VoteKansas.org

Congressman/Congresswoman:

Democrats claim by that party designation to be for democracy, which demands grassroots participation on a large scale for that name to have any good meaning at all.

Republicans claim by that party designation to be for a republican form of government, which is to have fair and equitable laws that preserve the personal rights and freedoms of citizens, even the weakest.

Requiring small, private groups to meet lobbyist requirements of huge multi-national corporations, whose gross usurpations of power have been so successful precisely due to the lack of clear communication to the voters, is a major step toward cementing their unbridled dreams of complete fascist control over our lives.

Such a direct affront to the growing desire by voters to participate in the democratic processes of this (once) great republic will necessarily result in open non-compliance (civil disobedience) to an openly un-Constitutional and anti-Constitutional "statute."

Vote NO to HR 984 and its muzzle on grassroots activism or prove to your constituents that your oath to uphold the US Constitution was a lie.

[AFA Analysis of HR 984|CapWiz Contact Congress Form]

Those (so called) champions of less government,
Farm Bureau and NCBA,
Are creating a new monster
in collusion with the USDA.

Call it animal ID or insane delusion
or whatever you please,
Cost of implementation
will bring ranchers to the knees.

ID cost the Australians
$37.28 per head just last year.
Of course, NCBA's glib spokesmen
say we have nothing to fear.

In Farm Bureau promotions
they claim it's just another tool.
I say if you believe that
You're certainly a fool.

The IRS just keeps smiling;
they'll figure taxes when the calves are born.
And ranchers meekly sign up
just like sheep getting shorn.

Dear Pat,

I agree wholeheartedly that government can't run squat. Where I disagree is in your seeming confusion about the definition of CONSERVATIVE. So what really is the definition?

For six generations my family has identified Conservatives and Republicans as synonymous. Now, six years after putting Conservatives (Republicans) into complete control (President, Senate, House, and 7 of 9 Supremes), where are we? We have seen four raises in the debt ceiling, from $4.5 trillion to $8.7 trillion. We now have a global trade deficit that defies mathematics, common sense, and even liberal comprehension. We have seen an insane push by Bush to expand this deficit to the include the globe. We have heard of plans to merge Mexico, the US, and Canada under the North American Union and build a superhighway for China and Wal-Mart's convenience. We have witnessed a was on terror overseas and a wide-open welcome mat at our borders, both north and south.

Is there anyone in rural America naive enough to believe that "Conservative" political pressure from Bush and company didn't influence our judicial system in Pickett v. IBP and the Checkoff decisions?

Missing $100 bills measured by the ton or by the plane-load and no-bid contracts amounting to nearly $260 billion don't seem "Conservative" to me.

In your Jan. 26 editorial you talked about a doctrine that could possibly shut down - or "muzzle" - "Conservative" talk shows. But I would argue that under Jewish (Abramoff) control, our Senators, life Burns and Brownback, are not muzzled but BOUGHT!

The dog and cat food deaths from wheat gluten imported from China should, but won't, change people's minds on free trade.

It's all about money. In fact, USDA paid US wheat gluten producers millions to offset losses from imports. Smart, huh?

"Midwest Grain" of Atchison, KS, annual report showed 3 years of payments.

Thanks, Taxpayers.

The controversy surrounding remarks by talk show host Don Imus shows that the nation remains incredibly sensitive about matters of race, despite the outward progress of the last 40 years. A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.

The young women on the basketball team Mr. Imus insulted are over 18 and can speak for themselves. Its disconcerting to see third parties become involved and presume to speak collectively for minority groups. It is precisely this collectivist mindset that is at the heart of racism.

Its also disconcerting to hear the subtle or not-so-subtle threats against free speech. Since the FCC regulates airwaves and grants broadcast licenses, were told its proper for government to forbid certain kinds of insulting or offensive speech in the name of racial and social tolerance. Never mind the 1st Amendment, which states unequivocally that, "Congress shall make NO law."

Full article here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul381.html

All the reasons given to justify a preemptive strike against Iraq were wrong. Congress and the American people were misled.

Support for the war came from various special interests that had agitated for an invasion of Iraq since 1998. The Iraq Liberation Act, passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton, stated that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was official U.S. policy. This policy was carried out in 2003.

Congress failed miserably in meeting its crucial obligations as the branch of government charged with deciding whether to declare war. It wrongly and unconstitutionally transferred this power to the president, and the president did not hesitate to use it.

Full article here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul382.html

In fact it is the federal government more than anything else that divides us along race, class, religion, and gender lines. Government, through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails in our society. This government "benevolence" crowds out genuine goodwill between men by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility between us.

Full article here:
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst041607.htm

That America's two most recent presidents, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, have been guilty of egregiously flawed and fallacious decisions and activities is obvious. However, at what point do bad policies and conduct become treasonous? At what point do we conclude that our country's Chief Executive has crossed the line of mere inanity or naïveté and has actually become a threat to our national security and survival?

Those who listened to my radio talk show when Bill Clinton was in office know how I daily chronicled what I believed were acts of treason. No, I am not talking about his numerous sexual affairs. I'm talking primarily about what became known as Chinagate.

There is a plethora of evidence to support the accusation that then-President Bill Clinton deliberately facilitated the transfer of military (including rocket and satellite) technology to Communist China in exchange for large donations via highly placed Chinese operatives. That, more than the Monica Lewinsky affair, should have been the basis of impeachment. However, the Republican majority in Congress chose to do absolutely nothing about Clinton's treasonous conduct in Chinagate. Now it is President George W. Bush who is pushing the envelope.

As I have already stated in this column, I believe an independent investigation should proceed aggressively in order to determine whether or not President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney deliberately manufactured evidence to support a preemptive invasion of Iraq. If it is proven they did, they should both be impeached.

However, I believe there is another area of malfeasance committed by G.W. Bush that is equal to anything Bill Clinton did: his determination to facilitate a Mexican invasion of the United States and the decision to merge America into a trilateral North American Community.

[Chuck Baldwin's Web Site|Full Article|Note on Reposting]