VoteKansas.org

Those of you who heard my radio program back in 2001 know that I predicted then that George W. Bush would do to the Republican Party much the same thing that Bill Clinton did to the Democratic Party. However, I must confess, I could not then realize the magnitude of that prediction.

Most of us remember that it was the election of Bill Clinton in 1992 that was the impetus for the Republican revolution of 1994. If you recall, a congressional election sweep of the magnitude of 1994 had not been seen in the previous seventy years. It is a truism that Bill Clinton helped to elect more Republicans than the Republican National Committee could ever dream about. Now, the same thing is happening with George W. Bush. In spades!

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

One of Shakespeare's most oft-quoted phrases comes from Romeo and Juliet, where Juliet asks Romeo: "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." Accordingly, President Bush and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid can call their immigration bill by any name they want to, but it is still amnesty, and it still stinks!

Hopefully, readers are aware that the Bush/Kennedy amnesty bill is being debated in the U.S. Senate this week with both the White House and senate leaders hopeful of quick passage.

If it passes, the proposed immigration bill would immediately give all 12-20 million illegal aliens already in the United States "probationary" citizenship. It would also put an estimated 60 million immigrants on the path to citizenship over the next 20 years. In exchange for granting U.S. citizenship to tens of millions of illegals, the bill promises to better protect America's borders.

However, what is abundantly clear is that the federal government's idea of border enforcement is totally without meaning or merit. Consider the fact that the United States already has copious laws against illegal immigration, including punishment for businesses that hire illegals. So, what good have these laws done? Very little.

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

As it turned out, Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, no al-Qaeda activity, and no ability to attack the United States. Regardless of this, however, when we look at the original authorization for the use of force it is clearly obvious that our military has met both objectives. Our military very quickly removed the regime of Saddam Hussein, against whom the United Nations resolutions were targeted. A government approved by the United States has been elected in post-Saddam Iraq, fulfilling the first objective of the authorization.

Full article here:
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst052107.htm

Some day soon, the "law" will allow the police to shoot Christians in the head. When that day comes, I will learn to say "ouch." Until then, I will do what is right, no matter what the consequences.

I was opposed to the creation of a new Homeland Security Department from the beginning. Only in Washington would anyone call the creation of an additional layer of bureaucracy on top of already bloated bureaucracies "streamlining." Only in Washington would anyone believe that a bigger, more centralized federal government means more efficiency.

Full Article Here:
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst051407.htm

For several generations up to the present day, selfish people have been openly planning and implementing a police state of total enslavement, in which they and their servants will have license to assault our freedoms, our property, our families, our health, and even our souls and minds.

These self-appointed slave-masters are power-hungry and ruthless, and they do not care how many have to suffer for the success of their goals of domination. They do not see the people of the world as free individuals whose rights and freedoms are to be carefully regarded. Rather, they see other people as potential slaves if they can be manipulated into bondage.

These ambitious masters are counting on all of us (their intended slaves) not to notice, not to understand, or not to care. They have developed a multitude of diversions in our lives to distract us from our duties to our families, our local communities, our cities, our state, and our nation.

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

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

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