VoteKansas.org

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]

"Documents show that military medical personnel have known since at least 1998 that there are genetic triggers between illnesses and some required immunizations, including the anthrax vaccine. They also reveal the military knew and did not implement routine pre-screening which could help reduce vaccine-related illnesses," the report said. Nass said whatever results such research has generated should be made public. "This could save more people from becoming ill," she said. During the earlier mandatory injections, a number of service members simply refused, choosing to take the punishment rather than the inoculation." - Bob Unruh, WorldNetDaily

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

About one-third of this $3 trillion is so-called discretionary spending; the remaining two-thirds is deemed "mandatory" entitlement spending, which means mostly Social Security and Medicare. I'm sure many American voters would be shocked to know their elected representatives essentially have no say over two-thirds of the federal budget, but that is indeed the case. In fact the most disturbing problem with the budget is the utter lack of concern for the coming entitlement meltdown.

Entire article here:
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst040207.htm

The initial reaction people have to Edwin Black's book, War Against the Weak (Four Walls Eight Windows, $27), is one of "extreme disconsolation," the author says. [Search Edwin Black's books]

Eugenics, Black writes in the introduction to his book, was a systematic plan to rid the United States of "undesirable" people.

"Throughout the first six decades of the twentieth century, hundreds of thousands of Americans and untold numbers of others were not permitted to continue their families by reproducing. Selected because of their ancestry, national origin, race or religion, they were forcibly sterilized, wrongly committed to mental institutions where they died in great numbers, prohibited from marrying, and sometimes even unmarried by state bureaucrats," Black writes. "In America, this battle to wipe out whole ethnic groups was fought not by armies with guns nor by hate sects at the margins. Rather, this pernicious white-gloved war was prosecuted by esteemed professors, elite universities, wealthy industrialists and government officials colluding in a racist, pseudoscientific movement called eugenics. The purpose: create a superior Nordic race."

Source Article by Susan L. Rife

Last week the House passed an emergency supplemental spending bill that was the worst of all worlds. The presidents request would have already set a spending record, but the Democratic leadership packed 21 billion additional dollars of mostly pork barrel spending in attempt to win Democrat votes. The total burden on the American taxpayer for this bill alone will be an astonishing 124 billion dollars. Democrats promised to oppose the war by adding more money to fight the war than even the president requested.

I am pleased to have joined with the majority of my Republican colleagues to oppose this bill.

Among the pork added to attract votes was more than 200 million dollars to the dairy industry, 74 million for peanut farmers, and 25 million dollars for spinach farmers. Also, the bill included more than two billion dollars in unconstitutional foreign aid, including half a billion dollars for Lebanon and Eastern Europe.

What might be most disturbing, however, is the treatment of veterans in the bill. Playing politics with the funding of critical veterans medical and other assistance by adding it onto a controversial bill to attract votes strikes me as highly inappropriate. Veterans funding should be included in a properly structured, comprehensive appropriations bill. Better still, veterans spending should be automatically funded and not subject to yearly politicking and nit-picking.

Full article here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul378.html

Once again Congress wants to have it both ways. Back in 2002, Congress passed the authorization for the president to attack Iraq if and when he saw fit. By ignoring the Constitution, which clearly requires a declaration of war, Congress could wash its hands of responsibility after the war began going badly by citing the ambiguity of its authorization. This time, House leaders want to appear to be opposing the war by including problematic benchmarks, but they include language to allow the president to waive these if he sees fit.

Full article here:
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst032607.htm