VoteKansas.org

No less than ten Republican hopefuls in the 2008 White House race participated in the first national GOP debate last Thursday, May 3. Even before the 90-minute debate had concluded, media pundits were declaring that former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney had won.

Even my friend, MSNBC's Joe Scarborough wrote, "During the debate I was flooded by e-mails from Republican activists and voters who told me Romney was dominating the debate." Scarborough went on to say, "Among those Red State Republicans (who will elect their party's next nominee), Mitt Romney won while McCain and Giuliani failed to meet expectations."

As with most political pundits, the entire focus of the debate centered on only three contenders: Arizona Senator John McCain, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and Romney. In fact, in his post-debate summary, Scarborough's only reference to anyone other than these three names was a fleeting mention of the "Sam Brownbacks of the world."

Yet, when one looks at MSNBC's own poll, a much different picture emerges. According to this poll, there was a clear winner alright, but his name was not McCain, Giuliani, or Romney. It was Texas Congressman Ron Paul.

Consider the before and after polls, as they appear on MSNBC's web site. See it at:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18421356/

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

Hate crime laws not only violate the First Amendment, they also violate the Tenth Amendment. Under the United States Constitution, there are only three federal crimes: piracy, treason, and counterfeiting. All other criminal matters are left to the individual states. Any federal legislation dealing with criminal matters not related to these three issues usurps state authority over criminal law and takes a step toward turning the states into mere administrative units of the federal government.

Full Article Here:
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst050707.htm

"It's a republic, if you can keep it," as explained by Ben Franklin, I believe.

If we are going to save this constitutional republic, it is going to take action on our part. One major move we need to make is to support local and American business.

If you are still buying things made in other countries, why? Availability, price, and convenience are the main reasons for most.

So, we need to collect information on how to shift as much of our purchasing to local and American products and to encourage the creation of American production where there is none.

That is the focus of this forum.

I suppose there was a time in American politics when there was a significant difference between conservatives and liberals, between Republicans and Democrats, and between Christians and unbelievers. However, with only limited exceptions, that time has largely gone. When it comes to the salient issues that are currently waging war against America's future survival, it is extremely difficult to distinguish those differences.

If one removes the issues of abortion and gay rights from the debate, there is precious little that distinguishes the modern Christian conservative from his liberal counterpart.

Federal spending sure doesn't apply. President George W. Bush and his fellow "conservative" Republicans have the dubious distinction of outspending practically every administration and Congress during the entire 20th century. Only the Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson administrations compare to the insatiable spending habits of the current administration.

Then there is the illegal alien invasion currently taking place in America. What was virtually nonexistent twenty years ago and only a minor nuisance before Bush was elected President has now become a full-fledged assault that threatens our country's very survival. And remember, the Republican Party controlled the entire federal government during the six years that the bulk of this invasion was taking place. And, except for a few conservative congressmen (mostly in the House of Representatives), not only did they do nothing to stop it, they sat back and watched as President Bush actively encouraged and facilitated it, something he is doing to this very day.

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

The senseless and horrific killings last week on the campus of Virginia Tech University reinforced an uneasy feeling many Americans experienced after September 11th: namely, that government cannot protect us. No matter how many laws we pass, no matter how many police or federal agents we put on the streets, a determined individual or group still can cause great harm. Perhaps the only good that can come from these terrible killings is a reinforced understanding that we as individuals are responsible for our safety and the safety of our families.

Although Virginia does allow individuals to carry concealed weapons if they first obtain a permit, college campuses within the state are specifically exempted. Virginia Tech, like all Virginia colleges, is therefore a gun-free zone, at least for private individuals. And as we witnessed, it didnt matter how many guns the police had. Only private individuals on the scene could have prevented or lessened this tragedy. Prohibiting guns on campus made the Virginia Tech students less safe, not more.

Full article here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul383.html

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]

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.