OPEN LETTER
May
26, 2011
Senator
Rand Paul
208
Russell Senate Office Building
Washington DC, 20510
Dear
Senator Paul:
For
what it is worth, I am submitting the result of several hours
research last night into the Voting Summary of the Senators who supported
renewal of the Patriot Act, which was held on May 23, 2011. As you know, the Patriot Act holds a
strong potential for fatal damage to the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
The
following information should prove to be beneficial to you in revealing the
nature of the people who sit in our Senate.
It is my feeling that any representative (in either house), who would
endorse and/or support either of the two directives boxed below is guilty of
a crime of some sort! Both Houses of
the Congress have passed legislation, connecting to “The United States Program for General and
Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World”, with a definition in each of two
laws that reads, word-for-word, as follows:
Sec. 3. As used in this Act -- “(a) The terms ‘arms control’ and ‘disarmament’ mean the identification, verification, inspection, limitation, control, reduction, or elimination, of armed forces and armaments of all kinds under international agreement including the necessary steps taken under such an agreement to establish an effective system of international control, or to create and strengthen international organizations for the maintenance of peace.”
Excerpted
from Public Law 87-297 – 87th Congress, passed on September 26, 1961
The
definition appears again in one of the constant amendments made to the parent
law (P.L. 87-297) every couple of years. Although slightly shortened the horrifying
definition is repeated as follows:
“(2) as defined in this Act, the terms ‘arms control’ and ‘disarmament’ mean ‘the identification, verification, inspection, limitation, control, reduction, or elimination, of armed forces and armaments of all kinds under international agreement to establish an effective system of international control’;
Excerpted from Public Law 101-216 - passed into law on
December 11, 1989
If
you check the record you will find that Senator Inouye of Hawaii also voted in
favor of passing Public Law 87-297, as a newly elected representative in
Congress in 1961. Today, May 23, 2011, Senator
Daniel Inouye has supported the renewal of the expiring provisions of the Patriot
Act with a “yea” vote, which strongly indicates his support to keep the
movement rolling for “total and complete disarmament” of the individual
American citizen!
If
you will check the record of Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, you will find that he
voted “yea” on May 23, 2011 supporting renewal of the expiring provisions of
the Patriot Act. Was he
influenced by his father? His father was
former Senator John Henry Kyl of Iowa. Senator
John Henry Kyl of Iowa also voted in favor of passing the horrifying Public Law
87-297 in 1961.
Further,
the following Senators are on record as having voted “yea” on Public Law
101-216 at the time they were members of the House of Representatives:
Daniel
Akaka (D-Hawaii)
Barbara
Boxer (D-California)
Benjamin
Cardin (D-Maryland)
Thomas
Carper (D-Delaware)
Daniel
Inouye (D-Hawaii)
Tim
Johnson (D-South Dakota)
Charles
Schumer (D-New York)
Olympia
Snowe (R-Maine)
Mark
Udall (D-Colorado)
Some
of the Senators, such as: Jon Kyl
(R-Arizona) voted “no” in 1989 against P.L. 101-216; however, Kyl voted “yea” on
May 23, 2011 for renewal of the Patriot Act. James Inhofe (D-Oklahoma) voted “yea” in 1989
in favor of P.L. 101-216; however, Inhofe was listed as “not voting” on May 23,
2011 for the renewal of the Patriot Act.
Before
the Constitution could be accepted, a form of force was demanded by Patrick
Henry, which was the right to arms. How
is it possible for us to be a republic if we have no form of force for the
people to maintain their status as a republic?
It appears that “a long train of abuses” has been waged against the
principle, which is the bed rock of the people’s right to live under a republic
(the right to keep and bear arms). A charge
should automatically be made, calling for the immediate dismissal from office of
anyone guilty of so serious a violation as their oath of office, malfeasance, sedition, perjury,
etc.
This
information will be sent to you by fax today.
What would you suggest to stop the undermining of the Constitution?
Sincerely,
SECOND
AMENDMENT COMMITTEE
![]()
Bernadine
Smith, Director