.

Although this structure is designed to create the impression that the federal government is not making the decisions, you can bet that the NED and the NGOs it funds with taxpayers’ money serve the Internationalist Establishment. Indeed, the NED’s longtime president, Carl Gershman, was for several years a member of the Establishment’s Council on Foreign Relations.

A Yale and Harvard graduate, Gershman began his career as a socialist, serving from 1970 to 1974 as a national leader of the Young People’s Socialist League. From 1975 to 1980 he was the executive director of Social Democrats, USA. During the Reagan administration, Gershman served as the U.S. Representative to the United Nation’s Committee on human rights.

In its early years, the NED supported Communist revolution in South Africa through pro-ANC groups. Among the internationalist NGOs, the NED supports today is Search for Common Ground, with headquarters in Washington, DC and Brussels. Search for Common Ground also receives funding from the Rockerfeller Brothers Fund, the Rockefeller family, the United Nations Development Programme, the U.S. State Department, and the World Bank.

What a sham! An internationalist Establishment that helped the Soviets seize and maintain power, enabled the Chinese Reds to take control of mainland China, and even helped Castro come to power in Cuba wants to promote democracy abroad.

In the absence of a long overdue housecleaning conducted by constitutionalists, the functions of the State Department should be cut back severely.   Authorizing the Department at “fiscally responsible” levels simply hides 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: S. 793 Organization of American States Revitalization and Reform Act. (Sponsor: Senator Robert Menendez, N.J.)  Question: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended (2/3 vote required).

Result: Passed/agreed to in House, 383 to 24, 25 not voting. Senate agreed to House amendments by unanimous consent. Became Public Law 113-41 (signed by president 10/2/13). GOP and Democrats scored.    

Congressional Research Service Summary:  Organization of American States Revitalization and Reform Act of 2013 — States that it is U.S. policy to: (1) promote democracy, the rule of law, and human rights in the Western Hemisphere; and (2) support the practices and principles expressed in the Charter of the Organization of American States, the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man, the Inter-American Democratic Charter, and other fundamental instruments of democracy. [Emphasis added.]

Expresses the sense of Congress that: (1) the Organization of American States (OAS) should be the primary multi-lateral diplomatic entity for regional dispute resolution and promotion of democratic governance; (2) the Summit of the Americas process should be formally and more effectively integrated into the work of the OAS, the Inter-American Development Bank, and other Members of the Joint Summit Working Group; (3) the OAS has historically accepted too many member state mandates creating unclear priorities and loss of institutional focus; and (4) it is in the interest of the United States and the OAS and its member states to move toward an assessed fee structure that assures financial sustainability and establishes, within five years, that no member state pays more than 50% of the organization’s assessed fees. [Emphasis added.]

Directs the Secretary of State to submit to Congress a multiyear strategy that: (1) leads to such assessed fee structure, (2) identifies a path toward the adoption of necessary reforms that prioritize the core competencies of the OAS, (3) outlines a results-based budgeting process to prioritize current and future mandates and transparent hiring and promotion practices, and (4) reflects the inputs and coordination from other executive branch agencies.

Directs the Secretary to: (1) carry out diplomatic engagement to build support for reforms and budgetary burden sharing among OAS member states and observers, and (2) promote donor coordination among OAS member states.

Analysis:  This “bipartisan” measure reinforces the common, but false notion that the CFR-dominated U.S. State Department and OAS have been opposing Communism and promoting freedom throughout the world.

Although both have feigned opposition to Communism, their record is quite different. For decades, the Internationalists in Washington have supported Communism while ostensibly opposing it and while hamstringing U.S. military opposition, as in Korea and Vietnam. The threat of Communism served as a useful foil for building their multi-lateral and international institutions in a global power grab.

[Former Stanford University researcher, Antony C. Sutton, documents this perverse strategy in action with his aptly named 1986 book, The Best Enemy Money Can Buy. For a thorough exposition of internationalist aims and strategy, we recommend Masters of Deception published by the Freedom First Society.]

This “bipartisan” measure was introduced by Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, ranking member Bob Corker (R-TN), along with committee members Tom Udall (D-NM) and Marco Rubio (R-FL). The full Senate approved the measure by unanimous consent.

The Senate bill was subsequently amended in the House Committee on Foreign Affairs to require the Secretary of State to develop a plan to move toward an assessed OAS fee structure in which the United States would not bear more than 50 percent of the burden.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor placed the bill on the House Schedule for consideration under a suspension of the rules (this roll call). Following House approval, the Senate agreed to the House amendment by unanimous consent and the president signed the bill into law on October 4th.

This innocent-sounding measure primarily serves to give added legitimacy to the subversive internationalism of an Insider Establishment that has a grip on the federal government.   Significantly, the measure did manage to become Public Law in a year when an unusually low number of bills made it that far.

The failure of most congressmen to oppose this foreign policy directive highlights the lack of backbone currently in Congress and the often-casual nature of voting when there are no obvious political consequences. Still the House roll call did offer those representatives with sufficient understanding and backbone the opportunity to stand up to the deceptions camouflaging the internationalist agenda. It is encouraging that 24 representatives did take the time to understand the measure and decided not to support it.

The overwhelming bipartisan support for revitalizing the OAS reminds us of another example of mindless support. In 1971, the Texas legislature unanimously passed a resolution honoring Albert DeSalvo [the Boston Strangler] for his innovative work in population control. The measure was introduced as an April Fool’s Day joke by one representative who sought to demonstrate that his colleagues were not putting due diligence into researching the legislation they were passing.

But whereas the Texas resolution/joke did no harm, this Act reinforces a very dangerous agenda. We will examine several of the Establishment deceptions in the OAS measure.

OAS History

The Organization of American States (OAS) was formed in 1948 at a hemispheric conference in Bogota led by U.S. Secretary of State George C. Marshall. 21 American countries signed the charter for the OAS. Out of the meeting came a pledge by members to fight Communism in the Western Hemisphere. The meeting also adopted the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (see below).

As Secretary of State, trusted Establishment Insider George C. Marshall had recently accomplished something similar in Europe. At the end of World War II, Congress approved the European Recovery Program (ERP) — a program of massive aid to Europe, popularly known as the Marshall Plan. The Marshall Plan was actually developed by a CFR study group — headed by Charles M. Spofford with David Rockefeller as secretary.

Recognizing American political sentiments, however, the foreign aid was cleverly sold as a means to help stop the spread of Communism. In general, American Insiders have used foreign aid to saddle recipient nations with socialist policies and governments. The ERP certainly followed that pattern. But in Europe the aid was also used to promote European unification.   The same game plan is now being executed in the Western Hemisphere and the OAS and the American Inter-Development Bank are part of the plan.

In the late 1970s, the OAS joined the Carter State Department in helping to topple the government of Nicaragua under President Anastasio Somoza and usher in the pro-Castro Sandanista regime.

Nicaraguan President Anastasio Somoza was one of our most friendly allies in Latin America, having been educated in the U.S. since early childhood and having graduated from West Point. Moreover, Nicaragua was a constitutional republic patterned after the U.S.

However, during the late 1970s, the Cuban- and Soviet-backed guerilla forces of the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) targeted the Somoza government. Concurrently, media reports began depicting Somoza as a corrupt dictator and gross violator of human rights.

The OAS voted to recognize the FSLN as the legitimate government of Nicaragua. In doing so, the OAS stripped the government of Anastasio Somoza of its legitimacy

The overthrow of Somoza brought to power the brutal regime of Daniel Ortega, which immediately received substantial U.S. aid. The Ortega regime declared itself “a revolution without borders,” and began to support guerrilla forces in neighboring El Salvador.

Inter-American Development Bank

“With the full approval and concurrence of the U.S. government, money from a variety of sources poured into Nicaragua to aid the Sandinista regime. A gift of $500,000 was immediately forthcoming from the Organization of American States. The Inter-American Development Bank quickly granted the Sandinista government $107 million in grants, and pledged to extend another $120 million over a four-year period. By the end of 1979, the government of Daniel Ortega had been given a total of $89 million in gifts and offered $490 million in international loans.” — The New American, July 20, 1987.

The Inter-American Development Bank has been heavily subsidized by U.S. taxpayers, and many of its officers have been members of the Insiders’ Council on Foreign Relations.

In a November 29, 1993 memo to President Bill Clinton, National Security Adviser Anthony Lake suggested: Hemispheric institutions, including the OAS and Inter-American Development Bank and now the NAFTA institutions, can be forged into the vital mechanisms of hemispheric governance.

American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man

The international-socialists regularly promote their schemes under cover of terms they know to be popular with most Americans. The American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man is a good example. It was adopted by the nations of the Americas at the same 1948 international conference in Bogota that created the OAS.

The civil and political “rights” described in Chapter 1 of the Declaration would certainly have been anathema to our nation’s Founders.   For example, Article XII states:

“Every person has the right to an education, which should be based on the principles of liberty, morality and human solidarity.

“Likewise every person has the right to an education that will prepare him to attain a decent life, to raise his standard of living, and to be a useful member of society…..

“Every person has the right to receive, free, at least a primary education.

And Article XVI reads: “Every person has the right to social security which will protect him from the consequences of unemployment, old age, and any disabilities arising from causes beyond his control that make it physically or mentally impossible for him to earn a living.”

But Chapter 2 should raise even greater alarm. Chapter 2 lists the duties of the individual corresponding to the “rights” identified in Chapter 1. While we need government to protect the rights of all, there is no place in a legitimate Bill of Rights for a collectivist prescription of the duties of man.

A similar principle was incorporated in the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the largely socialist UN general assembly a few months later. Contrary to the U.S. view of rights as inalienable, coming from God, not government, the UN’s Universal Declaration proceeds from the concept that government grants rights (and so can take them away).

Article 29, paragraph 3 of the UN’s Universal Declaration (referring to the supposed rights and freedoms specified elsewhere in the document) states: “These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”

The Summit of the Americas

The Summits of the Americas are a series of meetings bringing together the leaders of the countries of North America, Central America, South America, and the Caribbean (except Cuba) ostensibly under the overall leadership of the Organization of American States.

In 1994, the formerly ad hoc summits were established as regular summits ostensibly to promote democracy and free trade throughout the hemisphere.

In reality, these regular summits were organized to promote the internationalist goal of merging nations into regional governments, a la the European Union, as a steppingstone to world government. As with the EU, the first steps toward political merger were misleadingly presented as mere free trade agreements.

The 1st (1994) Summit of the Americas was held in Miami a year following the U.S. ratification of NAFTA. The Miami Summit was entirely a David Rockefeller show. Out of this Summit came the proposal for expanding NAFTA to a 34-nation Free Trade Area of the Americas.

Each Summit would produce a Declaration and Plan of Action, committing the signatories to implementing UN treaties, conventions, and programs. The UN family of multilateral lending institutions — the IMF, World Bank and Inter-American Development Bank — as well as the U.S. government would offer financial incentives (read bribes) to the poorer nations to go along with the process.

Joint Summit Working Group

A “Joint Summit Working Group” chaired by an agency of the OAS coordinates the support of twelve Inter-American and international institutions to help implement the Summits “process.” Among the 12 members of the Working Group are the principle internationalist players organized to promote the long-term goal of political merger of the nations in this hemisphere. Much of the leadership for organizing this deceptive plan comes from members of the inner core of the Council on Foreign Relations.

The 12 participating organizations include: the OAS itself, the Inter-American Development Bank, the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) — one of the five regional commissions of the United Nations, the Central American Bank for Economic Integration, the World Bank, the International Organization for Migration, the UN’s International Labor Organization (ILO), and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), an agency that has supervised gun collection programs in scores of nations.

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. 3092 “E. Clay Shaw, Jr. Missing Children’s Assistance Reauthorization Act of 2013.”  Question: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended (2/3 vote required).

Result: Passed in House, 407 to 2, 23 not voting. Agreed to in Senate without amendment by unanimous consent, 9/25/13. Became Public Law 113-38 (signed by president on 9/30/13). GOP and Democrats scored.

From Congressional Research Service Summary:

“[H.R. 3092] adds to the authorized uses of the annual federal grant to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children….

“Authorizes the Administration to make grants or enter into contracts with the Center and with public agencies or nonprofit private organizations for research, demonstration projects, or service programs designed to: (1) educate schools, school leaders, teachers, state and local educational agencies, homeless shelters, and service providers in ways to prevent the abduction and sexual exploitation of children; and (2) aid schools in the collection of materials useful to parents in assisting others in the identification of missing children.

(Sec. 3) Authorizes appropriations for FY2014-FY2018, including specified funds each year for the annual grant to the Center.

(Sec. 4) Subjects grant recipients to audits by the DOJ Inspector General for two of the fiscal years between FY2014 and FY2018.”

Analysis: H.R. 3092 provides an excellent example of legislation that uses a legitimate national concern — missing and exploited children — to perpetuate and extend unconstitutional federal overreach. Compared to the total federal budget, this expenditure is pretty small potatoes. However, reestablishing the Constitution as a limit on federal activity will require vigilant adherence to principle by many more congressmen.

Funding private, non-profit corporations through federal grants is nowhere authorized in the Constitution. This practice began to flourish once the Federal government had acquired deep pockets through the unconstitutional Federal Reserve Act and the income tax. What the federal government terms “assistance” is just a step toward federal control.

The annual grants to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) raise a similar concern. H.R. 3082 authorized up to $32 million per year to the Center for five years. The United States Congress established the Center in 1984 as a private, non-profit organization through the Missing Children’s Assistance Act. The Center draws its funding primarily through appropriations for the Justice Department.

According to Wikipedia:

“NCMEC acts as an information clearinghouse and resource for parents, children, law enforcement agencies, schools, and communities to assist in locating missing children and to raise public awareness about ways to prevent child abduction, child sexual abuse, and child pornography….

“The Center provides information to help locate children reported missing (by parental abduction, child abduction, or running away from home) and to assist physically and sexually abused children.” [Emphasis added.]

One of the tactics that has outflanked our traditional system of representative government is for a government-funded NGO to launch another NGO. In 1998, the federally established National Center founded a separate organization — the International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children. In 2008, the United Nations Economic and Social Council granted the International Centre “Special Consultative Status.”

Many American don’t understand how a vocal revolutionary minority is regularly able to impose its values on the majority. One part of the explanation is that many of the revolutionaries draw their salaries from federal programs, whereas the increasingly burdened American middle class must defend itself with after-tax dollars in its spare time.

In the months leading up to the September 1983 Soviet shoot down of the Korean airliner carrying Congressman Lawrence McDonald, McDonald had publicly charged that some 10,000 leftwing organizations were drawing money from the public trough.

While the regular extension of federal reach through quasi non-governmental organizations is one problem, many of the programs directly administered by the federal government also lack constitutional authority. They contradict the Constitution’s plan for a federal government that performs only the specifically authorized functions appropriate to the union of sovereign states, such as foreign relations. Lack of respect for these limits in Congress is directly responsible for the resulting federal monster.

Accordingly, we were disappointed to see that this act requires the “Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention of the Department of Justice” to send annual reports to the president and [Committees of] Congress. We did not even know such an office existed.

The Act also requires the Administrator “to coordinate with the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness to ensure that homeless services professionals are aware of educational resources and assistance provided by the Center regarding child sexual exploitation.” (From CRS Summary.)

President George Washington in his Farewell Address gave excellent, but long ignored counsel to future generations of Americans:

“If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in once instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”

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. 5 Student Success Act. (To support State and local accountability for public education, protect State and local authority, inform parents of the performance of their children’s schools, and for other purposes.)

Result: Passed in House, 221 to 207, 6 not voting. Republicans scored.

Bill Summary: The Student Success Act of 2013 would amend and reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1985 (ESEA), most recently reauthorized as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.

The Student Success Act also authorizes appropriations for the programs under titles I, II, III, and IV of the amended ESEA. Although the authorizations for those programs have expired, most have continued to receive appropriations.

Authorizes funding through fiscal year 2019 for various grant programs. Amends and reauthorizes the McKinney–Vento Homeless Assistance Act, which authorizes grants to assist in the education of homeless children.

H.R. 5 would reduce federal programs and metrics to give states more control of their own educational systems. Example: H.R. 5 would eliminate federally mandated actions and interventions currently required of poor performing schools.

The Congressional Budget office estimates that H.R. 5 would authorize the appropriation of $22.9 billion in 2014 and $114.3 billion over the 2014-2018 period.

Analysis:  Several parts of this measure seem laudable at first glance as they strive to limit federal involvement in state-organized public education and reduce the worst of the existing impacts. But the objective of the measure is too small, and the measure ratifies unconstitutional federal involvement. In the words of Congressman Walter Jones (R-NC):

“We need to get the federal government out of our classrooms. Education is an issue that should be left to the states, who can more appropriately address the needs of their local students.  Half-measures such as this that allow Washington to continue to wield extensive control are unacceptable.”

This posturing roll call was clearly not intended to reform anything (as there was insufficient support in the Senate and strong opposition from the White House). So for H.R. 5 to have any value beyond supporting Republican reelection campaigns, it should have at least set the appropriate vision of a solution.

But, as with so many superficial legislative proposals, H.R. 5 avoids recognizing that the U.S. made a serious misstep when it allowed the federal government to get involved with state and local “public” education in the first place. A real solution requires that “missteps” be reversed not entrenched.

By contrast, H.R. 5 seeks to limit federal intervention and make it more tolerable. For example, a House Education and the Work Force Committee Fact Sheet on H.R. 5 states:

“It’s time to eliminate wasteful and duplicative federal programs and grant states and local school districts the freedom to direct federal resources to the programs that best serve their student populations.” [Emphasis added.]

But any federal involvement is dangerous, destructive, and unconstitutional. Moreover, U.S. involvement wasn’t really an innocent “misstep.” It was the result of a decades-long drive by the revolutionary socialist Left to overcome well established resistance to this unconstitutional power grab.

In 1958, using the Soviet launch of Sputnik as a pretext, Congress opened the door to federal aid to education by passing the “National Defense and Education Act.” One astute congressman, Noah Mason of Illinois, warned of the consequences at the time:

“Federal Aid for Education is not a temporary program to meet an immediate emergency. It is an effort to put our whole educational system under Federal control and to keep it there forever.”

The real purpose of the power grab, easily documented, had nothing to do with improving education and educational opportunities and everything to do with gaining control of the minds of our youth for authoritarian, political purposes.

True reformers in the House should use the House’s power of the purse and refuse to appropriate any moneys for the expired Elementary and Secondary Education Act (created under President Johnson). Nothing positive can be accomplished by negotiating with Big-government liberals in the Senate and White House marching to the drums of the educational establishment seeking to control education.

We do not score the Democrats on this roll call, as most undoubtedly cast the right vote (none supported H.R. 5) for the wrong reason (many objected to the proposed reductions in federal oversight and insisted that the feds must intervene to give minorities and low income areas an equitable chance). Unfortunately, several of the Republican naysayers don’t deserve “good votes” either, as they likely sided with the Democrat argument.

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. 2642 Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013 (Farm Bill). (Sponsor: Rep. Frank D. Lucas (OK-3).)

Result: Passed in House, 216 to 208, 11 not voting. (Ultimately rejected by the Senate after a couple of back and forth House-Senate votes, each chamber insisting on its version.) Republicans scored.

Bill Summary: This massive, complex measure would set agriculture, food, conservation, and forestry policy for the federal government for 5 years.

H.R. 2642 is very similar to H.R. 1947, which was defeated by the House on June 20. The principal difference is that to win more GOP conservative support the new bill separated out the food stamp program and replaced the permanent default for farm support programs.

Analysis: In June, House leaders were surprised when their “farm bill,” H.R. 1947 was defeated (195 to 234) due to opposition from conservatives who wanted further cuts and Democrats who objected to the cuts in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), more commonly referred to as “food stamps” (see Roll Call 286, June 20, 2013).

So on July 11, House leaders brought this new version to a vote. To win conservative support, the new version separated out the food stamp (SNAP) program and replaced the permanent default farm support programs. Otherwise, the new version was essentially the old version, with no further cuts or reforms. Floor amendments were not allowed.

The new version squeaked by 216 to 208. All 196 Democrats voted against the bill. Their opposition shows why evaluating Republicans and Democrats on the same roll call can sometimes be very misleading — when opposition is justified but one group’s opposition is for the wrong reason.

Only 12 Republicans, who were justifiably not satisfied, voted no: Justin Amash of Michigan, Paul Cook of California, Ron DeSantis of Florida, John J. Duncan Jr. of Tennessee, Trent Franks of Arizona, Phil Gingrey of Georgia, Tim Huelskamp of Kansas, Walter B. Jones of North Carolina, Frank A. LoBiondo of New Jersey, Tom McClintock of California, Matt Salmon of Arizona, and Mark Sanford of South Carolina.

Conservative opponents of the new farm bill warned that removing the food stamp program from the bill was just a ruse to get to a Senate conference and that the bill was “still loaded down with market-distorting giveaways to special interests with no path established to remove the government’s involvement in the agriculture industry.” Indeed, on July 18th the Senate amended the House bill by unanimous consent, in effect replacing it with its own version, and then immediately asked for a conference.

In the days leading up to the House vote, 21 prominent “conservative leaders” signed an open letter to John Boehner — a classic example of ignoring the tune to which political leaders are marching and looking mistakenly in Washington for a solution. The letter applauded Boehner for splitting the bill but implored him to bring the legislation to the floor under an open rule, which would allow amendments:

“The purpose of splitting the agriculture and nutrition pieces was to change the political dynamics that conspire to prevent true reform. If the House pushes through agriculture-only language taken directly from the combined bill that failed on the floor last month without amendment, it will not only fail to change those dynamics, it will actively preserve them.”

Removing the food stamps was Eric Cantor’s strategy for passing a farm bill without Democratic support. The separation allowed Republicans to vote for a farm bill without being blamed by conservatives opposed to food stamps.

A Divided Government?

According to the Washington, DC-based Roll Call (7-11-13), “Oklahoma Republican Tom Cole predicted that Republican members would support a measure coming back from conference, even if it had SNAP provisions. He said there was ‘no way’ the House could go into conference with a Democratic Senate and a Democratic president and end up with a Republican product. ‘You just hope that folks understand this is the nature of a divided government,’ Cole said.”

What does Cole mean, “divided government”? Sure, the Republicans have a majority in the House, and the Democrats control the Senate and the presidency. But the generally accepted notion that we have two parties competing to implement their different concepts of government is terribly misleading.

Instead, we have Republican collectivists and opportunists in limited competition with Democrat collectivists and opportunists. Each party appeals to a different core constituency with its rhetoric, but both offer socialism.

America would actually be a huge step forward if we truly had a divided government, with the House defending the Constitution. According to James Madison (see Federalist No. 58), “The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose the supplies requisite for the support of government. They, in a word, hold the purse — that powerful instrument … [for reducing] … all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of government.”

So it’s a myth that the House cannot force a rollback of unconstitutional government on its own.   Of course, the House would never have the backbone to play hardball with the Senate and president unless representatives had informed pressure from back home. Building that informed pressure is the essential path for Americans to reestablish limited government.

Farm bill politics is far from the only example of how Americans are regularly deceived by a partisan professional wrestling match.   Congress regularly votes on measures that cannot possibly become law. The votes serve primarily to make supporting politicians look good before their constituents, while big government marches on.

Also see our analysis for the similar, but defeated June House bill (H.R. 1947, Roll Call 286, June 20, 2013).

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. 1947 Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act (Farm Bill). (Sponsor: Rep. Frank D. Lucas (OK-3).)

Result: Failed in House, 195 to 234, 6 not voting. The replacement H.R. 2642 passed (see House Roll Call 353, 7-11-13). Republicans scored.

Bill Summary: This massive, complex measure sets 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:

• Provides for crop years 2014-2018 either: (1) price loss coverage if a covered commodity’s effective price is less than its reference price; or (2) alternative revenue loss coverage, as a permanent one-time election, if a covered commodity’s county revenue is less than the county revenue loss coverage trigger.

• Authorizes: (1) nonrecourse marketing assistance loans through crop year 2018, (2) loan deficiency payments through crop year 2018, (3) payments in lieu of loan deficiency payments for grazed acreage through crop year 2018, (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 through crop year 2018.

• Extends the conservation reserve program (CRP) and the farmable wetland program through FY2018.

• Extends the environmental quality incentives program through FY2018.

• Extends specified programs and authorizations of appropriations under the Food for Peace Act through FY2018.

• Extends through FY2018 : (1) the distance learning and telemedicine program, (2) value-added agricultural producer grants, and (3) the agriculture innovation center demonstration program.

• Extends the supplemental nutrition assistance program (SNAP, formerly known as the food stamp program) through FY2018.

• Extends through FY2018: (1) guarantee authority for rural electrification or telephone bonds and notes, (2) expansion of 911 access, and (3) loan guarantees for rural broadband telecommunications infrastructure.

• Establishes a veterinary services grant program. Authorizes appropriations.

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. In 1973, the Los Angeles Herald Examiner reported:

“Congressional conferees Thursday tentatively agreed to authorize low-interest, long-term credit sales of food to Russia, China, Cuba and other Communist countries….

“The conferees accepted a Senate provision to lift, except for North Vietnam, the ban on Food For Peace sales to Communist countries. Repayment under such deals can extend 20 years with interest rates as low as 2 percent.” —”Russia, China, Cuba To Get Food Credits”                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              (7-27-1973)

Washington correspondent Paul Scott revealed more of the travesty:

“This windfall provides for Russia’s obtaining U.S. food through PL-480, the original food for peace program, for virtually nothing. Russia would pay for the grain in its own currency which would have to be used on projects within the Soviet Union.

“Members of Congress and the nation’s farm leaders are being privately told that if the Nixon Administration has its way there will be no reversal of this policy of furnishing cut-rate and free food to Moscow and Peking.”

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 passed the Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2013 by a vote of 66–27 with 7 not voting. Supporters of the Senate bill included 18 Republicans. 25 Republicans and 2 Democrats opposed the measure.
On June 20th, House GOP leaders brought their version of a farm bill (H.R. 1947) to the floor, expecting passage (this roll call). Instead, as noted above, the bill was defeated by a vote of 195 to 234.

The defeated H.R. 1947 would have authorized a projected $743.9 billion in food stamps over the next 10 years (out of an estimated $972.3 billion for the entire bill). That massive figure included a proposed $20.5 billion cut to the program, causing most Democrats to oppose the bill. Opposition also came from several conservative groups, which complained that the bill left other outrageous programs in place.

Conservatives had plenty of reasons to complain. The House bill 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) — with no real challenge to established unconstitutional programs and even authorizing a few new ones.

Almost half the minuscule savings in the House bill would have come from a reduction in food stamp spending, prompting cries of “sharp cuts to food stamps.” Indeed, Washington politicians are able to feign a great partisan divide by arguing over trifles, while America continues to be smothered in big government.

On May 31st, 3 weeks prior to the farm bill vote, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor sent an open memo to GOP representatives describing the busy House agenda for June. The memo was full of arguments calculated to win public support and of praise for GOP committee chairmen.

In listing the various appropriation bills the House GOP was working to advance, Cantor pointed to the Constitution for authority but completely ignored its restraints:

“The power of the purse is one of Congress’s most basic and important Constitutional responsibilities, deriving from Clause 7, Section 9 of Article I which states, ‘No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of Appropriations made by Law.’…

“Chairman Hal Rogers and his committee members are working hard to produce twelve bills which reflect judicious spending of the public’s money. The overall spending level contained in the twelve appropriations bills is written to the sequester-level of $967 billon.”

Why written to the sequester level? Why not written to conform to the Constitution? Here is Cantor’s description of the farm bill, an appropriation bill dominated by unconstitutional programs ever since World War II:

“Chairman Frank Lucas and the Agriculture Committee members have drafted a bipartisan five-year farm bill, H.R. 1947, The Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act, and I expect this bill to be considered next month. This bill, together with the effects of sequestration, reflects almost $40 billion in savings reductions through eliminating and reforming wasteful government programs and consolidating more than 100 programs.” [Emphasis added.]

Comment: It is a huge mistake to accept Establishment propaganda that bipartisanship is a great virtue. A consensus embraced by socialists cannot restore America to prosperity.

Cantor continued: “Over $20 billion in savings comes from much-needed reforms to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), including eliminating benefits for lottery winners and applying asset and resources tests to all applicants.”

In other words, unconstitutional federal welfare is OK as long as the applicants really need it. If the Constitution’s limits are not respected, politicians can find justification to spend our money on almost anything.

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

Note: On July 11, House leaders brought a new version of the farm bill (H.R. 2642, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act) to a vote (see House Roll Call 353). To win conservative support, the new version separated out the food stamp program and replaced the permanent default farm support programs. Otherwise, the new version was essentially the old version, with no further cuts or reforms. Floor amendments were not allowed. The bill squeaked by, 216 to 208.

Conservative opponents warned that removing the food stamp program from the bill was just a ruse to get to a Senate conference and that the bill was “still loaded down with market-distorting giveaways to special interests with no path established to remove the government’s involvement in the agriculture industry.” Indeed, on July 18th the Senate amended the House bill by unanimous consent, in effect replacing it with its own version, and then immediately asked for a conference.

Issue: H.R. 2217 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2014. (Making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and for other purposes.)

Result: Passed in House 245 to 182, 7 not voting. Died in Senate.  Republicans scored.

Bill Summary: Makes appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for FY2014. Includes (Title II): Appropriations for: (1) U.S. Customs and Border Protection; (2) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; (3) the Transportation Security Administration (TSA); (4) the Coast Guard, including funding designated by the Congress for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism, and funding for the Coast Guard Reserve; and (5) the U.S. Secret Service.

Also includes (Title III): Appropriations for (1) the Office of the Under Secretary for the National Protection and Programs Directorate, including for the Federal Protective Service (FPS) and the Office of Biometric Identity Management; (2) the Office of Health Affairs, including for BioWatch operations; and (3) the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), including for grants for state and local programs (including the Urban Area Security Initiative), firefighter assistance grants, emergency management performance grants, the U.S. Fire Administration, disaster relief, the flood hazard mapping and risk analysis program, the National Flood Insurance Fund, the predisaster mitigation grant program, and the emergency food and shelter program.

Analysis:   The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks provided a convenient pretext for stampeding the 2002 creation of the Department of Homeland Security. Liberals (with Establishment Republican support) had long been working toward nationalizing state and local police powers. The Department of Homeland Security should be regarded as a major steppingstone toward that dangerous goal.

Although other Insiders applauded President George W. Bush for making the proposal, no one should believe that it originated with the figurehead president.

In fact, the Department had been proposed prior to the September 11th attacks in a report by the CFR dominated Hart-Rudman Commission.

The report, entitled “Road Map for National Security,” specifically proposed the creation of a “National Homeland Security Agency.” This agency would have “the responsibility for planning, coordinating, and integrating various U.S. government activities involved in homeland security.”

That national security was not the real reason for establishing the new department can be seen in the federal government’s lack of urgency in tightening border security following September 11 and in the obvious fact that it would take years for the behemoth new department to assimilate its new responsibilities.

During the November 13, 2002 House debate of the Homeland Security Act that would establish the Department, one who objected to the mad rush was Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas):

“Mr. Speaker, when the process of creating a Department of Homeland Security commenced, Congress was led to believe that the legislation would be a simple reorganization aimed at increasing efficiency, not an attempt to expand federal power. Fiscally conservative members of Congress were even told that the bill would be budget neutral! Yet, when the House of Representatives initially considered creating a Department of Homeland Security, the legislative vehicle almost overnight grew from 32 pages to 282 pages — and the cost had ballooned to at least $3 billion.

“Now we are prepared to vote on a nearly 500-page bill that increases federal expenditures and raises troubling civil liberties questions. Adding insult to injury, this bill was put together late last night and introduced only this morning. Worst of all, the text of the bill has not been made readily available to most members, meaning this Congress is prepared to create a massive new federal agency without even knowing the details. This is a dangerous and irresponsible practice.”

In referring to the history of this deceptive power grab, we mention, as an example, the federal Law Enforcement Assistance Administration created in 1968 and abolished in 1982. The LEAA sought to gain control of state and local law enforcement agencies through federal grants. Later, came the federal civil-rights lawsuits against major city police departments, resulting in consent decrees, amounting to a virtual federal takeover of the local police.

The influential Internationalists behind the civilian disarmament drive also revealed their long-term objectives. The 1958 disarmament classic, World Peace Through World Law, by Establishment Wall Street lawyer Grenville Clark and Harvard law professor Louis B. Sohn (CFR) warned “that even with the complete elimination of all [national] military forces,” local “police forces, supplemented by civilians armed with sporting rifles and fowling pieces, might conceivably constitute a serious threat to a neighboring country….” [Emphasis in original.]

Accordingly, Clark and Sohn recommended extremely rigid controls on all firearms and ammunition possessed by police and private citizens. Clark was a vice president and founder of the United World Federalists and had strongly influenced John J. McCloy at a military training camp in 1915. McCloy, often called the “chairman of the American Establishment,” would advise nine presidents and serve as chairman of the Establishment’s Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) from 1953 to 1970.

The CFR’s creation, the United Nations, (documented in Freedom First Society’s Masters of Deception) would also provide “authority” for the role of the new Department of Homeland Security. This relationship was evident in U.S. “compliance” reports submitted to the UN Security Council’s new Counter-Terrorism Committee.

The debate over H.R. 2217 was another example of how the American people are regularly deceived by the equivalent of a professional wrestling match known as partisan politics. H.R. 2217 would have appropriated $38.9 billion in discretionary spending for the Department of Homeland Security. This was only $34.9 million (less that 0.1 %) below the president’s FY 2014 budget request and yet the White House opposed it as irresponsible.

On the other hand, Republicans boasted that H.R. 2217 was $613.2 million (about 1.8%) below the FY 2013 enacted level. We did not score the House Democrats on this one, because most wanted to spend more.

Unfortunately, we could not find any published objection from members of either party to the unconstitutionality of much of this infant department.

Since this House-passed regular appropriations bill was never considered by the full Senate, FY2014 appropriations for the department were included in two consolidated continuing resolutions and then the $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill enacted shortly after the start of the second session (1-17-14).

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. 933 Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013, as amended. On motion that the House agree to the Senate amendments.

Result:  Agreed to in House 318 to 109, 4 not voting. Became Public Law 113-6 (signed by the president 3-26-13).  GOP selected vote.

Bill Summary: H. R. 933, as initially passed by the House, included the full-year FY 2013 appropriations bills for the Department of Defense, military construction, and Department of Veterans Affairs. It also contained a continuing resolution for the remainder of the federal government. In this amended version, which became public law, the Senate has added full-year appropriations bills for Agriculture; Commerce, Justice, Science; and Homeland Security.

Remaining government operations would continue to be funded at FY 2012 levels as provided by H.J. Res. 117 (enacted 9-28-12) and amended by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012.  H.R. 933 was written to conform to the discretionary spending caps in the Budget Control Act of 2011. It also contains a general provision enforcing the sequester, as required by the Budget Control Act of 2011. The automatic across the board cuts imposed by the sequester went into effect on March 1, 2013.

Analysis: Prior to the enactment of H.R. 933, FY 2013 operations had been funded under a continuing resolution that passed the House on September 13, 2012. The House passed H.R. 933 on March 6, (Roll Call 62) and sent the measure to the Senate. The Senate subsequently amended H.R. 933 (Senate Vote 44, 3-20-13, also selected for scorecard) and returned the measure to the House. In this Roll Call 89, the House approved the Senate changes without amendment and sent the bill to the president for his signature.

We object to H.R. 933, as passed by the House, on constitutional grounds and also because the House did not responsibly manage its power of the purse to force a roll back of unconstitutional and excessive government.

H.R. 933 continues to appropriate taxpayer moneys for massive unconstitutional government. It offers no serious effort to roll back unconstitutional programs responsibly. The much-hyped impact of the sequester caused many House Democrats to oppose this measure (right vote, wrong reason) and so we do not score them on this roll call.

Although the spending caps in the Budget Control Act do crimp the liberal style, they are far short of what’s needed to allow Americans to build a prosperous future. Instead, the partisan wrestling match over trifles (a sop to public frustration over our horrible economy) misleads voters into thinking that Congress is engaged in a serious battle to limit government. Massive cuts, according to the Constitution, are desperately needed. Minor fiscal restraint, conveniently mandated for future years, that preserves socialist inroads just won’t cut it.

Moreover, consolidated appropriations are no way for responsible representatives to enforce the House’s power of the purse. And passing an appropriation bill in the middle of its fiscal year is also irresponsible government. In 1976, the federal fiscal year was shifted 3 months from July 1 to October to give appropriators more time to develop the increasingly complex federal appropriations bills. Responsible representatives should insist that the House vote on individual committee bills in a timely manner and then defend those bills individually against Senate amendments, not allow them to be consolidated for a compromise with the Senate.

Relief from time pressure will come when the massive explosion in unconstitutional federal programs is rolled back. For example, one of the few Public Laws Congress enacted in 2013 was the Community Fire Safety Act, passed essentially unanimously by both Houses.   Of course, the federal government should have no involvement in Community Fire Safety. However, the first paragraph of the bill’s summary, prepared by the Congressional Research Service, somewhat explains the title and the incredible necessity for such a measure in the first place:

• “Community Fire Safety Act of 2013 — Amends the Safe Drinking Water Act to exempt fire hydrants from certain prohibitions against the use of lead pipes, solder, and flux.”

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 Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013.

Results:  Passed in House 286 to 138, 7 not voting. 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 Noes and (bad vote) to the Ayes. (P = voted present; ? = not voting; blank = not listed on roll call.)