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