Talk show host Steve Blair was fired for asking a question on his radio station as to why a mural that was paid for with taxpayer money was not representative of our entire community and why it was allowed on an historical downtown building. He has been fired and his City Council seat is being threatened for recall. Can we not question the decision of 7 people on the County Board of Supervisors as to what they do with our money. The mural does not depict the overall community and makes this old cowboy town look like a street or overpass in LA.

As debate for FOPA was in its final stages in the House before moving on to the Senate, Rep. William J. Hughes (D-N.J.) proposed several amendments including House Amendment 777 to H.R. 4332 [4] that would ban a civilian from ownership or transfer rights of any fully automatic weapon which was not registered as of May 19, 1986. The amendment also held that any such weapon manufactured and registered before the May 19 cutoff date could still be legally owned and transferred by civilians.
In the morning hours of April 10, 1986, the House held recorded votes on three amendments to FOPA in Record Vote No's 72, 73, and 74. Recorded Vote 72 was on H.AMDT. 776, an amendment to H.AMDT 770 involving the interstate sale of handguns; while Recorded Vote 74 was on H.AMDT 770, involving primarily the easing of interstate sales and the safe passage provision. Recorded Vote 74 was the controversial Hughes Amendment that called for the banning of machine guns. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), at the time presiding as Chairman over the proceedings, claimed that the "amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed to." However, after the voice vote on the Hughes Amendment, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) ignored a plea to take a recorded vote and moved on to Recorded Vote 74 where the Hughes Amendment failed.[5][6] The bill, H.R. 4332, as a whole passed in Record Vote No: 75 on a motion to recommit. Despite the controversial amendment, the Senate, in S.B. 49, adopted H.R. 4332 as an amendment to the final bill. The bill was subsequently passed and signed on May 19, 1986 by President Ronald Reagan to become Public Law 99-308, the Firearms Owners' Protection Act.

Libertarians Can Balance Congress

by: Martin Elsass, Libertarian candidate for Ohio’s 6th Congressional District.

I run into a lot of folks who like myself have become so frustrated with the current ‘Marriage’ of parties in Washington. They are looking seriously for an alternative. However the side effect of their frustration often causes them to develop a sense of tunnel vision, seeing only the ‘one congressional race’ – their district. Many people want the incumbent out and someone else in, but they hesitate when they see “Libertarian“.

Many people want the alternative, but because they have become so focused on the ‘One Race’, they come to a point of concern that the Lone Libertarian (as I am often called) won’t be able to make a significant difference, should they choose to elect me. The sentiment often follows the same line of thought, “You’re just one person, how can just one person make a difference up against all those Republicans and Democrats?” I want to remind people about the Big Picture. I’m NOT Alone. I’m not Just One guy.

There are 18 congressional districts in Ohio. There are Libertarian candidates running in 13 of those. I don’t purport to ‘know’ all of these candidates, but I have met or talked with several of them, these are all genuine Libertarians. – If 10 of us should be elected, right away, that number – TEN – represents MORE THAN HALF the total voting block for the state.

Look at the House of Representatives as a whole. There are 435 seats. The magic number for the last year and a half has been “218″ – That’s how many votes it requires to pass horrible legislation with a ‘simple’ majority.

As a party, Libertarians aren’t looking to ‘control’ the House of Representatives. We’re not running on a premise of becoming the new majority, but rather to become the lynchpin. If you break apart the 435 seats and allow a mere 35 of them to be filled with True Libertarians, effectively what happens is the Republicans and Democrats are ‘held’ to within a 200-seat barrier. It could be 201-199 or 210-190, could even be a straight 200-200.. but the likelihood of either side holding the necessary 218 becomes much, much less. With at least 35 Libertarians, the Republicans and Democrats alike would be forced to “cross the aisle” as they like to talk about, to get any needed votes for legislation they want to have passed.

As a result, the voters in other districts will see their representative for who they really are. If the Republicans need 10 or 15 votes to pass a bill which tramples all over our civil liberties, they will have to draw those votes from the Democrats, which will show those Democrats as in favor of lesser civil liberties – on the other side of that token, if the Democrats want to increase spending or taxes or create another horrible social program, they will likewise need to draw the added votes from Republicans, who will show themselves in favor of anti-conservative values… The reason they’ll have to reach across those aisles is because their only other alternative would be to try to get those votes from the Libertarian caucus.

We the 35…

I defy you to find one True Libertarian who would ever vote in favor of trampling on civil liberties.. I defy you to find one True Libertarian who would ever vote for More Spending, More Taxes or More Government run social programs…

35 is not such an unreachable number. Yes, more would be better, but let’s focus on the lesser number for now. If 10 of the 13 candidates in Ohio should be elected, only 27 more would be necessary – 27 candidates, from 49 states, I think we have our numbers. We just need other candidates to remind their voters, We Are Not Alone.

CPS blatantly disregards parents constitutional rights in the family court systems all across America. They remove children needlessly from safe and loving homes for bogus and exaggerated reasons yet leave other children in unsafe, abusive and neglectful homes. They place these children into very dangerous foster homes where they're raped, abused and oftentimes killed. If they can't find homes, they put them into institutions and place them on powerful antipsychotic medications, some as young as 3 or 4. They do this because big pharmaceutical companies give them grants. It is all for federal money because the government gives them big bucks to terminate parental rights and have them adopted out of the foster care system. It is corrupt and broken and desperately needs to be fixed.