VoteKansas.org

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

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 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

Four decades ago, Italian immigrant Mario Piccolino landed in Scranton via the Bronx and opened a pizzeria. He knew nobody and spoke little English -- but his pizza shop not only survived, it thrived.

Today, Buona Pizza has a large, loyal following, and remains a downtown landmark even as many other stores have fled to the suburbs. The Piccolino family -- Mario and his brother, and now their sons -- thought they'd stay in business another 40 years.

But the city has other ideas.

Mayor Chris Doherty wants to seize Buona Pizza ("The best in town since 1966") through eminent domain and give the real estate to a politically connected developer as part of a $20 million redevelopment project along Lackawanna Avenue, one of the city's main thoroughfares.

Source Article: http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/ news/cityregion/s_500617.html

[Related Items on VoteKansas.org]

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

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