VoteKansas.org

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.

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

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

Have you heard about the bees dying off? Have you seen many bees around in your area? It might be too early this year to see them. Please post comments to let us know if you have seen them in your area over the past two years.

Search Colony Collapse Disorder

WikiPedia Page

Mid-Atlantic Epiculture

On Celsias.com:
Bees Dying by the Millions
Bee Colony Collapse Disorder - Where is it Heading?

Eugenics [WikiPedia/Search/Video] was formulated by Sir Francis Galton in 1865, cousin of Charles Darwin.

Early and prominent supporters of eugenics include

• Alexander Graham Bell
• George Bernard Shaw
• Winston Churchill
• Pres. Woodrow Wilson, who also started the IRS and the Federal Reserve
• The Ford Foundation
• The Rockefeller Foundation
• W.A. Harriman & Co, founded by George Herbert Walker, father-in-law of Prescott Bush, father of George H. W. Bush, father of George W. Bush
• Margaret Sanger, friend of Nazis and founder of the genocidal Planned Parenthood (a.k.a. "Planned Barrenhood" or "Banned Parenthood")

Some people have tried to put a positive spin on Eugenics:

• "Eugenics seeks the genetic improvement of the human race through selection," from Understanding Biotechnology
• "Promoting a cleaner and healthier world by improving the human gene pool," from http://www.eugenics.net/
• "It is not too much to say, I believe, that the idea of eugenics, based upon the science of eugenics, will work the greatest social revolution the world has yet known," by Dr. H. E. Jordan

This page has links to information on the WHO and their agenda.

[Related Items on VoteKansas.org]

[Topics]

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

The $124 billion supplemental appropriation is a good bill to oppose. I am pleased that many of my colleagues will join me in voting against this measure.

If one is unhappy with our progress in Iraq after four years of war, voting to de-fund the war makes sense. If one is unhappy with the manner in which we went to war, without a constitutional declaration, voting no makes equally good sense.

Voting no also makes the legitimate point that the Constitution does not authorize Congress to direct the management of any military operation the president clearly enjoys this authority as Commander in Chief.

But Congress just as clearly is responsible for making policy, by debating and declaring war, raising and equipping armies, funding military operations, and ending conflicts that do not serve our national interests.

Full article here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul377.html

Watch Ron Paul's speech on video.