Minuteman Monthly Newsletter Subscribers,

It's been a long time since I've asked you to take definitive action on any specific house or senate bill. The following is one of those incremental steps that the anti-gun crowd is trying to pull over on us without our knowledge.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is proposing new regulations that will treat live ammunition, powder and primers for small arms as if they are explosives.

As you're probably aware, there's only a few transportation companies left that will move ammunition and ammunition components across the country. With the new regulations proposed in the attached fifty five (55) page document, the remaining companies that ship firearms and ammunition may change their minds and prohibit it. That would bring the shooting sports to a virtual standstill.

Sporting goods retailers and your favorite gun dealers will be limited to having just twenty pounds (20 lbs) of reloading powder out for sale and just 10,000 ammunition primers and there will be draconian limits upon transportation as well.

If you're a reloader you'd know that there are nine (9) different basic types of ammunition primers and they're commonly sold at 1,000 primers per box. That means that a retailer would be relegated to carrying only one box of each type of primer per day.

Ammunition powder commonly comes in eight pound canisters. With the dozens and dozens of types of gun powder out there, how many eight pound canisters could the retailer have out for sale if he/she is limited to just twenty pounds? The proposed changes are ludicrous and obviously written by someone who has no clue what they're talking about.

Subject: Death Tax

Date

Dear Senator (last name),

It is time to permanently repeal the Death Tax. As a member of Citizens for a Constitutional Republic, I urge you to support S. 420 and any other legislation that will end this unfair tax once and for all.

In less than 6 years, the tax cuts passed in 2001 will phase out of effect and resurrect the death tax. This will immediately punish individuals who want to pass their savings on to their family. Therefore, death tax repeal should be made permanent immediately.

No section of the tax code is more unfair and dangerous to our entrepreneurial economy than the Death Tax. With rates as high as 55 percent, the death tax punishes people who build a successful business and try to leave that legacy to their family. Moreover, the Death Tax’s modest contributions to the federal Treasury are dwarfed by its staggering impact on the U.S. economy.

Unfortunately, some legislators are attempting to derail reform by trying to enact a small business “exemption”. The truth is that most family businesses would not qualify for the exemptions being discussed, and an estate law firm found that companies that did qualify would still have to pay up to $15,000 in legal fees. The only way to save small businesses and family farms from being destroyed by the death tax is to repeal it entirely.

Passing S. 420 and repealing the death tax is the right thing to do for American family farms, businesses, and the new economy.

Now is the time to abolish it for good. Americans deserve no less.

Sincerely,

H.CON.RES.40 SAMPLE E-MAIL

Please cosponsor H.Con.Res. 40.

Date

Citizens for a Constitutional Republic
PO Box 1049
Dingmans Ferry, PA 18328

Dear Representative (last name),

I am a member of Citizens for a Constitutional Republic and your constituent. I urge you please cosponsor H.Con.Res. 40..

This is an important resolution that would send a signal to the White House and the country that Americans do not want a North American Union.

One of the grandest dreams that President Bush has for his presidency is to start the process of merging the U.S., Mexico and Canada into a North American Union -- something like the European Union.

This helps explain why the Bush Administration has done almost nothing to try to secure our borders or to stop the flow of illegal foreign workers across our land.

Please cosponsor H.Con.Res.40 today.

Yesterday Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID) introduced an Endangered Species Act (ESA) reform bill that he claims will offer "incentives" to property owners to help recover endangered species. However, according to The National Center for Public Policy Research, the "Collaboration and Recovery of Endangered Species Act" (CRESA) offers perks to large landowners and developers at the expense of small property owners and rare species.

"Senator Crapo's contribution to property rights is like Britain's contribution to fine cuisine - a contribution best not made," said David Ridenour, vice president of The National Center for Public Policy Research.

According to the Liberty Matters News Service, just three years ago, in defense of his position on another property rights issue, Senator Crapo wrote: "My record in Congress includes attempts to get direct financial payments to private property owners who suffer a loss in property valuation due to threats from federal agencies over endangered species or other wildlife issues."

Yet Senator Crapo's ESA bill does not offer any direct payments to American landowners whose land values are harmed due to endangered species regulations. Instead, CRESA establishes a system whereby landowners are forced to sign away property rights in return for tax credits.

"The House of Representatives recently passed an ESA reform bill that promises to give property owners 100 percent direct compensation for their lost rights. Incredibly, Senator Crapo's bill seeks to undo this," said Peyton Knight, director of environmental and regulatory affairs for The National Center. "For property rights advocates, CRESA snatches defeat from the jaws of victory."

Since its enactment in 1973, the ESA has penalized landowners for good stewardship. Farmers, ranchers, tree farmers, homeowners and others who harbor endangered species or habitat on their property are subjected to severe land-use restrictions that can lead to economic ruin. In much of rural America, the ESA has unnecessarily turned landowners and endangered species into enemies. In order to prevent their property from falling under the ESA's land-use controls, landowners have preemptively "sterilized" their land to rid it of species and habitat.

"Unfortunately, Senator Crapo's ESA bill fails to fix this disastrous law," said National Center Senior Fellow R.J. Smith. "It would remain bad for people and bad for species. Rather than creating a win-win situation by ending the taking of property of good stewards, he tries to make a broken Act work by adorning it with gimmicks - much like the futile efforts of Ptolemaic astronomy to save an Earth-centered universe. It will fail, until Congress creates an ESA built on the use of property rights as the basis for species recovery. Ten years ago Rep. Crapo cosponsored the Shadegg bill, which would have worked voluntarily with private landowners. What happened? It's time to save America's small landowners and homeowners as well as species and their habitat."

CRESA would offer tax incentives for approved conservation efforts, but for property owners to receive tax credits equal to their full costs (lost fair market value plus out-of-pocket conservation program expenses), they must enter binding agreements of not less than 99 years. And, as this is only a tax credit, even a 99-year commitment wouldn't be enough for property owners to get back all of their costs.

"This scheme would make even Charles Ponzi blush," said David Ridenour. "It promises only a partial return on investment, yet saddles a future generation with regulatory requirements."

CRESA also includes a provision that would establish an ill-defined conservation credit trading mechanism to permit landowners to earn credits for conservation efforts that could either be applied toward other development projects or sold on the open market. The National Center believes such a mechanism poses risks to both species and property owners.

"Landowners who earn credits would have a vested interest in increasing the value of their credits," said Knight. "The value can be increased by either more stringent regulation or reduced species populations that require a reduction in the number of credits available."

Ridenour adds: "In the classic film 'It's a Wonderful Life,' George Bailey asks Mr. Potter if it is too much to have people 'work, pay and live and die in a couple of decent rooms and a bath' of their own. Judging from Senator Crapo's ESA bill, he apparently thinks it is too much to ask."

"Furthermore," said Ridenour, "In 'It's a Wonderful Life' George Bailey is given the opportunity to see what life would have been like had he never been born. After seeing his old boss a penniless drunk, his mother destitute, his uncle in an insane asylum, his wife a hopeless spinster, his brother's tombstone and his quaint hometown a place of decadence, he begs God to allow him to 'live again.' We've had a chance to see what the ESA would be without property rights. Let species and property rights live again."

The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act (H.R.356/S.51) is one battle of many that we must win. More and more solid evidence shows that unborn babies begin to feel pain at approximately 20 weeks of pregnancy. H.R. 356/S.51 requires an abortionist to tell a mother that her unborn child will feel pain during an abortion and then offer anesthesia for the baby.

The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act serves as a reminder, to mothers and the technicians who commit abortion, of the humanity of the life growing inside the mother’s womb.

Date

Citizens for a Constitutional Republic
PO Box 1049
Dingmans Ferry, PA 18328

Dear Representative (last name),

I am a member of Citizens for a Constitutional Republic and your constituent. I urge you please to consider the painful effects during an abortion on an unborn child.

The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act (H.R.4420) would educate mothers who are facing an abortion on the sound, scientific fact that their unborn child feels pain during the abortion process and recommend the choice of anesthesia for the baby. As medical technology continues to develop, science reveals more and more solid evidence that unborn babies begin to feel pain at approximately 20 weeks of pregnancy.

It's important for any mother to have access to all medical information about her child in the womb when considering an abortion. Therefore, I urge you to co-sponsor this vital legislation. Thank you for you consideration.

S.772 Workforce Health Improvement Program (WHIP) Act

politicians are proposing big-government program after big-government program in response to Americans’ expanding waistlines and the corresponding increase in costs that obesity-related illness is imposing on our healthcare system. Rather than more costly government intrusion into our everyday lives, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) have introduced the WHIP Act, which would create private-sector incentives to promote healthier lifestyles.

Specifically, the WHIP Act would allow all employers to provide a fitness center subsidy (for example, partial payment of gym membership dues) to their employees without counting it as part of employees’ taxable income.

Current tax law requires employees to pay fringe benefit income tax on any subsidy an employer might provide to help them join a fitness center unless that fitness center is located at the employer’s worksite. The employees of firms - particularly small- and medium-sized businesses that employ the vast majority of Americans - that cannot provide a fitness center on site face a discriminatory tax.

THE KIDS SET HIM UP--

Washington, D.C. has a gun ban, and gun bans stop crime. That's the ruse the gun ban lobby and their cronies would have you believe. That's what Washington, D.C. Council member and former mayor Marion Barry (D) would have you believe. But, in an ironic twist of fate, Barry's anti-gun premise has been challenged by circumstances involving none other than Barry himself.

This week, the ex-mayor was the victim of a violent crime in "gun-free" Washington, D.C. He was robbed at gunpoint by two young men who entered his apartment, held a gun to his head, and robbed him of his wallet, cash, and credit cards. The nearly three-decades-old ban did nothing to protect Barry. Despite the ban, Barry admitted that "guns are everywhere." What he didn't say is that those guns are in the hands of criminals, while the District's law-abiding citizens are prohibited from possessing them. Clearly, the ban has done nothing to stem the tide of armed criminals carrying out violent crimes.

While not suffering any physical injuries during the ordeal, Barry did indicate that his feelings were hurt. "There is a sort of an unwritten code in Washington, among the underworld and the hustlers and these other guys, that I am their friend....I was a little hurt that this betrayal did happen."

Councilman Barry, himself a convicted felon, says he does not want to prosecute the perpetrators (if they are ever caught), but also says that he will push the city council to pass a bill he introduced that would increase penalties for carrying a gun in the District! Such is the contradictory logic of the ex-mayor. Pass more gun laws, and don't enforce existing ones.

Of course, violent crime in D.C. is nothing new. Homicide had been declining in D.C. before the 1976 ban, but increased after the ban was imposed. By 1991, D.C.'s homicide rate had risen more than 200%. By comparison, the U.S. homicide rate rose only 12% during the same period. Since then, the District has ranked at, or near, the top of the list for highest per capita murder rate of major cities in the nation. If gun bans work, how can this tragic and shameful distinction possibly be?

In the wake of his most recent ordeal, Barry called for a summit of the city's leaders to address the "pandemic" of gun violence in the District. Clearly, he and the law-abiding citizens of the District of Columbia would be better served by a summit convened to call for the enactment of S. 1082 and H.R. 1288--the Senate and House versions of the "District of Columbia Personal Protection Act."

As we continually note, this legislation seeks to restore the constitutionally-guaranteed Second Amendment rights of the law-abiding residents of the District of Columbia. It would allow these citizens to lawfully defend themselves and their families from violent crime. It is time to pass this critically important and obviously necessary law.

CONGRESS WANTS TO SPLIT 9th CIRCUIT

EdAction
105 Peavey Road, Suite 116
Chaska, MN 55318
952-361-4931
http://edaction.org
June 27, 2005

"Pretty soon we'll have a syndrome for short, fat Irish guys with a Boston accent, and I'll be mentally ill." ("Mental health is the new normal", St. Paul Pioneer Press, June 23, 2005)

Pharmaceutical industry profits won out against individual and parental rights last Friday when the Paul amendment that would have prohibited federal taxpayer funding for new universal mental health screening failed in a roll call vote on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. Congressman and physician Ron Paul introduced the amendment against government-sponsored and pharmaceutical-industry-supported universal mental health screening programs. The Labor/Health and Human Services/Education appropriations bill, HR 3010, was then passed with $26 million for "state incentive transformation grants" to fund implementation of the New Freedom Commission's recommendations for universal mental health screening and psychiatric drug treatment. This is the same amount requested by the President in his budget.

The Paul amendment simply stated:

"None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to create or implement any new universal mental health screening program." Ninety-three Republicans were joined by four Democrats in supporting the Paul amendment. In Minnesota, Gutkneckt, Kennedy, and Kline voted yes. Ramstad, McCollum, Oberstar, Peterson, and Sabo voted with the pharmaceutical companies. Thirty-two members abstained. Thirty-two members abstained. (See the voting record at http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll317.xml.)

Please use this vote to educate your Member of Congress on this issue. We urge you to please thank the Members who voted yes, especially if they are your own Representatives. If your Member voted "No" to the Paul amendment, please contact him or her immediately to express your displeasure. Provide them with background information that is available on our website. Press your Representative to understand the urgency of this issue. Ask him or her to support HR 181, The Parental Consent Act which will be another opportunity to address your concerns.

Urge your Member of Congress to join the 44 other Members in co-sponsoring HR 181. Many prominent organizations have so far joined in supporting this legislation or expressed concerns about child mental health screening, labeling and drugging. None of them take money from drug companies or other special interests. Included are:

Able Child
Alliance for Human Research Protection (www.ahrp.org)
American Association of Physicians and Surgeons
American Policy Center
Concerned Women for America
Eagle Forum
EdWatch / EdAction
Family Research Council
Free Congress Foundation
Gun Owners of America
Home School Legal Defense Association
International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology (ICSPP)
Libertarian Party
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)
Psych Rights
Republican Liberty Caucus
The Liberty Committee
We Hold these Truths

As you might expect, well-funded lobbyists for those pushing universal mental health screening pulled out all the stops and demaoguery . One organization that has received millions of dollars from the pharmaceutical industry, for example, sent out the following false information:

"Supporters of this amendment claim that early screening would undermine parental rights, when in fact, parents will always have the right to control whether their child is screened or given services." [Children and Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder - CHADD]

See "Medicating Aliah" (access code MJZL6Y) for an example of how false that statement is. Testimony from Cong. Paul (Texas) during the debate on the House floor is as follows:

"This does not deny any funds for any testing of those individuals who may show signs of mental illness. It only denies funding for any universal, read by many as mandatory, which is a bit of overkill as far as I am concerned. There is $26 million in this bill for these programs. Eight States have already been involved, and three more have applied for grants.

"The main reason why I oppose this is I think there is a lot of overtreatment of young people with psychotropic drugs. This has been going on for a lot of years, and there are a lot of bad results, and once we talk about universal testing of everybody, and there is no age limit, matter of fact, in the recommendation by the New Freedom Commission, there is a tendency for overdiagnosis and overuse of medication. There are as many complications from overuse of medication as there is with prophylactic treatment.

'There is no evidence now on the books to show that the use of this medication actually in children reduces suicide. Matter of fact, there are studies that do suggest exactly the opposite. Children on psychotropic drugs may well be even more likely to commit suicide. It does not mean that no child ever qualifies for this, but to assume there is this epidemic out here that we have to test everybody is rather frightening to me.

"Matter of fact, when the State gets control of children, they tend to overuse medications like this. Take, for instance, in Texas, 60 percent of the foster children are on medication. In Massachusetts, it is close to 65 percent. In Florida, 55 percent of the children in foster home care are receiving these kinds of medication.

"Once again, I want to make the point that this does not deny funding for individual children who show signs that they may need or they have a problem and need to be tested. It is just to make sure that this is not universal and not be mandatory and that parental rights are guarded against and that the parent is very much involved" Rep. Regula (Ohio) inserted the same distortions that are being aggressively circulated by the special interests:

"The sponsor mentions $26 million, and let me point out that the funds provided in this bill that respond to recommendations put forward in the final report of the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, ``Achieving the Promise: Transforming Mental Health Care in America,'' go toward State incentive grants for transformation to support the development of comprehensive State mental health plans, and has absolutely no funding included for universal mental health screening. So the $26 million has nothing to do with this amendment as far as universal mental health screening."

Rep. Obey (Wisconsin) continued the false statements: "there are no plans for anyone in the Federal Government to conduct universal screening, and there are no funds in this bill for any such purpose."

Rep. Murphy (Pennsylvania) joined in with the lies of organized psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry: "This amendment is another witch hunt against mental illness and its passage will only serve to further stigmatize mental illness."

Rep. Paul responded:
"Let me tell Members, people in this country have been well informed about this, and they do not like this program. I also would like to quote from the New Freedom Commission ...They never say `'mandatory,'' but they never say ``voluntary' 'What they say is `'universal.'' How can you have something universal if you are not going to be testing everybody? Also from the Freedom Commission, it should be for consumers of all ages, screen for mental disorders in primary health care across the life span. These are the guidelines of the New Freedom Commission, as well as saying the schools must be partners in the mental health care of our children.

Rep. Regula continued the distortion, and he denied the moves by states such as Illinois and Minnesota to do mental health screening of children based on the New Freedom Commission by saying: "There is no universal mental health screening in this bill. Secretary Leavitt has made it clear there is nothing like this under consideration. It is an amendment that is not needed because it addresses a problem that does not exist."

Rep. Paul:
"as a physician, having practiced medicine for well over 30 years, let me tell Members, there is a crisis in this country. There is a crisis with illegal drugs, but there is a crisis in this country with an overuse of all drugs, especially in the area of psychiatry. Psychiatrists, if they are honest with you, will tell you that diagnoses are very subjective. It is not like diagnosing appendicitis. It is very, very subjective. If you push on this type of testing, the more testing you have, let me guarantee it, the more drugs you will have. Sure, there are mental diseases. I am not excluding any of this when a person has true mental illness, but I am talking about the overuse of Ritalin and Prozac and many of these drugs that are pushed on these kids.

"Let me tell Members, there have been some real problems with families who will not let their kids go on drugs because the schools pressure them to. They have been charged with child abuse, and threatened with taking their children away because they will not be put on these drugs. That is the kind of abuse I am calling to Members' attention, and that is why you need to vote for this amendment. It does not change anything. It does not deny anybody testing and treatment. All it does is say universal testing of everybody of all ages in this country is not the direction that we want to go. Please vote for my amendment. "

"Medicating Aliah" (access code MJZL6Y) could have been cited here as just one example of what children and parents face. The Paul amendment to HR 3010 would have protected both children and adults from invasive screening that is based on vague, subjective, and politically motivated criteria that will result in labeling with dubious diagnoses. These diagnoses will follow people for the rest of their lives and will result in drugging with ineffective and potentially lethal medications. This vote was about freedom of thought, as well as civil and parental rights.

Chelsea Rhodes is another example of a child who was labeled with two different psychiatric disorders based on a computerized mental health screening called TeenScreen, given in her school without her parents knowledge or consent. Her parents, with the aid of the Rutherford Institute, are suing the school district and the mental health provider that did the screening.

We can see where this is going when Harvard and the National Institutes of Mental Health make the scientifically unsupportable claim that more than 50% of all Americans will be mentally ill during their lifetime. Even psychiatric experts such as the former chairman of psychiatry at John Hopkins found that idea very difficult to swallow. The debate is raging within the psychiatric profession over the boundaries between mental health and mental illness. "Pretty soon," Dr. Paul McHugh said, "we'll have a syndrome for short, fat Irish guys with a Boston accent, and I'll be mentally ill."

The FDA has held hearings on the use of antidepressants and children. The FDA issued its strongest black box warning after discovering that information on the lack of effectiveness and dangerous side effects of these medications was concealed from physicians and the public, sometimes for years. Yet organized psychiatry is trying to get those warnings removed, because they would rather conceal the dangers to children than give up the profits.

We need your involvement by informing Congress that you expect them to protect the rights of parents and the health of our children from overbearing government and mental health providers. Especially over the July break, contact your Member of Congress. Support HR 181. Please continue to use our e-action alert for HR 181 and pass it on to your networks of contacts. Additional background information is also available there, as well as on the EdAction website. Thank you.

Listen to the archived broadcast of a June 20th live radio interview with Congressman Ron Paul, Dr. Karen Effrem, and Mr. Allen Jones http://www.mindmattersradio.com/

These three authorities on universal mental health legislation discuss the ethical and scientific problems raised by screening children for mental health. They discuss the New Freedom Commission report of 2003, its influence on current federal legislation, and the role of the pharmaceutical industry in plans to screen the U.S. population for mental health.problems.

Order the Mental Health Screening Briefing Book

Your case for discussing these issues can be made stronger if you purchase the Briefing Book now available from EdWatch that contains hard copies of nine articles by Dr. Karen Effrem, Dr. Dennis Cuddy, Penny Pullen of Illinois, and Karen Hayes of Illinois. A CD-rom contains all of those articles, plus a Power Point presentation with evidence to bolster your case, and excerpts of a radio debate between Dr. Effrem and a member of the New Freedom Commission.