Month: November 2016

Illegal Entry a Criminal Act, Deport the Criminals Pres. Trump

Facebook
Google+
Linked In
Twitter
YouTube

America’s Creed, Is It Theirs? 

I believe in the United States of America as a government of the people, by the people; whose powers are derived from the consent of the governed, a democracy in the republic, a sovereign Nation of many States; a perfect union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes. I therefore believe it is my Duty to my Country to Love it, to Support its’ Constitution, to Obey its’ Laws, to respect its’ Flag and to Defend it against All enemies. –Written 1917. Accepted by the United States House of Representatives on April 3,1918.

President Elect Trump: You stated you’d Deport all Criminal Illegal Aliens, take a look at the Definition of Criminal and then keep your Word.

Criminal: A Person who’s Committed a Crime.

Illegal Entry is a Crime.

Synonyms: Lawbreaker, Offender, Delinquent, Malefactor, Wrongdoer, Burglar.

Illeɡal: Contrary to or Forbidden by Law. Synonyms: Unlawful, Illicit, (Illegitimate, Unlicensed, Unauthorized), Unsanctioned, Forbidden, Prohibited.

Take a look at this Video at AZ Capitol we’re supporting SB 1070 and obviously they don’t.

To President Elect Trump and Staff and the GOP Elite Swamp Managers please note the above definitions before you make an inside deal with each other once again Violating Our Laws and Trust.

President Elect Trump don’t make a Political Deal to Pardon Illegals, Clinton and others, this would make you Part of the Swamp not someone who can be trusted to Drain & Clean It.  We ask you to Keep the Campaign Promises that Launched the Movement and got you Elected, please go back and watch the Videos on Social Media and remember once again the Definition of CRIMINAL as it fits All Illegals within Our Borders and Must be Enforced or You’re No Different than those you Ran Against.

President Elect Trump please view: Video One / Two /, many voted for you believing you’d remove the Illegals from America if you chose some sort of plan for the sake of Unity in the GOP like the Gang of Eight then I for one will lost the Trust placed in you on the Issues, as unlike some for me it’s always been about the Issues not the personality, many of us feel the same and Trust you’ll Honor Your Word.

My Father Taught me as a young boy Your Word is Your Bond, we hope this lesson is True for President Elect Trump as Well.

Remember Justice is Blind not Politically Motivated, you’ll be taking an Oath on Jan 20th to Protect & Defend the US Constitution the BIGGEST DEAL OF YOUR LIFE, KEEP IT.

PROMISES MADE AND KEPT MEASURE OF A MAN!

Election Cycles are Critical to the Nation as to whether we sink deeper into a Socialist Nation or Restore It to a True Republic form of Government. We are a Constitutional Representative Republic based on Judeo-Christian principles, yet are being dictated to by a federal government that seemingly ignores the Constitution at every turn. Clair measures our Constitution against the laws Congress continues passing having no Constitutional authority behind them, as they flagrantly violate their Oaths!

God Bless You All; Clair Van Steenwyk

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter | Share on Google+
Share on Linkedin | Share on Pinterest

AZ SOS & Maricopa Co. Recorder Rigging AZ Elections?

Facebook
Google+
Linked In
Twitter
YouTube

This Cartoon is True Only When We Can Trust the Process Isn’t Rigged!

*This Comment came in a Campaign Email from Helen Purcell (Maricopa County Recorder). The following Statement is One of Five Listed under the Heading of ACCOMPLISHED, ( Helping to bring about Early Voting in Arizona which has become the most important tool in winning elections). Paid for by Purcell in 2016

*It’s nice to know that the Early Voting system wasn’t set up for the Voters but for the Parties to have a Tool to Win Elections. We’ve completed the research on the Elections systems and the SOS Manual used by All AZ County Recorders which instructs them to violate AZ State Statutes and the Intent of the Law to give All Voters the same Information, and thereby assuring All Candidates who follow the State Statutes the same Access to the Voters, at present isn’t happening.

We’re also looking into the Violation of Ballot Harvesting which Purcell allowed and had announced on ABC Monday Evenings News and perhaps others, that it’s alright to bring them in and drop them off at the Polls, Directly Violating AZ Law and the Courts approval of that Law. County Recorder Purcell allowing Ballots to be dropped off calls into question the Validity of the General Election, and may explain some of the Results. We hope you’ll find this an interesting read and realize that if the conclusions drawn and statements made are correct this leaves the Entire Elections Process open to being Challenged by Any and All Voters as well as Candidates and Parties or Groups.

*We’ve delivered the following facts to SOSs’, Maricopa County Supervisors’ & County Recorders’ Offices with no response.

Documents Delivered

State Sponsored Election Fraud with Official Write-In Candidates.

Arizona Revised Statutes v. SOS Election Procedures.

Arizona statutes provide for an impartial and uniform election process. Official Write-In Candidates are a part of that process, with valid philosophical and practical reasons for inclusion in our election system.  But, in spite of clear legislative intent, the process has been biased against them; one statute is used to negate others, denying write-in candidates impartiality and uniformity.

With Arizona’s statutory early voting system, it is crucial to clarify the effect of establishing early ballot voters’ mailing address locations as their lawful early polling places. Contracting with voters who request early ballots, and delivering them via the U.S. Mail, the State is­ declaring and establishing voters’ addresses as official “polling places.”

Therefore, every instructional or informative notice—other than site-specific directions—is required by law to be provided to every elector who chooses to contract with the State to let his or her residence to the State to utilize as an early voting location or polling place.

When required instruction or information is deliberately left-out of ballot materials supplied to approximately 80% of voters by mail, it is prima facie evidence of “fixing” the election!

Arizona law establishes two official candidate classes eligible for election to public office by qualified electors. The State enters legal contracts with official write-in and nominating petition-qualified candidates. By contract, both classes are equally qualified for election pursuant to Statute.

The statutory requirements for both write-in candidates and those submitting nominating petitions to run for election are identical, except write-ins are required to submit nomination papers in lieu of nominating petitions signed by electors.

Therefore, write-in candidates who meet statutory requirements are lawfully accepted as Official Write-In Candidates and are equally eligible to serve in elective office as any opponents who submit nominating petitions.

The State of Arizona accepts the write-in nomination paper and other documents as the contract that acknowledges the candidate’s legal right to have votes cast, and counted in the election results.

The resultant contract gives write-ins legal status equal to ballot-qualified candidates in every respect other than the printing of names on the ballot.

The statutes codify this contract.

However, in spite of clear legislative intent to honor the Official Write-In Candidate Contract and conduct uniform and impartial elections implicit in the state constitution and statutes, (there is a blatant pattern of conduct intended to preclude any write-in candidate ever winning election in Arizona).

This conduct has included biased and non-uniform procedures and instructions that violate the law, which is in and of itself a violation of the law.

The pattern has been continued through the 2016 Election Cycle, as public officers and election officials act pursuant to rules that violate statutes; effecting biased and non-uniform procedures for early voting and voting. At least some of these are specific to voter notification of Official Write-In Candidates.

A.R.S. §16-452(A&B) requires the Secretary of State to prescribe rules in an instructions and procedures manual for the conduct of elections in the State “prior to each election” clearly intended to incorporate any changes to the statutes. (For the 2016 elections, SOS Reagan refused to prepare and issue the prescribed manual). Whether or not the 2014 manual in-use conformed to election law in 2014, it does not conform to statutes in effect for 2016 elections.

Under threat of criminal prosecution, pursuant to 16-452(C), the county recorders, supervisors and all elections officials continue to implement unlawful rules. They are violating the State Constitution, other statutes, and at a minimum, state contracts with official write-in candidates.

Under threat of criminal prosecution, pursuant to 16-452(C), the county recorders, supervisors and all elections officials continue to implement unlawful rules. They are violating the State Constitution, other statutes, and at a minimum, state contracts with official write-in candidates.

Following are pertinent excerpts from the current 2014, 16-452 procedures and instructions manual, and the statutes cited therein upon which the procedures are purported to be based, along with observations set-apart by brackets. (The 52nd Legislature did amend state election law in 2015 & 2016.)

Excerpts from SOS Manual and cited statutes:

[Page 4]

IMPORTANT INFORMATION:

The Secretary of State’s Election Procedures Manual is required by ARS § 16-452.

*The procedures contained in this manual were developed after consultation with each County Board of Supervisors or officer in charge of elections and have been approved by the Governor and the Attorney General. A violation of any of the provisions of this Election Procedures Manual is a Class 2 misdemeanor.

[ARS § 16-452(C)]

ARS § 16-449 requires the Secretary of State to include procedures for:

  • testing the logic and accuracy of electronic ballot tabulating systems
  • handling ballots, scanning ballots, and any other matter necessary to ensure the maximum degree of correctness, impartiality and uniformity in the administration of an electronic ballot tabulating system.
  • 16-452. Rules; instructions and procedures manual;
  • A… the Secretary of State shall proscribe rules to achieve and maintain the maximum degree of correctness, impartiality, uniformity and efficiency on the procedures for early voting and voting, and of producing, distributing, collecting, counting, tabulating and storing ballots.
  • C. A person who violates any rule adopted pursuant to this section is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.
  • CHAPTER 3 – EARLY VOTING [Page 49]
  • “Vote by Mail” Elections
  • This section is for Vote by Mail Elections only and does NOT provide for “early voting,” but it adds the following sentence: Additional inserts, including lists of official write-in candidates shall not be allowed with the official early ballot.”
  • There is no other reference to early ballots for this type election. It is evident that the sentence was added without an attempt to conform it to the subject Vote by Mail Elections statute!  So, the cited statutes, 16-225 & -227 do NOT address “Additional inserts” nor write-in candidate lists!
  • Mailing the Affidavit and Early Ballot [Page 56]
  • The Recorder or other officer in charge of elections shall mail the official early ballot, printed instructions, a secrecy envelope/sleeve (if the county chooses to use a secrecy envelope or sleeve) and a return envelope bearing a printed ballot affidavit as described in ARS § 16-547 to the requesting elector:
  • Only official election materials as determined by the County Recorder shall be allowed as inserts with the official early ballot. Additional inserts, including lists of official write-in candidates, shall not be allowed with the official early ballot
  • [The preceding prescription to leave out the Write-In Candidate List Directly Violates the LAW.]
  • [ARS § 16-542] cited statute: 16-542. Request for ballot; civil penalties; violation; classification:
  • The county recorder or other officer in charge of elections shall mail the early ballot and the envelope for its return postage prepaid to the address provided by the requesting elector…
  • On-Site Early Voting [Pages 56-57]
  • The County Recorder may establish early voting locations: At these locations, voters may cast early ballots beginning the same day that a county begins to send out the early ballots, . . . A Notice of Withdrawal and Notice of Official Write-In Candidates shall be posted at all on-site early voting locations and promptly updated as necessary. [Updates would only apply to official write-in candidates if they withdrew!
  • [ARS §§ 16-246(C), 16-343(G) & 16-542(A)] cited statutes: 16-246(C). Early balloting; satellite locations; additional procedures [This statute only applies to presidential preference elections. Paragraph C provides for on-site early voting locations for these particular elections, not all elections, so, why is it cited here when -542(A) covers all elections?]
  • 16-343(G). Filling vacancy caused by death or incapacity or withdrawal of candidate.
  • 1. The inspectors shall post the notice of vacancy in the same manner as posting official write-in candidates [This procedure is most often not followed, as the List/Notice is not posted conspicuously, at times is not posted at all, and voters are not informed by poll workers unless the voter asks for the Notice/List]. In the case of a withdrawal of a candidate that occurs after the printing of official ballots, the inspectors shall post the notice of withdrawal in a conspicuous location in each polling place. Notice of withdrawal shall also be posted at all early voting locations and shall be made available to early voters [by mail] by providing with the early ballot instructions a website address at which prompt updates to information regarding write-in and withdrawn candidates is available.
  • This statute only applies to a candidate vacancy, not to the List delivered by the BOS that has been produced from the Notice of Official Write-In Candidates delivered to it by the SOS.
  • This is the ONLY statute that prescribes a website address with updates to “available” “information regarding write-in and withdrawn candidates.”
  • It does not prescribe the creation of a website address to meet the intent of the 16-312 prescription for posting “the notice of official write-in candidates in a conspicuous place within the polling place” and in early voting locations, as prescribed earlier in the same sentence of the cited 16-343(G); which must be applied to the early ballot mailed to the elector’s State-contracted early polling place!
  • The ONLY reason the “list” or “notice” of official write-in candidates would require any update after its official generation by the SOS would be if a write-in candidate withdrew or was otherwise disqualified to run for office! Therefore, such write-in candidate being “official,” this statute erroneously separates said candidate from other official candidates by inserting the reference to “information regarding write-in and Please see further treatment of this “website” phrase below.]
  • 16-542. Request for ballot; civil penalties; violation; classification
  • A. The county recorder may establish on-site early voting locations at the recorder’s office, which shall be open and available for use beginning the same day that a county begins to send out the early ballots.
  • The County Recorder or other officer in charge of elections shall mail Early Ballot and the envelope for its’ return postage paid.
  • Instructions to Early Voters [Pages 58-59]
  • [Mail Ballot]
  • The County Recorder or other officer in charge of elections shall supply printed instructions both in English and Spanish to early voters that direct them to sign the affidavit, mark the ballot and return both in the enclosed self-addressed envelope. The early ballot instructions shall include a web site address at which information regarding official write-in candidates and withdrawn candidates for all jurisdictions on the ballot is available.
  • [The preceding sentence is taken from 16-343(G) and violates 16-312(E) as applied here to early voting instructions. -312(E) prescribes posting of the Notice of Official Write-In Candidates at the polling place, which must be extrapolated to include early ballots mailed to voters at their State-contracted personal polling place!  See below, also.]
  • [ARS § 16-547(C) and 42 U.S.C. § 15482] cited statutes: **16-547. Ballot affidavit;
  • C. The county recorder or other officer in charge of elections shall supply printed instructions to early voters that direct them to sign the affidavit, mark the ballot and return both in the enclosed self-addressed envelope that complies with section 16-545. The instructions shall include the following statement: In order to be valid and counted, the ballot and affidavit must be delivered…
  • 16-545. Early ballot.
  • A. The Early Ballot shall be one prepared for use in the precinct in which the applicant resides and… The ballot shall be identical with the regular official ballots, except that it shall have printed or stamped on it “early”.
  • [**16-547(C) Does not prescribe instructions to include a web site address for any purpose, nor prescribe nor prohibit any instructions regarding Official Write-In Candidates or withdrawn candidates!
  • Further, it is clear that the intent of 16-312 is to acknowledge a candidate’s legal right to run for office as an official write-in candidate fully entitled to receive votes and win, if the voters choose to elect him or her!
  • As stated above, we believe this clear intent must also demand the Notice of Official Write-In Candidates be included in the Early Voters Mail-In Ballot Package as well because it is mailed to the voter’s State-contracted polling place; because the intent of 16-312 is to acknowledge the candidate’s legal right to run as an official write-in candidate, AND the voters’ legal right to be fully informed of official write-in candidates for whom they may cast their votes!
  • There can be NO lawful requirement for Arizona voters to purchase or borrow a computer or other device with which to access the Internet in order to find information to which they are lawfully entitled.
  • By prohibiting the inclusion of the list of official write-in candidates with the early ballot mailed to voters, the SOS has also violated at least 16-312, and -452, by insuring that elections will not meet the maximum degree of correctness, impartiality and uniformity required by 16-452.
  • Pursuant to 16-452, to comply with the requirement for “the maximum degree of correctness, impartiality, uniformity and efficiency,” early ballot mailings MUST include the list of official write-in candidates eligible for votes in the precinct the ballot covers:
  • 16-452. Rules; instructions and procedures manual;…
  • A… the Secretary of State shall prescribe rules to achieve and maintain the maximum degree of correctness, impartiality, uniformity and efficiency on the procedures for early voting and voting, and of producing, distributing, collecting, counting, tabulating and storing ballots…
  • [It must also include a notice of vacancies from withdrawals occurring after the printing of the ballots. See below, and 16-343(G), above.]
  • The SOS adding proscriptions against including lists of official write-in candidates to the instructions and procedures manual, and adding a prescription to include a web site address requiring early voters to go to a web site for “information” on official write-in candidates and withdrawn candidates is deliberate, unlawful and should constitute a criminal offense.
  • The Arizona Constitution, Article II. §21, guarantees free and equal elections with free exercise of the right of suffrage. With A.R.S. §16-452 & -312, the legislature clearly intended to comply with this section when providing for the lawful exercise of a citizen’s right to run for office as a write-in candidate in a free and equal election, and for all voters to freely exercise the right of suffrage through equal access to the names of all official candidates qualified to receive and have votes counted toward election pursuant to Article VII. §7.
  • The expansion of election procedures to include early voting by mail ballot transforms the voter’s address location into his official State-contracted polling place. The statutes do not—and can not—prescribe denial of voters’ right to be given the Notice (or List) of Official (or Eligible) Write-In Candidates. The voters have lawfully entered into contracts with the State of Arizona to let their address locations to the State as their official polling places by requesting early ballots be delivered to them via U.S. Mail.
  • The SOS can not add to the statutes a decree that lists of official write-in candidates shall not be allowed with the official early ballot.
  • Nor can the SOS decree that voters be required to access a web site address in order to ferret – out the names of official write-in candidates to which they are entitled with their ballot.
  • Election officials are required to post the Notice of Official Write-In Candidates and the Notice of Withdrawn Candidates conspicuously for Voters to see at early voting locations and polling places.
  • Therefore, by contracting with voters to mail their ballots to their addresses, the county recorder or other election official in charge of mailing early ballots must include these notices with each early ballot.]
  • Election Day [Page 132]
  • Setting Up the Polling Place
  • The members of the election board shall:
  • Post the list of official write-in candidates, if applicable, in a conspicuous location
  • Post a notice of: Any vacancies due to voluntary or involuntary withdrawals that occurred after the printing of ballots, and
  • Any vacancies due to the death or incapacity of a candidate and that any votes cast for that candidate will be tabulated.
  • CHAPTER 12 – PROCEDURE FOR PRECINCT HAND COUNT AND EARLY BALLOT AUDIT [Page 189]
  • For each candidate and issue contest for which the Secretary of State is the filing officer, the County Officer shall (1) conduct a hand count . . . of at least two per cent . . .
  • [ARS §-602(B), 16-602(G) & 16-663(B)]
  • II. Definitions
  • “Contested Race” shall mean a race where there are more candidates than positions available.
  • VI. Selection of Races to Be Counted in the Precinct Hand Count and Early Ballot Audit [ARS § 16-602(B)]
  • A write-in candidacy in a race does not constitute a contested race.
  • 16-602. B. . . . 4. For the purposes of this section, a write-in candidacy in a race does not constitute a contested race.
  • [This statute directly violates the clear legislative intent and effect of 16-452 requiring uniformity and impartiality, and of providing for write-in candidate qualification, that meet the constitutional intent of access to free and equal elections.The Hand Count is conducted to test the electronic voting machine or tabulator. By excluding the write-in ballots, there is no verification that the equipment finds and sorts all write-in ballots from the rest!]
  • Please see the following page for the representative 2014 Schedule of Events regarding required Official Write-In Candidate events. There being no 2016 SOS manual, there was no such schedule provided for 2016.
  • CHAPTER 15 – SCHEDULE OF EVENTS
  • [This 2014 Schedule of Events confirms that there is no attempt to provide the Notice of Official Write-In Candidates, or the Notice of Withdrawn Candidates to early mail ballot voters.]
  • 7/17/2014 PE-40 SOS Deadline for Write-in Candidate Nomination Papers for Primary Election at 5:00 p.m. 16-312(B)
  • 7/18/2014 PE-39 SOS Deliver Notice of Write-in Candidates Filing Nomination Papers 16-312
  • 7/18/2014 PE-39 BOS Include List of Eligible Write-in Candidates in Supplies for Precinct Inspectors 16-312(C)
  • 7/31/2014 PE-26 REC Begin Early Voting for Primary Election 16-542(C)
  • 7/31/2014 PE-26 [REC] Mail Early Ballots to voters on permanent early voting list 16-544(F)
  • 8/25/2014 PE-1 BOS Deliver Polling Place Supplies 16-404, 16- 447(D), 16-511*
  • 8/25/2014 PE-1 BOS Deliver List of Qualified Write-in Candidates to Inspector to be Posted Election Day in Polling Place 16-312*
  • 8/26/2014 PE ALL August 26, 2014 Primary Election 16-201
  • General Election:
  • 9/26/2014 GE-39 BOS Include List of Eligible Write-in Candidates in Supplies for Precinct Inspectors 16-312
  • 9/26/2014 GE-39 SOS Deliver Notice of Write-in Candidates Filing Nomination Papers 16-312
  • 10/9/2014 GE-26 REC Mail Early Ballots to voters on permanent early voting list 16-544(F)
  • 11/3/2014 GE-1 BOS Deliver Polling Place Supplies 16-404, 16- 447(D), 16-511*
  • 11/3/2014 GE-1 BOS Deliver List of Qualified Write-In Candidates to Inspector to be Posted Election Day in Polling Place
  • Qualified Electors of the State of Arizona did the Research and Delivered it to the above mentioned State & County Offices for a response and received none. They realize full well that many Voters don’t know or even care about this process, however there’s more to come and the misuse of the system placed into law by so called impartial office holders to effect the desired results in Our Election Process should and hopefully will concern all. There will be More on AZs’ Elections Process by this group of concerned citizens as we should all be, this system is the only Method we have to control those in office or be Controlled by Them and we must be able to trust both the process and those in charge of carrying it out, so far the lack of response by those in office shows to us they can’t be trusted to do so and are more concerned with Winning as Recorder Purcell stated than in following the laws. ( Time to Drain the Political Swamps in AZ Politics ).

In Closing We believe Election Cycles are Critical for Our Nation & States as to whether we sink deeper into a Socialistic Nation or Restore Ourselves to a True Republic form of Government. The choice is clear, never support those voting against or compromising the US Constitution and Our Freedoms, We believe that’s actually what most of you are hoping for and the Elite Power Brokers are afraid of: (Time to Drain All Political Swamps)…

 

AZ Rep. Franks Record

Facebook
Google+
Linked In
Twitter
YouTube

Frank’s GOP Record! Not Friendly to US Constitution…

The following pages demonstrate the positions and votes cast by Rep. Trent Franks, our United States Representative for District 8, during his seven terms as congressman.

We’ve looked closely at these votes, have come to the same conclusion as the group that put this list together, and rated Rep. Franks at 75%, or at best a Middle C, which was considered just average in my days at school.

We realize at first glance this seems acceptable to some. However, upon closer examination I’ve found many of his votes were also rated unconstitutional votes or votes that harm the American worker and economy, I agree with this assessment. For this reason, I present Rep. Franks’ voting record in this format for voters in Congressional District 8, and all Arizonans, indeed all Americans to read and judge for themselves.  Rep. Franks Endorsed Sen. Rubio read it, a member of Sen. McCain’s Gang of Eight Amnesty for Illegals for President and now reluctantly stated he’ll support the Nominee, we can’t afford to have Establishment GOP office holders who are more concerned about their positions vs. Our Nations Future who I believe will do what it takes to block any real changes Mr. Trump may want, they’re trying to protect the status quo for themselves not US and therefore need to be replaced.   Rep. Franks, Sen. McCain, Flake and others in the AZ GOP DC Delegation also want to Close the Glendale Casino which will cost jobs not to mention a better tax base for the West Valley, we the people have spoken on this issue and they the Hired Help need to Stay out of State, County & City Business.

Many, elected officials, at all levels, are constantly explaining how compromise is the only way they can get things done. I can understand this, coming from a business background. I negotiated contracts with several large retail food chains over 30 years in the business. However, there is a big difference between compromising on a funding bill versus voting for a bill that strips away Americans’ constitutional rights, this isn’t what I’d call Compromise but Surrender. I don’t understand how anyone can in good conscience cast a vote that causes all Americans to lose the God-given rights granted to US in our founding documents.

Trent Franks says he believes that the United States Constitution is the greatest governing document written by mankind in human history. Its core components of protecting life, liberty, and property, are the ultimate recipe for successful human government. Congressman Franks is the Chairman of the subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice, and he works to prevent the original intent in the provisions of the Constitution, especially by judges whose primary responsibility is to protect it. If the statements made by Rep. Franks are true then we need to ask the question of him why don’t his votes on the following Bills in the House represent those statements. Franks Voted Yes giving Authority to Obama’s Fast Track Trans- Pacific Partnership Trade Agreement. He also for to Raise the Debt Ceiling, CISPA, Warrant Less Wire Taps, Re-Authorization of the Patriot Act & to make it Permanent.

Franks takes orders from GOP Bosses in DC, Voting 95% in lockstep with DC Establishment, putting America deeper in Debt, Not Secure, Losing Constitutional Freedoms all while he’s been in office, so are we better off than we were when Franks went to DC in 2003?Franks Sponsored 102 Bills, 92 Failed, 10 passed, One Tossed Out in Court: HR 2938 (2011) the Anti-Glendale Casino (Jobs) Bill which McCain, Flake and Franks are still trying to close the Glendale Casino Costing Glendale Jobs and $$$.

Franks voted for Boehner & Ryan, endorsed Gang of Eight Rubio / Amnesty McCain supporter for President. “However, Franks said that if it ends up being between Clinton and Trump, he’ll back Trump.” So Franks Reluctantly supports Trump only because he’s not Hillary, not because he supports Trump’s plan to change DC and represent the People. Check Link.., We hope this information is helpful to all Voters in AZs’ CD 8 and other CDs as well.

Franks is now supporting Trump, he actually did try along with others to Stop Trump and now says he supports him, did what he believed right for the GOP Establishment or his Political Career, many in CD 8 realize Franks only supports Trump because so many in CD 8 do and expected him to do so, to protect his job and therefore had no choice but to publicly support Trump, but who knows what he’ll do in GOP Backrooms when Trump wins, the Biggest Enemy Trump will have are the Old Line GOP Career Politicians:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/03/17/gop-operatives-conservative-leaders-meet-to-thwart-trump/
 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trent-franks-rubio-cruz-drop-out_us_56ce57cde4b0bf0dab30ce42
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/25/1491217/-GOP-Congressman-crusades-to-stop-Trump-then-commits-to-voting-for-him-in-the-general-election,

Rep.Franks Record:

Trent Franks Votes: Some Just Bad, Others Unconstitutional 4/18/2013-6/3/2011
Source: http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/

H R 624: Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection (CISPA) Act
Vote Date: April 18, 2013 Vote: AYE Bad Vote
Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA). This legislation (H.R. 624) would further legalize the massive sharing of private-user online data by Internet companies with federal government agencies, such as the National Security Agency (NSA), that has already been happening for years. As Robert X.
Cringely posted in his article “The CISPA Circus: Send in the Clowns” on InfoWorld.com on April 19, the day after the CISPA bill passed in the House: “The problem with CISPA is that in its current form it’s still vague and ripe for abuse. It absolves corporations of being responsible for what happens to the data they’ve collected. It allows data sharing with the entire federal government, not just the parts responsible for ensuring our safety. It circumvents other laws designed to limit governmental access to private information.
And it can be deployed for a wide range of perceived threats that have nothing to do with attacks on our nation’s infrastructure.”
The House passed CISPA on April 18, 2013 by a vote of 288 to 127 (Roll Call 117). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the massive sharing of private citizens’ online data by Internet companies with federal government agencies authorized by this bill violates “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” as set forth in the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.

H R 933: Department of Defense, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Full-Year Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2013
Vote Date: March 21, 2013 Vote: AYE Bad Vote
Continuing Appropriations for Fiscal 2013. This appropriations bill (H.R. 933) would finance the federal government through the end of fiscal 2013. Its provisions include five full-year appropriations bills – Agriculture,
Commerce-Justice-Science, Defense, Homeland Security, and Military Construction-VA. It would also continue appropriations for the remainder of the federal government at 2012 levels, with certain adjustments. The spending includes $1.043 trillion in “discretionary” (non-mandatory) spending before sequestration. In general, this appropriations bill perpetuates the Washington spendathon without making the needed decisions to slash government spending and eliminate deficit spending – projected to be $973 billion for fiscal 2013 in the budget Obama submitted in April.
The House agreed to this legislation on March 21, 2013 by a vote of 318 to 109 (Roll Call 89). We have assigned pluses to the nays because passage of this mammoth continuing resolution provided a way for Congress to perpetuate its fiscally irresponsible, unconstitutional spending habits with a minimum of
accountability to its constituents.

H R 325: To ensure the complete and timely payment of the obligations of the United States Government
until May 19, 2013, and for other purposes
Vote Date: January 23, 2013 Vote: AYE Bad Vote
Short-term Debt Limit Increase. This bill (H.R. 325), voted on in January 2013, would suspend the public debt limit through May 18, 2013 and, in effect, allow the Treasury Department to borrow as much as it needs in order to pay its bills over the next four months: February, March, April, and May. Another provision
in the bill would withhold pay for representatives or senators if either house fails to approve a budget by April 15. The pay would be withheld for each member of Congress until his or her house agrees to a concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal 2014 or until the last day of the 113th Congress. The House passed H.R. 325 on January 23, 2013 by a vote of 285 to 144 (Roll Call 30). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the federal government should live within its means and because most of the spending responsible for the ballooning national debt is unconstitutional.

H.J.Res. 117: Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2013
Vote Date: September 13, 2012 Vote: NAY Good Vote
Continuing Resolution. House Joint Resolution 117 would provide continuing appropriations for the federal government from October 1, 2012 through March 27, 2013. This would amount to an annualized rate of $1.047 trillion in “discretionary” spending for regular appropriations, and would include a 0.6 percent increase in funding for most federal programs and agencies. This continuing resolution would also provide nearly $100 billion in war funding and $6.4 billion in advance disaster relief funds. To put this appropriations bill into perspective, consider what the Congressional Budget Office reported on
August 22, 2012: “For fiscal year 2012 (which ends on September 30), the federal budget deficit will total $1.1 trillion, CBO estimates, marking the fourth year in a row with a deficit of more than $1 trillion.” This deficit is based on the CBO’s estimates of $2.435 trillion in federal revenue and $3.563 trillion in federal
outlays for fiscal 2012. Therefore, 32 percent of every federal dollar spent in 2012 had to be borrowed. For 2011, 2010, and 2009 the shortfall has been 36, 37, and 40 percent respectively. The House passed H. J. Res. 117 on September 13, 2012 by a vote of 329 to 91 (Roll Call 579). We have
assigned pluses to the nays because passage of this mammoth continuing resolution provided a way for Congress to perpetuate its fiscally irresponsible, unconstitutional spending habits with a minimum of accountability to its constituents.

H.R. 5949: FISA Amendments Act Reauthorization Act of 2012
Vote Date: September 12, 2012 Vote: AYE Bad Vote
FISA. The proposed FISA Amendments Act Reauthorization Act of 2012 (H.R. 5949) would reauthorize for five years, through 2017, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which governs electronic surveillance of foreign terrorism suspects. The law allows warrantless surveillance of foreign targets who may be communicating with people in the United States, provided that the secret FISA court approves surveillance procedures. The Senate passed H.R. 5949 on September 12, 2012 by a vote of 301 to 118 (Roll Call 569). We have
assigned pluses to the nays because warrantless surveillance is unconstitutional and violates privacy and individual liberty. While ostensibly carried out only on “foreign suspects” communicating with U.S. citizens, it is difficult to imagine this surveillance not extending to U.S. citizens.

H.Amdt. 1414 to H.R. 5856: An amendment to reduce appropriations made in Title IX of the bill by $20,843,869,000. The reduction shall not apply to the following accounts 1) Defense Health Program; 2) Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense; 3) Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund; and 4) Office of the Inspector General
Vote Date: July 18, 2012 Vote: NAY Bad Vote
Afghanistan Withdrawal (Defense Appropriations Reduction). During consideration of the Defense appropriations bill for fiscal 2013 (H.R. 5856), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) proposed an amendment to cut overseas military spending by almost $21 billion. The intent behind the amendment was to allow enough funding for an orderly withdrawal from the unpopular war in Afghanistan but not enough to continue the conflict. According to Rep. Lee, the original bill
includes over $85 billion for the war in Afghanistan. The House rejected Lee’s amendment on July 18, 2012 by a vote of 107 to 312 (Roll Call 485).
We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the massive expenditure on undeclared foreign wars and nation building is unconstitutional and unaffordable.

H.Amdt.1127 to H.R.4310: An amendment numbered 46 printed in House Report 112-485 to strike section 1022 of the FY2012 NDAA and amend Section 1021 of same Act to eliminate indefinite military detention of any person detained under AUMF authority in U.S., territories or possessions
by providing immediate transfer to trial and proceedings by a court established under Article III of the Constitution of the United states or by an appropriate State court
Vote Date: May 18, 2012 Vote: NAY Bad Vote
Indefinite Detention. Detainee-related language in the National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4310) is so sweeping, that American citizens accused of being terrorists can be detained by the U.S. military and held indefinitely without habeas corpus and without even being tried and found guilty in a court of law.
Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) offered an amendment to strike this language from the bill, but the House rejected Smith’s amendment on May 18, 2012 by a vote of 182 to 238 (Roll Call 270). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the War on Terror must not be allowed to destroy constitutional legal protections,
including the issuance of a warrant based on probable cause (Fourth Amendment) and the right to a trial (Sixth Amendment).

H.R. 3523: Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA)
Vote Date: April 26, 2012 Vote: AYE Bad Vote
Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA). This bill (H.R. 3523) would foster information sharing about cyber threats between the federal government and private businesses. Businesses that would participate in this sharing would be protected from lawsuits regarding this sharing of their customers’ private information with the government. According to Violet Blue in an article posted on ZDNet.com on June 8, “Most people familiar with CISPA believe it will wipe out decades of consumer privacy protections and is primarily to give the US government unprecedented access to individuals’ online data and communications.”
The House passed H.R. 3523 on April 26, 2012 by a vote of 248 to 168 (Roll Call 192). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the CISPA bill would permit government access to the private information of citizens, in violation of the Fourth Amendment “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”

H.R. 3521: Expedited Legislative Line-Item Veto and Rescissions Act of 2012
Vote Date: February 8, 2012 Vote: AYE Bad Vote
Line-item Veto. This bill (H.R. 3521) would allow the President to rescind all or part of any dollar amount of funding for discretionary spending items in enacted appropriations bills. Although both houses of Congress would have to approve any such rescissions, they would be forced to do so very quickly by the bill’s expedited procedures, including a prohibition on amendments in both Houses and filibusters in the Senate. This bill dramatically and unilaterally enhances the power of the executive branch. Note that Article I, Section 1 and Article I, Section 7, Clauses 2 and 3, of the U.S. Constitution vest Congress with all legislative
powers. Any bill that shifts legislative power away from Congress and to the President is violating the constitutionally defined separation of powers for the legislative and executive branches. A similar line-item veto law was passed when Clinton was President. That one was found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
The House passed H.R. 3521 on February 8, 2012 by a vote of 254 to 173 (Roll Call 46). We have assigned pluses to the nays because providing any form of line-item veto power to the President violates the Constitution’s separation of powers.

H.R. 2055: Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012
Vote Date: December 16, 2011 Vote: NAY Good Vote
Omnibus Appropriations. This catch-all legislative package (H.R. 2055), which would provide $915 billion in discretionary appropriations for fiscal 2012, is comprised of nine appropriations bills for fiscal 2012 that Congress failed to complete separately – Defense ($518.8 billion), Energy-Water ($32.1 billion), Financial Services ($21.5 billion), Homeland Security ($41.3 billion), Interior-Environment ($29.2 billion), Labor-HHS-Education ($156.3 billion), Legislative Branch ($4.3 billion), State-Foreign Operations ($33.5 billion), and Military Construction-VA ($73.7 billion). The House adopted the final version of this legislation (known as a conference report) on December 16, 2011 by a vote of 296 to 121 (Roll Call 941). We have assigned pluses to the nays because many of the bill’s spending programs — e.g., education, housing, foreign aid, etc. — are unconstitutional. Moreover, passing this mammoth appropriations bill in light of the ongoing trillion-dollar annual deficits is grossly fiscally irresponsible. Furthermore, packaging the appropriations bills for so many large federal agencies into one mega-bill greatly reduces the accountability of the Congressmen to their constituents.

H.R. 3080: United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act
Vote Date:?October 12, 2011 Vote:?AYE Bad Vote
South Korea Trade Agreement. On a single day – October 12, 2011 – both the House and Senate approved three separate trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama. These measures are three more in a series of “free-trade agreements” intended to transfer the power to regulate trade (and eventually other powers too) to super-national arrangements via a step-by-step process. NAFTA is a prime example of such an arrangement. So is the developing continental government now known as the European Union,
which is an outgrowth of a free-trade arrangement once called the Common Market. In fact, the Common Market-EU trajectory to regional governance served as a model for the formation of NAFTA. The South Korea agreement, to quote Congressional Quarterly, is “considered the most economically important trade deal since the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement.” For this reason, the “Freedom Index” editors selected this vote over the other two (Colombia and Panama) for inclusion in this index. The House passed H.R. 3080, the measure to implement the South Korea trade agreement, on October
12, 2011 by a vote of 278 to 151 (Roll Call 783). We have assigned pluses to the nays because agreements such as this one are intended to transfer trade (and other) powers to super-national arrangements binding the United States, despite the fact that under the Constitution only Congress has the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations.”

H.AMDT. 579: An amendment to prohibit the use of funds for military operations in or against Libya except under a declaration of war against Libya pursuant to clause 11 in section 8 of article I of the Constitution
Vote Date: August 7, 2011 Vote: NAY Bad Vote
Libya. During consideration of the Defense appropriations bill, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) introduced an amendment to prohibit the use of funds in the bill to carry out military actions against Libya unless Congress declares war against Libya. The Founding Fathers assigned this power to Congress because they did not want a single man deciding when to go to war. Yet President Obama usurped this congressional war-making authority by initiating offensive military actions against Libya without even asking advice from Congress, much less requesting the required declaration of war. The House rejected the Kucinich amendment on July 8, 2011 by a vote of 169 to 251 (Roll Call 530). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution only Congress has the power “to declare war.”

H.Con.Res. 51: Directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove the United States Armed Forces from Libya
Vote Date: June 3, 2011 Vote: NAY Bad Vote
Libya Troop Withdrawal. House Concurrent Resolution 51 would have directed President Obama, pursuant to … the War Powers Resolution, to remove the United States Armed Forces from Libya.” The War Powers Resolution bars the President from militarily engaging the armed forces for more than 60 days
without congressional approval. Obama had not sought congressional approval for undertaking military action in Libya. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), who sponsored H. Con. Res. 51, noted: “In the weeks leading up to the war, the administration had time to consult with the Arab League, the United Nations, the
African Union, but apparently had no time to come to this Congress for approval.”
The House rejected Kucinich’s resolution on June 3, 2011 by a vote of 148 to 265 (Roll Call 412). We have assigned pluses to the years not merely because Obama’s Libya deployment is now a violation of the War Powers Act’s 60-day requirement for congressional authorization, but also because it violates the
Constitution, which clearly assigns to Congress the power “to declare war.”

S. 990: PATRIOT Sunsets Extension Act of 2011
Vote Date: May 26, 2011 Vote: AYE Bad Vote
Patriot Act Extension. This legislation (S. 990) extended for four years three provisions of the Patriot Act that were set to expire: the “roving wiretap” provision that allows the federal government to wiretap any number of a suspect’s telephone/ Internet connections without specifying what they will find or how many connections will be tapped; the “financial records” provision that allows the feds to seize “any tangible thing” that has “relevance” to an investigation; and the “lone wolf” provision that allows spying on non-U.S. citizens without a warrant. These provisions violate the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which requires that no warrants be issued “but upon probable cause” (a much higher standard than “relevance”), and that warrants must contain language “particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
The Patriot Act even allows the FBI to issue warrants called “National Security Letters” without going to a judge, though this provision was not set to expire and therefore was not part of this legislation.
The House passed the Patriot Act extension on May 26, 2011 by a vote of 250 to 153 (Roll Call 376). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the provisions that were extended, as well as the Patriot Act as a whole, violate the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.

H R 4899: Making emergency supplemental appropriations for disaster relief and summer jobs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes
Vote Date: July 27, 2010 Vote: AYE Bad Vote
Supplemental Appropriations. The supplemental appropriations bill (H.R. 4899) would provide an additional $58.8 billion in “emergency” funding for the current fiscal year (2010). The supplemental appropriations in the bill include $37.1 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, $5.1 billion for the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and $2.9 for earthquake relief in Haiti.
The House passed the bill on July 27, 2010 by a vote of 308-114 (Roll Call 474). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the spending is over and above what the federal government already budgeted, Congress never declared war against Iraq and Afghanistan, and some of the spending (e.g., foreign aid) is
unconstitutional.

H CON RES 248: Directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove the United States Armed Forces from Afghanistan
Vote Date: March 10, 2010 Vote: NAY Bad Vote
Withdrawing U.S. Soldiers From Afghanistan. This legislation (House Concurrent Resolution 248) would direct the President to remove the U.S. Armed Forces from Afghanistan within 30 days of enactment, or by the end of the year if the President determines they cannot be safely removed sooner. The House rejected H. Con. Res. 248 on March 10, 2010 by a vote of 65 to 356 (Roll Call 98). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan cannot be justified on the basis of defending the United States, there has been no declaration of war, and Congress needs to assert constitutional authority to decide when we do go to war.

H R 3961: Medicare Physician Payment Reform Act
Vote Date: February 25, 2010 Vote: AYE Bad Vote
Patriot Act. This bill (H.R. 3961) would extend by one year three Patriot Act provisions that were set to expire on February 28, 2010. The provisions allow the federal government to exercise wide-ranging surveillance and seizure powers with few limitations. For instance, the records provision allows the government to obtain “any tangible thing” that, it says, has “relevance” to a terrorism investigation.
“Relevance” is a much lower standard — if it can even be called a standard at all — than the “probable cause” and a court warrant standard explicitly required by the Fourth Amendment.
The House agreed to extend the provisions on February 25, 2010 by a vote of 315-97 (Roll Call 67). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the provisions violate the right of the people to (in the words of the Fourth Amendment) “be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”

H R 2200: On Agreeing to the Amendment 10 to H R 2200
Vote Date: June 4, 2009 Vote: NAY Bad Vote
Body Imaging Screening. During consideration of the Transportation Security Administration Authorization bill (H.R. 2200), Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) offered an amendment that would prohibit the use of Whole-Body Imaging (WBI) as the primary method of screening at airports. The amendment would allow
passengers the option of a pat-down search rather than being subjected to a WBI search that shows extremely intimate details of one’s body. The Chaffetz amendment would also prohibit TSA from storing, copying, or transferring any images that are produced by WBI machines. Since its creation, TSA has become infamous for its meddlesome searches and disregard for an individual’s right of privacy. Evidence shows that corruption and mismanagement have been commonplace within the relatively new federal department for years. The Chaffetz amendment would do very little to scale back the power held by the TSA, but it does offer some hope that our representatives are not wholly
unaware of how the TSA and its policies would threaten the privacy of American citizens through a process that has been called a “virtual strip-search.” The House adopted the Chaffetz amendment by a “Committee of the Whole” on June 4, 2009, by a vote of 310-118 (Roll Call 305). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because such technology is obtrusive for American citizens and violates our right of protection against unwarranted searches and seizures.

H R 2346: Supplemental Appropriations, FY 2009
Vote Date: May 14, 2009 Vote: AYE Bad Vote
Supplemental Appropriations. The Fiscal 2009 Supplemental Appropriations bill (H.R. 2346) would provide an additional $96.7 billion in “emergency” funding for the current fiscal year over and above the regular appropriations. Included in the funds for H.R. 2346 is $84.5 billion for the ongoing operations in Afghanistan
and Iraq, $10 billion for foreign aid programs, and $2 billion for flu pandemic preparation. The House passed H.R. 2346 on May 14, 2009, by a vote of 368-60 (Roll Call 265). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the spending is over and above what the federal government had already budgeted, the United States never declared war against Iraq and Afghanistan, and some of the spending (e.g., foreign aid) is unconstitutional.

H R 6633: Employee Verification Amendment Act of 2008
Vote Date: July 31, 2008 Vote: AYE Bad Vote
Employee Verification Program. H.R. 6633 would reauthorize the E-Verify (Internet-based) pilot employment eligibility verification program allowing employers to verify employment eligibility of new hires. The program is administered by the Department of Homeland Security, which would be required to provide funding to the Social Security Administration for checking Social Security numbers submitted by employers under the program. The House passed the bill on July 31, 2008 by a vote of 407-2 (Roll Call 557). We have assigned pluses to the nays because Social Security numbers were not intended to be used and should not be used as the basis for a national ID database. An alternative measure (H.R. 5515) would have the screening for employment eligibility verification provided by state-administered private companies that already track employee verification for child-support enforcement.

H R 6304: FISA Amendments Act of 2008
Vote Date: June 20, 2008 Vote: AYE Bad Vote
Warrantless Searches. H.R. 6304, the bill to revamp the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), would allow warrantless electronic surveillance, including monitoring telephone conversations and e-mails, of foreign targets, including those communicating with American citizens in the United States. The final version of the bill would not explicitly grant immunity to telecommunications companies that have assisted President Bush’s warrantless surveillance program. But it would require courts to dismiss lawsuits against such companies if there is “substantial evidence” they were insured in writing the program was legal and authorized by the president. The provision would almost certainly result in the dismissal of the lawsuits. The House passed H.R. 6304 on June 20, 2008 by a vote of 293-129 (Roll Call 437). We have assigned pluses to the nays because warrantless searches are a violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects Americans against unreasonable searches and seizures, and requires that any searches be conducted only upon issuance of a warrant under conditions of probable cause. Moreover, Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution forbids “ex post facto laws” — laws having a retroactive effect.

H R 5140: Recovery Rebates and Economic Stimulus for the American People Act of 2008
Vote Date: January 29, 2008 Vote: AYE Bad Vote
Economic Stimulus. H.R. 5140, the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, passed 385-35 on January 29, 2008 (Roll Call 25). It would provide about $150 billion in economic stimulus, including $101.1 billion in direct payments of rebate checks (typically $600) to most taxpayers in 2008 and temporary tax breaks for
businesses. We have assigned pluses to the nays because creating money out of thin air and then spending the newly created money cannot improve the economy, at least not in the long term. (If it could, why not create even more money for rebates and make every American a millionaire?) The stimulus has no offset and thus increases the federal deficit by the amount of the stimulus because the government must borrow the rebate money. A realistic long-term stimulus can only be achieved by lowering taxes through less government and
by reducing regulatory burdens.

H R 3688: United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement
Vote Date: November 8, 2007 Vote: AYE Bad Vote
Peru Free Trade Agreement. The Peru Free Trade Agreement (H.R. 3688) is another in a series of free-trade agreements to transfer the power to regulate trade (and other powers as well) to regional arrangements. Other examples include the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and Central
American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). However, the Committee on Ways and Means Report accompanying H.R. 3688 noted that “the Peru FTA has become the first U.S. free trade agreement to include, in its core text fully enforceable commitments by the Parties to adopt, maintain, and enforce basic
international labor standards, as stated in the 1988 ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work.” The ILO, or International Labor Organization, is a UN agency. The House passed the bill by a vote of 285-132 (Roll Call 1060) on November 8, 2007. We have assigned pluses to the nays because the Peru FTA and other so-called free-trade arrangements threaten our
national independence and (as we’ve seen with NAFTA) harm our economy.

H R 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007
Vote Date: October 23, 2007 Vote: AYE Bad Vote
Thought Crimes. This bill (H.R. 1955), known as the “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007,” could more aptly be titled the “Thought Crimes Act.” The bill would establish a National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism and establish a grant program to prevent radicalization in the United States. However, critics charge that the bill is a thinly disguised attempt to criminalize dissent, based on the bill’s vague and open-ended language that could be used to trample basic rights to free speech and assembly, and turn legitimate dissent into thought crimes. For instance, the bill defines “violent radicalization” as “the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.” The bill does not define either “extremist belief system” or “facilitating ideologically based violence.” The bill also states that “the Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.” The House passed H.R. 1955 by a vote of 404-6 (Roll Call 993) on October 23, 2007. We have assigned pluses to the nays because the bill threatens legitimate dissent.

S 1927: Protect America Act
Vote Date: August 4, 2007 Vote: AYE Bad Vote
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance. This bill (S. 1927) would allow warrantless electronic surveillance (eavesdropping) of targets outside the United States regardless of whether they are communicating with someone
within the United States. This surveillance had been conducted illegally by the CIA. Under this legislation, communications companies would be required to comply with surveillance requests and would be provided lawsuit protections.
The House passed S. 1927 by a vote of 227-183 (Roll Call 836) on August 4, 2007. We have assigned pluses to the nays because warrantless surveillance of American citizens is a violation of the Fourth Amendment provision against “unreasonable searches and seizures.” Although the bill includes a sunset
provision causing it to expire after six months, President Bush has already called for making the bill permanent.

H R 3161: Making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes
Vote Date: August 2, 2007 Vote: NONE No Vote
Agriculture Appropriations. The 2008 Agriculture appropriations bill would provide $90.7 billion for the Agriculture department, the Food and Drug Administration, and related agencies. It would include funding for the food-stamp ($39.8 billion) and child-nutrition programs ($13.9 billion), farm subsidies and crop insurance, conservation programs, rural development programs, etc. The House passed the bill by a vote of 237-18 (Roll Call 816) on August 2, 2007. We have assigned pluses to the nays because federal aid to farmers and federal food aid to individuals are not authorized in the Constitution.

H R 1585: On Agreeing to the Amendment 5 to H R 1585
Vote Date: May 16, 2007 Vote: NAY Bad Vote
Iran Military Operations. During consideration for the fiscal 2008 defense authorization bill (H.R. 1585), Representative Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) offered this amendment that would require President Bush to get specific congressional authorization before engaging in military operations in Iran. The House rejected the DeFazio amendment in a Committee of the Whole on May 16, 2007, by a vote of 136-288. We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the power to declare war belongs solely to Congress, not the president. Under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress alone has the power to declare war.

H R 5825: Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act
Vote Date: September 28, 2006 Vote: AYE Bad Vote
Electronic Surveillance. The warrantless electronic surveillance bill (H.R. 5825) would allow electronic surveillance of communications with suspected terrorists without first obtaining approval from the secret courts established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. Furthermore, the bill would authorize unwarranted surveillance for up to 90 days in some instances if a threat was considered “imminent.” Intelligence agencies would be allowed to conduct warrantless surveillance for seven days prior to gaining court approval if the threat was considered an “emergency situation.”
This controversial bill had full support of the Bush administration as a means to provide greater national security in a post-9/11 world.
The House passed H.R. 5825 on September 28, 2006 by a vote of 232-191 (Roll Call 502). We have assigned pluses to the nays because such a law would violate the Fourth Amendment by subjecting U.S. citizens to unreasonable searches and seizures.

H R 6166: Military Commissions Act
Vote Date: September 27, 2006 Vote: AYE Bad Vote
Military Tribunals. This bill (H.R. 6166) would authorize a new system of military tribunals to try persons designated “unlawful enemy combatants” by the president. The bill defines an unlawful enemy combatant to include a person who “has purposely and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents.” Once designated an unlawful enemy combatant, a defendant’s rights would be curtailed: he would be denied the right of habeas corpus; he could be detained indefinitely; and evidence obtained
through coercion could be used against him–so long as the coercion falls outside the administration’s definition of torture. Critics of the tribunals bill are planning to file suit in order to test the constitutionality of the legislation. This legislation was in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 29 ruling on the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, which declared that the administration’s current system for trying military detainees was unconstitutional. The House passed the military tribunals bill on September 27, 2006 by a vote of 253-168 (Roll Call 491). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the bill would curtail defendant rights.

H R 5684: To implement the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement
Vote Date: July 20, 2006 Vote: AYE Bad Vote
Oman Trade Agreement. The Oman Free Trade Agreement (H.R. 5684) would reduce most tariffs and duties between Oman and the United States. H.R. 5684 was considered under fast-track authority, which requires Congress to expedite consideration of presidentially negotiated trade pacts without offering
amendments. The Oman agreement is just one steppingstone in the White House’s effort to form a Middle Eastern Free Trade Area (MEFTA) by 2013. These so-called free- trade agreements have historically failed because
they encourage the relocation of U.S. jobs to foreign countries so that the companies can get cheap labor. Meanwhile, they don’t provide the United States with trade benefits — largely because the people in those countries cannot afford to buy our products — thereby harming the U.S. economy. The agreements also put our economic destiny in the hands of unelected foreign bureaucrats, such as
those at the World Trade Organization. The House passed H.R. 5684 by a vote of 221-205 on July 20, 2006 (Roll Call 392). We have assigned pluses to the nays because such trade agreements damage the U.S. economy and threaten U.S. sovereignty by the imposition of international regulations.

H R 4890: Legislative Line Item Veto Act
Vote Date: June 22, 2006 Vote: AYE Bad Vote
Line-item Rescission. The legislative line-item rescission bill (H.R. 4890) would allow the president to propose cuts in spending bills already enacted by Congress. The cuts would then receive an up-or-down vote with no opportunity to filibuster or add amendments. The House passed H.R. 4890 by a vote of 247-172 on June 22, 2006 (Roll Call 317). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the rescission bill, though not a full-fledged line-item veto, would still shift some legislative power from Congress to the president, disrupting the U.S. system of checks and balances.

H R 5631: On Agreeing to the Amendment 17 to H R 5631
Vote Date: June 20, 2006 Vote: NAY Bad Vote
Iran Military Operations. Representative Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) offered this amendment to the 2007 Defense appropriations bill (H.R. 5631). The amendment would bar any funds to initiate military operations in Iran unless it is in accordance with Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which delegates to Congress alone the power to declare war. The House rejected Hinchey’s amendment by a vote of 158-262 on June 20, 2006 (Roll Call 300). We have
assigned pluses to the yeas because the power to declare war belongs to Congress, not to the president, and that much power should not be in the hands of one man.

H R 4939: Making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2006, and for other purposes
Vote Date: March 16, 2006 Vote: AYE Bad Vote
Supplemental Appropriations. This legislation (H.R. 4939) would appropriate a whopping $91.9 billion for emergency supplemental funding in fiscal 2006, including $67.6 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, $4.3 billion for foreign aid, and $19.2 billion for Hurricane Katrina relief. Congressional Quarterly noted that the funding in the bill “for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would push to more than $390 billion the war-related supplemental funds appropriated since Sept. 11. It would be the sixth major emergency spending measure for the Bush administration.” The House passed H.R. 4939 on March 16, 2006 by a vote of 348-71 (Roll Call 65). We have assigned pluses to the nays because — even if the spending were constitutional — the funding should be voted on as part of the regular appropriations process and not introduced after the fact as “emergency” spending, ignoring fiscal responsibility.

H R 4939: On Agreeing to the Amendment 1 to H R 4939
Vote Date: March 15, 2006 Vote: AYE Bad Vote
Ports Security — DP World. Rep. Wayne T. Gilchrest (R-Md.) introduced this amendment to the 2006 supplemental appropriations bill (H.R. 4939) that would strike language from the bill to prohibit the sale of operations at several sea ports to DP World, a state-controlled company based in Dubai, United Arab
Emirates. The House rejected the Gilchrest amendment in March 15, 2006 by a vote of 38-377 (Roll Call 43). We have assigned pluses to the nays because, as a matter of national sovereignty, American personnel must manage, maintain, and monitor our own sea ports.

H R 3199: USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act
Vote Date: December 14, 2005 Vote: AYE Bad Vote
Patriot Act Reauthorization. This is the final version (conference report) of the Patriot Act reauthorization (H.R. 3199). In the weeks following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Congress quickly passed the so-called Patriot Act, which gave law enforcement and intelligence agencies vast new powers to combat terrorism.
The act increased the ability of law enforcement to secretly search home and business records, expanded the FBI’s wiretapping and surveillance authority, and expanded the list of crimes deemed terrorist acts. When passed in 2001 the bill included a “sunset” provision under which the new surveillance powers “shall
cease to have effect on December 21, 2005.” The Patriot Act reauthorization bill (H.R. 3199) considered by Congress last year would make permanent 14 of the 16 provisions included in the bill, and extend for four years the two remaining provisions. The House passed the final version of the bill to reauthorize the Patriot Act on December 14, 2005 by a vote of 251-174 (Roll Call 627). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the Patriot Act tramples on the constitutionally protected rights of U.S. citizens.

H R 3010: Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2006
Vote Date: December 14, 2005 Vote: AYE Bad Vote
Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations. This massive social-welfare appropriations bill (H.R. 3010) would provide $601.6 billion in fiscal 2006 for the Labor Department ($14.8 billion), the Education Department ($63.5 billion), the Health and Human Services Department ($474.1 billion), and related agencies. H.R.
3010 is the largest of the appropriations bills considered by Congress this year. In total, H.R. 3010 would provide a 21 percent increase over a similar appropriations bill for fiscal 2005. The House passed the bill on December 14, 2005 by a vote of 215-213 (Roll Call 628). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the bill would provide an increase in spending, and social-welfare programs are unconstitutional.

H R 2123: School Readiness Act
Vote Date: September 22, 2005 Vote: AYE Bad Vote
Head Start Funding. This legislation (H.R. 2123) would reauthorize the Head Start program through fiscal 2011 and provide $6.8 billion for the program in 2006. The bill would also increase educational standards for Head Start teachers. The House passed the Head Start bill on September 22, 2005 by a vote of 231-184 (Roll Call 493). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the bill would further federalize the educational system, and federal aid to education is unconstitutional.

H R 3673: Further Emergency Supplemental Appropriations, Hurricane Katrina, 2005
Vote Date: September 8, 2005 Vote: AYE Bad Vote
Katrina Hurricane-relief Appropriations. In the wake of the devastating hurricane disaster in the Gulf Coast, Congress quickly passed legislation that would appropriate $51.8 billion in emergency supplemental funding for fiscal 2005 (H.R. 3673) to be used for relief in the areas affected by Hurricane Katrina. Commenting on how the tragic images of Katrina were used to justify more federal welfare and interventionism, as opposed to private charity and initiatives, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) noted on September 15, after the House and Senate votes: “These scenes prompted two emotional reactions. One side claims
Katrina proved there was not enough government welfare…. The other side claims we need to pump billions of new dollars into the very federal agency that failed (FEMA)… Both sides support more authoritarianism, more centralization, and even the imposition of martial law in times of natural disasters.” The House passed the Katrina appropriations bill on September 8, 2005 by a vote of 410-11 (Roll Call 460). We have assigned pluses to the nays because federally financing disaster relief is unconstitutional.

H R 3: Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
Vote Date: July 29, 2005 Vote: AYE Bad Vote
Surface Transportation. The final version (conference report) of this bill (H.R. 3) would authorize $286.5 billion for federal highway, mass transit, and safety and research programs through fiscal 2009. The bill is laden with thousands of “pork barrel” transportation projects requested by individual lawmakers. The House adopted the final version of this legislation on July 29, 2005 by a vote of 412-8 (Roll Call 453). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the bill increases transportation spending and is fiscally irresponsible.

H R 3045: Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act
Vote Date: July 28, 2005 Vote: AYE Bad Vote
CAFTA. This bill (H.R. 3045) would implement the proposed Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), thereby expanding the devastating consequences of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), including the job losses wrought by NAFTA. CAFTA is intended by the Power Elite to be a
steppingstone from NAFTA to the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), which would include all of the countries of the Western Hemisphere except (for now) Cuba. Like NAFTA, which has already begun imposing its trade rulings on America, CAFTA and the FTAA would not be genuine free trade
arrangements; they would instead manage trade and would gradually exercise more powers on the road to a supranational government modeled after the European Union The House passed CAFTA on July 28, 2005 by a vote of 217-215 (Roll Call 443). We have assigned pluses to the nays because CAFTA would further damage the U.S. economy and threaten U.S. sovereignty .funds to offset spending on other programs. If these Social Security surpluses are not counted, the projected deficits in each fiscal year would be $550.7 billion in FY 2005 and $471.8 billion in FY 2009.” The House adopted this resolution on March 25, 2004 by a vote of 215 to 212 (Roll Call 92). We have assigned pluses to the nays because this budget perpetuates the fiscally irresponsible, largely
unconstitutional federal spending with its attendant record-breaking deficits of recent years.

H R 3873: Child Nutrition Improvement and Integrity Act
Vote Date: March 24, 2004 Vote: AYE Bad Vote
Child Nutrition Programs. This bill (H.R. 3873) would reauthorize through fiscal 2008 several child nutrition programs, including the National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs, the Child and Adult Care Food Program, and the After-School Snack Program. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that H.R. 3873 would increase direct spending on these programs by about $226 million over the 2004-2008 period. Since obesity in school-age children has greatly increased since 1980, the school lunch program reauthorization bill has become a popular vehicle for proposals aimed at reducing obesity. This bill would require
schools to develop “wellness policies” that establish nutritional guidelines for all food sold in schools; however, it stops short of setting mandatory federal standards. The House agreed to the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 3873 on March 24, 2004 by a vote of 419 to 5 (Roll Call 82). We have assigned pluses to the nays because providing food for citizens is an unconstitutional activity of the federal government. A two-thirds majority of those present and voting (283 in this case) is required for passage under a suspension of the rules.

H R 1: Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act
Vote Date: November 22, 2003 Vote: AYE Bad Vote
Prescription Drug Benefit. The final version (conference report) of H.R. 1 would create a prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients. Beginning in 2006, prescription coverage would be available to seniors through private insurers for a monthly premium estimated at $35. There would be a $250 annual deductible, then 75 percent of drug costs up to $2,250 would be reimbursed. Drug costs greater than $2,250 would not be covered until out-of-pocket expenses exceeded $3,600, after which 95 percent of drug costs would be reimbursed. Low-income recipients would receive more subsidies than other seniors by paying lower premiums, having smaller deductibles, and making lower co-payments for each prescription. The total cost of the new prescription drug benefit would be limited to the $400 billion that Congress had budgeted earlier this year for the first 10 years of this new entitlement program. The House adopted the conference report on H.R. 1 on November 22, 2003 by a vote of 220 to 215 (Roll Call 669).

H R 3199: USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act
Vote Date: July 21, 2005 Vote: AYE Bad Vote
Patriot Act Reauthorization. In the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Congress passed the so-called Patriot Act, which gave law enforcement and intelligence agencies vast new powers to combat terrorism. The act expanded the list of crimes deemed terrorist acts; increased the ability of law enforcement to secretly
search homes and business records; expanded the FBI’s wiretapping and surveillance authority; and provided for nationwide jurisdiction for search warrants and electronic surveillance devices, including the legal extension of those devices to e-mail and the Internet. The bill included a “sunset” provision under which the new surveillance powers “shall cease to have effect on December 31, 2005.” The Patriot Act reauthorization bill (H.R. 3199) considered by the current Congress would make permanent 14 of the 16 provisions set to expire at the end of this year and extend for 10 years the remaining two
provisions. The House passed the reauthorization on July 21, 2005 by a vote of 257-171 (Roll Call 414). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the Patriot Act tramples on the constitutionally protected rights of U.S. citizens.

H R 2745: Henry J. Hyde United Nations Reform Act
Vote Date: June 17, 2005 Vote: AYE Bad Vote
UN “Reforms.” On the surface, this United Nations “reform” bill (H.R. 2745) appears to be a “conservative” get-tough response to UN corruption. It would withhold up to 50 percent of U.S. dues to the UN unless the UN makes certain operational changes, and many “conservatives” voted for it. In reality, the legislation calls for strengthening the UN in the name of “reform.” Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) warned in his June 13 Texas Straight Talk column that the “reform” bill supports creation of a “Peace-building Commission,” which “will serve as the implementing force for the internationalization of what were formerly internal affairs of sovereign nations.” The House passed the UN “reform” bill on June 17, 2005 by a vote of 221-184 (Roll Call 282). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the reform bill is a trap, and the solution to the UN threat is not to
reform the world body but to get the U.S. out.

H R 1268: Making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes
Vote Date: May 5, 2005 Vote: AYE Bad Vote
Supplemental Appropriations. The final version (conference report) of this supplemental appropriations bill (H.R. 1268) would add another $82 billion to the federal budget for fiscal 2005. The supplemental spending, even if needed and constitutional, should not have been added on to the annual federal budget after
the fact, but should have been included as part of the regular appropriations process. The supplemental spending in this bill includes $75.9 billion for defense-related purposes, most of it for the military occupation of Iraq, and $907 million for tsunami victims, the latter clearly unconstitutional. One particularly objectionable element of this legislation is the REAL ID Act, which was added to the supplemental appropriations bill by the conference committee. The REAL ID Act would authorize the federalgovernment to impose national standards for driver’s licenses and thereby develop a national ID system .The House adopted the final version of H.R. 1268 on May 5, 2005 by a vote of 368-58 (Roll Call 161). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the bill contains both unconstitutional spending and the REAL ID Act.

H R 444: Back to Work Investment Act
Vote Date: June 3, 2004 Vote: AYE Bad Vote
Job Training and Worker Services. This bill (H.R. 444) would authorize the creation of “personal re-employment accounts” of up to $3,000 for unemployed workers at risk of exhausting their state unemployment benefits. Money in this account could be used for such expenses as education, childcare, healthcare or
transportation. Those workers who find a job within 13 weeks would be allowed to take the balance in their account as a “reemployment bonus.” This bill would authorize $50 million in fiscal 2005 for these “personal re-employment accounts.”
The House passed H.R. 444 on June 3, 2004 by a vote of 213 to 203 (Roll Call 225). We have assigned pluses to the nays because federal aid for job training or unemployment services is unconstitutional.

H CON RES 393: Congressional Budget for the U.S. Government for FY 2005
Vote Date: March 25, 2004 Vote: AYE Bad Vote
Fiscal 2005 Budget Resolution. This resolution (House Concurrent Resolution 393) would establish broad spending and revenue targets over the next five years. It calls for $871.3 billion in “discretionary” spending (including $50 billion for supplemental funding of operations in Iraq) and another $1.5 trillion in “mandatory” spending for fiscal 2005. Based on these targets, the “mandatory” spending portion of the budget would increase by 5 percent over last year, and the total budget — a whopping $2.4 trillion — would increase by 3 percent.
This resolution projects that the budget deficit would be cut significantly by fiscal 2009 (from $376.8 billion in fiscal 2005 to $234 billion in fiscal 2009); however, according to a Congressional Quarterly Fact Sheet, “Budget Resolution for FY 2005,” these projected deficits are deceptively low due to an accounting
sleight-of-hand whereby “these deficits are calculated by using the surpluses in the Social Security trust.

H R 3199: USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act
Vote Date: December 14, 2005 Vote: AYE Bad Vote
Patriot Act Reauthorization. This is the final version (conference report) of the Patriot Act reauthorization (H.R. 3199). In the weeks following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Congress quickly passed the so-called Patriot Act, which gave law enforcement and intelligence agencies vast new powers to combat terrorism.
The act increased the ability of law enforcement to secretly search home and business records, expanded the FBI’s wiretapping and surveillance authority, and expanded the list of crimes deemed terrorist acts.
When passed in 2001 the bill included a “sunset” provision under which the new surveillance powers “shall cease to have effect on December 21, 2005.” The Patriot Act reauthorization bill (H.R. 3199) considered by Congress last year would make permanent 14 of the 16 provisions included in the bill, and extend for four years the two remaining provisions. The House passed the final version of the bill to reauthorize the Patriot Act on December 14, 2005 by a vote of 251-174 (Roll Call 627). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the Patriot Act tramples on the constitutionally protected rights of U.S. citizens.

H R 3010: Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2006
Vote Date: December 14, 2005 Vote: AYE Bad Vote
Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations. This massive social-welfare appropriations bill (H.R. 3010) would provide $601.6 billion in fiscal 2006 for the Labor Department ($14.8 billion), the Education Department ($63.5 billion), the Health and Human Services Department ($474.1 billion), and related agencies. H.R.
3010 is the largest of the appropriations bills considered by Congress this year. In total, H.R. 3010 would provide a 21 percent increase over a similar appropriations bill for fiscal 2005. The House passed the bill on December 14, 2005 by a vote of 215-213 (Roll Call 628). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the bill would provide an increase in spending, and social-welfare programs are unconstitutional.

H R 2123: School Readiness Act
Vote Date: September 22, 2005 Vote: AYE Bad Vote
Head Start Funding. This legislation (H.R. 2123) would reauthorize the Head Start program through fiscal 2011 and provide $6.8 billion for the program in 2006. The bill would also increase educational standards for Head Start teachers. The House passed the Head Start bill on September 22, 2005 by a vote of 231-184 (Roll Call 493). We funds to offset spending on other programs. If these Social Security surpluses are not counted, the projected deficits in each fiscal year would be $550.7 billion in FY 2005 and $471.8 billion in FY 2009.”
The House adopted this resolution on March 25, 2004 by a vote of 215 to 212 (Roll Call 92). We have assigned pluses to the nays because this budget perpetuates the fiscally irresponsible, largely unconstitutional federal spending with its attendant record-breaking deficits of recent years.

H R 3873: Child Nutrition Improvement and Integrity Act
Vote Date: March 24, 2004 Vote: AYE Bad Vote
Child Nutrition Programs. This bill (H.R. 3873) would reauthorize through fiscal 2008 several child nutrition programs, including the National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs, the Child and Adult Care Food Program, and the After-School Snack Program. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that H.R. 3873 would increase direct spending on these programs by about $226 million over the 2004-2008 period.
Since obesity in school-age children has greatly increased since 1980, the school lunch program reauthorization bill has become a popular vehicle for proposals aimed at reducing obesity. This bill would require schools to develop “wellness policies” that establish nutritional guidelines for all food sold in schools; however,
it stops short of setting mandatory federal standards. The House agreed to the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 3873 on March 24, 2004 by a vote of 419 to 5 (Roll Call 82). We have assigned pluses to the nays because providing food for citizens is an unconstitutional activity of the federal government. A two-thirds majority of those present and voting (283 in this case) is required for passage under a suspension of the rules.

H R 1: Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act
Vote Date: November 22, 2003 Vote: AYE Bad Vote
Prescription Drug Benefit. The final version (conference report) of H.R. 1 would create a prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients. Beginning in 2006, prescription coverage would be available to seniors through private insurers for a monthly premium estimated at $35. There would be a $250 annual deductible, then 75 percent of drug costs up to $2,250 would be reimbursed. Drug costs greater than $2,250 would not be covered until out-of-pocket expenses exceeded $3,600, after which 95 percent of drug costs would be reimbursed. Low-income recipients would receive more subsidies than other seniors by paying lower premiums, having smaller deductibles, and making lower co-payments for each prescription. The total cost of the new prescription drug benefit would be limited to the $400 billion that Congress had budgeted earlier this year for the first 10 years of this new entitlement program. The House adopted the conference report on H.R. 1 on November 22, 2003 by a vote of 220 to 215 (Roll Call 669). We have assigned pluses to the nays because this landmark legislation establishes a major new (NAFTA), including the job losses wrought by NAFTA. CAFTA is intended by the Power Elite to be a steppingstone from NAFTA to the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), which would include all of the countries of the Western Hemisphere except (for now) Cuba. Like NAFTA, which has already begun imposing its trade rulings on America, CAFTA and the FTAA would not be genuine free trade arrangements; they would instead manage trade and would gradually exercise more powers on the road toa supranational government modeled after the European Union. The House passed CAFTA on July 28, 2005 by a vote of 217-215 (Roll Call 443). We have assigned pluses to the nays because CAFTA would further damage the U.S. economy and threaten U.S. sovereignty.

H R 3199: USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act
Vote Date: July 21, 2005 Vote: AYE Bad Vote
Patriot Act Reauthorization. In the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Congress passed the so-called Patriot Act, which gave law enforcement and intelligence agencies vast new powers to combat terrorism. The act expanded the list of crimes deemed terrorist acts; increased the ability of law enforcement to secretly
search homes and business records; expanded the FBI’s wiretapping and surveillance authority; and provided for nationwide jurisdiction for search warrants and electronic surveillance devices, including the legal extension of those devices to e-mail and the Internet. The bill included a “sunset” provision under which the new surveillance powers “shall cease to have effect on December 31, 2005.” The Patriot Act reauthorization bill (H.R. 3199) considered by the current Congress would make permanent14 of the 16 provisions set to expire at the end of this year and extend for 10 years the remaining two provisions. The House passed the reauthorization on July 21, 2005 by a vote of 257-171 (Roll Call 414). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the Patriot Act tramples on the constitutionally protected rights of U.S. citizens.

H R 2745: Henry J. Hyde United Nations Reform Act
Vote Date: June 17, 2005 Vote: AYE Bad Vote
UN “Reforms.” On the surface, this United Nations “reform” bill (H.R. 2745) appears to be a “conservative” get-tough response to UN corruption. It would withhold up to 50 percent of U.S. dues to the UN unless the UN makes certain operational changes, and many “conservatives” voted for it. In reality, the legislation calls for strengthening the UN in the name of “reform.” Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) warned in his June 13 Texas Straight Talk column that the “reform” bill supports creation of a “Peace-building Commission,” which “will serve as the implementing force for the internationalization of what were formerly internal affairs of sovereign nations.” design from a supposed free trade agreement into a supranational government for Europe. The world order architects intend for the FTAA to follow the same trajectory for the Americas. The House passed H.R. 2739 on July 24, 2003 by a vote of 272 to 155 (Roll Call 432). We have assigned pluses to the nays because these bilateral “free trade” agreements are intended to be stepping stones to the FTAA, which would set trade (and eventually other) policies for the member nations. However, under the U.S. Constitution only Congress has the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states…”

H R 1350: To Reauthorize the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
Vote Date: April 30, 2003 Vote: AYE Bad Vote
Special Education. This bill (H.R. 1350) would reauthorize the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. One of its provisions would authorize increasing federal grants to defray more of the state cost of educating special education students, from the current 18 percent to 40 percent by 2010. Other provisions would allow school personnel to discipline special education students the same as non-disabled students, reduce paperwork requirements for special education teachers, and limit parents’ ability to sue school districts. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that H.R. 1350 would cost $50 billion over the 2004-2009 period. The House passed H.R. 1350 on April 30, 2003 by a vote of 251 to 171 (Roll Call 154). We have assigned pluses to the nays because federal aid to education is unconstitutional.

H R 2738: United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act
Vote Date: July 24, 2003 Vote: AYE Bad Vote
U.S.-Chile Trade. This bill (H.R. 2738) would implement a trade agreement to reduce tariffs and trade barriers between the United States and Chile. The significance of this trade agreement, like that of the U.S.-Singapore Trade Agreement (see House bill below). U.S.-Singapore Trade. H.R. 2739 would implement a trade agreement to reduce tariffs and trade barriers between the United States and Singapore. A similar bill, the U.S.-Chile Trade Agreement (H.R. 2738), was presented to Congress at the same time as the U.S.-Singapore Trade Agreement. These are the first in a series of bilateral and regional free trade agreements (FTAs) that the Bush administration is negotiating, which will culminate in 2005 in the largest and most significant FTA of them all, the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). The model for the FTAA is the European Union (EU), formerly the “Common Market,” which has grown by design from a supposed free trade agreement into a supranational government for Europe. The world order Rep Frank Voting Record Page 24 of 24 architects intend for the FTAA to follow the same trajectory for the Americas. The House passed H.R. 2738 on July 24, 2003 by a vote of 270 to 156 (Roll Call 436). We have assigned pluses to the nays because these bilateral “free trade” agreements are intended to be stepping stones to the FTAA, which would set trade (and eventually other) policies for the member nations. However, under the U.S. Constitution only Congress has the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, andamong the several states…”

H R 1261: Workforce Reinvestment and Adult Education Act
Vote Date: May 8, 2003 Vote: AYE Bad Vote
Job Training. This bill (H.R. 1261) would reauthorize the nation’s main job-training program. One of its provisions would allow faith-based groups to receive federal funds while maintaining their religious identity, including hiring based on religious preferences. The Congressional Budget Office estimates this bill would increase “mandatory” spending by $17 billion for the years 2006-2011 and “discretionary” spending by $31 billion over the years 2004-2008. The House passed H.R. 1261 on May 8, 2003 by a vote of 220 to 204 (Roll Call 175). We have assigned pluses to the nays because federal aid for job training and education is unconstitutional.

In Closing: Election Cycles are Critical to Our Nation, whether we sink deep into a Socialistic Nation or Restore Ourselves to a True Republic form of Government. The choices are clear, we must never support anyone that votes against or compromises the US Constitution and Our Freedoms and believe that’s what most of us believe in and hope for, and the GOP Elite Power Brokers are Afraid of: ( Time to Drain All Political Swamps)…

  God Bless You All; Clair Van Steenwyk