VoteKansas.org

The Virginia Tech tragedy may not lead directly to more gun control, but I fear it will lead to more people control. Thanks to our media and many government officials, Americans have become conditioned to view the state as our protector and the solution to every problem. Whenever something terrible happens, especially when it becomes a national news story, people reflexively demand that government do something. This impulse almost always leads to bad laws and the loss of liberty. It is completely at odds with the best American traditions of self-reliance and rugged individualism.

Full article here:
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst042307.htm

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]

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.

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]

Recently I had the opportunity to question Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke when he appeared before the congressional Joint Economic committee. The topic that morning was the state of the American economy, and many of my colleagues raised questions about how the Fed might better "regulate" things to ease fears of an economic downturn. The tenor of my colleagues' questions suggested that Mr. Bernanke's job is nothing less than to run the U.S. economy, like some kind of Soviet central planner.

Certainly its true that Mr. Bernanke can drastically affect the economy at the drop of a hat, simply by making decisions about the money supply and interest rates. But why do members of Congress assume this is good? Why do we accept without objection that a small group of people on the Federal Reserve Board wields so much power over our economic well-being? Is centralized, monopoly control over our money even compatible with a supposedly free-market economy?

Few Americans give much thought to the Federal Reserve System or monetary policy in general. But even as they strive to earn a living, and hopefully save or invest for the future, Congress and the Federal Reserve Bank are working insidiously against them. Day by day, every dollar you have is being devalued

Full article here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul380.html

The greatest threat facing America today is not terrorism, or foreign economic competition, or illegal immigration. The greatest threat facing America today is the disastrous fiscal policies of our own government, marked by shameless deficit spending and Federal Reserve currency devaluation. It is this one-two punch -- Congress spending more than it can tax or borrow, and the Fed printing money to make up the difference -- that threatens to impoverish us by further destroying the value of our dollars.

Full article here:
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst040907.htm

The fiscal year 2008 budget, passed in the House of Representative last week, is a monument to irresponsibility and profligacy. It shows that Congress remains oblivious to the economic troubles facing the nation, and that political expediency trumps all common sense in Washington. To the extent that proponents and supporters of these unsustainable budget increases continue to win reelection, it also shows that many Americans unfortunately continue to believe government can provide them with a free lunch.

To summarize, Congress proposes spending roughly $3 trillion in 2008. When I first came to Congress in 1976, the federal government spent only about $300 billion. So spending has increased tenfold in thirty years, and tripled just since 1990.

Full article here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul379.html